Military Review

Atomic underwater blockade breaker

74

The nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier, dubbed "Pilgrim", promises to be a very futuristic product


With all the skepticism about the creativity of domestic design bureaus, it must be admitted that sometimes they have original ideas. Skepticism largely stems from the fact that often old Soviet developments taken from voluminous safes painted with red lead are given as innovations. But not at this time.

In July 2019, the Malakhit St. Petersburg Maritime Bureau of Mechanical Engineering developed a nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from fields in the Arctic. Then they wrote about it and even tried to discuss the prospects for an underwater tanker fleet (the idea is also not new, but was put forward in Soviet times). Dmitry Sidorenkov, Head of the Advanced Design Sector at Malachite, told us something about this project. The boat is 360 meters long, 70 meters wide, 30 meters high, and has a draft of 12-13 meters. Capacity 170-180 thousand cubic meters of LNG. Underwater speed - 17 knots.

Atomic underwater blockade breaker

Initial version of nuclear powered underwater gas carrier (2019)

"Malachite" is a structure known for the design of nuclear submarines: project 627 (A), project 645 ZhMT "Kit", project 661, project 671, 671RT, 671RTM (K), project 705 (K), project . 971, pr. 885. From the dawn of nuclear submarine shipbuilding to the present day. So yes. Perhaps they can.

However, there was an interesting nuance in this case, which was then paid little attention. The company report said about this project:

In support of negotiations with a potential foreign customer, the company carried out studies on the creation of an underwater nuclear gas carrier for the submerged transportation of liquefied natural gas from northern fields to the east.

And this is interesting. This circumstance - a foreign customer and LNG transportation in the eastern direction, translates the whole topic into a military-economic plane.

We could not have been shy. There are not so many foreign customers who are potentially interested in a nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier, transporting LNG from the Arctic to the east, as well as being able to pay for such an order: a dozen companies or so. They are backed by the Central Military Council of the PRC and the Military Council of the Central Committee of the CPC.

Some important circumstances


This topic has its own important circumstances, which allow us to confidently assert that it is precisely China's strategic interests that are at stake and that a potential order for nuclear-powered underwater gas carriers comes from the highest military authorities of the PRC.

First, the LNG market in the Asia-Pacific region has a number of features. The largest importers of liquefied gas: Japan (110 million tons per year) and South Korea (60 million tons per year). They buy it mainly in the Gulf countries, in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei. China is also a major buyer - 90 million tons per year.

Long-term contracts prevail in LNG supplies. For example, South Korea has supply contracts that run until 2030. Under these contracts, a fleet of gas carriers is being built, ports are being equipped, gas liquefaction units are being built at the ports of dispatch and regasification units at the ports of destination. Within the framework of the existing structure of the LNG market in this region, there is no particular need to communicate with nuclear powered underwater gas carriers (this is a new, untested, rather risky method of delivery). Even Russian LNG from Sakhalin, which is closer to the Arctic and is exported by conventional surface gas carriers, in which there are Japanese shareholders, the countries of the region are not quite willing to take, and in 2019 shipments from Sakhalin decreased by 11,1 million tons of LNG, or 16% (by 2018). The Arctic, undeveloped fields, underwater gas carriers are something of a fantasy.

Secondly, nuclear powered ships are a known headache for everyone who has them. They may not go to all ports. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Art. 23) stipulates that nuclear powered ships must comply with special precautions determined by international agreements.

There are ports in Russia where nuclear-powered icebreakers and the nuclear-powered lighter carrier Sevmorput can enter. There are 19 ports in total. For each of them, permission to enter such vessels was issued by a decree of the government of the Russian Federation. But this does not mean that a ship with a nuclear power plant can enter such a permitted port just like that. For example, in 2019, Sevmorput called twice at the Big Port of St. Petersburg. For the first time with refrigerated fish containers from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. He was met by the vice-governor of St. Petersburg, Eduard Batalov, and a special commission was formed to check the port. You never know what? Suddenly something radioactive will flow from it ... The second time the lighter carrier entered to replace the propellers, and the captain of the St. Petersburg Seaport, Alexander Volkov, issued a special order defining the list of berths for an atomic lighter carrier. And in general, according to the General Rules for Navigation and Anchorage of Vessels in the Seaports of the Russian Federation, the captain of a ship with a nuclear power plant must notify Rosgvardia and the ship in the port must be protected by Rosgvardia units. Fuss with them a lot.

And here - a ship with a nuclear power plant, and also an underwater one. Any call to a foreign port for unloading will inevitably be associated with complex procedures, correspondence and bureaucracy. All these problems can be solved, but why? There are, after all, ordinary gas carriers that can enter ports with their own precautions, but without such difficulties.


Typical representative of modern surface gas tankers


Устройство tank for liquefied gas in section

Therefore, any foreign customer of a nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier can decide to operate such a vessel or vessels only if he needs gas desperately, delivery by conventional means is impossible and there is a fundamental willingness to solve all emerging problems at the level of top government officials. Neither Japan nor South Korea needs this. Only China remains.

Yes, I heard that Malachite allegedly collaborated with the South Koreans. However, firstly, South Koreans often start projects, from which nothing comes of it later (I even participated in one of these myself), and, secondly, South Korea does not need such a ship at the level of business and government.

Why China


In view of the gradually aggravating contradictions with the United States, threats from the United States and its allies, China faces the prospect of a naval blockade. So far theoretical, but very likely if contradictions and frictions reach the "hot" phase. Accordingly, the import of LNG by sea will also be closed.

Under the conditions of a naval blockade, a nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier becomes very valuable due to the fact that it can not only pass under the ice of the Arctic, but in general all the way to China can be done underwater. That is, covertly, with a minimal risk of the vessel being detected by the hostile party. Actually, you need to go through the Arctic, go through the Bering Strait to the Pacific Ocean, bypass Japan and enter the East China Sea through the Miyagi Strait. Passage through the Miyagi Strait and following in the East China Sea can be provided by the underwater export of the Chinese Navy.

With regard to submarines, the prospect of underwater loading has been much discussed. Technically, it is quite possible both from the drilling platform and from the subsea gas production complex. If it is possible to load an underwater tanker under water, it is also possible to load it under water and to unload it by equipping it with a special underwater port with the necessary devices. Thus, a nuclear powered underwater gas carrier can not only covertly approach, but also covertly unload. This circumstance is extremely important from a military-economic point of view for breaking the naval blockade of China.

How many such boats do you need?


180 thousand cubic meters of LNG is 76,2 thousand tons of LNG, which corresponds to 105,1 million cubic meters of gas.

From the Arctic (from Sabetta) to China (Shanghai), the route is 5600 nautical miles. At 17 underwater nodes, the nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier will cover this distance in 330 running hours, or 14 days. Thus, one ship can have one voyage to and from China per month. China's monthly demand for LNG is 7,5 million tons. Thus, to cover the current consumption of China in LNG, bringing it from the Arctic under water, 98 nuclear powered underwater gas carriers will be required.

The requirements of war or blockade times are significantly reduced in comparison with peacetime. We hardly have the opportunity to estimate how much China will consume LNG during the blockade at the most necessary minimum. But we can roughly estimate. If the needs of the blockade time will be approximately 25% of the peacetime, or 22,5 million tons per year - 1,8 million tons per month, then 24 nuclear underwater gas carriers will be required for delivery.

Compared to a military nuclear submarine, a nuclear submarine gas carrier is much simpler in design and equipment; it does not require torpedoes and missiles along with the equipment serving them. The crew is greatly reduced in comparison with the crew of a military nuclear submarine and will fit in a compact manned compartment. Therefore, the construction of nuclear-powered underwater gas carriers can proceed significantly faster than military nuclear submarines. With Chinese money and Chinese technical assistance, building 24 such boats looks like a technically feasible task at first approximation. In addition, China with its shipbuilding capacities, having taken a ready-made project, can rivet them in the required quantity itself. By the way, Malachite assumes that 5-8 such underwater gas tankers will be built for the Russian Arctic alone.

Yes, that would be an extremely unpleasant surprise for the United States and its allies. Such a vessel makes the naval blockade much less effective than expected. It is one thing to deploy surface gas carriers, threatening to shoot them with anti-ship missiles, and quite another thing to chase submarines at sea, manned by crews with experience in the submarine fleet and experience in breaking through the enemy's anti-submarine defense.

It is possible, after all, to build an oil-loading modification on the basis of a gas carrier project. The 180 thousand cubic meter tank can hold about 150 thousand tons of light oil.


Scheme of tanks of the project 927 nuclear submarine tanker, the design of which was started in 1973, but then discontinued

It can also be underwater transport. The hold volume of 180 thousand cubic meters is the equivalent of a very large cargo ship. For example, the previously considered Sunrise Ace and Carnation Ace car carriers had approximately the same cargo volume. The nuclear submarine can be redesigned from a gas carrier into a dry cargo ship capable of transporting, say, equipment, ammunition, fuel, in other words, it will open up the possibility of covert delivery of supplies to troops on a bridgehead somewhere far over the sea. It will be much more difficult for the enemy to find and sink it than a surface transport.


The idea of ​​underwater transport has been in the air for a long time. Here, for example, is a sketch of project 621, developed in 1948: a displacement of 5580 tons, a landing - 745 people, 10 tanks, 14 guns, 12 trucks, three aircraft. In addition, there were also projects 626, 717, 748

In general, I like this idea from all sides.
Author:
74 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grandfather
    Grandfather 29 July 2020 04: 45 New
    33
    completely obsessed with gas ... "underwater" power of siberia "... it would be better if they took up the real economy.
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 29 July 2020 06: 00 New
      12
      I join! Looks like "the attic has become thin".
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 29 July 2020 06: 28 New
        18
        And the name is "blocker breaker" ...
        What blockade ?! If there are normal PLO forces from above, then it will not cost them anything to detect this monster and .... On this, the gas hole cannot be repaired under the water!
        1. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 29 July 2020 18: 25 New
          +3
          Yes, okay to criticize! Rejoice, how much only on the project, you can cut !!!!! Well this is how much money patriotic oligarchs will go out of our pockets! Here it is the POWER of Russia !!!!!
          And already during construction !!!!!!! And then, as unnecessary, you can convert it into something, for example, an underwater casino !!!
      2. Lebed
        Lebed 29 July 2020 06: 32 New
        13
        Just an idea. Be condescending.
        1. Old Skeptic
          Old Skeptic 30 July 2020 02: 21 New
          +3
          The idea of ​​an underwater tanker is quite sensible. Not about breaking the blockade, of course.
          1. An underwater tanker does not need an icebreaker for ice escort; it does not care about the weather.
          2. I'm not sure, but an ice-class LNG carrier will cost a lot, and there is no risk that it will be squeezed by ice.
          3. This is not a military submarine and it needs to dive just enough to pass under the ice, and the hull is simpler than combat and low noise can be neglected for the sake of speed.

          Maybe there are still some gains with the pressure in the tanks and the outboard pressure, or the cooling system of the tanks, I'm not an expert, but for sure something. where it is.
      3. Observer2014
        Observer2014 29 July 2020 06: 49 New
        +8
        Quote: lexus
        I join! Looks like "the attic has become thin".
        laughing yes
        Especially like it
        A nuclear submarine can be redesigned from a gas carrier into a dry cargo ship capable of transporting, say, equipment, ammunition, fuel, in other words, it will open up the possibility of covert delivery of supplies to troops on a bridgehead somewhere far over the sea. It will be much more difficult for the enemy to find and sink it than a surface transport.
        They didn't look in the madhouse. And the author got to the computer. lol
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 29 July 2020 06: 52 New
          14
          The nuclear submarine can be redesigned from a gas carrier to Bulk carrier

          To carry "cement" from South America. And then the local "barons" are interrupted by handicraft, and the delivery of the diplomatic air "line" was covered. wassat
          1. Observer2014
            Observer2014 29 July 2020 06: 55 New
            +3
            Lexus hi
            The nuclear submarine can be redesigned from a gas carrier to Bulk carrier

            To carry "cement" from South America. And then the local "barons" are interrupted by handicrafts. wassat

            I recognize the handwriting of the author of the article. I have already read this heresy about a year ago in a commentary from a well-known character. bullyIt's generally. Yandex Zen is resting. laughing
            1. Lexus
              Lexus 29 July 2020 07: 00 New
              12
              This schizo idea is a quarter of a century old. 7th "Shark" on the stocks did not give rest to the fools.
    2. Hagen
      Hagen 29 July 2020 06: 31 New
      +5
      Quote: Dead Day
      it would be better to take up the real economy.

      Isn't this a real economy? Construction of terminals with regasification equipment, construction of a ship is not a game at the stock exchange or even a tourist business. It is also new technologies that have not yet been mastered. Who said that a submarine can only be for military purposes? We just got used to it, t.s. stereotypical thinking ...
      1. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 29 July 2020 06: 40 New
        +9
        Quote: Hagen
        Isn't this a real economy? Construction of terminals with regasification equipment, construction of a ship is not a game at the stock exchange or even a tourist business.

        yes, but.
        I think it would be better to see the export of Russian machine tools, cars, electronics, software, etc.

        unique "blockade-breaker: this is good, but it smells like an advertising campaign more than development of the economy and sales markets."
        1. Hagen
          Hagen 29 July 2020 07: 12 New
          10
          Quote: Maki Avellevich
          I think it would be better to see the export of Russian machine tools, cars, electronics, software, etc.

          And it is.
          ".... The export of mechanical engineering products in 2019 amounted to $ 33,3 billion. The export of turbojet engines in 2019 increased by 11,9% to $ 1852 million. For the second year in a row, the historical maximum is renewed. In quantitative terms, a new export record - 475 units (in 2017 - 448). In addition, the export of parts of turbojet and turboprop engines amounted to $ 299 million, which is inferior only to the maximum of 2018 ($ 307 million). Russia is among the ten leading world exporters In 2019, exports of radar and navigation equipment grew 3,6 times to $ 1026 million. This is a new all-time high, significantly surpassing the previous record in 2016 ($ 764 million).
          Exports of control and measuring instruments and instruments in 2019 increased by 4,8% to $ 883 million.This is a new all-time high; for the third year in a row, a significant absolute increase in exports was recorded. Exports of cable products in 2019 increased by 14% to 86,9 thousand tons.This is the best result since at least 1994, the previous peak was 84,7 thousand tons in 2003. In value terms, exports amounted to $ 440 million . (+ 5,2%).
          The export of household washing machines in 2019 amounted to 1827 thousand pieces, which is quite a bit lower than the absolute record of the previous year (1833 thousand pieces). The pre-crisis level of modern deliveries exceed 2,5-3 times, the peak of export of the USSR - 398 thousand units in 1988 .... "This is short.
        2. Umalta
          Umalta 29 July 2020 10: 25 New
          +4
          If for the loot of China, what are the problems !? But there is a pipe and no one will block it.
    3. dumkopff
      dumkopff 29 July 2020 07: 34 New
      +2
      The article and the idea, of course, have the flavor of Julesvernism. It is unlikely that they will do the act (although all life turns). But where did you get the idea that gas production and transportation do not belong to the real economy?
    4. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 29 July 2020 09: 55 New
      -1
      Quote: Dead Day
      completely obsessed with gas ... "underwater" power of siberia "... it would be better if they took up the real economy.

      Well, firstly, if China pays, why not build it. And secondly, the blockade is a declaration of war with all that it implies. Thirdly, there is a supply through the Power of Siberia
      1. Snail N9
        Snail N9 29 July 2020 10: 23 New
        +4
        Gas carrier-blockade breaker ... Good idea. In Russia they love them. The main thing is that more money could be written off for it ...
        Well, if in essence, then this:
    5. iouris
      iouris 29 July 2020 10: 48 New
      -1
      Quote: Dead Day
      it would be better to take up the real economy.

      It's probably too late.
    6. antivirus
      antivirus 29 July 2020 11: 18 New
      -3
      I agree many times about "besides gas, there are many other points that are controversial and necessary in relations with Germany and the EU."
      Specialists in VO spin up dependence on the export of raw materials and refer to "made with us" on other issues of the country's life and international relations.
      Gas Gazette - not a military review?
      Shpakovsky was broken for the flowers, but here - benevolent foolishness. under the control of the Bering Strait of the United States -
  2. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 29 July 2020 05: 10 New
    +6
    Gazprom is a bunch of shareholders who, out of a profit of 1,5 billion rubles, gave only 12% to the state, that I don’t understand the people’s here, income is a private property, expenses are a national property, a good scheme.
    1. Hagen
      Hagen 29 July 2020 06: 42 New
      +3
      Quote: Pessimist22
      Gazprom is a bunch of shareholders who, out of a profit of 1,5 billion rubles, gave only 12% to the state, that I don’t understand the people’s here, income is a private property, expenses are a national property, a good scheme.

      First, you can just as freely become a shareholder of Gazprom, buy shares and collect dividends. Secondly, Gazprom pays the severance tax in full and the work of all its employees and contractors. Only direct payments from the proceeds to the budget over 2 trillion rubles per year (out of 20 approved). Find the expenses for all Gazprom's fads in the state budget ... As a rule, these are profits, bank loans and investors. All this is in the public domain.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 29 July 2020 11: 23 New
        0
        I will spit while there is time.
        except holy gas
        there are many other export items.
        THE MAIN THING IS COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT ....
        RAW MATERIAL CANNOT EMPLOY-GIVE WORK 140 MILLION PEOPLE, AND IF THERE IS 200? POPULATION GROWTH WITH SUCH DIFFERENCES IN THE SIDE OF "OUR EVERYTHING" IS NOT PLANNED .. only profit to the shareholders
    2. iouris
      iouris 29 July 2020 12: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Pessimist22
      Gazprom is

      ... a mighty bunch of shareholders. Who are these shareholders, what are their goals?
      1. prior
        prior 29 July 2020 12: 16 New
        +3
        Gazprom is an organization for squandering national wealth.
    3. Dormidont Evlampievich
      Dormidont Evlampievich 30 July 2020 06: 35 New
      0
      How nice that hicks from the outskirts care about the welfare of Russia
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 29 July 2020 05: 30 New
    +2
    Great boat. Three times the size of the Shark. I wonder how much such a miracle will cost? And at which of our shipyards can it be "mortgaged"? Is that on the updated "Zvezdochka".
    1. Lebed
      Lebed 29 July 2020 06: 35 New
      16
      I also wonder if the problem of gas evaporation has been solved?
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 29 July 2020 07: 19 New
      +6
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Three times the size of the Shark. I wonder how much such a miracle will cost?

      Even more interesting, what noise will be from this miracle, to the question of "secrecy".
  4. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 29 July 2020 05: 44 New
    +1
    deploy surface gas carriers, threatening to shoot them with anti-ship missiles
    Is it interference in the internal affairs of the country that owns the gas carrier, or is it a declaration of war?
  5. lelik613
    lelik613 29 July 2020 05: 55 New
    +4
    Utopian capitalists
  6. Guazdilla
    Guazdilla 29 July 2020 06: 08 New
    +2
    As the very title of the article suggests another use of such gas carriers to break the blockade, based on the potential of the cargo they carry, comparable to the TNT equivalent.
    And it is possible to break through not only an economic blockade, but, say, destroy ships or create small tsunamis off the coast without using nuclear weapons.
  7. Hagen
    Hagen 29 July 2020 06: 27 New
    +6
    The idea of ​​a nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier is most likely to walk freely under the ice without being accompanied by icebreakers. The idea of ​​overcoming the blockade does not stand up to criticism. Such a vessel, I note for civil purposes, will not have weapons and sound insulation comparable to a warship, which means that any anti-submarine device will see this gas carrier under water, as well as on the surface. The ports are also not so sad. The point of departure - Sabetta, and the point of reloading in the non-freezing water area in the Bechevinskaya Bay of Kamchatka Territory will be equipped. Kamchatka is already getting ready. It is up to the decision and economic justification of the project of an underwater gas carrier.
  8. cost 75
    cost 75 29 July 2020 06: 28 New
    0
    Another mega-robbery of the budget by Gazprom
  9. mark1
    mark1 29 July 2020 06: 39 New
    -1
    It makes sense when passing under the ice of the NSR (and higher latitudes) from loading to transshipment of cargo (for example, Varandey - Chukotka / Kamchatka) and as a UDC base if we plan to land in California / Alaska (so to say, Operation Overlord 2))
  10. Per se.
    Per se. 29 July 2020 07: 15 New
    +1
    Under the conditions of a naval blockade, a nuclear-powered underwater gas carrier becomes very valuable due to the fact that it can not only pass under the ice of the Arctic, but in general all the way to China can be done underwater. That is, covertly, with a minimal risk of detecting the vessel by the hostile party.
    With minimal risk of detection, it is powerful! Such a tub can be easily found underwater. We’re completely mad, isn’t it easier then to lay another pipe to China, since "wholesale and retail" the riches of Russia are being sold while at the trough, while they haven’t hit the loot on the run to the West?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 29 July 2020 12: 17 New
      +5
      Yes, no one is crazy, this is Verkhoturov's personal work 100%.

      In reality, all such projects in the past were based on the desire to walk under the ice without icebreaker assistance.
      But, apparently, icebreaker assistance is cheaper.
      Well, or the hidden delivery of troops, but this topic died out back in the 50s as unrealistic.
  11. Hagen
    Hagen 29 July 2020 07: 27 New
    +1
    Actually, the news is old ...
    ".... The topic of creating an underwater gas carrier, which was brought to the public a few months ago, was continued. At the Neva 2019 exhibition in the Northern capital, the Malakhit St. Petersburg Marine Engineering Bureau presented a video with new details of the still seemingly fantastic project. As conceived by the designers, Pilgrim will work on the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Arctic fields, from which LNG cannot be delivered to the customer except by sea.
    Currently, gas carriers of the Yamalmax type of ice class Arc7 are used to export the products of the operating Yamal LNG plant. It is Yamalmax that is the main competitor of Pilgrim.
    The logic of the creators of the underwater gas carrier is approximately as follows. The Yamalmaks have a high ice class, but they cannot yet provide year-round navigation and require icebreaker support. If you build a ship that can cover a significant part of the route under water, then this will increase the speed of transportation and not build new icebreakers.
    According to Malachit, movement under water at a speed of about 17 knots will reduce travel time from the current 20 to 12 days.
    A vehicle such as an underwater gas carrier must fit into the existing infrastructure. Based on this, "Pilgrim" has the following parameters: cargo capacity - 180 thousand cubic meters. m, length - 360 m, width - 70 m, draft - 12 m.
    The LNG will be transported in membrane tanks. Like a surface gas carrier, this technology allows the most efficient use of the ship's interior space.
    As conceived by the designers, the underwater nuclear gas carrier will move at depths of 100 to 150 m at a speed of up to 17 knots. At shallower depths (up to 100 m) the speed will decrease to 15 knots. In port areas, where the depth is less than 50 m, the vessel will rise to the surface position.
    Since the underwater gas carrier does not need to destroy the ice cover, less stringent requirements are applied to the hull structures than to icebreakers. At the same time, this shape of the body will allow you to move in relatively narrow channels.
    The Malachite video does not say anything about the cost of such a miracle of technology as a nuclear underwater gas carrier. The fact that it is great can be judged from the data on the first studies of this topic several decades ago. Then the figure was called in the region of $ 900 million. For comparison, a Yamalmax-type gas carrier from the first batch costs about $ 330 million. However, if a smaller number of gas carriers is required to ensure transportation due to a higher average speed, and there is no need to build giant icebreakers of the Leader type (the cost of one vessel is now estimated at $ 1,5 billion), then the price of Pilgrim no longer looks so fantastic .... "This has been discussed on the Internet for about a year, or maybe more. Moreover, those who deal with this issue do not say anything about breaking the blockade.
  12. Cartalon
    Cartalon 29 July 2020 08: 30 New
    +1
    Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems that I read about this thing in some kind of reference book for the 90 years, although they did not call him a blockade breaker then.
  13. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 July 2020 09: 49 New
    +4
    The requirements of war or blockade times are significantly reduced in comparison with peacetime.

    Quite the opposite - in wartime the consumption of fuel and energy resources in general grows sharply. To begin with, the ground forces, the Air Force and the Navy, whose equipment begins to be intensively exploited, begin to eat it in three throats. Just for comparison: IJN consumed 170-180 thousand tons of fuel per month in peacetime. In 1942, the monthly consumption increased to 300-350 thousand tons.
    Then the industry, which is increasing the rate of output of military products, is tightened.
    And gas will not be an exception - it will first of all be replaced by the liquid fuel that the military will take.
  14. timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 29 July 2020 10: 05 New
    +4
    Darkness.
    So I can imagine how this monster gets stuck under the ice in the Herald's trough.
  15. Dimka75
    Dimka75 29 July 2020 10: 15 New
    +2
    G. Adamov, Exile of the Lord, Secret of 2 oceans.
    Underwater ore carriers, gas carriers and other goodies.
    1st half of the 20th century

    Author, teach materiel. You can dig up a dozen more articles.
  16. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 29 July 2020 11: 19 New
    +1
    I remember on deepstorm.ru that they laid out a project for converting Typhoons into submarine transporters or tankers.
  17. tolancop
    tolancop 29 July 2020 11: 25 New
    +3
    IMHO, another nonsense.
    ".... Compared to a military nuclear submarine, a nuclear submarine gas carrier is much simpler in design and equipment; it does not require torpedoes and missiles along with their servicing equipment. The crew is greatly reduced in comparison with the crew of a military nuclear submarine and will fit in a compact manned compartment. .. "
    Not a submariner, but it seems to me that missiles and torpedoes with accompanying equipment on submarines do not occupy such a large part. The crew can be reduced due to automation, I think, but who will fight for the survivability of the ship in this case. And the crew can be assembled into a capsule .... A very suitable idea for the whole crew to gurgle at once .... Will you order the compartments to be examined from the capsule? And who will prepare the crews for such a specific thing?
    About 25 years ago, the press came across material with the idea of ​​re-equipping the nuclear submarine for ore carriers from the North to places where it is warmer. What? The nuclear submarine does not depend on the weather, an icebreaker is not needed, etc. It turned out very well and commercially profitable by all accounts. All the raspberries were mutilated, as usual by the warriors ... They so subtly asked who would serve all this machinery ... , they say they know how and there is some basis for this. Maybe over the years, I missed something, but the main message of the idea was the following: businessmen get profit, expenses are borne by the state represented by the Northern Fleet, Sevmash, etc. After the state gave up such an honor, the commercial attractiveness of the idea disappeared somewhere.
  18. Undecim
    Undecim 29 July 2020 11: 43 New
    +4
    Something the authors of the site with the subject have become very bad, they are driving outright trash, considering the readers quite a "gray mass", which can be fed any delirium. In the "History" section, Samsonov is having fun with a super-ethnos, but here Verkhoturov breaks the blockade under water instead of writing a sane article about underwater commercial transportation.
    This topic has come up regularly over the past thirty years. In 1995, Gazprom and a number of other companies financed a test flight of the Pike-class submarine in order to determine the possibility of cargo transportation. The experience was considered unsuccessful due to the complete unsuitability of the boat for loading and unloading operations.
    In 1997, Rubin offered the SFTS transportation system using outdated and re-equipped Typhoon, Murena, Kalmar, Dolphin-class SSBNs. "Norilsk Nickel" especially pedaled this topic.
    But all these projects were based on the fact that submarines can navigate the Northern Sea Route all year round without icebreakers. There was no question of any secrecy, because even a person far from the Navy understands that ensuring the secrecy of underwater transport, especially of this size, is a utopia.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 29 July 2020 12: 15 New
      +7
      Verkhoturov would have fit a map of the depths, from the Herald Island and further to the east, otherwise he will die in ignorance.
      This is about the secret transportation of gas to China under water.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 29 July 2020 12: 36 New
        +1
        Verkhoturov does not deal with such trifles as bathymetry.
      2. Pamir
        Pamir 9 September 2020 22: 54 New
        0
        Alexander, do we not yet know with you? There will be underwater "blockade breakers", a priori there will be atomic "dredgers, and where without" strait expanders and "coastal thrusters?" Well, where? Otherwise, we are completely soured, we are completely impoverished of imagination. We need to think strategically, strategically. We are used to floundering with small things.
    2. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 30 July 2020 12: 45 New
      +1
      The experience was considered unsuccessful due to the complete unsuitability of the boat for loading and unloading operations.

      This is not the most significant difficulty, since gas and other liquids are pumped by pumps and pumping balances the vessel and this greatly facilitates life in comparison with packaged and piece cargo.
      The main strategic problem is rather that the atomprom without breakthrough projects runs the risk of repeating the fate of modern Russian cosmonautics from which everyone fled except pensioners and managers, and there are now big problems with competencies. And people will run away from the unloaded nuclear industry, you know, they want to eat at least every day.
      The main economic problem is to force the foreign customer to pay in advance, at least partially, so that they do not have to build a risky project without the customer's investments, which he will be sorry to lose forever. From by-products from the project it will be possible to obtain a formal opportunity to start the next breakthrough project: construction of subsea automatic gas production complexes; to form new professions - seamen of the civil submarine nuclear fleet and all the accompanying infrastructure - ports, shipyards and repair plants; specialized scientific and educational institutions. This is much better than, for example, distributing an "Arctic hectare" to the population.
  19. Operator
    Operator 29 July 2020 12: 04 New
    -8
    The coastal water area of ​​the Arctic Ocean is very shallow, both in the places where natural gas is produced and liquefied and on the way to the Bering Strait. Therefore, in the design of nuclear submarines, both in the USSR and now they lay a pipeless flat hull of the type 370 long, 70 wide and 12 meters high (displacement of about 300 thousand tons).

    The article deals with China's investments in the fleet of these submarines, so the principle “any whim for your money” works here. The main goal is year-round delivery of liquid cargo without transshipment along the route and without icebreaker escort. With the construction of 100 ships at Chinese shipyards and 100 YSU at Rosatom plants, the project will clearly be profitable and will keep Chinese and Russian enterprises busy for about 10 years.

    PS According to international law, a naval blockade is a declaration of war, in the event of an American blockade of China, the latter will not only overheat the entire fleet of "blockers" on its shores at an accelerated pace, but will also take the Ryukyu archipelago from Japan forever, so that it will not be confused in the future.
    If the nuclear-powered fleet will fly under the Russian flag and the United States will prevent it from sailing in international waters, having already declared war not only on China, then we will overwhelm at least the entire US surface fleet with nuclear missile strikes and there will be nothing for us: the World Ocean will not the national territory of the United States, and African Americans have little guts to retaliate against our and Chinese territory (see the experience of North Korea).
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 29 July 2020 22: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Operator


      PS According to international law, a naval blockade is a declaration of war, in the event of an American blockade of China, the latter will not only overheat the entire fleet of "blockers" on its shores at an accelerated pace, but will also take the Ryukyu archipelago from Japan forever, so that it will not be confused in the future.
      If the nuclear-powered fleet will fly under the Russian flag and the United States will prevent it from sailing in international waters, having already declared war not only on China, then we will overwhelm at least the entire US surface fleet with nuclear missile strikes and there will be nothing for us: the World Ocean will not the national territory of the United States, and African Americans have little guts to retaliate against our and Chinese territory (see the experience of North Korea).


      You are completely crazy that we will beat the Americans with nuclear missile strikes and we will get nothing for it ...
      Are you serious?

      Or just drank a lot in the evening?

      And most importantly, turn on your brain.
      The Americans have total control over the Bering Strait.
      Look at its dimensions and depth ...

      They don't need to block anything around China or Japan.
      They will simply block the Bering Strait.

      That's all.

      And all your atomic gas carriers ran out.



      And what is the experience of North Korea?
      What kind of bragging rights Kim scared America?

      And the fact that Kim cut the army by 15% do you know?
      Did you stop building submarines?
      He pledged not to do atomic tests and blew up all his test sites, do you know?
      Well, right, of course you don't know.
      This is not your trend ...
      It was the Americans who still forced Kim to take such steps, and maybe just the very same pair of aircraft carriers ...

      For Kim, in fact, has nothing.
      1. Operator
        Operator 29 July 2020 23: 10 New
        -1
        Grandpa - we will somehow figure it out without you in international waters, sea blockade, North Korea, your African American bosses, etc. laughing
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 30 July 2020 00: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          Grandpa - we will somehow figure it out without you in international waters, sea blockade, North Korea, your African American bosses, etc. laughing


          YOU with your cockroaches cannot deal with a squirrel ...
          And about international waters, nuclear strikes, African American bosses - you need to drink less ...

          Remember the law: if you drink it, don't sit down at the keyboard!
  20. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 29 July 2020 16: 47 New
    +3
    unmanned underwater drones will find and have this future gas carrier miracle in the tail and mane ... an idiotic project, especially in terms of stealth. Yes, when it comes to hostilities, then the opponents will be absolutely at one place, under whose flag there will be such a fat goal - sue because it is fashionable wassat
  21. NF68
    NF68 29 July 2020 17: 04 New
    +1
    Such gas will become prohibitively expensive. In addition, these blockade breakers can also be quickly destroyed at least in places where they will be loaded / unloaded and on approaches.
  22. xomaNN
    xomaNN 29 July 2020 17: 21 New
    +2
    Colleagues from "Malachite" do not care which submarine to design. As long as they pay.

    But the Customer correctly understands for What and How Much is such a Miracle worth?
  23. Vadim237
    Vadim237 29 July 2020 19: 04 New
    0
    "In view of the gradually escalating contradictions with the United States, threats from the United States and its allies, China faces the prospect of a naval blockade." And then the question immediately arises, why the heck to transport gas to China by gas carriers - overcoming the blockade when already one gas pipeline Power of Siberia stands the second Power of Siberia 2 in the project. If necessary, China can build 100000 gas carriers on truck chassis - and transport liquefied gas from the territory of Russia.
  24. Hwostatij
    Hwostatij 29 July 2020 22: 05 New
    0
    It seems to me that it will be cheaper to carry gas with cylinders across the border on foot than on such a tanker
  25. VladGTN
    VladGTN 29 July 2020 22: 39 New
    +2
    Great idea! You can also bring something from Colombia. One flight and stop a hundred triliens of money. But only of course to sell to bad people.
  26. SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 29 July 2020 23: 02 New
    -1
    Another nonsense.

    crashing on the Bering Strait.
    Its depths, sailing directions, country borders, etc.

    Well, let the atomic gas carrier sail as much as you like in the Arctic Ocean, but the Americans will not allow it to pass through the Bery Nga Strait.
    Well, they won't give it, that's all.
    Especially during any blockade.


    You just need to look at the routes of movement, not only in the direction.

    The author should finally turn on the brain.
  27. IC
    IC 29 July 2020 23: 25 New
    +1
    The fruit of someone's violent incompetent fantasy. A few basic questions are not covered:
    1. There are no rules of the classification society for the construction of such ships.
    2. Who will insure such a vessel and for what money. What P&I Mutual Insurance Club would accept such a ship.
    3. Where is a shipyard capable of building a ship.
    4. Where are the calculations of cost-effectiveness versus conventional conversations.
  28. K298rtm
    K298rtm 29 July 2020 23: 56 New
    0
    "... everything is not what it seems."
    In my opinion, the PRC really wants to get access to modern nuclear and underwater technologies. China has gold reserves (in terms of US dollars) "like a makhorka's fool." NATO countries will not sell these technologies. And we need investments. Something like this.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 30 July 2020 00: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: K298rtm
      "... everything is not what it seems."
      In my opinion, the PRC really wants to get access to modern nuclear and underwater technologies. China has gold reserves (in terms of US dollars) "like a makhorka's fool." NATO countries will not sell these technologies. And we need investments. Something like this.


      China has US dollars only in the form of US debt bonds ... They have much less cash dollars.

      And these are two big differences.
      They didn't even invest in the Power of Siberia ...
  29. Guazdilla
    Guazdilla 30 July 2020 12: 24 New
    +2
    A futuristic picture is already being drawn. The raging ocean is not far from Japan's tervod, but everything is calm at depth. There, on the rocky seabed, the underwater section of the gas pipeline and the compact LNG regasification unit of the nuclear gas carrier are being connected. Everything is going on as usual, and now natural Vankor gas is being pumped over hundreds of kilometers to consumers in China. In deep mountain adits, tunnels and bunkers, generators are started and under the bright images of the helmsman lights again flash. Everything goes on as usual and now, to replace one empty nuclear-powered ship, it is slowly steering another. It was the fourth year of the American blockade of China. Mikhelson and Vekselberg continued to buy up Shanghai, Beijing and Wuhan real estate with industry for privatization checks. Russian fuel and energy complex.
  30. times
    times 31 July 2020 12: 59 New
    -1
    This project can be profitable only if the boat is not nuclear-powered (otherwise expensive) and the diving tanks are filled with oil / LNG - for the maximum share of the cargo in the deadweight.
  31. db1967
    db1967 1 August 2020 08: 08 New
    0
    and in 2019, shipments from Sakhalin decreased by 11,1 million tons of LNG, or by 16% (by 2018). - what is this nonsense? am Sakhalin LNG is 95% contracted. By definition, it cannot fall and grow quickly ...
  32. Evil-x
    Evil-x 2 August 2020 22: 14 New
    0
    Not so long ago, the project of a floating nuclear power plant was considered by many to be nonsense.
  33. seagull
    seagull 3 August 2020 11: 24 New
    0
    I read about a similar project in Yuno Tekhnika in the late 80s, though there was an oil tanker ... Everything is new, well forgotten old ...
  34. yehat2
    yehat2 3 August 2020 16: 05 New
    0
    insanity grew stronger. We do not build fishing seiners, we are in dire need of a simple merchant fleet, even a coastal class, we cannot provide boats and boats even for fishermen! But we are designing mega-aircraft carriers and underwater gas carriers. It seems that Chemezov's managers are all registered with a psychiatrist.
    why be ashamed? Let's also cut down on an underwater timber carrier, an air carrier for manure, and make a temporary power line with helicopters so that we can sell electricity at a cheaper price to China.
    Well, we can, what's the problem)))
    But seriously, I no longer watch TV - I will go crazy with absurd news.
  35. Pavel57
    Pavel57 3 August 2020 22: 59 New
    0
    Armament is not superfluous to break the blockade. Or you need an appropriate convoy.
  36. nikant
    nikant 4 August 2020 09: 13 New
    0
    Is there a lot of bad money in Russia? another insanity ... throw money on the people, and then engage in oligarchs .. weak?
  37. Kerensky
    Kerensky 10 August 2020 21: 58 New
    0
    Why at once atomic? Let it run on gas - it's business!
  38. Konstantin Borzoi
    Konstantin Borzoi 31 August 2020 09: 19 New
    0
    and what is it for us, ordinary people? or is it a clever move of issuing the commercial secret of our enterprise ??
  39. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 16 September 2020 19: 14 New
    0
    Send a letter to the presidential press or Chubaiser, he will find a faithful "industrialist" and the bank is ready to finance and everything will be drunk.
  40. Petrik66
    Petrik66 29 September 2020 10: 33 New
    0
    Soon Scientific Research Institute "Vtorchermet Brad" will develop a project for the transfer of gas in balloons. And British scientists will develop a technology for the transfer of gas in condoms by leaf cutters. True business, the ant grabs the gas-pumped prezik and rushes to the territory surrounded by the foe.