News of secret Russian submarine leaked on the internet.

your comment about cost , whilst valid for large megawatt reactors isn`t quite so valid for smaller ones - 100mw reactors were flown (or rather tested ready to be flown) on missiles have a look for the `pluto` project - 64 inches long was the size and a weight of 59kg`s - not exactly large or heavy! also look for the `Tory II-A` engine which was fueled by ceramic beryllium oxide.

AIP have limited speed , and when they want to go faster than 4 knots they change to batteries - lead acid batteries require charging so ALL AIP (sterling engine, MESMA etc) boats have diesel engines to charge lead acid batteries - a small reactor working on natural convection would be able to charge batteries and provdie power when needed without having to snorkel.

besides this boat allready has an AIP system, they just want to improve on it.


a battery powered boat (and aip) ARE quieter than nuke boats - just ask the USN when they couldn`t find the RAN AIP boat for 3 months on exercise!

many countries are proposing this idea - canada are looking at a small 100mw reactor as an AIP for there victoria boats - so the idea isn`t new.


larger boats require more batteries to run anyway thus needing more power its a vicious circle

the whole concept is to assist the main power plant here not having nuclear power as the main power source , have the best of both worlds so to speak

tonka , have you heard of the minitaure topaz nuclear reactor which costs b/w 5 to 7 million $ , cheap isn't it






topaz reactor gives a output of 10 KW electric(10% efficieny) and 150 kw+ in terms of thermal power and weighed 2 tons , if liquid coolant pumps are used instead of thermonic converters the efficeny is higher
and the more advanced topaz 2 reactor weighs 7 tons, really a small one,said to be capable of 2.3 mw thermal, this was reactor on the basis the american SPT-100 is based

Originally posted by Harlequin
your comment about cost , whilst valid for large megawatt reactors isn`t quite so valid for smaller ones - 100mw reactors were flown (or rather tested ready to be flown) on missiles have a look for the `pluto` project - 64 inches long was the size and a weight of 59kg`s - not exactly large or heavy! also look for the `Tory II-A` engine which was fueled by ceramic beryllium oxide.



many countries are proposing this idea - canada are looking at a small 100mw reactor as an AIP for there victoria boats - so the idea isn`t new.


larger boats require more batteries to run anyway thus needing more power its a vicious circle

the whole concept is to assist the main power plant here not having nuclear power as the main power source , have the best of both worlds so to speak

i think you mean kw not mw right????"???

Originally posted by Harlequin
your comment about cost , whilst valid for large megawatt reactors isn`t quite so valid for smaller ones - 100mw reactors were flown (or rather tested ready to be flown) on missiles have a look for the `pluto` project - 64 inches long was the size and a weight of 59kg`s - not exactly large or heavy! also look for the `Tory II-A` engine which was fueled by ceramic beryllium oxide.

I probably should have added some more detail here. For Russia to field a miniture reactor in a sub it would have to first be designed, developed,built and tested. Herein lies a major cost which would have to be spread out over however many reactors would eventually be built, any full size reactor would be an evolutionary derivative of the Akula power plant and therefore not much dearer possibly even cheaper. Also factor in the fact that no matter the size they would still require the same support facilitys as a full size SSN.

The pluto was designed as an ultimatum weapon, to be sent aloft over a chosen country for an essentially unlimited period of time armed with nuclear weapons. The propulsion system on this thing was nothing short of hellish, for its entire flight time it would be spewing 200-300 rads of radiation over an 1800 square mile area every hour, it was unrecoverable and would have to be ditched in the ocean where it would continue to spew rads for the next fifty thousand years, theres a good reason this weapon never got past testing, how it even got off the drawing board defies belief. The reason this missile was so light was because it was completely unshielded, put an unshielded reactor in a boat and the crew would be dead inside 3 hours. Anyone standing within a reasonable proximity to the sub would be dead to.

yes my fault - meant KW not MW - a 2 ton MW class reactor would be a revolution for sure!

whilst project pluto may well have been the `ultimate weapon` - it was cancelled - but the concept of cruise missiles later evolved to the SLAM (tomahawk etc) class.


Topaz2 - as manson_322 has said it could well be used as a basis for a small reactor ideal for a project like this - and teh design is *at least* 16 years old

fti.neep.wisc.edu...

now 10kw of power would be perfect as a back-up power source for a diesel boat - remove the diesel engine and replace with a self contained topaz2 reactor module. And with self contained - 0 maintenance module it could even be offered around the world for sale.

Originally posted by Harlequin

AIP have limited speed , and when they want to go faster than 4 knots they change to batteries - lead acid batteries require charging so ALL AIP (sterling engine, MESMA etc) boats have diesel engines to charge lead acid batteries - a small reactor working on natural convection would be able to charge batteries and provdie power when needed without having to snorkel.

The only real world comparison for a miniture plant would be NR-1, NR-1 plant produced the equivalent of 130 horsepower and drove her at a maximum speed of 4.5 knots

a battery powered boat (and aip) ARE quieter than nuke boats - just ask the USN when they couldn`t find the RAN AIP boat for 3 months on exercise!

I gather your speaking of HMAS Waller (collins class) at the latest Rimpac exercises, shes not fitted with AIP!!! I should know this Im an Aussie, I never said electrics werent as quiet read my post again.

larger boats require more batteries to run anyway thus needing more power its a vicious circle

Larger boats have extra room for more batteries, not really that vicious

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Tonka]

reply to post by manson_322


The topaz reactor was designed for space where there are no humans, therfore no need for shielding. In all honesty I know nothing about this reactor but I do know that if this reactor could be used in a sub for that price everyone would already be using them instead of other forms of AIP.

Originally posted by Tonka
reply to post by manson_322

 

The topaz reactor was designed for space where there are no humans, therfore no need for shielding. In all honesty I know nothing about this reactor but I do know that if this reactor could be used in a sub for that price everyone would already be using them instead of other forms of AIP.

from what i am aware , it was shielded , and was designed ultimately for soviet interplanetary space modules and manned interpalnetary missions, also there was further room for upgrade

Topaz-II Components. 1.) Reactor. 2.) Radiation Shield. 3.) Primary Coolant Loop. 4.) Gas Systems. 5.) Thermal Cover. 6.) Primary Power System
fti.neep.wisc.edu...

, well, not all nations have such super small reactor tech , and Russia had it nad kept it secret during soviet era , so usa purchased it in 1993

scheme includes the reactor vessel, internal radiation shield structure, .... an area of about 7 m 2. The power given off by the cooling radiator,

the unshielded weight of topaz 2 was 900 kg , when shileded it weighed 7 tons

[edit on 13-9-2007 by manson_322]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by manson_322]

reply to post by manson_322


Just read up on the topaz reactor, apparently it generates 10kw. Thats barely enough power to run an average houshold let alone a 2500 ton submarine. Just to give you an example of the power required an Akula class sub has a 190MW reactor and weighs 7000 tons. Now Im guessing this new class is gonna be around 2000 to 3000 tons so the reactor at a calculated guess is going to need to produce at least 5 to 10MW's to give you 5 knots submerged.
I dont like your chances of pickin up a 10MW reactor for 7 million.

Originally posted by Tonka
reply to post by manson_322

 

Just read up on the topaz reactor, apparently it generates 10kw. Thats barely enough power to run an average houshold let alone a 2500 ton submarine. Just to give you an example of the power required an Akula class sub has a 190MW reactor and weighs 7000 tons. Now Im guessing this new class is gonna be around 2000 to 3000 tons so the reactor at a calculated guess is going to need to produce at least 5 to 10MW's to give you 5 knots submerged.
I dont like your chances of pickin up a 10MW reactor for 7 million.

and that was topaz prototype in development in 80's that generated 10 kw ...
it can be upgraded to operate at several hundred kw ...

Since 1968, the Soviet Union has launched about 30 satellites powered by nuclear reactors, mostly reconnaissance satellites to track shipping. The reactors contain about 30 kilograms of uranium, and American experts believe that they generate between 5 and 10 kilowatts of electricity by nuclear fission of uranium-235. The first generation of Soviet reactors operated for about three months before being boosted towards a stable higher orbit. Two never reached it: in 1973, Cosmos 954 scattered radioactive debris over northwest Canada as it came back down, while Cosmos 1402 completely dispersed during re-entry. Heat from these reactors was converted into electricity thermoelectrically; in other words, a current was produced in two metals maintained at different temperatures.
The prototype Topaz reactors also produce 10 kilowatts but Soviet officials say that the design can be modified to generate several hundred kilowatts.
media.newscientist.com... missions-and-the-weapons-ofstarwars-will-need-the-generating-capacity-of-a-small-power-station-.html

also , such reactor will be used to charge battery not run sub itself man...

also the efficieny of thermonic converters is low(4-8%) , if instead sodium coolant is used eficieny will drastically increase reactor would be heavier (around 35-40 tons then estimate)

enough to charge battery of AIP sub (400 KW)
enough said..

Congress's General Accounting Office has expressed concern that there is a high risk that the programme will fail because of a lack of data on the type of thermoelectric converters in the SP-100 design. That process is only about 4 per cent efficient, so the reactors must produce a thermal energy of 2.5 megawatts in order to generate 100 kilowatts of electricity. The remaining heat has to be removed. It will be dissipated by a liquid-lithium cooling system that includes fixed and movable panels to radiate energy from the satellite.
media.newscientist.com... missions-and-the-weapons-ofstarwars-will-need-the-generating-capacity-of-a-small-power-station-.html

[edit on 13-9-2007 by manson_322]

My only guess would be you could use the nuke plant to transition to an OpArea at high speed, not caring too much about the noise you are generating. Once on station, you could transition to D/E mode and vastly reduce your signature. A very grandiose version of the "sprint and drift" technique.

But now you have an overtaxed D/E plant that has to drag around a nuke plant in addition to the boat itself, thus reducing range and endurance of the batteries.

Any vehicle that has a hybrid power plant will undoubtedly have two characteristics: overly complex and generally more expensive. Neither of these two characteristics bode well for a navy that is comprised mostly of conscripts, and that cannot afford to keep all of its servicable boats in operation.

As far as subs go, I get mine
at Subway. Mmmmm...

For those debating what Russia
is spending on defense, I
offer This.

It's a lengthy read, but well
worth it, in my opinion.

Regards,
Lex

Any vehicle that has a hybrid power plant will undoubtedly have two characteristics: overly complex and generally more expensive.

You’re saying that hybrid power plants are “overly complex” and “expensive”?

So all the hybrid cars that are coming out must be some sort of rubbish then, right?

How about the next generation of diesel/electric US Army armored vehicles?

Are you kidding?

Neither of these two characteristics bode well for a navy that is comprised mostly of conscripts, and that cannot afford to keep all of its servicable boats in operation.

What’s that about? Care to list some facts in stead of vague insinuations, I’d appreciate it.

For those debating what Russia
is spending on defense, I
offer this

Thanks for the link Lexicon, it was indeed a good read, just about 8 years ago.

What was the total Russian economic growth since 2000?

Those would be the important numbers to look at, including their infrastructure buildup.

I’ve been there, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

To be objective, here’s something a little more current of the true state of Russian economy;

Russia is outpacing the US, UK and Germany in securing its population’s long-term economic and environmental future, according to a new study.

Economists at Germany’s Allianz Insurance and Dresdner Bank have ranked Russia sixth in an 18-country index of “sustainability of fiscal and ecological development”, ahead of the UK (placed seventh), Germany (ninth), and the US (17th).

The result – described as “unexpected” by the report’s authors on Wednesday – came about because of Russia’s huge oil and gas reserves and the sharp rise in energy prices in recent years, which have boosted significantly the country’s finances.

www.ft.com...

Originally posted by iskander
You’re saying that hybrid power plants are “overly complex” and “expensive”?

So all the hybrid cars that are coming out must be some sort of rubbish then, right?

How about the next generation of diesel/electric US Army armored vehicles?

Are you kidding?

And this has what to do with a submarine ? Are you saying that the Russians are using motor car engines in their submarines now. Completely ridiculous comparison you made.

I’ve been there, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

yeah right of course you have

If the information is accurate, sounds like Russia has an important new addition to their spying arsenal. Everyone knows that Kilos are great for spying because of their speed and stealthy characteristics, but because they don't have nuclear reactors, their range is not nearly as far as the subs that do. Now if a Kilo could be equipped with a nuclear reactor without you having to sacrifice what makes it so great in the first place, you could really be on to something.

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by manson_322

 

also , such reactor will be used to charge battery not run sub itself man...

also the efficieny of thermonic converters is low(4-8%) , if instead sodium coolant is used eficieny will drastically increase reactor would be heavier (around 35-40 tons then estimate)

enough to charge battery of AIP sub (400 KW)
enough said..

I understand what your trying to say Manson but is still not feasable.
Using a miniture plant of say 400kw will increase the underwater endurance of the boat yes but the draw on the batteries will far outweigh the input charge from the reactor therefore still putting a limit on that endurance.

Utilizing for example a hydrogen AIP unit will provide the same underwater endurance if not a substantially greater underwater endurance than the setup you suggest, you would still have high submerged sprint speeds by utilizing the batteries and a tactical speed of 5 to 10 knots on AIP. Basically the same capability if not better in an arrangement already proven in other designs and a hell of a lot cheaper than a reactor plant.












[edit on 14-9-2007 by Tonka]

Originally posted by iskander

Neither of these two characteristics bode well for a navy that is comprised mostly of conscripts, and that cannot afford to keep all of its servicable boats in operation.

What’s that about? Care to list some facts in stead of vague insinuations, I’d appreciate it.

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

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
I would file this disclosure under "counter-measure" or "mines bigger than yours".

First, the US government lets it be known that nuclear weapons are being moved about.

Second, Russia let's the world know that they have a kind of submarine the world doesn't know about.

If it were a mating ritual it might make some sense.

But as it is a kind of a step up/down/sidewise in sabre-rattling/war-justification, it is a most unwelcome event.

[edit on 13/9/07 by Pellevoisin]

Well said. I completley agree.

Utilizing for example a hydrogen AIP unit will provide the same underwater endurance if not a substantially greater underwater endurance than the setup you suggest, you would still have high submerged sprint speeds by utilizing the batteries and a tactical speed of 5 to 10 knots on AIP. Basically the same capability if not better in an arrangement already proven in other designs and a hell of a lot cheaper than a reactor plant.

AIP is a auxiliary power source , while diesel electric is the main source,so for AIP a nuke reactor of 300 kw could be used that my point and in russia syuch reactor like topaz is cost efficient(7 million$) and not cost efficient for other nations as they have no R & D to develop such a reactor...

A particular benefit of this approach is that it can be retrofitted into existing submarine hulls by inserting an additional hull section. AIP does not normally provide the endurance or power to replace the atmospheric dependent propulsion, but allows it to remain on station underwater for longer than a more conventionally propelled submarine could. A typical conventional power plant will provide 3 megawatts maximum, and an AIP source around a tenth of that. A nuclear submarine's propulsion plant is usually much greater than 20 megawatts
en.wikipedia.org...-Nuclear_AIP_Submarines

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
















[edit on 14-9-2007 by manson_322]