Japanese "Dragon Phoenix" will not be reborn from the ashes

57
October 4 2018, in Kobe, at the shipyard Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was launched a new submarine Oryu (SS-511). This is the eleventh Soryu type boat. The lead ship of that type was launched on December 5 2007 of the year at the same shipyard. Its name translates as "Blue Dragon", and all other boats also received "dragon" names. The name of the now launched boat can be translated as "Dragon Phoenix". It was not without the usual for the Japanese military reference to the glorious military past. The head boat of the project was named in honor of the Japanese aircraft carrier, sunk in the battle of Midway.


Oryu (SS-511) at a shipyard in Kobe, already launched




Same type with her Hakuryu (SS-503) during her arrival at Pearl Harbor in February 2013

Boats of this type are the newest Japanese diesel-electric submarines equipped with air-independent Stirling engines using liquid oxygen and diesel fuel. But Dragon Phoenix differs from its counterparts in that lithium-ion batteries were installed on the boat instead of traditional lead-acid batteries. Innovation was not ignored, and almost everyone who relates to news naval fleet.

The Japanese, of course, triumph, because they managed to promote innovation and build the world's first submarine with such a battery. However, in my opinion, this introduction is not as successful as it is believed in Japan, although it will most likely come to light only in the context of war.

Boat on battery. What are the benefits?

By itself, the idea to put a lithium-ion battery on a submarine belongs obviously to Mitsubishi Corporation, which has a unit engaged in the construction of large industrial drives. Back in 2013, the corporation, together with a large Japanese manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries GS Yuasa, built in Iki (Nagasaki Prefecture) at the power station of Kyushu Electric Power Co. powerful 1,6 megawatt-hour drive. The battery consists of 8 units, each of which is 4,8 meters long, 0,8 meters wide and 2 meters high, weighing 4,6 tons. As you can see, the dimensions of the "battery" are quite suitable for installing it on a submarine.

Japanese "Dragon Phoenix" will not be reborn from the ashes

One of the modern lithium-ion drives mounted on a gas turbine power plant. The photo clearly shows that the "battery" is quite compact in size.

Since then, of course, there were still achievements, and in 2017, a Japanese corporation built a lithium-ion drive on the 48 megawatt-hour in the Netherlands. For Japan, the production of powerful lithium-ion drives is a long-established business. With such accumulated experience, it was possible to decide to install a similar storage device on a submarine.

The advantages of a lithium-ion battery over the traditional lead-acid battery for the submarine are two. First, according to my calculations, the lithium-ion battery is 2,3 times smaller in size compared to a lead-acid battery of the same characteristics. Two possibilities follow from this. The first is to replace the old battery with a new one, and to take the free space up with some other equipment or to use it in some way. The second is to install a lithium-ion battery of the same dimensions as the previous one, which will give the boat a much larger supply of energy for underwater travel. Which option was chosen, of course, the Japanese military did not tell us.

Secondly, lithium-ion batteries have a fast charge mode, and a large industrial drive can be charged with 1000 ampere current and higher in just an hour or one and a half.

This, of course, gives the submarine additional tactical advantages. Fast charging allows the boat to operate effectively in areas with strong anti-submarine escort, have more time to leave the pursuit, or longer to be in a submerged position in anticipation of the goal. Also capacious battery allows for an economical course to make quite long crossings under water. In general, the equipment of the Dragon-Phoenix with a large lithium-ion battery suggests that this boat is intended for probing approaches to ports and naval bases where the antisubmarine forces of the enemy likely for Japan usually concentrate (including Russian, of course).

Soryu-type boats, as already mentioned, are equipped with an air-independent propulsion system, which develops the speed of underwater travel to 20 nodes. That is, the boat can make a breakthrough, catch up even a very high-speed target under water and attack it with torpedoes. The Dragon-Phoenix has six nose torpedo tubes with a total ammunition in 30 533-mm torpedoes "Type 89", as well as UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

In addition, lithium-ion batteries do not require complicated and time-consuming maintenance; they do not emit acid and hydrogen vapors like worn-out lead-acid batteries. With a strong roll there is no danger of electrolyte leakage from the batteries. Also, lithium-ion batteries have a longer service life than lead-acid ones.

In general, all the advantages are evident. Not without reason on this subject arose such a revival. But still, in my opinion, these advantages are evident until the Japanese submarine fell under depth charges.

Significant drawback

For lithium-ion batteries there is one very significant drawback: under certain conditions they are prone to spontaneous combustion, sometimes with an explosion. The cause of the spontaneous combustion is a short circuit of the battery cell, at which an increase in current occurs and warming up. When the temperature reaches 90 degrees, lithium begins to react with electrolyte. Upon further heating to 200 degrees, thermal decomposition of the electrolyte and cathode begins with the release of oxygen. Here at this stage it is possible an explosion with the destruction of the battery. Even if the explosion was not strong and it was enough only for the battery case, a flame center appears, fed by oxygen released during the decomposition of the electrolyte.

The main causes of a short circuit are three. The first is mechanical damage, in which the cathode and the anode are in contact and a short circuit occurs. The second is heating, leading to expansion of the cathode and the anode, accelerating reactions, which leads to a series of microscopic internal short circuits. The third is accelerated charging or overcurrent during charging, whereby dendrites of metallic lithium are formed, which grow from the anode. When the dendrite reaches the cathode, a short circuit will occur.

There are hundreds of cases of explosions and fires of lithium-ion batteries in electronic gadgets, and at least three Tesla electric vehicles burned down. One on the charge, and two - due to mechanical damage. One such case is the most interesting. The battery exploded and caught fire when an electric vehicle collided with a bump stop. Some posts even wrote about battery "detonation". The descriptions of such fires emphasize that the fire appears very quickly and covers the car in a matter of minutes.


Tesla Model S, burning after a collision with a concrete barrier. Five fire engines and 35 firefighters were putting out this car.

It is difficult to extinguish a burning lithium-ion battery. Water and foam only increase the flame due to the reaction with lithium. Insulation from atmospheric air is possible, but ineffective because oxygen is released inside the battery, along with hydrogen and other combustible gases. Firefighters recommend using powder fire extinguishers or soda, and also advise either to allow the battery to burn out, or to cool it with something.

This general overview shows that placing a lithium-ion battery on a submarine is not a very good idea for combat conditions when depth charges are being dropped onto the boat. As evidenced by extensive military experience, a close explosion of a depth bomb, even without leading to a hole in a sturdy housing, nevertheless, it causes very serious damage: embossed gaskets, seals, valves, stop valves, mechanisms torn from fasteners, broken pipes, damaged and short circuit wiring with fire. All this can damage the battery and can drastically aggravate the situation.


Just as a reminder: how it happens. Shot from the movie Submerged (2001)

All options lead to fire

What are the possible options?

Water leaking and entering the battery well; short circuit with subsequent heating of the battery, explosion and fire. Sea water “short-circuits” electrical equipment is much better than fresh water.

Bounce from a depth charge explosion and damage to battery cells by collision, as well as debris. With all possible precautions and protection of batteries of various kinds of shock absorbers, however, the probability of mechanical damage from the collision of the elements is still very high. This option is very dangerous, since so much of the battery can be damaged, warming up and explosion of the battery can occur faster and with a much greater destructive effect.

Warming up the battery as a result of the fire already on the boat. The battery needs to be heated before the spontaneous combustion process starts, all up to 90 degrees, which is easily achievable for any more or less large fire. History The fires on submarines show that a strong fire heats the compartment bulkheads so quickly and strongly that the fire spreads to the neighboring compartments. If the compartment with the battery pit caught fire, and the fire could not be quickly extinguished, then, without a doubt, the lithium-ion battery in the pit will quickly heat up, explode and catch fire. Let's not forget that on the Soryu-type boat there is a supply of liquid oxygen for the Stirling engine. If the tank with liquefied oxygen is damaged and liquid oxygen enters the combustion zone or finds oil, then you will not envy the crew of a Japanese boat.


K-8, killed by a strong fire in the Bay of Biscay 9 April 1970

Finally, it is worth adding an accelerated recharge, which negatively affects lithium-ion batteries (the danger of heating and the formation of lithium dendrites). A series of such quick recharges required for fighting in an area with large anti-submarine forces of the enemy, when the time to recharge is limited, the boat may well bring its batteries to such a condition that literally one depth bomb will be able to cause an internal short circuit of the battery cells, warming up and explosion.

Fire on the battery is almost impossible to eliminate the regular boat means. Water can not, it will only increase the fire. Freon is ineffective because the fire is fed by oxygen from the decomposition of the electrolyte. Freon can help with a small fire or dangerous overheating as a coolant. Allowing batteries to burn out is also impossible: they will burn with the boat. You can try to flood the burning battery pit with sea water. To say what this will lead to, it is difficult, apparently, has not yet been conducted such experiments. What happens if you flood a large industrial lithium-ion storage tank with seawater? It seems that such an attempt will only lead to the intensification of the fire and aggravate the situation. If the batteries on the Dragon-Phoenix light up, then the crew will have nothing left but to ascend and leave the ship. The boat, therefore, is unlikely to live up to its name.


Scheme "Dragon Phoenix". If it is true at least in the main, then it is well seen that a boat with the above-described features of lithium-ion batteries has a greatly reduced survivability. Japanese designers have placed one of the battery holes in the same compartment with the central post. A fire on this battery will quickly disable boat control.

It must be emphasized here that all security measures effective in civilian use of lithium-ion batteries will be clearly insufficient for extreme conditions of operation on a submarine, especially if it is pursued and bombarded by an adversary with depth charges. And not only in combat conditions. Leaks and fires are possible on the boat and in peacetime, in the ordinary exit to the sea, not to mention the collisions with surface ships or underwater cliffs. Facing the ship for a boat on a lithium-ion battery is no less dangerous than getting hit by depth charges.

Hence the conclusion. A lithium-ion battery, while having a number of advantages, nonetheless increases the vulnerability of a submarine. Perceptibly increases, and in the most dangerous form of the accident, which can only happen on a submarine, - a fire. Do not consider me a conservative, but the good old lead-acid battery, which won two world wars on submarines of all the warring countries, is still better. At least by the fact that it does not burn.
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    15 October 2018 05: 42
    Article on the case. On the other hand, nuclear boats began with the first prototypes and experimental models. "The good old diesel that fought two wars is still better ..." wink
    The author himself writes:
    For Japan, the production of powerful lithium-ion drives is a long-established business ...
    It suggests that this boat is intended for probing approaches to ports and naval bases where the anti-submarine forces of the enemy likely to Japan are usually concentrated (including the Russian ones, of course).

    Let's wait and see.
    1. +4
      16 October 2018 17: 40
      Quote: tasha
      Article on the case.

      Absolutely not the case.
      1. Lithium-ion batteries (LIA) are a huge number of varieties. Not all of them are burning. Only those that have a really high specific energy are burned - for example, with an anode of carbon material and a cathode based on cobaltate. With a titanate anode and a cathode of iron phosphate - do not burn.
      2. In LIA, contrary to the opinion of the author, there is no metallic lithium.
      3. Under no circumstances, oxygen is released from the electrolyte in the LIA. This is the author’s fantasy. Hydrogen evolution is also doubtful. And so that one and the other at once - all from the realm of fantasy.
      4. It is really difficult to extinguish burning lithium, especially when it is not there. wassat When LIA is ignited, the lion's share of the energy is released during the burning of electrolyte vapor. And, accordingly, the burning LIA can be extinguished by isolating it from the air - only the fumes and their decomposition products will not go anywhere, and they are often very toxic.
      There are plenty of other "fast jacks" - but is it worth stopping at them? Journalism has long been a field for the ignorant.
      1. +1
        16 October 2018 18: 59
        The Japanese submarine is equipped with the battery you mentioned NCA, the safety of which there are certain doubts. For example, China uses lithium-iron-phosphate batteries in its electric vehicles precisely because of the lesser probability of explosion and fire.
        All the rest is left to the conscience of the author. I try not to enter into disputes with Dmitry. wink
  2. +4
    15 October 2018 06: 58
    If these batteries are so real fire hazard, then it’s more logical to place them not inside the boat, but in a separate hanging container similar to fuel tanks or aircraft missiles. It caught fire, snapped off from the gas pressure or forcibly from the remote control.
    1. -2
      15 October 2018 08: 17
      It will be expensive to equip such a strong and airtight separate container. Plus, the equipment of the hatch for the passage of crew members, fire extinguishing systems.
    2. +1
      15 October 2018 15: 50
      So that any deep bomb nearby would immediately deprive the boat of energy or even destroy it?
      1. -1
        15 October 2018 19: 39
        If the ammunition rushes close enough, the boat will lose its quality regardless of the type of engine, or the source of energy for the engine.
    3. +2
      15 October 2018 19: 55
      Quote: Mister Creed
      then it’s more logical to place them not inside the boat, but in a separate hanging container similar to fuel tanks or aircraft missiles

      In this case, the acoustics will be such that one can not even dream of any secrecy.
  3. +1
    15 October 2018 07: 29
    Further operation will show how fireproof the Japanese new building is. The ammunition capacity is almost double that available at Varshavyanka. It was created in the late 70s, with obviously degraded performance. The number of battery charges is reduced, the likelihood of detection by the KTOF PLO, which is already modest, decreases. above, there is no need for the command of the compound to determine the area of ​​battery charge and the route to go to it. In combination with the VNEU, this boat has an enormous advantage, enabling exploitation atirovat electrochemical energy-intensive air recovery system in otsekah.Chego not on Varshavyanka.
  4. +1
    15 October 2018 08: 16
    Anti-submarine forces are concentrated on anti-submarine lines or in mobile areas of the submarine submarine. Because they have nothing to catch in the base except the submarine submarine and the submarine submarine. The submarines have a wider list of tasks to be solved, listed by the author. The article by the motto is Green grapes Nuclear reactors and lead-acid elements during explosions of gluein bombs, and other ammunition, do not differ radically better explosion and fire safety. laughing
  5. 0
    15 October 2018 08: 40


    Where are they sick of ...
    1. jjj
      +8
      15 October 2018 11: 56
      Of the boats shown in the picture, only "Gogol" is still alive, although it is more than 100 years old
  6. +5
    15 October 2018 09: 05
    The article is one-sided consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of new batteries without comparison with existing ones. I wonder what the author would have deduced if this submarine was another "Varshavyanka"? I think that our fleet would not refuse such a project if the technological base of the industry allowed.
    1. 0
      15 October 2018 10: 23
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      I think that our fleet would not refuse such a project,

      Yes, we have enough fools, and why fools, you poke a needle into the battery of your mobile, an unforgettable sight awaits you, and then zoom in so much to 100.
      1. +5
        15 October 2018 11: 43
        The design and purpose of the mobile phone is different from the design and purpose of the submarine. Japanese engineers probably figured it out before the project was approved. The development level of the Japanese metallurgical and chemical industry allows them to design submarines equipped with VNEU and LIAB. VNEU, without LIAB, with an air regeneration system of the 30s of the last century, limited ammunition.
  7. +9
    15 October 2018 12: 47
    "but the good old lead-acid battery that fought two world wars on the submarines of all the warring countries is still better" ////
    ----
    And the good old steam engine on coal? smile
    Modern ships are packed to capacity with explosive and combustible materials: warheads and fuel of missiles, torpedoes ... They got used to it somehow, and ... it’s already not dangerous fellow .
    And the battery suddenly caused horror: "suddenly catch fire?" belay
    1. +2
      15 October 2018 20: 05
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Modern ships are packed to capacity with explosive and combustible materials: warheads and fuel of missiles, torpedoes ... They got used to it somehow, and ... it’s already not dangerous

      Have you read the article carefully?
      For lithium-ion batteries there is one very significant drawback: they are under certain conditions prone to spontaneous combustion, sometimes with an explosion.

      All of the above you are not inclined to explode on its own or from a concussion. For example, there were several cases where atomic bombs were lost or ended up on board colliding aircraft - and nothing. The result was a slight contamination of the area.
  8. kig
    +2
    15 October 2018 13: 39
    It seems that the author’s fears and fears are unfounded. The Japanese are probably aware of what constitutes a danger to such batteries, but they nevertheless built a boat. What conclusion? They came up with something.
    1. +1
      15 October 2018 15: 42
      They built the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

      So what?

      hi
      1. 0
        16 October 2018 12: 53
        Well, the Fukushima American project was, another thing is the chosen place for construction.
  9. 0
    15 October 2018 14: 46
    "but the good old lead-acid battery that fought two world wars on the submarines of all the warring countries is still better"

    Green grapes. This SKB can withstand about four five accelerated charges. And it turns sour. In the conditions of an enemy’s saturated PLO, accelerated charges of AB are common. The main event the crew of a diesel engine with such a worn-out AB can provide about a month.
  10. +11
    15 October 2018 15: 12
    Dear Dmitry, the article made a very unpleasant mistake. There is NO VNEU at Oryu. Lithium-ion batteries are installed instead of the Stirling engine, and not with it
    1. +1
      15 October 2018 16: 00
      Give a link, if not difficult.
      1. +5
        15 October 2018 16: 15
        Yes of course. I needed to do this right away https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2443028.html
        In total, ten Soryu-type boats should be built with Stirling engines (eight have already been completed), and from the 11th boat of this type, as already mentioned, it is planned to switch to equipping the boats instead of VNEU Stiring with lithium-ion batteries (initially it was planned to install them on the fifth boat of this type SS 505 Zuiryu, but then the deployment program was postponed several times)
        1. +1
          15 October 2018 16: 28
          Clear. laughing From this I started.
          But from the British sources it is not at all clear that the Stirling engine was removed from this boat.
          The author of the blog suggested that the battery replaced the Stirling. I think his assumption is wrong, because in such a design Stirling is clearly used to achieve the maximum submerged stroke, that is, to leap in pursuit of a goal or detachment from pursuit.
          1. +4
            15 October 2018 16: 47
            Quote: wehr
            But from the British sources it is not at all clear that the Stirling engine was removed from this boat.

            It was in Defense News, but now the link to them for some reason does not work. https://www.defensenews.com/article/20140929/DEFREG03/309290032/
            Quote: wehr
            The author of the blog suggested that the battery replaced Stirling. I think that his assumption is incorrect, since in this design Stirling is clearly used to achieve maximum underwater travel

            This is extremely doubtful even purely technically, because LIBs are recharged from a diesel engine, and it is unreasonable to carry two different engines for underwater travel.
            1. -1
              15 October 2018 18: 05
              So their message was wrong, once removed.

              It is very reasonable when you need to squeeze the maximum underwater course.
              1. +2
                15 October 2018 18: 32
                Quote: wehr
                So their message was wrong, once removed.

                Well, the Japanese wiki does not agree with you either :)))
                Quote: wehr
                It is very reasonable when you need to squeeze the maximum underwater course.

                But what does the maximum stroke have to do with it?
              2. 0
                15 October 2018 18: 34
                The maximum speed the crew of the submarine maneuvers first of all when fighting for survivability, if it is necessary to reach the perscopic depth. Or get into the cruising position, and the angle of the horizontal rudders is not enough. Or by order of the command post. As a rule, the crews move at the lowest possible noise speed, if any low probability of enemy PLO forces.
              3. -2
                15 October 2018 19: 36
                Modern VNEU can provide only minimally low-noise operation.
          2. -2
            15 October 2018 18: 15
            It stands on this new building VNEU.
    2. 0
      15 October 2018 17: 49
      Andrey, you are wrong. All foreign language sources, including Japanese, even Japanese Wikipedia (https://translate.google.com.ua/translate?hl=ru&sl=ja&tl=ru&u=https%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki % 2F% E3% 81% 8A% E3% 81% 86% E3% 82% 8A% E3% 82% 85% E3% 81% 86 _ (% E6% BD% 9C% E6% B0% B4% E8% 89% A6) & anno = 2), they speak of a combined power plant, only a lithium-ion battery is used instead of a lead-zinc battery.
      1. +2
        15 October 2018 18: 30
        Quote: Curious
        Andrey, you are mistaken.

        Dear Victor, let's read the translation of your link
        It has been recycled. to eliminate a conventional Stirling engine and lead battery and for installing a lithium-ion secondary battery (manufactured by GS Yuasa)

        Moreover. If you look at the composition of EU on the Japanese wiki, you will not see any Stirling engine
        Diesel engine · electric method (water: 3,900 ps / underwater: 8 000 ps)
        12V25 / 25SB diesel engine × 2 engine engine engine × 1 lithium-ion battery
        1. +1
          15 October 2018 18: 41
          Andrey, I bring clarity. I did not carefully read your comment and decided that it indicated a complete rejection of the engines and the use of only batteries. Surprised a lot, he began to check. Further you know. So you are right.
          1. +3
            15 October 2018 18: 45
            Quote: Curious
            Andrey, I bring clarity.

            BUT! I understand you, I'm glad that we figured it out. drinks
            1. 0
              15 October 2018 20: 18
              Yes, really refused
              http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/02/table-of-kawasaki-man-and-wholly.html
  11. +2
    15 October 2018 15: 26
    As soon as I meet an argument that is too incorrect, interest in the article disappears.
    Why cite the fire hazard of LIABs as an example? Tesla, you know, 5 cars, 35 firefighters. And if in that Tesla there were lead-acid batteries of the same volume or weight, would they be put out faster?
    If the author decided to compare, then the comparison should be correct. And the "Japanese military" has nothing to do with it.
    1. -2
      15 October 2018 16: 45
      The author is Ukrainian. He is excusable.
    2. 0
      16 October 2018 01: 22
      There are chemical reagents to extinguish the ignition of lithium-ion batteries ... Tesla cars have a special fire extinguisher .. Only it costs several thousand dollars))
  12. -3
    15 October 2018 15: 38
    that lithium-ion batteries were installed on the boat


    300-500 full charge-discharge-charge cycles and scribe battery. Pedal!

    Alternatively, the crew can chip in and give their iPhones. 30 seconds for lighting.

    wassat
    1. +2
      15 October 2018 16: 44
      Lithium-ion batteries lose their characteristics gradually over a very long time. So they keep both 1000 and 1500 cycles.
    2. +1
      15 October 2018 22: 34
      300-500 cycles of FULL discharge. This LEE does not like it. If I am not mistaken, a discharge to the level of 30% does not slightly affect the battery life. And about the fire hazard of lithium batteries, this is not a joke. Either the Japanese made peacetime submarines, or, more likely, thought out the issue of reducing fire risk. Due to the reduction in capacity relative to size, much can be done.
  13. +2
    15 October 2018 15: 48
    Several anaerobic engines, including those made in Germany, a diesel fuel reformer and a miniature nuclear reactor in one unit with bio-shielding for recharging batteries, were tested on the V-90 Sarov experimental boat.

    Information was not obtained from open sources, but only obtained through Tokmo connection to the Universal Mind.

    wassat
    1. -4
      15 October 2018 18: 36
      On B-90 VNEU, any, did not test.
  14. +6
    15 October 2018 16: 33
    The author taught poorly in chemistry, "the good old lead-acid battery" is no less fire hazardous: it releases hydrogen during operation. Well, damage and / or flooding of the battery compartment = "tryndets" for any diesel-electric submarine, even with lead-acid, even with lithium-ion batteries.
    The main disadvantage of lithium-ion batteries is their high cost.
  15. +1
    15 October 2018 16: 42
    Too far-reaching conclusions in the absence of specific information. Depth charges will no longer be bombed today as in World War II - this weapon is considered obsolete. Protecting an array of batteries from kinetic shocks using shock absorbers is not so difficult - LI batteries are very light and compact. Fire protection has probably also been thought out - on ordinary submarines there is a lot to burn, and a fire in a battery pack that does not need to be serviced may, on the contrary, be the least problem. Let's say, make insulation between the battery blocks plus cooling and that's all - you don't even need to extinguish. It will burn out and go out by itself. So, purely Ukrainian in the spirit of "a bridge cannot be built because of tectonic faults."
  16. +1
    15 October 2018 17: 28
    Quote: Pbs2
    Fire protection is also likely to be thought out.
    an example has already been given - everything was thought out at the Fukushima nuclear power plant ... feel However - here you go again ... so the author’s view is quite reasonable ... request However, these are not our problems - Japanese ... bully
  17. +2
    15 October 2018 17: 29
    Quote: Cympak
    no less fire hazard: during the course of work it emits hydrogen.

    even explosive if the afterburning of hydrogen does not work ... and there were cases in our fot ... request
  18. +1
    15 October 2018 18: 00
    I think we need to build and conduct trial operation. I also think that our compact nuclear reactors are able to make, it remains to teach them even less noise. I think there are reserves. And by the way, what is the loudest noise in the nuclear submarine in low-noise mode, during "sneaking up"?
    1. +2
      15 October 2018 18: 19
      The sources of noise on the submarine are cooling system pumps and a steam turbine.

      But in the pilot reactor, there is no turbine to recharge the batteries. There electricity is generated due to the temperature difference. As for efficiency, the big question, but this is not a running reactor.
      1. -1
        15 October 2018 18: 37
        GTZA makes noise on Russian nuclear powered ships.
  19. +2
    15 October 2018 18: 52
    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    They built the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

    So what?

    hi

    Westinghouse was building them in Fukushima. A friend was on a business trip among the liquidators. He spoke of such a racket ... in design and construction, neither in Iran nor in India. Now he has transferred a microstroke at 45, twice a year to a hospital under a dropper .. .
    1. +1
      15 October 2018 21: 27
      Westinghouse project and equipment. And the place for location is quite a Japanese territory.

      Everything is built in full coordination with the Japanese ministries.

      hi
  20. +2
    15 October 2018 23: 56
    "In general, the equipment of the Dragon Phoenix with a large lithium-ion battery suggests that this boat is intended for probing." Since the battery is large, it means only probing. Well, God bless them, with tactics, with logic, with the Russian language and its shades ..
    "The good old lead-acid battery that fought two world wars on submarines of all the warring countries is still better. At least because it does not burn." - It's five. And the Nobel Prize immediately.
    By the way, the Rubin Central Design Bureau is engaged in lithium-ion with might and main. They, probably, all the design bureaus unanimously do not know that they are going a dead end. And only the Wise is ready to point out errors. No, no, not to offer. Only specify.)
    1. -2
      16 October 2018 05: 50
      -By the way, Rubin Central Design Bureau is engaged in lithium-ion with might and main-

      Without any acceptable results for the customer. Plus, a horse price is looming that a drying-up military budget cannot be pulled.
      1. 0
        31 December 2018 11: 46
        So they seem to be, as it were, for the accumulators in general, play an auxiliary role. They are working on an anaerobic scheme on fuel cells. Which is much safer and more promising.
  21. 0
    31 December 2018 11: 43
    A new generation of "dry" graphene-lithium batteries has come, which do not seem to burn at all and charge very quickly. So far, very expensive, but so far.