News of secret Russian submarine leaked on the internet.

Originally posted by manson_322

so using topaz nuke reactor as AIP(which cosnumes tenth of 2 MW) , could give sub , unlimited endurance to stay stationary underwater ...

Hmmmm, staying stationary underwater, yep definitely worth the cost of a nuclear reactor to give it the ability to sit around on its a## all day.

Im sorry but its just not feasable, regardless of the shielding used on the space based version, your average SSN uses a foot of lead on the front,sides,rear and floor, just imagine that in your head 1 foot of LEAD surrounding the reactor to protect the crew. Any minor advantage you might gain and I put emphasis on the word might here is far outweighed by the cost and size/weight penalty resulting from the installation of a reactor versus other forms of AIP.

Remember a submarines displacement is generally only 0.4 more than its weight. You cant just bang 500 to 1000 tons of reactor and shielding in a hull without increasing its physical size and therefore its displacement. Of course making the hull larger requires more steel which adds further to the weight penalty.

With this in mind all of a sudden your small, cheap, and quiet diesel/nuclear/electric submarine has become a big white elephant.
















[edit on 14-9-2007 by manson_322]

its quite sad to see that your closed minded to this whole concept - one that canada and australia are looking into for an AIP system for there own diesel boats.

the reactor will not be the main power unit - it is there to provide recharge capability for batteries and to suppliment existing systems (diesel) and to be able for `silent running` of the likes of a MESMA or stirling or other AIP engines - heck a 10kw reactor would happily provide the heat for a stirling engine on its own - just ask NASA about the Stirling Radioisotope Generator they are making!

it is not as technical as you think - a micro reactor is an AIP and to supplimnet exisiting systems - the OP`s original link clearly states this.

Well not necessarily white I'd say.

There a lot of hidden messages in this config. Much to do with a general shift in Soviet Era Naval tactics.

Initially you had the entire naval fleet structured such that it would provide support and protection to the apex of the Soviet naval arsenal: the SSBNs.

Hec even the a/c carrier had a role along those lines.
Then you had the SSNs which were solely meant to hunt enemy SSBNs/SSNs; with a dual standoff nuclear AShCM capability.

The SSKs were regional units and fleet support with a primary anti-shipping ability.

This new type extends SSN Ops and SSK littoral/stealth strengths; obviously at a price, but something the Russians seem to be ok spending?
hmm...

And now these boats can operate independant of any fleet/SSBN support roles, with enough firepower for anti-shipping and LACM roles.


[edit on 14-9-2007 by Daedalus3]

What Russians is showing is that they are capable of projecting such power, and that their economy is able to support it.

I've never denied that the Russians have some really smart scientists and engineers that could produce and put together some really awesome desings..
It isnt a question of what they have but one of HOW many they have.
the MiG 35 and Su35 are really aweome planes but how many do they have..
If theyre unable to get these new "weapons" out of the prototype phase of production, they I will pay attention..
Theyre getting there but their military is still a mere shadow of its former self..

Hmmmm, staying stationary underwater,

Im sorry but its just not feasable, regardless of the shielding used on the space based version, your average SSN uses a foot of lead on the front,sides,rear and floor, just imagine that in your head 1 foot of LEAD surrounding the reactor to protect the crew. Any minor advantage you might gain and I put emphasis on the word might here is far outweighed by the cost and size/weight penalty resulting from the installation of a reactor versus other forms of AIP.



With this in mind all of a sudden your small, cheap, and quiet diesel/nuclear/electric submarine has become a big white elephant.

man , are you close minded or what ?????

Russia was the first one to have a functional fourth gen lead bismuth nuke reactor in ALfa subs .....

with tech progressing , reactors like topaz with good shielding came into being

as harlequinn said you are extremely close minded and therby i consider any further debate with you as useless

yep definitely worth the cost of a nuclear reactor to give it the ability to sit around on its a## all day.

yes unlimited endurance to destroy moving subs entering the region , i would say at 7 million$ the cost is worth it..















[edit on 14-9-2007 by manson_322]

reply to post by Tonka



Цените себя, уважайте себя! Ибо никто кроме вас не позаботится о вас ни в этом мире, ни после вашей смерти. Каждый должен отвечать за свою жизнь сам, не надеяться, что за него его жизнь будет делать кто-то другой – у того своя жизнь, а у Бога – божья задача, не равная решению твоих житейских проблем.

Cheap:Anything that involves a nuclear reactor isnt cheap regardless of its size or thermal output, if you want a cheaper means of increasing underwater endurance you do what everyone else is doing and utilize AIP.
Generally speaking half the price of an SSN is its nuclear power plant.

Article clearly states the following;

those data indicate that the new submarine is very similar to the Project 877 Paltus (Halibut) diesel submarine, but its water displacement is greater (3950 vs. 3050 tons).

Project 877 Paltus, NATO code "Kilo".

Among other nations, Chianese run Kilos, and it was the Kilo that jumped the Kitty-Hawk.

Classic Kilo weight – 3050, Project 20120 – 3950.

The difference is 900, Is it all just water displacement, or additional reactor and shielding as well?


I’m sure you’ll agree that MODIFING existing Kilo class with a modern version of VAU-6 is a lot cheaper then building a brand new sub.

Small: The reason nuclear subs are larger is a weight issue, any reactor regardless of its size requires substantial shielding with lead and that makes them bloody heavy, therefore nuke boats have larger hull forms to increase there displacement.

Sounds reasonable, except that is this case the difference is only 900 tons,

Fast: With a miniture nuclear reactor providing minimal thermal output and batteries? A full size nuke would run rings around it. An AIP would manage the same speeds if not faster.

That opinion is based on what? All we know that the original reactor put out 600kw and that was how long ago?

I’m sure you’ll agree that progress does not stand still, and considering the power output of modern electric motors, fantastic capacities of modern batteries combined with unknown output of the new reactor should by all reason result in considerably higher speeds then of the original Kilo.


That’s the point, smaller class subs utilizing NEW technologies resulting in higher speeds.

Quiet,Stealthy: Full size nukes can run just as quiet, by winding back the reactor output you can shut down all the pumps in the primary coolant loop and utilize natural convection thereby making the reactor plant completely silent. It is doubtful if you could do that with a mini plant because winding that back wouldnt provide enough power to move the boat. Yes running on batteries is quieter but you can do that on a full size nuke too by designing a nuke boat with larger battery capacity. The whole point is if you have a reactor on board giving you an unlimited supply of power you dont need a diesel to augment it

All true, but the point is that the only sub so far to use hybrid nuclear power is the Project 20120 which is still classified.

It is also true that a full size nuke sub can be wound down to minimize its nose output, but you physically can’t make it SMALLER.

Bigger subs use more metal, and no amount of magnetic signature reduction can completely hide it from the entire world of sensors, while smaller subs simply produce less magnetic signature, which are easier to reduce, thus by DEFAULT providing more stealth.

Point in fact; we are all aware of the Chinese Kilo class jumping the Kitty Hawk.

Very Dangerous: Any boat of any design can be dangerous, that comes down to the crew manning it.

Kitty Hawk. As those guys how they felt when they were in range of that subs torpedoes.

Great Deterrent: Ok, if you say so.

Kitty Hawk again, it’s a perfect example how a small, seemingly outdated sub displayed it’s ability to endanger a carrier.

Force Multiplier: Not even going to dignify this with a response.

Well, I will. Since the concept of a small sub getting through the defenses of a carrier group has been proven by Chinese, it sure makes more sense for a nation on a limited budget to purchase two or three smaller nuke hybrids rather then a single, big and expensive pure nuke sub.

Having multiple, smaller platforms capable of performing a task that a single big platform can for the same price IS a force multiplier.

I don’t know how much more simple it can get. With ONE big sub a defending force will have to deal with ONE target, with a number of SMALL subs for the same price the defenders will be forced to deal with MULTIPLE targets.

My question stands, Why the hell would you? What does it achieve? What is the point?

I’m always here to answer the question of inquiring minds, my pleasure.

(shakes head in dismay and exits the room again)

I do hope that you’ll find the patience get to the point of this particular issue.

reply to post by Tonka

Oh a pro Ruskie eh?? Well so am I but you need keep an open mind free of loyalties when looking at certain subjects.

Tonka why do you feel the need to get personal? You don’t know anything about me. If you want to, feel free to ask, but know that I don’t much care for judgmental people.

As for loyalties, it’s my business, not yours.

Although things are changing right now they still have a long way to go with there personnel and ships. Regarding the reforms currently occuring or being discussed I will direct you to this link to shed more light on the subject, this paper was written by a Russian Academic. www.nato.int...">Russian Naval Reform

I don’t know about you, but in the 90s I’ve personally seen the state of Russian Far East fleet, with my own two eyes.

I stood on the cliff in Magadan and saw an apocalyptic scene of rusting hul
ls, littering the beach like dead whales.

Back then they were contracting Western companies to clean up radiation contamination from their subs.

Regarding the very substantial use of conscripts in the Russian Navy this is fact, perhaps you need to read up on Russian Naval history to better appreciate this.

I’ve meet and spoke with Russian sailors personally, and heard their History as spoken by them, have you?

Regarding current Russian naval units, while the situation is slowly changing and new construction is beginning to suplement the fleet in small numbers, you have to remember that the bulk of Russian naval units are all soviet era ships and due to the collapse of the Russian economy these ships went without the maintenance and operation they required for almost a decade, it is going to take a few more years to get their entire fleet back up to scratch, a lot of these ships are far beyond economical repair and will most likely be sent to the breakers.

That is absolutely true, with the exception of the “collapse of Russian economy”. It would be more accurate to say “sabotage of Soviet economy”.

Soviet fleet was SABOTAGED, and sold piece by piece often for less then the price of its scrap.

I personally visited the unique space control ship “Yuri Gagarin” before it was scrapped. It was the last ship of its kind, and I could barely look her captain in the eyes when I shook his hand.

Sometimes I still look at the picture just to remind my self how things can turn out, and how a captain ends up feeling when his ship is surrendered to be destroyed with out a fight.

How about them apples.

edit:spl


[edit on 14-9-2007 by iskander]

Remember a submarines displacement is generally only 0.4 more than its weight. You cant just bang 500 to 1000 tons of reactor and shielding in a hull without increasing its physical size and therefore its displacement. Of course making the hull larger requires more steel which adds further to the weight penalty

Why some chose not to read up on what they are discussing I have no idea.

I’ll just post it again then.

The number of the submarine project was given: 20120 and its technical and tactical characteristics as well. those data indicate that the new submarine is very similar to the Project 877 Paltus (Halibut) diesel submarine, but its water displacement is greater (3950 vs. 3050 tons).

www.kommersant.com...

Explanation- a slightly larger Kilo with extra 900 tons displacement.

There a lot of hidden messages in this config. Much to do with a general shift in Soviet Era Naval tactics.

Exactly! Deadalus3 is dean on.

MiG 35 and Su35 are really aweome planes but how many do they have..
If theyre unable to get these new "weapons" out of the prototype phase of production, they I will pay attention..

MAAKS 2007, read up on that. Just the Sukhoi plant is loaded up to capacity until 2025 with domestic and international orderes. They have actually transferred manufacturing of other aircraft to other plants, and are concentrating fully on the Su-27 family.

man , are you close minded or what ?????

as harlequinn said you are extremely close minded and therby i consider any further debate with you as useless

manson_322, this is a FORUM – “an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest”, NOT a place to get personal.

What I really would like to know if this new mini-reactor is PBMR based, because if it is, no wonder China/Iran want pebble bed tech so bad.

Modular design with helium gas-cooling is ideal for a sub. Compact, light, safe, and very, very quiet.

Reactor shielding is not always done with lead alone. It is sometimes done with a combination of lead and dense poly...or plastic. Also sometimes two birds are killed with one stone...instead of lead a tank of liquid is placed between the reactor and the area desired to be shielded. Liquid will shield too..potable water...fuels...sea water...et al.
The vessel itself ..lead ..yes...but the whole reactor compartment ..not necessarily.

A reactor does not produce electricity..it produces heat which makes steam. For such applications this means steam support equipment...additional weight. This also means additional water purifying capacity to support both steam and reactor capacity.
Steam would be used to turn a generator to make electricity....which could run electric motors etc etc.

Someone alluded to new designs in motor technology...they are correct here. This also means new designs in generator technology. This arena is undergoing some changes shipboard. Significant changes.
Any of you up to date on the new motor and generator tech coming out and its applications?? Curious here!! These changes have somewhat to do with the feasability of this design.

My thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

orangetom - this could very well just use heat to power an external combustion engine (stirling) which you negate the need for steam and generators.

Originally posted by Harlequin
its quite sad to see that your closed minded to this whole concept - one that canada and australia are looking into for an AIP system for there own diesel boats.

Im not closed minded in the slightest I just dont see how this setup offers any advantage over AIP systems already in service.

Regarding Canada utilizing this system it was nothing more than a proposal from the Canadian military college, it went no further. Canadas Victoria/Upholder class are having significant teething troubles and at present only one out of four are in service and all plans to fit AIP have been shelved. In regards to the use of nuclear AIP on these boats a report from CASR had this to say about it,

Canada briefly considered this technology during the early 1980s. However, the SSn idea was rejected, largely due to its lack of potential and price. Currently, no navies are considering SSn technology.

The most likely system Canada will use if they use any at all is a Canadian developed fuel cell technology, here is the link providing the FACTS about Canada's AIP options.
Just the facts

Concerning Australian AIP options well I am Australian and I've never heard of us considering nuke AIP (please post the link to this information Im very interested), furthermore our political climate regarding nuclear power would simply never allow it at this stage.
We have a lot of Hippy's over here that hate anything with the word "nuclear" in it.
Regarding what AIP will be fitted to the collins class we have already tested a stirling AIP on a shore rig and Kockums (the designer of our collins class) already have a design ready to go when we make the next step. Here are the FACTS.
Kockums AIP Unit
Collins Class

Oh also here are the FACTS on the latest Russian diesel/electric boat, the 677 Lada class, first boat is already in the water and 2 more being built these boats are fitted with fuel cell AIP known as kristall 27e and are intended to replace Russias kilo's in due course.
Lada Sea Trials
677 Lada/Amur Class
Kristall-27E Fuel Cell AIP

Originally posted by manson_322

man , are you close minded or what ?????

Russia was the first one to have a functional fourth gen lead bismuth nuke reactor in ALfa subs .....

as harlequinn said you are extremely close minded and therby i consider any further debate with you as useless

Im not close minded I just like facts, heres some facts about how good them Alfa Reactors were.

While the BM-40A reactors are able to work for many years without stopping, they were not specifically designed for such treatment and any serious reactor maintenance became impossible. This led to a number of failures, including coolant leaks and one reactor broken down and frozen while at sea.Four vessels were decommissioned due to freezing of the coolant.

Heres the link
Alfa Class

The Russians are using an AIP system referred to as Kristall-27E in there latest boats, its a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell AIP, heres the links
677 Lada Sea Trials
Lada Class Submarine
Kristall-27E Fuel Cell AIP

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by Tonka

 

Regarding the very substantial use of conscripts in the Russian Navy this is fact, perhaps you need to read up on Russian Naval history to better appreciate this.

I’ve meet and spoke with Russian sailors personally, and heard their History as spoken by them, have you?

How about them apples.

Spoken with Russian sailors personally! Well cant compete with that can I?

Well where I come from proof talks and bulls##t walks so maybe this will clear things up a touch

Enlisted personnel are usually drafted from various Soviet Union regions. Typically, the Soviet sailor is a conscript with limited training and little career motivation.The technical skills of the enlisted sailor are quite limited. With low pay and few privileges, only about 10 percent of the enlisted force reenlist.With the constant rotation of sailors, senior enlisted personnel are in chronically short supply.This lack of technically qualified senior enlisted personnel is one of the few weaknesses of an otherwise strong Soviet naval force.

Heres the link, read under "naval personnel"
Soviet Navy

While history dictates that the Russian/Soviet Navy always had a strong and competent officer core typically there junior enlisted personell were conscripts. If that link doesnt satisfy you do a google on the subject you wont get any shortage of hits I can assure you.

Or maybe you could go back to Russia and speak with some more sailors?

MMMMMMMMM APPLES

Originally posted by iskander
Among other nations, Chianese run Kilos, and it was the Kilo that jumped the Kitty-Hawk.

It was actually a Song class submarine

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by iskander
Among other nations, Chianese run Kilos, and it was the Kilo that jumped the Kitty-Hawk.

It was actually a Song class submarine

Chinawhite is correct it was a Song heres a link
Kittyhawk gets a song up the clacker

Its not the first time China's had a crack either, but saying that its not a big deal, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Britain, Russia, China and these are just the countries that I know of that have some really good periscope piccy's of yankie carriers.

Carriers are really good for gunboat diplomacy(oh sorry "force projection")
Nothing proves the power of the U.S. Navy more than a carrier battlegroup bombing the sh#t out of essentially a third world country.

Hypothetical situation here, America and Britain declare war on each other and they all promise they wont use nukes, ( Hippy's stole all the launch codes so neither country can fire).
One small first rate navy against a larger first rate navy.
One of two things would happen regarding there carriers,

1. The American Admirals would be scared sh!$less of losing there carriers and would park them all up in the safest possible harbour they could find.

2. American politicians would attempt a classic gunboat diplomacy maneuver (sorry "Force Projection") and send them for the British coast.
The Admirals would all be crying as they watch there carriers sail into the sunset knowing there time afloat will be measured in days.

There are only two types of ship in real naval warfare,
Submarines and Targets. Remember the bigger they are the harder they fall.

reply to post by orangetom1999

Any of you up to date on the new motor and generator tech coming out and its applications?? Curious here!! These changes have somewhat to do with the feasability of this design.

High Temperature Gas Reactors.

web.mit.edu...

www.eas.asu.edu...

Originally posted by Tonka


Its not the first time China's had a crack either, but saying that its not a big deal, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Britain, Russia, China and these are just the countries that I know of that have some really good periscope piccy's of yankie carriers.

Well there's a lot of contreversy surrounding the chinese sub encounter(s). The Americans and the Japanese claim that the sub was 'forced' to surface after it came too close and that it was tracked for a day before that.

Also you're dead correct when you say that those are just the countries you know of.
But jockeying around carriers in peacetime for fun
(read: Sweden,Autralia,Canada, Britain) when the stakes are not high is an altogether different ballgame.
That's why I raise an eyebrow when I hear 'sensationalised' news flashs like 'bla blah Navy sub SINKS entire fleet or SINKS carrier'..

Sinking an entire fleet is preposterous in the 'real' world and even sinking a carrier is someting that is not entirely possible, considering the support and protection fleet that surrounds it.
Only repeated saturation attacks can hope to achieve something like that. 'Repeated' and 'Saturation' are terms that generally do not go well with submarine SOPs.


In real war, it would require a minimum of 3-4 stealthy with some really skewed tactics to put the fear of God into a fully Ops battle-ready CSG.
And to execute skewed tactics you need long endurance subs, with both stand-off AShCM capability and torpedoes.

And if you're not able to sink/maime those carrier(s) before it gets within throwing range of your coastline then those carrier(s) will knock all ports that resupply and support your subs. and make them good enough for only one trip.

There are only two types of ship in real naval warfare,
Submarines and Targets. Remember the bigger they are the harder they fall.

Then we would only have subs now wouldn't we. Don't right off surface combatants so easily. I see some biased perspectives due some affiliation or the other with submarines here, Tonka.
You really have no faith in ASW do you?

Heres the link, read under "naval personnel"
Soviet Navy

While history dictates that the Russian/Soviet Navy always had a strong and competent officer core typically there junior enlisted personell were conscripts. If that link doesnt satisfy you do a google on the subject you wont get any shortage of hits I can assure you.

Considering your statements, I have to ask, do you comprehend the difference between Soviet Union and Russia?

You must are aware that USSR broke up into independent countries, and that currently we are living in the 21sf century?

Or maybe you could go back to Russia and speak with some more sailors?

I did clearly state that I was in the RUSSIAN (not Soviet) Far East during the 90s, so unless you have a time machine handy, It’s not really possible for me to go back and talk to active Soviet Navy personnel.

I also hope that you aware of the fundamental differences between Soviet and Russian Naval doctrines.

There are only two types of ship in real naval warfare,
Submarines and Targets. Remember the bigger they are the harder they fall.

Unless carrier deployment tactics are reevaluated from grown up and adopted for the realities of the 21st century, I agree with that entirely.

At the same time no sub is safe from a air launched Shkval II, the tricky part is tracking that sub down.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Tonka

sinking a carrier is someting that is not entirely possible, considering the support and protection fleet that surrounds it.
Only repeated saturation attacks can hope to achieve something like that. 'Repeated' and 'Saturation' are terms that generally do not go well with submarine SOPs.

In real war, it would require a minimum of 3-4 stealthy with some really skewed tactics to put the fear of God into a fully Ops battle-ready CSG.
And to execute skewed tactics you need long endurance subs, with both stand-off AShCM capability and torpedoes.

And if you're not able to sink/maime those carrier(s) before it gets within throwing range of your coastline then those carrier(s) will knock all ports that resupply and support your subs. and make them good enough for only one trip.

Very well substantiated comment! Admirals pre-WW2 used a lot of the same arguments regarding battleships. Have a quick browse of this,
Review

There are only two types of ship in real naval warfare,
Submarines and Targets. Remember the bigger they are the harder they fall.

Then we would only have subs now wouldn't we. Don't right off surface combatants so easily. I see some biased perspectives due some affiliation or the other with submarines here, Tonka.
You really have no faith in ASW do you?

Im not writing off surface combatants in general, just carriers!

Look at the force structure (eg ship ratios) of the worlds navys over the past 50 years, you might get a shock. I know I did. Entire classes of cruise missile sub have been built specifically to drop carriers.
Gunboat Carriers