Rosatom has announced the deadlines for the commissioning of the Arctic nuclear-powered icebreaker

The universal nuclear icebreaker of the 22220 Arctic project, being completed at the Baltic Shipyard, will be commissioned no later than May next year. This was announced by Deputy Director General of the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom, head of the Northern Sea Route Directorate Vyacheslav Ruksha.

According to him, the Arctic icebreaker will be handed over to the customer no later than May next year. Currently, construction work is underway on it; in May of this year, nuclear fuel was loaded into the reactor. Sea trials will begin at the end of this year, and commissioning will take place in the spring of 2020.

Three new nuclear icebreakers are being completed at the Baltic Shipyard. The first will be put into operation no later than May 2020 year. The second and third - respectively in 2021 – 2022 years

- said Ruksha.

At the same time, he added that the three nuclear icebreakers of the 22220 project, which are currently being built in the Baltic Shipyard, will not be enough to complete the tasks, so it was decided to increase the series by two more ships and lay down two more icebreakers of this project.

Ruksha also noted that Russia does not intend to stop at the construction of atomic icebreakers; an icebreaker project with a liquefied gas power plant is currently under discussion.

The Arctic nuclear icebreaker is the lead ship of the 22220 project in a series of three vessels being built at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg under a contract with Rosatom. The series also included the Siberia and Ural icebreakers, which were launched and completed afloat.

The main power plant of icebreakers includes two "Rhythm-200" reactors with thermal capacity of 175 MW each. Its main advantage over other similar installations lies in its compactness and economy, as well as energy-efficient integrated layout.

A feature of the 22220 project icebreakers is the use of variable draft using ballast tanks. Double-deck ships can operate both in deep water and in shallow water in river beds, overcoming ice up to 3-meters thick without losing speed. According to project data, new icebreakers will become the largest and most powerful in the world.

Comments

[Nevsky_ZU]

We have atomic icebreakers riveting like nuclear carriers in America

[Lord of the Sith]

This means that Russia needs icebreakers more, because it is not in vain that "Western partners" have fussed around the Arctic))

[NEXUS]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

We have atomic icebreakers riveting like nuclear carriers in America

If with such deadlines we would be able to build battle cruisers ...

Quote: Lord of the Sith

This means that Russia needs icebreakers more, because it is not in vain that "Western partners" have fussed around the Arctic))

Do we need destroyers and cruisers?

[carstorm 11]

but how to decide which is more important? in my opinion, it’s not without reason that the icebreaker fleet is changing at such a pace. and this kapets is not cheap

[Vladimir16]

And you, Mr. Nexus, do not like the construction of icebreakers?

Why are you tying destroyers and cruisers to the icebreaker?
You still start a song about pension reform and the Crimean bridge. And remember the Olympics.

We are developing the Arctic. Hooray to the polar explorers!

[NEXUS]

Quote: Vladimir16

And you, Mr. Nexus, do not like the construction of icebreakers?

Dear, where did you see in my post words about dissatisfaction with the construction of icebreakers?
You decided to make a plus sign on hype? Well, then I'll put it to you if you are here for this.

[bk316]

Dear, where did you see in my post words about dissatisfaction with the construction of icebreakers?

Andrew, no offense. Your comment is flood and simulacrum:
switching attention from the positive news being discussed to a topic that is not related to the news with changing the tone of the discussion to negative.
Information warfare tool. Do you fight against the Russian Federation?

[K-612-O]

Destroyers and cruisers are of course needed, but for this it is necessary to ensure their guaranteed and safe access to operational areas, and to protect the coastal and sea zones. And for this, just ships of a lesser class are needed. I sincerely hope that the navy decided on the appearance of the fleet, and on this basis ships will be built. Because the construction of the fleet requires a minimum of 20-25 years, and we really started to build it in 2005-2007, and then building up long-term construction.

[Artemiy_2]

Do we need destroyers and cruisers?

If we consider the destroyer 22350M, then they will not be exactly built at the Baltic plant. This is either the North Shipyard or Amber

[Siberia 75]

Quote: NEXUS

Do we need destroyers and cruisers?

It turns out that icebreakers are still more needed

[lis-ik]

Quote: NEXUS

Do we need destroyers and cruisers?

It turns out that icebreakers are more economically viable for the raw material fraternity, which is why warships are resting.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: lis-ik

therefore, warships and rest.

Exactly, not otherwise.

[Chaldon48]

Nuclear-powered icebreakers also had a good start for the construction of a large battle-boat, in the east of the country a large plant is being commissioned, not even a plant, but a whole complex for the construction of large-capacity vessels. So wait and see what happens next.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Chaldon48

Nuclear-powered icebreakers have a good backlog for the construction of a large battle ship

icebreakers and warships require completely different competencies

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

We have atomic icebreakers riveting like nuclear carriers in America

In terms of time, buildings are being built for seven years. They also have no small problems. Kenedy 79 is scheduled to come out in 2020, but it’s good if it comes out in 2022, and this is at the world's most modern shipyard, Newport News. And they don't talk about billions (Ford 13 billion, modestly and tastefully). They build aircraft carriers, and Russia build icebreakers, it is better to master and hold the Arctic than to threaten the whole world with "gunboats".

[Cympak]

If .... USC once again thwarted the deadlines. The construction of the head was delayed. They put the head one in November 2013, launched it in June 2016, had to hand it over in 2019 (6 years), and they will hand over the head one in 2020 - this is still an open question, because They have not yet begun to test it.

[WILL]

That's great! I am glad that Russia is a leader in the construction, quality and quantity of the Icebreaking Fleet!
The Arctic is ours!

[Terenin]

Quote: ANIMAL

That's great! I am glad that Russia is a leader in the construction, quality and quantity of the Icebreaking Fleet!
The Arctic is ours!

Yes, this is a whole infrastructure that needs to be created for a decade.

[WILL]

Duck and create, and civil and military. Universities - started recruiting students for the Arctic specialties! My dream is for the Son to become a polar explorer!

[Terenin]

Quote: ANIMAL

Universities - started recruiting students for the Arctic specialties! My dream is for the Son to become a polar explorer!

Good luck! The Arctic is the future.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Terenin

Yes, this is a whole infrastructure that needs to be created for a decade.

Here you are right for all 100%

All of this was the GLAVSEVMORUT ”, (Main Directorate of the Northern Sea Route, GUSMP), an organization created to lay the Arctic sea route from the White Sea to the Bering Strait, equipment and maintaining it in good condition, to ensure safe navigation. The decision to create G. adopted by the Soviet government 17.12.1932. Leaders in different years O. Yu. Schmidt, I. D. Papanin and others. There were territorial administrations in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Vladivostok. Icebreaking and transport fleets were created. A ship repair plant of the Northern Sea Route was built in Murmansk. Later G.'s tasks were supplemented by research in the Arctic, equipment of polar stations, air bases, ports, development of mineral deposits, design and construction of icebreakers, and curation of indigenous peoples of the North. The Main Directorate of the NSR operated until 1965 (in 1953 – 1964 as Glavk under the Ministry of Maritime Transport).

Among other things, two more sailors trained specialists for GUSMP, these are LAU in Strelna and LMU SNH on Kamenny Island. Khrushchev first liquidated the GUSMP and handed it over as the GLAVK MMF, and then everything went to the NSR. LMU was transferred to the MCI, now the college is from Kaliningrad, LAU at the beginning of 90x ordered to live long (Konstantinovsky Palace). All of this was created by O.Yu. Schmidt and I.D. Papanin, all of our Russian Morimans, and citizens of the Land of Soviets.

[210ox]

It’s good that the icebreakers were needed. Most likely, the development of gas fields pushed. But there are so many things in the north .. It is a pity that a lot of poher in the 90s.

[asv363]

Alas, the planned replacement of existing icebreakers. From memory, without replacement, after 2025 only one icebreaker could remain in the ranks. In fact, with two new icebreakers, which are just planned for construction, we are changing 4 operating nuclear icebreakers and the Sevmorput lighter carrier.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: 210ox

Most likely the development of gas fields pushed

And oil at Kolguev.

[E.S.]

Quote: NEXUS

Quote: Nevsky_ZU

We have atomic icebreakers riveting like nuclear carriers in America

If with such deadlines we would be able to build battle cruisers ...

Quote: Lord of the Sith

This means that Russia needs icebreakers more, because it is not in vain that "Western partners" have fussed around the Arctic))

Do we need destroyers and cruisers?

While the fighting is limited to rams, bulk and clashes with dry cargo vessels, and this is precisely the reason for all the losses of all the fleets of the world in recent years - an icebreaker is needed because it is stronger :-)

[Grigory_45]

Quote: E.S.

While the fighting is limited to rams, bulk and collisions with dry cargo vessels

as well as collisions with RCC

and kamikaze boats

Why did you write your comment? To say that warships are not needed yet, because there is no big war? Or not needed at all?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: E.S.

While fighting is limited to rams, bulk and clashes with dry cargo vessels,

This is just a poor preparation of the navigational staff and the human factor. Here the icebreaker will not help, and the battleship can be drowned.

[KVU-NSVD]

A draft icebreaker with a liquefied gas power plant is currently under discussion.

It's funny - here you have a "refueling" in Sabetta, but you need to, and you can refuel from the gas carriers conducted along the SevMorPuti ...

[tihonmarine]

Quote: KVU-NSVD

and from the gas carriers carried out along the SevMorPuti it is possible to refuel "under the neck"

But this will not work, the system is not the same.

[KVU-NSVD]

Quote: tihonmarine

But this will not work, the system is not the same.

Those. such an icebreaker only thinks, but you already know that the system is not the same?

[tihonmarine]

I transported gases on ships (gas carriers).

[KVU-NSVD]

We will see . I proceed from the fact that without such an option, such ships in many ways lose their meaning. Fuel should be easily accessible. Yes, and why is it impossible? Explain on the fingers, since the gases were transported by gas carriers, pliz. Can a gas carrier use what is lucky for movement, and cannot ship another vessel?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: KVU-NSVD

Can a gas carrier use what is lucky for movement, and cannot ship another vessel?

Fuel is stocks (yours), and gas is cargo (someone else's). My mother told me "You can't take someone else." This is the first thing. It seems that he is using gas for everything. But this is not the case, as the fuel for diesel engines can be different (diesel, gas turbine, fuel oil, IFO), because you will not pour these mixtures into your "Merc" with a diesel engine. Cargo and supplies have different transportation temperatures and pressures. Stations are needed to receive transmissions. With liquids, it was easier to drop the hose, heated it to the desired temperature and pump. For gases (transported), very low temperatures must be maintained strictly, open the valve a little higher and discharge. All works with gas, as you know, are fire and explosive. In general, there is also enough headache, but the main gear. Well, everyone knows that LNG (Liquefied natural gas) is liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied methane. LPG (Liquefied petroleum gas) - liquefied petroleum gas, a mixture of light hydrocarbons liquefied under pressure. CNG (Compressed natural gas) - compressed natural gas (pressure 200-250 atm.) Compressed methane is used in light vehicles, and liquefied methane will be more widely used in heavy equipment and on ships.

[KVU-NSVD]

Of course, I did not carry gases on gas carriers, but I happened to watch a very good documentary about Korean gas carriers - how they are built, how they are arranged, and so on. So there was such a moment that their engines run on gas. Of course, you use your own gas supply, but if necessary, transported gas can also be used. Here it is. And about the fact that this gas was bought by the customer, he accepts the goods at the terminal of the destination port in fact, so there is no theft, and given the volume of deliveries, the transported fuel consumed by the carrier will simply go to the carrier’s expenses, that’s all.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: KVU-NSVD

Of course, your own gas supply is used, but if necessary, transported gas can also be used.

Well I wrote stocks and cargo. I will say more simply about the oil tankers. The fuel stock in their tanks is roughly 500 tons, the ships' stocks, the nas in the MCO are separate, the cargo in the cargo tanks, the cargo pump, the valves of the pumps are sealed. I came to the port to check the tanks according to the ruler and temperature (first the surveyor unsealing act), issue according to the counter, went to the "frog" 5000 tons of cargo, unloading Hamburg. The accounting is strict, there was not enough stolen, we will not talk about the problems. But our ship's pump could not pump out of cargo tanks, there were already minuscule problems. I used gas to go to Yemen and Sudan, the same system cannot be stolen, but it is better not to steal with the Arabs. Yes, and not everything fits what you carry. If you run out of diesel fuel or fuel oil, you bunker in the port. There have never been any problems. And I'll steal it differently for "beer". Especially on gas.

[Vladimir Smirnov_3]

All the same, powerful ships! Thanks to the RITM-200 reactor installation, which is installed on it, it has such power that it can overcome ice up to 3,5 meters thick! This is how much dope you need! It would be cool to ride on this, of course.

[carstorm 11]

I don’t know how about this, but even there are such tourist routes. the truth is very expensive. for one and a half lama the tour costs. 50 years of victory, tourists drove for sure.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: carstorm 11

the truth is very expensive. for one and a half lama a tour costs

I don’t remember, but it’s not the old "Arctic", but someone went to the North Pole, they say about 30 pieces of greenery. It will be cheaper from South America to Antarctica. Can you imagine the crash of ice on the "tin"? Out of habit, you won't sleep for a week, and your head is like after a big booze.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Vladimir Smirnov_3

It would be cool to ride on this, of course.

You can ride, but you can’t sleep.

[Nycomed]

Good news indeed!

[Solo2503]

Good news. But the question is: what kind of vessels will they conduct on the NSR? Who is building new merchant ships, because for the Arctic, merchants need a reinforced ice class.

[Artavazdych]

That's the problem, I suspect. We break up in front of the "partners". And they will take and ignore our NSR.
I would like to be mistaken

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Artavazdych

And they will take and ignore our SMP.

Life will make.

[Artavazdych]

How so?

[Evil 55]

It's time to add the adjective "RUSSIAN" to the names ... "Russian Siberia", "Russian Arctic", "Russian Ural" .. Let friends respect, and liberastoids squeal.

[E.S.]

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: E.S.

While the fighting is limited to rams, bulk and collisions with dry cargo vessels

as well as collisions with RCC

and kamikaze boats

Why did you write your comment? To say that warships are not needed yet, because there is no big war? Or not needed at all?

Well, if it’s not clear, I explain:
In your funny pictures - victims of the actions of anti-ship missiles and boats. RCCs can shoot river trams, airplanes, submarines, coastal complexes and even transports with containers on the deck. The kamikaze boat also does not belong to "cruisers".
The substitution of the thesis "the need for cruisers" for "the need for warships" did not work for you. With a trifle of about 1000-1500 tons of displacement, everything is fine with us

[E.S.]

Quote: tihonmarine

Quote: E.S.

While fighting is limited to rams, bulk and clashes with dry cargo vessels,

This is just a poor preparation of the navigational staff and the human factor. Here the icebreaker will not help, and the battleship can be drowned.

When an icebreaker collides with a cargo ship, these are problems of the navigational composition of the bulk carrier

[E.S.]

Quote: Evil 55

It's time to add the adjective "RUSSIAN" to the names ... "Russian Siberia", "Russian Arctic", "Russian Ural" .. Let friends respect, and liberastoids squeal.

More "Russian America" ​​and "Fort Ross"!