Military Review

The sins of nuclear cruisers, or why the reactor on a promising Russian destroyer?

215
The sins of nuclear cruisers, or why the reactor on a promising Russian destroyer?



When it was time to say goodbye, not a single tear fell down the sailors' cheeks. The cruiser "Texas" was without regret thrown into landfill, despite its young 15 years and a quarter of a century left of the resource.

11, thousands of tons of steel structures, Tomahawk cruise missiles and plans for further modernization with the installation of the Aegis system, were all in vain. What ruined the cruiser "Texas"? Why was the new ship almost cruelly cut into nails?

At first glance, the end of the Cold War was the reason for the untimely cancellation of Texas, as well as its three formidable Sister Thorns - Virginia, Mississippi and Arkansas. But, after all, many of their peers remained in the ranks! - the same destroyers Sprewens passed under the stars and stripes by 10 and more years. The Oliver H. Perry frigates were notable for their longevity - half of them are still listed as part of the US Navy, others were transferred to the allies - Turkey, Poland, Egypt, Pakistan, where they were enthusiastically received by local sailors.

Paradox? Hardly. The Yankees first of all wrote off the most inefficient, costly and difficult to operate equipment samples.


15 years is not the age for a warship. For comparison, the average age of modern American cruisers URO type "Ticonderoga" - 20 ... 25 years, and, according to the plans of the US Navy, they will be in the current composition fleet until the middle of the next decade. In Fig. - nuclear missile cruiser Arkansas

The cruiser "Texas" let down its "hot heart" - the infernal unit D2G, inside which uranium assemblies burned with invisible fire, emitting heat every second 150 by Megajoules.

The nuclear power plant (YASU) endowed the ship with fantastic combat abilities - unlimited cruising range, high cruising speed - without regard for the fuel on board. In addition, the YSU ensured the tightness of the superstructure, due to the lack of developed chimneys and air intakes - an important factor in the case of use by the enemy weapons mass destruction. Agree, a lot of advantages.

Alas, behind the beautiful fairy tale about the “seven round-the-world voyages without entering the port” there were several unflattering truths:

1. The autonomy of the ship is not limited to fuel supplies. Food, technical liquids, repairs - every time you have to meet with a ship of integrated supply or make an entry into the nearest naval base / PMTO. Not to mention such a simple and obvious condition, as the endurance of the crew - technology and people need rest.



2. A world tour at full speed in 30 nodes is nothing more than a beautiful fantasy. Ships rarely go alone: ​​frigates, amphibious ships (BDK, Mistral - max. 15..18 knots.), Supply ships, ocean tugs and sea rescue complexes, minesweepers, escorted ships of the merchant fleet - naval combat service may include a variety of tasks.

When operating as part of a squadron, the nuclear cruiser loses all its advantages - it is not possible to install YASU on each Mistral, frigate or merchant ship.

3. A nuclear power plant, coupled with its cooling circuits and hundreds of tons of biological protection, takes up much MORE place than the engine room of a conventional cruiser, even with the required supply of thousands of tons of fuel oil or lighter oil fractions.

However, it will not be possible to completely abandon the conventional GEM in favor of YASU: according to the accepted safety standards, emergency diesel generators are on all nuclear-powered ships and there are fuel reserves.

Here is a saving.

In numbers, this literally means the following:
The state-of-the-art EGIS destroyer Orly Berk is a combination of four General Electric LM2500 gas turbines (the famous unit used on Navy ships in 24 countries of the world), as well as three backup diesel generators. The total power is about 100 thousand hp.
The mass of the LM2500 turbine is nearly 100 tons. Four turbines - 400 tons.
Fuel stock aboard the Berka is 1300 tons of JP-5 kerosene (which provides 4400 cruising miles at 20 knots)

You may ask why the author so deftly neglected the masses of beds, pumps, heat insulating circuits and auxiliary equipment of the engine room? The answer is simple - in this case it doesn't matter anymore.
After all, the promising development of the Afrikantov Design Bureau - the “compact” nuclear reactor RHYTHM-200 for the nuclear icebreaker LC-60Y under construction has a mass of 2200 tons (a combination of two reactors). Power on icebreaker shafts - 80 thousand hp

2200 tons! And this is without taking into account the biological protection of the reactor compartment, as well as the two main turbo-generators, their feed, condensate, circulation pumps, auxiliary mechanisms and propeller motors.

No, there are no complaints about the icebreaker here. The atomic icebreaker is a wonderful machine in all respects, in polar latitudes one cannot do without YSU. But everything should have its time and place!

Install a similar power plant on a promising Russian destroyer - a decision, at least dubious.

In fact, the American "Burke" - here is not the best example. More modern models, such as British destroyers "Type 45" with a successful combination of diesel generators, gas turbine engines and full electric propulsion show even more impressive results - with a similar amount of fuel they can go up to 7000 nautical miles! (from Murmansk to Rio de Janeiro - where is more ?!)


Atomic Crester "Texas" and a Ticonderoga type cruiser


As for the Texas cruiser mentioned at the beginning of the article - a similar situation has developed with it. With a similar composition of weapons, he was at least 1500 tons larger non-nuclear cruiser type "Ticonderoga." At the same time, he was slower than the Tiki by a couple of knots.

4. Operation of a ship with YASU, ceteris paribus, turns out to be more expensive than operating a ship with a conventional propulsion system. It is known that the annual operating costs of Texas and its sys-thorns exceeded those of Ticonderog by 12 million dollars (a considerable amount, especially by the measures of 20-year-old).



5. Yasu impairs the survivability of the ship. A failed gas turbine can be shut off. But what about the damaged circuit or (oh, horror!) Reactor core? That is why landing on the ground or combat damage of a ship from YSU is a world scale incident.

6. The presence of YASU on board the ship makes it difficult to visit foreign ports and complicates the passage of the Suez and Panama Canal. Special security measures, radiation monitoring, approval-permission.

For example, it became an unpleasant surprise for Americans when their nuclear ships were forbidden to approach the shores of New Zealand. The intimidation of the “communist threat” led nowhere - the New Zealanders just laughed at the Pentagon and advised the Yankees to study the globe more closely.

Difficult, costly, inefficient.

This considerable list of errors caused the cancellation of all 9 nuclear-powered cruisers of the US Navy, including four relatively new Virginia. The Yankees got rid of these ships at the first opportunity, and never regretted their decision.

From now on, and overseas, they do not create illusions at the expense of nuclear-powered ships - all further projects of surface combatants — the destroyers Orly Burk — that will form the basis of the torpedo-naming forces of the US Navy to the 2050-s or three promising destroyers “Zamvolt” - all are equipped , nonatomic GEM.

Nuclear power plants are inferior on the criterion of cost / efficiency (broad concept, which includes all the above factors), even the boiler-turbine plants half a century ago. As for modern developments in the field of ship GES, the use of promising FEP or CODLOG schemes (complete electric propulsion with a combination of full-speed gas turbine generators and highly economical cruising diesel generators) makes it possible to achieve even better indicators. When performing combat service in remote areas of the World Ocean, such ships are practically not inferior in autonomy to ships with nuclear power plants (with the incomparable cost of YASU and conventional GEM as CODLOG).

Of course, YASU is not the "devil in the flesh." A nuclear reactor has two key advantages:
1. Colossal energy concentration in uranium rods.
2. Energy release without oxygen.

Based on these conditions and the need to find the right scope for shipboard YSU.
All answers are known from the middle of the last century:

The possibility of obtaining energy without oxygen was appreciated in the submarine fleet - they are ready to give any money, just to stay under water longer, while maintaining the 20-node motion.

As for high concentration of energy, this factor gains value only in conditions of high energy consumption and the need for long-term operation in maximum power mode. Where are these conditions? Who fights day and night, making his way through the polar ice? The answer is obvious - an icebreaker.



The other one major consumer of energy is an aircraft carrier, more precisely, catapults mounted on its deck. In this case, the powerful, productive YASU justifies its purpose.

Continuing the thought, one can recall specialized ships, for example, the atomic reconnaissance "Ural" (communications vessel pr. 1941). The abundance of energy-hungry radars and electronics, as well as the need for a long stay in the middle of the ocean (the Urals was intended to monitor the American missile test site on the Kwajalein Atoll) - in this case, the choice of YSU as the main power plant of the ship was quite logical and justified decision.
Here, perhaps, and all.


Cargo-passenger nuclear-powered ship "Savanna"

The remaining attempts to install YASU on surface warships and merchant ships were unsuccessful. The American commercial nuclear-powered vessel Savanna, the German nuclear-powered ore carrier Otto Gan, the Japanese cargo-passenger nuclear-powered vessel Mutsu — all projects were unprofitable. After 10 years of operation, the Yankees put their nuclear-powered icebreaker on the joke, the Germans and Japanese dismantled YASU, replacing it with a conventional diesel. As they say, words are superfluous.

Finally, the untimely write-off of American nuclear cruisers and the absence abroad of new projects in this area - all this clearly demonstrates the futility of using YASU on modern warships of the cruiser and destroyer classes.

Race to rake?

The resurgent interest in the YASU problem on surface combatants is nothing more than an attempt to sort out a recent statement on the design of a promising Russian destroyer:

“The design of the new destroyer is being carried out in two versions: with a conventional power plant and with a nuclear power plant. This ship will have more versatile capabilities as well as increased firepower. He will be able to operate in the offshore zone alone, as well as in groups of naval ships. ”

- Representative of the press service of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for the Navy (Navy) Igor Drygalo, September 11 2013

I don’t know how about the connection between the nuclear power plant and the destroyer's firepower, but the connection between YASU, the size and cost of the ship is quite clearly visible: such a ship will be larger, more expensive and, as a result, its construction will take more time - at that time, As a navy, urgent saturation of surface warships in the ocean zone is urgently needed.


Unrealized project of an atomic large anti-submarine ship of 1199 Ave. Anchar

The fact that YASU, in reality, has little effect on increasing the combat power of a ship (rather, on the contrary) has already been said a lot today. As for the cost of operating such a monster, everything is also very obvious here: refueling ordinary ship fuel - kerosene, diesel fuel (not to mention boiler fuel oil) - will be MUCH cheaper than a perpetual engine in the form of a nuclear reactor.

Let me quote the data from the report for the US Congress (Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, 2010 year): the Yankees honestly admitted that the equipment of the YASU surface combat ship will increase the cost of its life cycle on 600-800 million dollars, compared to its non-atom counterpart.

This is easily seen by comparing the destroyer’s average mileage over the entire life cycle (usually no more than two or three hundred thousand miles) with fuel consumption (tons / 1 a mile of the way) and the cost of 1 tons of fuel. And then compare the resulting amount with the cost of recharging the reactor (taking into account the disposal of spent nuclear fuel). For comparison: the reloading of a multi-purpose atomic boat can cost up to 200 million dollars at a time, and the cost of reloading the reactors of the Nimitz aircraft carrier is 510 million dollars in 2007 prices of the year!

Of no small importance will be the last years of the life of an atomic ship - instead of drowning in the form of a target or careful cutting into metal, complex and expensive disposal of radioactive ruins will be required.

The construction of an atomic destroyer could have made sense only in one case - the absence of the necessary technologies in Russia in the field of creating offshore gas turbines.


M90FR

Alas, this is absolutely not the case - for example, NPO Saturn (Rybinsk), with the participation of the GP NPK Zorya-Mashproekt (Ukraine) developed a ready-made sample of the promising shipboard gas turbine engine M90FR - a close analogue of the American turbine LM2500.

As for reliable and efficient ship diesel generators - the world leader, the Finnish company Wärtsilä, is always at the service, and even the arrogant British resorted to the creation of their destroyer Type 45.

All problems have a good solution - there would be a desire and perseverance.

But in conditions when the Russian Navy is experiencing an acute shortage of ships in the ocean zone, it’s frivolous to dream of atomic super-destroyers. The fleet urgently needs "fresh forces" - heels (and preferably a dozen) of "Birkopodny" universal destroyers with a full displacement of 8-10 thousand tons, and not a pair of atomic monsters, whose construction should be completed before 203 ... year.


The humble hero of the sea - tanker "Ivan Bubnov" (project 1559-B).
A series of six tankers of the 1559-B Ave. was built in the 1970-s for the USSR Navy — it was thanks to them that the fleet was able to act at any distance from its native shores.
The project tankers are equipped with a device for transferring cargo to the sea on the move in a traverse way, allowing cargo operations to be carried out at a significant sea state. Wide range of transferred goods (fuel oil - 8250 tons, diesel fuel - 2050 tons, jet fuel - 1000 tons, drinking water - 1000 tons, boiler water 450 tons, lubricating oil (4 grades) - 250 tons, dry goods and food for 220 tons) allows to rank tankers of this project as integrated supply ships.



And this is the Yankees




Based on:
http://npo-saturn.ru/
http://dic.academic.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/
http://www.fas.org/
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/
Author:
215 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 16 September 2013 07: 50
    +7
    A nuclear power plant, together with its cooling circuits and hundreds of tons of biological protection, takes up MUCH more space than the engine room of a conventional cruiser, even taking into account the required supply of thousands of tons of fuel oil or lighter fractions of oil
    This is for the destroyer. It’s the same as putting YaS in a passenger car. And ships with a large displacement successfully operate it.
    1. Vashestambid3
      Vashestambid3 16 September 2013 08: 25
      +1
      The article is good, although the author went through rather superficially, but for the photo of the M90FR I give the Medal !! smile
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 16 September 2013 08: 55
      +5
      Quote: Author Oleg Kaptsov
      in the polar latitudes, YaSU cannot be dispensed with, but everything must have its own time and place!


      Unfortunately, such a tool for "especially gifted" as a rake has not yet been canceled

      The destroyer is not an atomic aircraft carrier which and the installation (read the nuclear bomb) of which are covered by grouping ships, are the most common attacks on destroyers, if the crew gets into nuclear power plants, are there any chances?
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 September 2013 10: 10
        10
        Quote: Vadivak
        installation (read a nuclear bomb)
        And what, is there already a nuclear power plant nuclear blasting technology? USSR Academy of Sciences did not have one, even theoretically considered impossible what
        1. Santa Fe
          16 September 2013 13: 37
          -1
          Quote: Misantrop
          And what, is there already a nuclear power plant nuclear blasting technology? USSR Academy of Sciences did not have one, even theoretically considered impossible

          But the Arab ragged people have those

          Blasting a boat with trotyl bags near the side of the USS Cole - damage to the power plant, flooding of the engine room, the left propeller shaft is deformed. The blast wave reached the upper deck and turned the dining room of sailors and foremen. Yankees are fortunate that this is not a nuclear ship
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 16 September 2013 13: 59
            +7
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Yankees are fortunate that this is not a nuclear ship

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But the Arab ragged people have those
            Do not confuse a conventional nuclear explosion wink
            Quote: Vadivak
            A dirty bomb? I meant it.

            For this, at a minimum, it is required to destroy the nuclear weapons body. The thickness of which is 25 cm is very strong and ductile steel. Not every cumulative charge can cope with this, even if biological protection is not taken into account
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 16 September 2013 14: 46
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              For this, at a minimum, it is required to destroy the nuclear weapons body. Whose thickness is 25 cm


              The main armor of the battleship Hercules of 1868. I do not think that she will withstand something more serious than the guns of that time.
              1. Kars
                Kars 16 September 2013 14: 53
                +5
                Quote: Vadivak
                The main armor of the battleship Hercules of 1868.

                Here I’ll just add a little - progress since the moment of armor is just huge, back in the beginning of the twentieth century we achieved that 200 mm plates could withstand the same as 600 (there were some) in the mid-19th century.

                And I was surprised - I did not know that the nuclear power plant on the submarine was protected by 250 mm of armor.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 16 September 2013 19: 55
                  +3
                  Quote: Kars
                  I didn’t know that the nuclear power plant on the submarine was protected by 250 mm of armor.
                  This is not exactly armor. The operating pressure in the circuit is about 200 kgf / cmXNUMX. In addition, the nuclear weapons core was originally designed to preserve a completely melted core. At the same time, even a spacer grid is provided so that a critical mass could not form when draining down. This is where the thickness comes from. request
                  1. 31231
                    31231 16 September 2013 21: 15
                    0
                    I know a little civilian construction of nuclear power plants. And there on the old type reactors for emergency situations there is a mine. During an accident, the reactor descends into this shaft. Nuclear-powered ships are not provided for this?
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 16 September 2013 21: 18
                      0
                      Quote: 31231
                      Nuclear-powered ships are not provided for this?
                      Nuclear-powered vessels have enough reactor vessel thickness for this

                      And these mines in case of an accident will inevitably be filled with coolant (water). So lowering the emergency reactor there can lead to a thermal explosion ...
            2. Santa Fe
              16 September 2013 14: 47
              -3
              Quote: Misantrop
              For this, at least, it is necessary to destroy the nuclear weapon body.

              There are subjective feelings that to start a hellish disco on board it is enough to break the reactor cooling circuit
              1. viruskvartirus
                viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 17: 43
                +3
                This is also not a tragedy. The loop is made multi-loop, one loop is cut out and the reactor continues to operate at reduced power. Moreover, the water in the circuit is chemically desalinated if there is no destruction of the fuel elements, the depressurization of the circuit is not so terrible.
              2. Misantrop
                Misantrop 16 September 2013 19: 36
                +8
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                to start the infernal disco on board, it is enough to break the reactor cooling circuit

                On the "K-140" already mentioned here, the pressure in the circuit during the accident reached 650 kgf / cm400. (the explosion pressure of TNT, if I am not mistaken, 3000 kgf / cm7000), the temperature in the core is about 90 Celsius (no joke, go to a power of XNUMX ratings at a nominal value of XNUMX mW). At the same time, the contour retained its tightness, only swollen in places. The reactor vessel did not change its geometry, remaining cylindrical with a rounded bottom.
                During an accident at the Sormovo plant, the reactor became spherical, but ... the circuit also did not break. So it is not so easy to "break the cooling circuit" wink
            3. lucidlook
              lucidlook 16 September 2013 15: 37
              -2
              Quote: Misantrop
              For this, at a minimum, it is required to destroy the nuclear weapons body.

              But is it necessary and necessary? Damage to the piping of the cooling system is not enough to cause at least an emergency stop of the YaSU with everyone, sorry for the pun, resulting the consequences.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 16 September 2013 19: 42
                11
                Quote: lucidlook
                to cause at least an emergency stop of the nuclear power station with everyone, sorry for the pun, the ensuing consequences

                So, what is next? During the period of service, a couple of times I was pretty "rinsed" with this water. And it was already more than a quarter of a century ago. Alive, as you can see (and I still don’t even have a bald head). And I regularly climbed inside the biosecurity (twice a year at least, during the transfer of the ship, the state of the reactor holds is checked). If the installation is properly maintained, then this is absolutely nothing terrible, trust the commander of the reactor compartment wink
                1. gispanec
                  gispanec 16 September 2013 20: 59
                  +3
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  So, what is next? During the period of service, a couple of times I was pretty "rinsed" with this water. And it was already more than a quarter of a century ago. Alive, as you can see (and I still don’t even have a bald head). And I regularly climbed inside the biosecurity (twice a year at least, during the transfer of the ship, the state of the reactor holds is checked). If the installation is properly maintained, then this is absolutely nothing terrible, trust the commander of the reactor compartment

                  smile but you can link to your photo))) ... suddenly there are three eyes ??)) ... or 2 noses))) wassat
          2. viruskvartirus
            viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 14: 45
            +2
            And what would happen if it was an atomic ship? To destroy the case of the reactor and so that it becomes dangerous for the environment is not a trivial task.
          3. 31231
            31231 16 September 2013 21: 11
            0
            And what does detonation mean when it comes to nuclear and thermonuclear reactions ?!
        2. Vadivak
          Vadivak 16 September 2013 13: 49
          +1
          Quote: Misantrop
          USSR Academy of Sciences did not have one, even theoretically considered impossible


          A dirty bomb? I meant it.
        3. Algor73
          Algor73 16 September 2013 17: 14
          0
          Theoretically, it was considered impossible and the nuclear power plant to destroy or undermine. And at 86, it shied away ... Then they realized that the atom is not only peaceful in peaceful settings. But on the merits of the article, it’s a quite competent and detailed article. Maybe the author didn’t finish something, intentionally missed something, but I'm not an expert.
      2. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 12: 51
        +3
        )) Installation (read a nuclear bomb) "This is absolutely not the case. A nuclear installation is far from a nuclear bomb.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 16 September 2013 14: 32
          +1
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          The installation (read a nuclear bomb) "is not at all true.


          I got excited I beg your pardon I meant a radioactive "dirty" bomb
          1. viruskvartirus
            viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 14: 56
            +3
            It is not easy to make a dirty bomb out of a nuclear power plant by external influence, especially after ensuring security has been put at the forefront. For example, now a modern industrial reactor must withstand the fall of a passenger plane on it without any special consequences. If we talk about accidents at nuclear power plants where they all the same turned into "dirty bombs", then this is the influence of internal factors. At the Chernobyl NPP, at Fukushima, at Three Mile Island, this is the human factor and design flaws. You can really turn a reactor into a dirty bomb with a nuclear charge, then yes, you can shit a lot, seriously and for a long time.
      3. postman
        postman 17 September 2013 19: 41
        0
        Quote: Vadivak
        and the installation (read the nuclear bomb) of which the grouping ships cover, attacks on destroyers are the most common, in the case of getting into a nuclear power plant there are chances for the crew?

        how to deal with
        RGM / UGM-109A (RGM) with a nuclear warhead W-80 / carriers:
        -Pu ABL = Cruiser type CGN-40, Destroyer destroyer type "Spruance" (DD-974 Comte De Grasse
        DD-976 Merrill; DD-979 Conolly; DD-983 John Rodgers; DD-984 Leftwich; DD-989 Deyo; DD-990 Ingersoll)
        ?
    3. Civil
      Civil 16 September 2013 09: 55
      0
      Yes, at least do a couple, the main thing is to build quickly!
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 16 September 2013 14: 47
          +1
          Quote: Geisenberg
          purely my opinion: the author is a paid lackey, hired to cry out the idea of ​​an atomic fleet. sets out the facts here half a century ago


          Purely my opinion, learn at least not to be rude
          1. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 16 September 2013 21: 35
            +2
            Quote: Vadivak
            Quote: Geisenberg
            purely my opinion: the author is a paid lackey, hired to cry out the idea of ​​an atomic fleet. sets out the facts here half a century ago


            Purely my opinion, learn at least not to be rude


            Very interesting. And why was kament removed? It is clearly stated there - only my opinion. I do not demand to agree with everything that I think about.

            Again, my opinion is purely - like this, use your privileges and delete my comments, replacing them with at least disgusting ones. If you want to explain something to me - write in the PM, and do not wave the size of your capabilities.
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 16 September 2013 22: 59
              +2
              Quote: Geisenberg
              like this, use your privileges and delete my comments,

              Since when has communication culture become a privilege? Read the rules of the site, do not bother
              1. Geisenberg
                Geisenberg 17 September 2013 01: 35
                +2
                Quote: Vadivak
                Quote: Geisenberg
                like this, use your privileges and delete my comments,

                Since when has communication culture become a privilege? Read the rules of the site, do not bother


                You confuse the culture of communication with your personal attitude towards my commentary. No need to exchange warm soft. Henceforth, try not to do so.
        2. Santa Fe
          16 September 2013 14: 52
          +4
          Quote: Geisenberg
          purely my opinion: the author is a paid lackey, hired to cry out the idea of ​​an atomic fleet.

          Sholem, colleague!
          Nice to meet you, Yitzhak Ben-Gurion, Mossad’s fourth division
          1. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 16 September 2013 21: 37
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Quote: Geisenberg
            purely my opinion: the author is a paid lackey, hired to cry out the idea of ​​an atomic fleet.

            Sholem, colleague!
            Nice to meet you, Yitzhak Ben-Gurion, Mossad’s fourth division


            Salam. You were mistaken with the address, Hasid is not my colleague laughing .
    4. Genry
      Genry 16 September 2013 17: 14
      0
      Atomic batteries are sutured to the cores along with cardio stimulants. And you think the destroyer is small.

      There is another question. Will a neutron weapon appear, which is a neutron beam, from any distance can turn your reactor (even muffled) into an atomic bomb.
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 17: 29
        +3
        The reactor cannot be turned into an atomic bomb principle, the maximum that it faces is a thermal explosion that will scatter the core in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. This is the maximum. And so I think that children in school should be better taught nuclear physics.
        1. mr.Man
          mr.Man 16 September 2013 18: 59
          0
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          A reactor cannot be turned into an atomic bomb principle ...
          A reactor can make a good dirty bomb ...
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 16 September 2013 19: 51
          +1
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          The reactor cannot be turned into an atomic bomb principle, the maximum that it faces is a thermal explosion that will scatter the core in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
          This threatens only stationary installations that do not have a rigid reactor vessel. And on the transport installation for this you need to hull the ship’s hull in rags. Entire, Not Partial
      2. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 17: 37
        0
        This, after all, is also another technology. Radioisotope sources are sewn into the cores.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 September 2013 18: 02
          0
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          Atomic batteries sew in cores along with cardio stimulants

          Quote: viruskvartirus
          This, after all, is also another technology. Radioisotope sources are sewn into the cores.

          This is an RTG
          radioisotope thermoelectric generator: red-hot plutonium tablet (for cough) + thermocouple. Works for decades, email. power is extremely low. A 100-kg RTG is hardly more than 500 W with a subsequent gradual decrease - for example, a Voyager RTG (470 W) after 30 years of flight in 2006 produced only 60% of its original power (290 W)


          Pu238. Put under the tongue and dissolve like candy


          RTGs are usually used on remote lighthouses, automatic interplanetary stations - where equipment is forced to work for a long time without recharging, a "point" source of energy where high power consumption is not required (23 W communication system, scientific instruments, etc.)

          Black block with heat exchanger fins - RTG probe "New Horizons", 11 kg of plutonium provide an electrical power of about 250 W
      3. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 September 2013 19: 49
        +2
        Quote: Genry
        Will a neutron weapon appear, which is a neutron beam, from any distance can turn your reactor (even muffled) into an atomic bomb.
        This requires a neutron flux density, which not every star in the center of the nucleus gives lol A bunch of THIS power can be slightly oiled for any ship. This is enough to make it impossible to come close to him even half a century ago even in heavy defense hi
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 16 September 2013 21: 12
          +3
          Quote: Misantrop
          This requires a neutron flux density, which not every star in the center of the nucleus gives


          For which I love Kaptsov’s articles, a lot of smart people are going, I am an amateur, it’s nice hi
      4. Max otto
        Max otto 16 September 2013 20: 01
        0
        Quote: Genry
        .... There is another question. Will a neutron weapon appear, which is a neutron beam, from any distance can turn your reactor (even muffled) into an atomic bomb.

        Far from a specialist, but he studied not badly. Focusing neutrons is an extremely difficult task, due to their neutrality and high penetrating power, i.e. the best neutron insulator is lead, and the effective wall thickness (if memory serves) exceeds 1m. Such weapons are not transportable. It’s another matter that the technology of proton focusing (Bogomolov’s accelerator) was developed; the technology was donated to Russian Americans (a very muddy topic). But with protons, penetration is very weak (millimeters literally, i.e. a couple of newspapers are enough). So it turns out that the task of blowing up a reactor is no further than theory. Like so.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 16 September 2013 21: 29
          +2
          Quote: Max Otto
          the best neutron isolator is lead
          Oddly enough, but the best protection against the neutron flux is not lead at all (that one is good against gamma radiation), but ... ordinary water (cellophane or any substance containing a large number of light hydrogen atoms). When a fast netron collides with a lead atom, elastic repulsion occurs, in which the neutron practically does not lose energy. But when it collides with a hydrogen atom, the neutron gives it all its energy (due to a comparable mass), braking itself to thermal speeds. Well, since his life time is not long, then there he breaks up, where he hit. It is for this reason that a significant part of nuclear biosecurity is the ZhVZ (iron-water protection) tank
          1. Max otto
            Max otto 17 September 2013 00: 38
            0
            I will not say anything about gamma radiation. I forgot something, I need to refresh my knowledge, I read it at my leisure, and a lot has changed lately in terms of theory. At the expense of water, yes, but its layer is also measured in meters, the little thing will be non-transportable.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 17 September 2013 10: 38
              0
              Quote: Max Otto
              non-transportable little thing will be.
              This is not the case at all. It is not difficult to create a directed neutron radiation flux (due to reflectors), and to make a focusing element too. The whole question is in the source of high-energy neutrons, they simply have nowhere to come from. The only option is a huge amount of fissile material, but it can’t be compact. For example, in a stopped reactor (inside) the level of neutron radiation is very high (it is not recommended to get in). But when you enter the installation by lifting the protection rods and compensation grids it is raised a thousand times. And from the critical position to the operating power, the neutron flux level increases by another 14 (!) Orders. And while almost the entire stream remains INSIDE NAR, NOTHING breaks out. So estimate, what power should be the flow, so that, breaking through bioprotection, have a density higher than the maximum power of nuclear power belay
    5. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 16 September 2013 21: 40
      0
      Quote: Denis
      A nuclear power plant, together with its cooling circuits and hundreds of tons of biological protection, takes up MUCH more space than the engine room of a conventional cruiser, even taking into account the required supply of thousands of tons of fuel oil or lighter fractions of oil
      This is for the destroyer. It’s the same as putting YaS in a passenger car. And ships with a large displacement successfully operate it.



      And what do you think is considered a ship of large displacement? Let's in numbers 5-7-10 thousand tons?
    6. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 September 2013 10: 17
      0
      Quote: Denis
      This is for the destroyer. It’s the same as putting YaS in a passenger car
      Main power plant very small reconnaissance and sabotage submarines of the USSR was atomic. It is to ensure good driving performance and autonomy in conditions of small size and the absence of excess l / s for its maintenance
      1. postman
        postman 17 September 2013 19: 49
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        The main power plant of the smallest reconnaissance and sabotage submarines of the USSR was atomic.

        ??????????????
        diesel + electric motor, 220 l. with. (p. 865)
        =====
        SMPL of the Seehund type.

        What kind of nuclear power plant is there?
        and here?

        SMPL type "Triton-1 M"


        control center for the "nuclear power plant" on the SMPL of the "Triton-1 M" type

        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 18 September 2013 00: 31
          0
          Quote: Postman
          ??????????????
          It's not about these "underwater bicycles", but about full-fledged submarines. Which were taken out to the area of ​​combat work with the help of a nuclear-powered mother boat. On the transition, it looked something like this:
          1. postman
            postman 18 September 2013 13: 02
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            It's not about these "underwater bikes"

            ??
            how to understand the phrase:
            Quote: Misantrop
            Main power plant very small reconnaissance and sabotage submarines of the USSR was atomic.


            If you mean:
            KS-411 "Orenburg"
            BS-136 "Orenburg"
            what are they "small"
            Total so 140 and 180 MW!

            Quote: Misantrop
            Which were taken to the combat area with the help of an atomic uterine boat.

            Well, what kind of "full-fledged small pl" (ATOMIC!) was taken out by the nuclear-powered mother boat?
            Yes and nafuya is it necessary?
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 18 September 2013 13: 51
              0
              Quote: Postman
              Well, what kind of "full-fledged small pl" (ATOMIC!) was taken out by the nuclear-powered mother boat?
              Yes and nafuya is it necessary?
              In my time it was the Omelchenko division. Based next to us. And, apparently, they were needed if they did not fall under the general reduction of the fleet. Moreover, now two (!) Nuclear submarines are being converted at the NSR for carriers of these particular boats. One of them is my K-64. If they make a carrier from 667BDRM, then this, apparently, is not just like that.
              1. postman
                postman 18 September 2013 22: 57
                0
                in my opinion we are talking about different things
                media -appl = yes understandable.
                BUT YOU WRITTEN THEN:
                Quote: Misantrop
                The main power plant of the smallest reconnaissance and sabotage submarines of the USSR was atomic.
                those. (if I have not forgotten the Russian language) -Do you say that there was a nuclear reactor on the SMPL?
                .
                On what ? yes and on fig he (reactor) is needed there (on SMPL)?
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 19 September 2013 11: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  we are talking about different things
                  media -appl = yes understandable.
                  BUT YOU WRITTEN THEN:
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  The main power plant of the smallest reconnaissance and sabotage submarines of the USSR was atomic.
                  those. (if I have not forgotten the Russian language) -Do you say that there was a nuclear reactor on the SMPL?

                  The funny thing is that these atomic carriers are designed to transport exactly the same nuclear submarines. Have you met similar ones? Crew of 6 people, single-circuit unattended NPP with full electric propulsion, impressive working depths of immersion ... That's right, there is practically no open information on such. Have you heard anything about the "Chamomile" type installation? Isotopic subcritical power generating assembly, hinged externally on a conventional RPL, requiring no maintenance at all. With such an "upgrade", the submarine, while retaining all its advantages (compactness, secrecy, relatively low cost, etc.), at once acquires the main advantage of the submarine - a huge energy reserve, which makes it possible not to float up to recharge the battery
                  1. postman
                    postman 19 September 2013 16: 13
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    Have not met such?

                    no. I didn’t even hear from the “neighbors” at the Faculty, but they had a reactor that was drowned out in the basement
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    Isotopic subcritical power generating assembly, mounted externally on conventional type submarines

                    Well, this is somewhat different, not an atomic (nuclear) reactor in the understanding of this word.
                    there is no circuit (s), biosecurity there is somewhat different, the flux of neutrons and others is many times less.
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    huge energy reserve

                    Isotopic Subcritical Power Generation Assembly may and does have this enormous supply ...
                    only here the efficiency of thermocouples is a penny and is inferior many times to the classical reactor.
                    / approx. theoretical (and partially practical) operating time of thermocouples for 500-700grs has not been solved, due to the death of the main initiator
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 19 September 2013 17: 43
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      "Isotopic subcritical power generation assembly" may be this huge supply ...
                      only here the efficiency of thermocouples is a penny and is inferior many times to the classical reactor.
                      Thermocouples are, in fact, still low-power, although they can work for a long time. And "Romashka" is based on the classical principles of a nuclear power plant, except that it does not come under criticism (ie, a turbine generator with a pump and a heat exchanger is still there). It is clear that in terms of power it is significantly inferior to the critical assembly, but after all, the RPL was initially optimized for minimum power consumption in a submerged position. This is traditionally not economized on nuclear submarines, having SUCH energy reserves.
                      Quote: Postman
                      no. I didn’t even hear from the “neighbors” at the Faculty, but they had a reactor that was drowned out in the basement
                      In the course of my studies, I had a chance to work on four operating (not counting ship) installations. Powerful enough. But even then, about THESE submarines, I learned only when I got to serve in the Northern Fleet, and even then - the edge. Perhaps this is one of the few that remained closed, despite all the "perestroika". It remains to be comforted by the fact that they do exist winked
                      1. postman
                        postman 19 September 2013 18: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        And "Romashka" is based on the classical principles of a nuclear power plant, except that it does not go into criticism

                        NO!!! if we are talking about the same daisy
                        1964 at the Institute of Nuclear Energy. I.V. Kurchatova reactor Direct conversion of heat into electricity, "Chamomile" -In contrast to the American reactor SNAP-10A there is no coolant and pumps

                        The basis is a high-temperature fast neutron reactor, whose core consists of uranium dicarbide and graphite.
                        The reactor core (cylinder) is surrounded by a beryllium reflector. The temperature in the center of the core is 1770 ° C, on the outer surface of the reactor - 1000 ° C. On the outer surface of the reflector is a thermoelectric converter, consisting of a large number of silicon-germanium semiconductor wafers, the inner sides of which are heated by the heat released by the reactor, and the outer ones are cooled. Unused heat from the converter is radiated into the surrounding space by a finned refrigerator-emitter.(, I will see her SMPL from the orbit of the moon)
                        The thermal power of the reactor is 40 kW. The removed electric power from the thermoelectric converter 500 watts (5 x 100W light bulbs)

                        40 kW (!) Thermal) -500W electric = efficiency 1,25%
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        one of the few remaining closed, despite all the "perestroika"

                        Chamomile is open, TOPAZ, BUK and the most valuable "YENISEI" - the same

                        In 1992, the United States purchased two Yenisei nuclear power plants (Topaz-13) in Russia for $ 2 million. for Nuclear Electric Propulsion Spaceflight Test Program
                        project closed in 1996


                        what you describe is impracticable in the dimensions that you attribute to the SMPL
                      2. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 19 September 2013 18: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        if we are talking about the same daisy
                        The one I wrote about was developed almost 20 years later. As well as the NPP railway-based, by the way. There was a VERY serious research team at SVVMIU. The leading specialists of the Kurchatov Institute did not hesitate to come for consultations. And they also carried out most of the real experiments here, at the IR-200 research reactor. Perhaps the only water-and-water one that can be rebuilt according to the principle of the "Lego" constructor and observe the ongoing processes visually.
                        Quote: Postman
                        what you describe is impracticable in the dimensions that you attribute to the SMPL
                        Well, then, two guys from our company got to serve on non-existent installations lol And the deputy chief of the Navy Safety Commission of the USSR Navy lied to me brazenly wink

                        By the way, if recent data confirm that serious practical advances have actually appeared in the theory of local critical masses, this will make it possible to seriously reduce the size of installations that are not too large
                      3. postman
                        postman 20 September 2013 12: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        At SVVMIU there was a VERY serious scientific team. Leading specialists of the Kurchatov Institute did not hesitate to come for consultations.

                        It is quite possible, although it is hardly believed that 2 consulted 2 came on FUNDAMENTAL issues. For the rest, it’s possible.
                        Well, for example, how does this or that fintiflyushka behave in "field" conditions, yes.
                        "Uncle Occam's Razor".
                        I will explain:
                        1. Your graduates and team: http: //moov-vmf.ru/vvmiolu
                        2. Institute of Atomic Energy named after I.V. Kurchatov http://www.nrcki.ru/
                        About the possibilities ... I will not say anything, public photo

                        Its results:
                        http://www.nrcki.ru/files/istor_buklet_rus.pdf
                        / note: just do not compare the "efficiency" of CI now /
                        3. I'm afraid to make a mistake, but it seems that the Black Sea (Like our Baltic) - A NON-NUCLEAR ZONE?
                        Accordingly, neither work nor research is possible to conduct there
                        Although our teachers (http://www.bmstu.ru/), in their youth, when they were preparing the country's nuclear missile shield (SLBM), collaborated with SVVMIU.
                        I know this for sure: launches from platforms (pontoons)), first afloat, with "gradual submersion"

                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Well, that means two guys from our company got to serve


                        Quote: Misantrop
                        And the deputy chief of the Navy Safety Commission of the USSR Navy lied to me brazenly


                        You know, anything can be in life.
                        -after such articles:

                        http://topwar.ru/22785-sovetskie-boevye-mashiny-s-200-v-irake.html

                        ("I shot down two Tornadoes. Recorded by V. Smolentsev." Day of the Warrior ", 1, 1997)
                        sad
                        I won’t be surprised at anything.

                        And yes .. there is also the "Skif", which housed the hyperpoloid engineer Garin and which (SKIF) flooded the Humpbacked ... and in fact, seriously serious people WRITE about this and discuss
                        ============
                        Most likely, what you are writing about (well, what the authorities told you about in secret) is the use (or testing) of ISOTOPE HEAT, ELECTRICITY AND LIGHT GENERATORS on SM PLs as auxiliary energy sources (quiet), such as SNAP-27 (In flights of the Apollo spacecraft, an energy source of 570 grams of plutonium-238 ensured the regeneration of drinking water, with which American astronauts could daily regenerate 8 l of water(per day)
                        Well, for air regeneration, let's say, on a submarine SM, "sitting" in ambush.

                        Quote: Misantrop
                        in the theory of local critical masses

                        didn’t even hear about that. decrypt?
                      4. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 20 September 2013 15: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        I'm afraid to make a mistake, but it seems that the Black Sea (Like our Baltic) is a NON-NUCLEAR ZONE?
                        Accordingly, neither work nor research is possible to conduct there
                        This applies to TRANSPORTATION installations. In the case of the manufacture of an atomic-powered ship in Nikolaev, he was issued a permit for a SINGLE passage through the Black Sea straits (without the right of return). And the research reactor IR-200 (200 - thermal power) is still alive, although the power is currently reduced to 100 kW. Its main feature was that it was possible to assemble the core on it, however you like, in practice trying what is obtained according to theory. And watch this, since a 4-meter layer of water is used as biological protection from above. Therefore, everything is VERY clear. Therefore, the Kurchatov Institute, Novosibirsk, etc. they came precisely for practical experiments, renting this laboratory for 2-3 months annually (this installation was the most powerful and convenient in the USSR). Therefore, the cadets got there most often during the "windows" of this lease.
                        Quote: Postman
                        OF ISOTOPIC HEAT, ELECTRICITY AND LIGHT GENERATORS on SM PL as auxiliary sources of energy
                        According to THESE sources, I am also more or less in the know (an acquaintance for many years was the head of the laboratory for automation of descent vehicles at Baikonur, from him). So I can say for sure that this is the MAIN power plant. Its prototype, albeit not the most successful, was the "Nyurka" (as it was called on the NSR) - a diesel submarine, on which a single-circuit NPU was mounted as an experiment. I saw her in Severodvinsk. Interestingly, there was a conversation about these SMPLs literally this summer, when they were going to the 30th anniversary of the release. So the options "misunderstood" and "confused" are excluded.

                        About local critmasses - a little later, now a little busy
                      5. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 20 September 2013 23: 03
                        0
                        With regard to the local critical masses, the point is this. Nuclear technology, having "hatched" in the "nest" of nuclear science, has decided for some time that it may well live its own life. This is especially true of the American school, although in the USSR the situation was not the best. The consequences of this are on everyone's lips - the Chernobyl accident, Threemile Island, Fukushima. What can we say, if now the atomic science of Japan is NOT IN ANY way connected with its own nuclear power (worthy students of the Stars and Stripes). So, fuel, regulators, retarder, etc. they are located in the core in the most optimal and efficient way. But, in spite of this, not once have been recorded by science in ANY way, local (within a part of the core) overshoots of power, overheating, etc. Up to partial self-start with lowered absorbers. This phenomenon is called "local critical mass". The reasons and conditions for its occurrence have not yet been explained by science. But a few years ago, an accident occurred in one of the Russian nuclear laboratories (self-starting assembly). The young scientist who conducted the research was killed. But the whole problem is that he worked with SUBCRITICAL assemblies, generally unable to get criticized, even theoretically. Fortunately, he kept detailed descriptions of his experiments. If they can figure it out, then this promises a serious breakthrough in the theory and practice of atomic installations
                      6. postman
                        postman 21 September 2013 02: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        This phenomenon is called the "local critical mass"

                        I understood what I’m talking about, but these phenomena are so microscopic (I would say super-NANOI) that they have no effect.
                        (LNPP, a friend of 17 years: nonsense)
                        Yes, and according to theory, the probability of such bursts is admissible (effective cross section, here a neutron hit, but it did not hit there, and in another place it only "touched" a bit, time-of-flight technique)
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        . If they manage to figure it out, then this promises a serious breakthrough in the theory and practice of atomic installations

                        the trouble is that these processes take place perfectly in another space-time continuum, and it is unlikely that humans (or devices created by him) who live in another dimension will be able to master these things
                        And of course they use (called)
                        It is said that in the 40s, a pulsed reactor in Los Alamos worked as follows. From above, a piece of plutonium or uranium, which flew past another piece of nuclear material, was thrown into a vertical pipe. For some time, the total mass exceeded the critical mass and a powerful neutron flux was generated.

                        reactor for a short period of time (from ~ 10-4 s to several seconds) transformed into a supercritical state, when the neutron multiplication factor without taking into account the delayed neutrons is k> 1. A fission chain reaction develops rapidly in the reactor. Then the reactor is transferred to subcritical state and the process decays
                        N. Bor said about the IBR-1: "I am delighted with the courage of the people who decided to build such a wonderful installation!"

                        booster IREN (Converter surrounds a shell of 239Pu in state deep subcriticality.)
                    2. postman
                      postman 21 September 2013 01: 35
                      0
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      even though the power is currently reduced to 100 kV

                      you confuse, this is not a reactor.
                      Even for IBR-2, this figure is 2 MW; pulse power - 1500 MW
                      100kw - funny figure
                      Research Reactor IR-100 (your IR-200).
                      - Physical stand (critical assembly located in the reactor's biological defense array).

                      The main characteristics of the IR-100:
                      The type of reactor is research, heterogeneous, thermal neutron, pool type using demineralized water as a moderator and coolant.
                      The power of the reactor is 200 kW.
                      The active zone is a height of 500 mm and a described diameter of 460 mm.
                      Number of fuel assemblies - 47 pcs. 7 fuel elements in each.
                      Nuclear fuel - UO2 enriched in 235U - 10%.
                      The maximum thermal neutron flux density in the center of the core is 5,4 × 10 ^ 12 neutrons / cm² / s.
                      Nearby cities: Sevastopol, Constanta, Eregli (Karadeniz)
                      Координаты: 44°37'47"N 33°34'42"E


                      Quote: Misantrop
                      namely the MAIN powerplant

                      so:
                      - due to low efficiency, the main installation CANNOT BE, based on direct conversion
                      - everything else, with cooling circuits, a turbine apparatus, a generator, automation, an active zone and bioprotection = SIMPLY DOES NOT fit into the SM sub
                      Dimensions, that’s what slows down the use of YaSU in maritime transport (and other things) -2000 tons (set)?
                      And in this genossa Kaptsov is right
                      / very obsessively right, repeats where not laziness /
                      As for the cost of operation (pr-in, maintenance, disposal), he (O.K.), in its technical and economic illiteracy hi wrong.
                      Compared the finger and LJ.
                      There will be infrastructure and the number of nuclear power plants, it will not be more expensive than using "natural" fuel and the harm from it.
                      I AM AFRAID of making a mistake in numbers, but shipborne remote controls on the organics give something about 25% of air emissions.
                      NO on ship Doo nor environmental class 4,3,2, in my opinion only the 1st.
                      LOBBY
                      And what is DPDF they have not heard, much less about Add-Blue
  • ka5280
    ka5280 16 September 2013 08: 07
    0
    Interesting article.
    Vessels with a diesel power plant are simple and reliable in operation. Training personnel does not take much time, in case of war, engineers from the merchant fleet can be mobilized to the fleet - they have enough experience in operating diesel engines.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 16 September 2013 13: 44
      +5
      Quote: ka5280
      Interesting article.
      Vessels with a diesel power plant are simple and reliable in operation. Training personnel does not take much time, in case of war, engineers from the merchant fleet can be mobilized to the fleet - they have enough experience in operating diesel engines.


      for ships with a displacement of more than 8 thousand tons, the concept of a class loses its meaning. it can be any type, even a cruiser, even a destroyer, even a bpk. for such ships, a nuclear power plant is just what you need. In general, you can create them on a modular basis on the basis of a single hull with a nuclear power plant.
  • mark1
    mark1 16 September 2013 08: 13
    +7
    I agree with the author. The Americans abandoned the construction of a NK with YSU (except for aircraft carriers) back in the 80s of the last century. The rationale was published in the "Foreign Military Review" of those years, it practically coincides with the current above. Our nuclear cruisers were originally conceived as highly autonomous PLO ships, capable of continuously monitoring American SSBNs in all points of the world ocean, but gradually the project degenerated into a universal ship carrying all types of weapons available by that time in our fleet and reoriented to fight, mainly, with AUG. In our time, nuclear weapons on a destroyer will probably make sense if it is saturated with weapons based on the so-called new physical principles with high energy consumption.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 16 September 2013 10: 30
      16
      Quote: mark1
      The Americans refused to build NK with YaSU
      They gave up on Atlas rockets, then on reusable Shuttles, now they refuse state funding of astronautics altogether, they are making a private rocket ... Shall we copy? And who will we instruct astronautics to move, Chubais or Abramovich? wassat
      1. mark1
        mark1 16 September 2013 13: 13
        +2
        Quote: Misantrop
        They gave up on Atlas rockets, then on reusable Shuttles, now they refuse state funding of astronautics altogether, they are making a private rocket ... Shall we copy?

        Well, actually, both Atlases fly and Shuttles flew before the resource was depleted and no one refused from the state development of cosmonautics (just a "private sector" appeared due to the high commercial attractiveness) and the Americans are studying our experience (and mistakes) and do not hesitate to borrow it (or simply buy what we have better and cheaper).
        It’s normal to take into account the experience of others.
        The smart learn from the mistakes of others, and the smart ones learn from their own mistakes.
      2. Santa Fe
        16 September 2013 13: 48
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        now they are giving up state funding for cosmonautics altogether, they are building a private rocket

        Dear, but what about NASA?

        The Minotaur V rocket, which launched on Saturday from a cosmodrome on Wallops Island in the United States, successfully launched the LADEE lunar probe (Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer) into low Earth orbit, according to the NASA website. The rocket was launched at 07:27, as planned. After 23 minutes, the LADEE probe separated from the 5th stage of the rocket and went on an independent flight.
        - news dated September 7, 2013

        Washington. On August 5, the American space agency landed a one tonne Curiosity (“Curiosity”) spacecraft on Mars, and a few minutes after landing the all-terrain vehicle began transmitting images of its new environment to Earth.
        “Absolutely unbelievable, nothing better! - said NASA administrator Charles Bolden, speaking on the NASA TV channel shortly after landing. “This is a very important day for the country.”

        The MSL science lab, on board which was an all-terrain vehicle, flew to its destination for eight months, breaking 570 million kilometers.

        - news from 7 July 2012 of the year


        New manned spacecraft "Orion" for flights to near-earth orbit and to the nearest celestial bodies (the Moon, near-earth asteroids or objects in Lagrange points)


        On August 5, 2011, the Unona automatic interplanetary station set off from the cosmodrome at Cape Canaveral in Florida towards Jupiter.

        Her journey to the gas giant will last 5 years, during which Juno will overcome almost 1 billion km. Scientists hope to get answers to many questions: how did all the planets in the solar system arise and, possibly, how did life appear on Earth.


        RN with "Juno" at the start
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 16 September 2013 13: 55
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Dear, what about NASA?
          Still working. But numerous articles that it is time to switch to the private space program go by a jamb, including on this resource. Well, in the modern world, among the top leadership, the tendency to pick up just the most idiotic American (and not only) initiatives prevails request
      3. Simple
        Simple 16 September 2013 19: 42
        +3
        If you instruct the astronaut Chubais?

        That for aliens space vouchers will come into use.



        If you instruct the astronaut Abramovich?

        then all efforts will be directed to the construction of a new space yacht:


        laughing


        "Paradise"
      4. Vadivak
        Vadivak 16 September 2013 23: 02
        +3
        Quote: Misantrop
        And who will we instruct the astronautics to move, Chubais or Abramovich?


        Serdyukov, he probably has a lot of plans
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 16 September 2013 21: 46
      +2
      Quote: mark1
      I agree with the author. The Americans refused to build NK with YaSU (except


      But they agreed to legalize same-sex marriage. Is this your indicator?

      They refused for one reason - the oil lobby. If they continued to build such ships by the present moment, the technology would have been cured to the ideal. Would fix all the problems that have arisen and optimize everything that looked bad. We would now go on missile carriers at a speed of 40 knots, the willows wouldn’t have blown, but no, oil should be burned ...

      Paragliding on ulga and oil is convenient, simple and cheap. And atomic is complicated and expensive. That's all arithmetic, but the fact that oil is not forever does not bother anyone.
      1. jjj
        jjj 16 September 2013 22: 30
        0
        They did it on boats. They have a reactor as long as a ship without "operation 1". And recycling is one-compartment. So far we have only been able to reach three.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 17 September 2013 10: 42
          0
          Quote: jjj
          So far we have only managed to reach three.
          We have long reached the one-compartment. There is such a Saida lip on Kola, these compartments are stored there. And the chief engineer there is a guy from our crew (I know from him) wink
      2. Santa Fe
        17 September 2013 00: 11
        0
        Quote: Geisenberg
        I agree with the author. The Americans refused to build NK with YaSU (except

        But they agreed to legalize same-sex marriage. Is this your indicator?

        For this, a person is given a brain.
        In order to analyze the events around and taking into account this, make decisions that are advantageous for themselves
      3. nerd.su
        nerd.su 17 September 2013 23: 03
        0
        Quote: Geisenberg
        They refused for one reason - the oil lobby.

        By the way, we have the same situation. Nuclear workers need demand for their products. I think that if a couple of ten out of ten destroyers are made with nuclear weapons, this will only benefit our industry and the country.
  • buzuke
    buzuke 16 September 2013 08: 21
    +5
    I don’t know how about the connection between the nuclear power plant and the destroyer’s firepower

    possibly referring to promising energy-intensive weapons. the same railgun, for example, or something else
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 13: 57
      +3
      Quote: buzuke
      possibly referring to promising energy-intensive weapons. the same railgun, for example, or something else

      If only the marine version of the S-400 created

      Radar with HEADLIGHTS for fire control of the S-300FM air defense system. Behind you can see the "Fregat" general detection radar array (all Russian-made systems). The destroyer of the Chinese Navy "Type 051C" - these are the ships we need: simple, cheap, massive.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 16 September 2013 08: 47
    20
    The article is at least controversial. Again it is proposed to take into account the experience of the Americans. And they gave up a lot, not being able to implement it normally. Remember history with the same ballistic missiles. They COULD NOT create sufficiently reliable liquid-propellant missiles, relying on solid-fuel ones. Yes, they did something, although not as chic as they trumpet in their advertisements. The USSR - managed and ... with a tenacity worthy of a better application, which for ten years has been trying to mold a solid-propellant rocket, having injected simply astronomical money into it. There are 941 projects and the current Bulava. Having at the same time in service with a much more compact and reliable "Sineva", nothing like which the United States is not able to create even in the future.
    With nuclear installations - similarly. Ah, a heavy installation. And why should it be easy, if only the fuel assembly weighs hundreds of tons and a giant reactor. And if you still add the design taken from the ground nuclear power plant?
    After all, the promising development of the Afrikantov Design Bureau - the “compact” nuclear reactor RHYTHM-200 for the nuclear icebreaker LC-60Y under construction has a mass of 2200 tons (a combination of two reactors). Power on icebreaker shafts - 80 thousand hp

    2200 tons! And this is without taking into account the biological protection of the reactor compartment, as well as the two main turbo-generators, their feed, condensate, circulation pumps, auxiliary mechanisms and propeller motors.
    No need to dissemble, 2200 tons - this is the mass of the whole installation, even with all bioprotection
    1. avt
      avt 16 September 2013 09: 06
      +5
      Quote: Misantrop
      The article is at least controversial.

      Perhaps for the first time I fully agree with Oleg. ---- ,, Continuing the thought, one can recall specialized ships, for example, the atomic reconnaissance aircraft "Ural" (communications ship, project 1941). The abundance of energy-hungry radars and electronics, as well as the need for a long stay in the middle of the ocean (the Ural was intended to monitor the American missile range on the Kwajalein atoll) - in this case, the choice of YSU as the main power plant of the ship was quite logical and justified decision. "---- Similarly, as a class, nuclear weapons require aircraft carriers and submarines, well, and if any next" dreadnought "such as Orlanov will be made, or an icebreaker.
      Quote: Misantrop
      They did not know how to create sufficiently reliable liquid rockets, relying on solid fuel.

      Well, they did what they initially did well. We had problems with both gunpowder and, subsequently, with solid rocket fuel, initially there were, here we caught up with them and did it right, thanks Ustinov.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 September 2013 10: 24
        +6
        Quote: avt
        We had problems both with gunpowder and subsequently with solid rocket fuel, initially there were, here we were catching up with them and doing it right, thanks Ustinov.
        It’s necessary to catch up, but to do it primary a bet that a competitor is doing much better is a priori stupidity. The Americans are good, they mostly run across the Pacific and Atlantic. There is practically no ice there, and there are a lot of foreign bases, there is always where to replenish. And Russia in the near future will have to master high latitudes. And "running" from Murmansk or Vladivostok to Mediterranean and back is also not a short route, and there are not too many "gas stations with cafes" along the way.
        By the way, the installation of the icebreaker is precisely on the basis of full electric propulsion, from the turbine part there are only turbogenerators (i.e. there are no hefty turbine compartments with main turbines there), but they are compact and unpretentious
        1. avt
          avt 16 September 2013 14: 58
          +2
          Quote: Misantrop
          It’s necessary to catch up, but to make the main bet that the competitor is doing much better is a priori stupidity.

          Rather, there was not even malicious intent here, banal ignorance in making a decision, all these urinzones-dvorkins, well, Solomonov fussed in advance. As a result, again, Pushkin is our everything. It turned out like in a fairy tale "About the priest and his worker Balda" - "You would not be chasing a pop for cheapness." The fact that a solid-fuel pencil "Bulava" will be finished is not a question. The question is different - with what fright it will go quickly and efficiently under current realities request , which is exactly what we are observing.
    2. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 15: 44
      -1
      Quote: Misantrop
      No need to dissemble, 2200 tons - this is the mass of the whole installation, even with all bioprotection

      http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/images/pdf/ritm.pdf
      - only a reactor plant with its own bioprotection

      What about the biosecurity of the reactor compartment, the mass of the running electric. engines, backup diesel engines and fuel reserves, beds, foundations and auxiliary equipment?
      It pulls at all 3000 tons, if not more
      Quote: Misantrop
      the more compact and reliable "Sineva", nothing like which the United States is not able to create even in the future.

      Misanthrope, why so

      Solid fuel has a lot of advantages - first of all, reliability and safety of storage

      EMNIP on K-219 there were two similar cases, after the first time I had to brew mine number 15, the second missile explosion in the mine was fatal for the boat
      1. Diesel
        Diesel 16 September 2013 17: 48
        0
        The crew there was to blame, not the rocket. And nobody canceled the wear and tear of the equipment.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 September 2013 18: 07
          -3
          Quote: Diesel
          The crew there was to blame, not the rocket. And nobody canceled the wear and tear of the equipment.

          I do not know cases of rocket explosions in mines on amers boats. This is the question of solid fuel and liquid SLBMs

          Polaris Fleet, aka Squadron 41 for Freedom
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 September 2013 20: 05
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        first of all, the reliability and safety of storage
        By simplicity and reliability of storage "Sineva" covers "Bulava" like a bull a sheep. It is much more resistant to vibration (there is no danger of cracking solid-state checkers), the storage temperature corridor is an order of magnitude wider (plus or minus 20 degrees versus 2) and a bunch of little things. I myself have seen enough of liquid-propellant rockets alive, and my friends served on solid-fuel missiles. So all this for me is not exotic book, but ordinary reality. And about "K-219" no stories are needed. I remember her very well, and I knew the guys from her crew. The commander of the 8th compartment from this crew lived just above me, so he told me what was there in real life wink
    3. Mikola
      Mikola 16 September 2013 20: 09
      +1
      there is the experience of a third country, China, which does not even plan to design either atomic cruisers or destroyers. And to compare the placement of nuclear weapons on submarines and ships is not correct, because these are different classes of ships.
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 16 September 2013 08: 47
    10
    Nuclear power plant expensive infection. A cheap alternative is oars and sail. Cheap and cheerful. No reloading. No fuel oil. And the enemy himself will burst and drown ... from laughter!
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 14: 07
      +5
      Quote: VohaAhov
      A cheap alternative is oars and sail. Cheap and cheerful. No reloading. No fuel oil

      Had such an idea

      Sail - the perfect solution for a PLO ship: a quiet, silent killer tracking its victim. If necessary, you can cut the diesel and go 30-knot

      Seeadler is generally tin
      German sailing raider in World War I: during its unprecedented 224-day raid, it covered about 30 thousand nautical miles, destroyed three ships and 11 sailing ships. He slipped away from the British cruisers, but, in the end, crashed on the reefs of the atoll Maupihaa (Fr. Polynesia).
  • SPACE
    SPACE 16 September 2013 08: 47
    16
    The mass of the LM2500 turbine is nearly 100 tons. Four turbines - 400 tons.
    The fuel supply aboard the Burke is 1300 tons of kerosene.

    Total 1700 + gearbox + masses of beds, pumps, insulation circuits and auxiliary equipment of the engine room ... and 4000 km, against unlimited travel and speed.
    It is impossible to step on other people's rake, it is necessary to take into account the experience of others, but you need to think and solve with your own brains.
    Z.Y. At one of the forums, I met a statement that NIIDAR is working on a FAR ZGRLS radar operating in the near-surface beam mode (diffractive surface propagation) in the near field and the spatial beam (in reflection from the ionosphere) in the far zone, for installation on TARK sides of the Orlan type, and But in this case, YaSU cannot be dispensed with, it is quite possible precisely in connection with this that the Orlanes are planning to modernize.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 15: 56
      0
      Quote: SPACE
      and 4000 km, against unlimited travel and speed.

      not 4000 km, but 4400 MILES ~ 8100 km, equivalent to the distance from St. Petersburg to New York
      Quote: SPACE
      against unlimited travel and speed.

      Where from?
      Even the largest Orlan has 60 days autonomy

      With speed - this is generally a myth. For a cruiser or destroyer with YaSU, maintain a 30 knot course. can be no more than a few days - the resource of mechanisms is not eternal
      Quote: SPACE
      At one of the forums, I met the statement that NIIDAR is working on the FAR ZGRLS radar operating in the regime of a surface beam (diffractive surface propagation) in the near field and a spatial beam (reflected from the ionosphere)

      You understand that for reflection from the ionosphere it is necessary to work in the range of LONG WAVES - the dimensions of the antennas are approaching a kilometer
      Quote: SPACE
      in surface beam modes (diffractive surface propagation) in the near field

      "diffractive surface propagation" - what is this term?
      request


      Marine radar base SBX. An analogue of our "Daryal" and "Voronezh" - sees only above the horizon (the upper words of the atmosphere and LEO). The dimensions are surprising


      Chernobyl over-the-horizon Duga-2 radar, frequency range 5-28 MHz, wavelength 10-60 meters
      installation dimensions are quite obvious
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 16 September 2013 21: 57
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You understand that for reflection from the ionosphere it is necessary to work in the range of LONG WAVES - the dimensions of the antennas are approaching a kilometer

        FAR DON 2 Is it really a kilometer? Container…
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        "diffractive surface propagation" - what is this term?

        Wave GP-120, Lagoon ...
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Chernobyl over-the-horizon Duga-2 radar, frequency range 5-28 MHz, wavelength 10-60 meters installation dimensions are quite obvious

        Destinations Dougie see at 10000 km beyond the horizon missile launches from mines in the United States. For a ship, such a range is not needed enough and 1000 km. The meter range is used, there is a dependence on the state of the ionosphere. This is not only control of the air situation, but the definition of surface targets, target designation for shock and anti-aircraft missiles.
        1. Santa Fe
          17 September 2013 01: 31
          0
          Quote: SPACE
          FAR DON 2 Is it really a kilometer? Container…

          Centimeter-band radar, control of the upper atmosphere and low Earth orbits
          Only sees targets above the horizon



          Quote: SPACE
          Wave GP-120, Lagoon ...

          The huge size of the antennas, a pair of sites (transmitter and receiver), a kilometer wide
          Installing something like this on a ship is not possible
          Quote: SPACE
          For a ship such a range is not needed enough and 1000 km.

          But this mother nature will not ask you
          The wave must reach and reflect from the ionosphere - a "dead zone" appears for hundreds of kilometers around the ship
          and again the dimensions of the antennas ...

          Radar scheme Laguna
  • xxxMYSTICxxx
    xxxMYSTICxxx 16 September 2013 09: 26
    +4
    I agree with the author that it is worth weighing it many times before doing something, since the ship is created to solve specific problems in the given conditions, but the statements of the Navy representatives on the development of the project in two versions of the power plant also have substantial ground: 1 ) as the author said, diesel and gas turbine units are simple and economical, respectively, they should be used in the Baltic and the Black Sea, but in terms of the development of the Arctic and NSR, we may very much need ice class ships (not an icebreaker Of course, but still) and 2) we, unfortunately, and perhaps fortunately, do not all know about promising developments and about the energy costs of new types of weapons.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 15: 32
      0
      Quote: xxxMYSTICxxx
      as the author said, diesel and gas turbine units are simple and economical

      conventions prohibiting actions in the Baltic Sea and Black Sea against warships with nuclear weapons in the waters of these seas
      Quote: xxxMYSTICxxx
      in terms of the development of the Arctic and the NSR

      there you need an icebreaker, not a destroyer
      Quote: xxxMYSTICxxx
      Unfortunately, and perhaps fortunately, we do not all know about promising developments and the energy costs of new types of weapons.

      We (in this sense - all of humanity) do not even know what it is - new types of weapons, and the fleet already needs an update - the last surface ship of the ocean zone - the large landing craft "Admiral Chabanenko" was transferred to the Russian Navy in 1999
  • sergey72
    sergey72 16 September 2013 09: 51
    +7
    Hmmm ..... JP-5- Berkov fuel !? How much does it cost to exit the whole flotilla ?? Now it is clear why the printing press is smoking in America!
  • ben gun
    ben gun 16 September 2013 10: 01
    0
    Good article! And fortunately not about aircraft carriers)))
    As for the installation of YaSU, I agree with the author only if the armaments (lasers and other lubricants) or mega-radars are stipulated by the requirement for power equipment. otherwise, it is redundant to place the reactor on a regular ship.
  • melkar
    melkar 16 September 2013 10: 28
    10
    Again the same song. To draw such global conclusions, you need to have FULL information. In fact, the question here is one: do modern ships, in particular destroyers, need a power plant that can concentrate huge capacities? From the perspective of today and those weapons that are being used now, no, it’s not necessary, if we start from tomorrow, when laser systems, more and more powerful radars with headlamps, with the need to concentrate huge energies, will obviously be widely used, it is obviously necessary. Fortunately, people who are no more stupid than the author are sitting in the Moscow Region and are considering both options.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 14: 14
      +1
      Quote: melkar
      if we start from tomorrow, when laser systems will obviously be widely used, more and more powerful radars with headlamps

      )))

      To begin with, let them make a marine version of the S-400. Next - we'll see

      An interesting solution. The Chinese destroyer 051C is as simple and cheap as a stool. At the same time, its capabilities are superior to almost any surface naval warship of the Russian Navy - aboard 48 S-300FM missiles! + eight anti-ship missiles, universal artillery and self-defense systems (similar to Dutch Goalkeepers). Boiler turbine power plant. The contours of the body repeat our domestic ave. 956. SAM and detection systems - Russian production
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 17 September 2013 10: 49
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Boiler-driven turbine power plant
        The first hit in the boiler group turns the ship into ... a pressure cooker for preparing the crew lol China does not really care, there are many Chinese ...
        1. Santa Fe
          17 September 2013 20: 15
          0
          Quote: Misantrop
          The first hit in the boiler group turns the ship into ... a pressure cooker for preparing the crew

          In essence, they are all pressure cookers - and berki, and deringi, and 051C
          die from one hit

          In such conditions, it would be worth betting on modest warships, the so-called. reduced cost "street fighters"

          051C, at least, will not be excruciatingly sorry - this is not a burke worth 1,8 billion.
          U.S.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 17 September 2013 21: 32
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In such conditions, it would be worth betting on modest warships, the so-called. "street fighters"
            A street fighter is good on his street (near his base). In the ocean, he frankly has nothing to catch, this is not his level. In addition, I was in practice in the boiler room of the cruiser at the crossing, the open-hearth workshop compared to it is a sanatorium ...
            1. Santa Fe
              17 September 2013 21: 49
              -1
              Quote: Misantrop
              frankly he has nothing to catch in the ocean, this is not his level

              Do you think something shines for Burke in the event of a serious conflict?
              Quote: Misantrop
              in the boiler room of the cruiser at the transition, the open-hearth workshop compared to it is a sanatorium ...

              "The sea of ​​shirroooco is spread out"

              100 years somehow went before. where in the end is automation. boiler room for liquid fuel - etozh not coal to throw a shovel.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 17 September 2013 22: 30
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                100 years somehow went before. where in the end is automation. boiler room for liquid fuel - etozh not coal to throw a shovel.
                The ship fireman in those years, according to the working conditions, did not differ much from the galley slave, one of the most foul specialties was considered.
                Boilers, albeit with nozzles, are also far from a gift. The heat is killer, wild drafts (the boiler requires very much air for normal combustion). Yes, and a thick solar stink. There you will bend very quickly without combat damage. 35 years have passed since then, and impressions still have not dimmed ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  17 September 2013 22: 43
                  0
                  Okay, let there be diesel engines and afterburners
                  Slightly more expensive
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 17 September 2013 23: 27
                    +1
                    I will give only one example. The first call of the American AUG to the Mediterranean, mid-70s. Then, the Crimean MRAD, according to its readiness, sat under the planes for almost a month on alert while he hung out there (another exacerbation in BV). And much later I met the commander of the BS-5 nuclear submarine 627 of the project, which, as it turned out, also took a direct part in this. They were then in the Bay of Biscay. The car was finished, all the tasks of the campaign were completed, they were waiting only for the radio to go to the base (in the SF). Instead, they receive an order to urgently advance to Middle-earth, find the AUG, enter the warrant and be ready to use torpedoes with nuclear warheads. It was just that nobody was closer to them at that moment. And the products are running out ... But, the order is not discussed, they advanced, found, took a position under the aircraft carrier, wandered along with them (naturally, NO ONE found). After 2 weeks I received an order to return to the base. They also went unnoticed and ... rushed at full speed, since there was frankly nothing to eat on board. So exhausted that the sailors on a watch to the running valves (at the bottom of the turbine compartment) were lowered on ropes so that they would not fall on the ramp. By the way, it was after their campaign that there was an order to load food in front of the autonomous region with a good supply. A ship with any other type of installation would simply physically not be able to carry out the order, since fuel cannot be transported by radio ...
                    And to take "high latitudes", at any moment the ice situation can make the return to base for the surface ship unrealistic, extend the exit for a month or more. And what next, to drift without moving in anticipation of icebreakers?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      17 September 2013 23: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      By the way, it was after their campaign that there was an order to load food in front of the autonomous region with a good supply. A ship with any other type of installation would simply physically not be able to carry out the order, since fuel cannot be transported by radio ...

                      people also do not feed on air

                      just an exceptional case, it’s better to plan and prepare for military services
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      And take "high latitudes", at any moment the ice situation can make the return to base for the surface ship unrealistic

                      Come on. Gulfstream is still warming
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 18 September 2013 00: 37
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Gulf Stream while warming
                        Does the Kara Sea warm? Or the Laptev Sea?
                        better to plan and prepare for military services
                        I repeat, the mid-70s, then the experience was just beginning to be gained. Again, no matter how you plan, while you reach the Kola coast around the whole of Europe, a lot of time will pass. But we have no plans to base in the Pacific and the Atlantic even in the future, from where it would be possible to quickly leave when the situation changes
                      2. Santa Fe
                        18 September 2013 02: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Does the Kara Sea warm? Or the Laptev Sea?

                        Is there a need for destroyer-class surface warships?

                        EMNIP in those latitudes requires an icebreaker and a drifting scientific station of the "North Pole" type))
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        But bases on the Pacific and the Atlantic are not planned, even in the long term.

                        We are not planning to fight there. Even in perspective

                        We don’t even have a semblance of the Maritime Shipping Command - like the Yankees (198 vessels of various names - from container ships and ammunition transports to cable layers and integrated supply ships).
                        There are no bases in that region either
                        Any economic interests too


                        Quote: Misantrop
                        while you reach the coast of Kola around the whole of Europe

                        How can an atomic destroyer help here?
                      3. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 18 September 2013 09: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        There are no bases in that region either
                        Any economic interests too

                        Russia now has practically nothing in any region. Full-fledged - even more so. Does this mean that the country's economic interests are concentrated within the MKAD?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        How can an atomic destroyer help here?
                        Ever heard of the ways to use the DPL in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean in the USSR? For years they were in combat patrol areas, crews changed right at sea
                      4. Santa Fe
                        18 September 2013 14: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Does this mean that the country's economic interests are concentrated within the MKAD?

                        I would say within the Moscow Ring Road and the oil-bearing regions of the Far North (Urals and Western Siberia)
                        All other citizens of the Russian Federation - ballast.

                        What will happen in the future - time will tell

                        In any case, the atomic destroyer is not a panacea; to resolve issues on foreign shores, a full-fledged fleet, command of sea and air transportation, and foreign bases in that region are needed
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Ever heard of the ways to use the DPL in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean in the USSR? For years they were in combat patrol areas, crews changed right at sea

                        DPLs performed the tasks of STRATEGIC containment
                        the modern destroyer does not have such tasks
                      5. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 19 September 2013 11: 08
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        DPLs performed the tasks of STRATEGIC containment
                        Of course, such an assessment of the DPL’s work is very flattering, but strategic submarine cruisers solved strategic problems, while the DPL solved tactical issues as part of the overall strategy.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        nuclear destroyer is not a panacea for solving issues on foreign shores need full fleet ...
                        It is NECESSARY if Russia does not plan to continue to remain in the margins of world politics, when everyone freshly hatched for .... ec will try it for strength at the direction of others. And without a fleet, a similar problem cannot be solved. And the construction of such a fleet should not begin with the flagship. It is from the ships of the destroyer level, in order to have time to take into account the inevitable errors and miscalculations
  • de bouillon
    de bouillon 16 September 2013 10: 42
    0
    Quote: Misantrop
    Quote: mark1
    The Americans refused to build NK with YaSU
    They gave up on Atlas rockets, then on reusable Shuttles, now they refuse state funding of astronautics altogether, they are making a private rocket ... Shall we copy? And who will we instruct astronautics to move, Chubais or Abramovich? wassat


    you get away from the meaning of the topic.



    PS
    By the way, private astronautics is developing by leaps and bounds hi
    http://www.orbital.com/Antares-Cygnus/
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 16 September 2013 11: 27
      +5
      Quote: de Bouillon
      By the way, private astronautics is developing by leaps and bounds

      And what's next, curtail your own state program?
      Quote: de Bouillon
      you get away from the meaning of the topic.
      Not at all. Is it not enough to blindly copy the American path of development? Moreover, without distinguishing between their advertising and the REAL state of affairs
      1. avt
        avt 16 September 2013 15: 10
        +9
        Quote: Misantrop
        Moreover, without distinguishing between their advertising and the REAL state of affairs

        Have you noticed that in amerskih films from the 70s the recording disappeared "The shown technique is in service with the US Army"? This bike went around in the days of my engineering youth. We showed the film "Blue Thunder", where the gun was aimed at the gaze of the pilot with a helmet-mounted sight and the same inscription slipped through in the film. Well, they called the generals of the engeneers and say - the homeland is in danger. The answer is - yes, this is fantastic, but the generals turned purple and say - “Are you holding us for fools? It’s written .... "Well, the end of the story in the humpbacked times in Farnborough The 29th Migi flew in with real helmet-mounted sights - so the Westerners got on the train. , hunchbacked drowned when starting "Energia" from the stand, the amers only have cartoons. So as we say - a fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it, a lesson for good fellows. laughingWell, again, at one time we were “born to make a fairy tale come true” and somehow badly, poorly, we did it by joint efforts.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 16 September 2013 10: 43
    0
    That's right. The penetration of anti-ship missiles or torpedoes into a ship with a nuclear power plant in the vicinity of the reactor makes the rescue of the ship an extremely dangerous event, the emergency team will be forced to work in special protection that will help little from radiation, they are guaranteed a slow death from radiation sickness. The ship itself will turn into a radioactive trash and its repair will cost a huge amount, if at all, is deemed appropriate.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 16 September 2013 11: 23
      15
      Quote: Nayhas
      RCC or torpedoes hit a ship with a nuclear power plant in the vicinity of the reactor ...

      Do you think that getting the same ammunition into the ship’s arsenal (and if there is also a nuclear warhead?) Will turn the ship’s salvation into a holiday? belay
      Quote: Nayhas
      they are guaranteed slow dying from radiation sickness
      To die from poisoning by rocket fuel vapors is more pleasant? what By the way, the existing kits of special protection against NGMG vapors are not suitable at all, even the mask of an insulating gas mask "floats". There is no need to demonize the AEU, it is by no means the most dangerous on the ship
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 16 September 2013 11: 58
        -1
        Quote: Misantrop
        Do you think that getting the same ammunition into the ship’s arsenal (and if there is also a nuclear warhead?) Will turn the ship’s salvation into a holiday?

        So not a gift, that's for sure, but if you add radioactivity to it, then it’s really bad ...
        Quote: Misantrop
        No need to demonize the nuclear power plant, it is by no means the most dangerous on the ship

        On the K-19, the failure of the cooling system led to grave tragic consequences. A similar accident on a ship with a gas turbine is not in danger. For example, after getting into the frigate of the USS Stark two ASR killed 37 sailors, but the ship remained afloat and was subsequently put into operation. Imagine in its place the USS Bainbridge nuclear frigate, extensive fire, walking deprivation, failure of the power supply system with the subsequent failure of all ship systems and mechanisms, how many more bugs will the ship captain and organizers of the rescue operation have? The probability of the ship returning to service?
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 16 September 2013 13: 24
          +7
          Quote: Nayhas
          On K-19 breeding failure of the cooling system
          Very accurately noticed, it is the "withdrawal" good Out of ignorance, they themselves managed to create a serious accident from a completely regular situation. And even if they really did succeed in this contingency spill scheme, the consequences would be an order of magnitude worse. An analogue of that accident we can now observe at least in Fukushima, the scheme for the development of the accident is VERY similar ...
          Quote: Nayhas
          A similar accident on a ship with a gas turbine doesn’t threaten anything. For example, after two USGs fell into the frigate of the USS Stark, 37 sailors died, but the ship remained afloat and was subsequently put into operation
          Well, right, they did not extinguish the fire with diesel fuel ... lol
          On the same K-140, a much more severe accident (also out of stupidity) did not lead to the death of personnel, or even to the withdrawal of the ship from the line. On the installation of the second side, he went to sea normally for several years before being repaired. Or is this example not good? wink Let's take "K-429", which in general lay on the ground for more than a month, flooded. And the divers who came to raise it first of all were forced to lower the compensating grilles in order to extinguish the YAR. Tellingly, after all this repair and replacement, the fittings and the primary circuit system did not require replacement.

          As for the qualifications of the staff. The author plans to equip crews with whom? Caught on the streets by migrant workers or junkies from nightclubs? So they will not understand the diesel engine, and even more so in the gas turbine engine. What results in savings in training personnel can be seen in the same Fukushima. Rickover did not save on operator qualifications, and there are no accidents. But at Trimeil Island they recruited random people. The result is known.

          As for the compact nuclear power plant, it is worth recalling the Russian ultra-small submarines. Those with 6 crew members. After all, there is also a nuclear power plant, on the very small ...
          1. jjj
            jjj 16 September 2013 22: 47
            +1
            Protection only in front. Well, then the water defended. A friend told me how in practice they showed him how to climb into skerries. Yogis are resting. And our uncles managed to seep between the pipelines. Yes, there is a cap-3 in the mooring team.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 16 September 2013 11: 05
    24
    What does the prosecutor of the nuclear power plant "sew"? First, the cost of fuel and the problems of its disposal. Second, the size of the nuclear power plant. Third, service-qualification. Fourth, vitality-damage. Fifth, "excessive" autonomy (?) Due to limited provisions and ammunition! On the example of the nuclear-powered lighter carrier Sevmorput, the cost of fuel for energy production (1 hp) is 0,12 rubles (with a diesel analogue - 3,64 rubles), the cost of energy production (1 hp) for a full cycle operation and maintenance of the vessel - 1,1 rubles (for a diesel analogue - 4,2 rubles), the cost of transporting 1 kilogram of cargo - 0,58 rubles (diesel analogue - 1,26 rubles). This time. Dimensions ... Progress does not stand still, the dimensions of the reactors will decrease, but the new destroyers have long since turned into cruisers in displacement. These are two. The requirements for qualifications are steadily increasing, and not only in the Navy, and not only at nuclear power plants, people "from the plow", without education, there is nothing to do next to modern technology. These are three. The survivability of reactors, their safety, is constantly being improved and directly depends on the general survivability of the ship, the training of the crew, otherwise, all nuclear submarines must be replaced with diesel ones. To link autonomy with provisions and ammunition, I would like to say so, if we had as many naval bases around the world as the United States, we could philosophize about such a connection, but, in our case, it is easier to supply the operational connection with rations, and, even, ammunition at sea, than to drive even tankers. "The construction of a nuclear destroyer could make sense only in one case - Russia lacked the necessary technologies in the field of creating offshore gas turbine installations," or rather, we would have built these destroyers with gas turbine installations, if Russia did not get the advanced Soviet experience in nuclear installations, which it needs develop further. Nuclear power plants came to the fleet, as, in due time, coal steamers replaced sailboats, this is part of the evolution of technology. If we want to be a developed power, we need to preserve and increase our technical potential, and not wait for the Yankees to have the CGN (X) cruiser or something else with a nuclear power plant.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 14: 35
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      On the example of the nuclear-powered lighter carrier Sevmorput, the cost of fuel for energy production (1 hp) is 0,12 rubles (with a diesel analogue - 3,64 rubles), the cost of energy production (1 hp) for a full cycle operation and maintenance of the vessel - 1,1 rubles (for a diesel analogue - 4,2 rubles), the cost of transporting 1 kilogram of cargo - 0,58 rubles (diesel analogue - 1,26 rubles). This time.

      The nuclear-powered lighter carrier Sevmorput was scrapped 15 years ahead of schedule (like its counterparts - Savannah, Otto Hahn, Mutsu). These are two.

      In October 2009, Atomflot’s general director Vyacheslav Ruksha stated that “Atomflot’s lighter carrier“ Sevmorput ”is without work, and if this situation continues in 2010, you will have to hand it over.

      The official page of the maritime register contains the entry “Deleted from the register of ships from 02.08.2012/XNUMX/XNUMX”

      As of June 2013, work on decommissioning a lighter carrier was completed; in particular, the nuclear installation is stopped forever


      Somehow it does not agree with your numbers. After all, all non-nuclear peers of "Northern Sea Route" want to be cheerful, even under the flag of Liberia, but WALK
      Quote: Per se.
      do not get Russia advanced Soviet experience in nuclear installations

      Advanced - this is debatable.
      Yankees built atomic cruisers since 1959
      On submarines - "Elk" (built 62 units), "Virginia" (today 10 in service) not a single accident with the reactor core over 40 years of operation
      Quote: Per se.
      rather than wait for the CGN (X) cruiser to arrive at the Yankees

      CG (X) and its derivative - CGN (X) will not appear. The program for creating the cruiser missile defense has long been closed

      On February 1, 2010, US President Barack Obama unveiled his proposed budget for FY2011. This budget called for, among other things, canceling the entire CG (X) program. The program was canceled in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. The CG (X) 's mission will instead be performed by DDG-51 Flight III destroyers, after the US Navy concluded that the ships could rely on off-board and space-based sensors and so did not need a radar bigger than the DDG could carry

      the last line is dedicated to the AMDR super-radar for controlling low Earth orbits.
      Planned for installation on Orly Burke Sub-Series III. One of the possible solutions to the increased energy consumption is to place an additional diesel generator in one of the destroyer's two helicopter hangars. However, now other schemes appear - the Yankees want to change the engine room, equipping the destroyer with full electric propulsion and a power plant of greater productivity
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 16 September 2013 19: 36
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Somehow it does not agree with your numbers. After all, all non-nuclear peers of "Northern Sea Route" want to be cheerful, even under the flag of Liberia, but WALK
        We have many "secrets covered with darkness", in which horns and legs remained from the great fleet of the Soviet Union. Moreover, by an amazing coincidence, the strongest and most promising ships were the first to die. Few countries that could afford to have a nuclear fleet, and, in fact, only the USA and the USSR had a strong scientific and technical base for nuclear power plants. The fact that something and someone is sailing, so for God's sake, even under sail, especially when the flag of Liberia. The atomic fleet, both civil and military, has a future, as does a country capable of building nuclear ships. We cannot build more warships than those of the United States and NATO, but we can and must build strong ships, and if a nuclear power plant gives an advantage in range for ships in the ocean zone, then they must be nuclear. The Yankees will not build nuclear cruisers or arsenals with nuclear power plants, these are their problems, we must have our own military doctrine and strategy, but like aircraft carriers that need to be built, we don’t need it, this is an American perversion, like nuclear cruisers that we still have, so it is necessary to take an example from the Americans, and let the rest be scrapped. Personally, I do not like this logic, but this is just my opinion, in any case I am grateful for extraordinary articles, for generating different opinions and judgments.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 17 September 2013 10: 57
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Somehow it does not agree with your numbers. After all, all non-nuclear peers of "Northern Sea Route" want to be cheerful, even under the flag of Liberia, but WALK
        What's surprising? The "Democrats" sold everything they could reach. The atomic lighter was not subject to sale. And what should have been done with him in that case? That's right - break down and dispose of. Which is what happened ... request
        1. Santa Fe
          17 September 2013 20: 18
          -1
          Quote: Misantrop
          The atomic lighter was not for sale

          Why so)))

          He’s so profitable -
          Quote: Per se.
          On the example of the nuclear-powered lighter carrier "Sevmorput", the cost of fuel for energy production (1 hp) is 0,12 rubles (with a diesel analogue - 3,64 rubles
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 18 September 2013 15: 30
            +1
            And why casually sold ships flying the Liberian flag? Because - stolen is not his own. All these little companies that arose like flies on rotten meat on ships stolen from the USSR are dung flies. Just a little - they took off and flew away. What about the ships? And let them even drown ...
            The nuclear ship needs a versatile, smart and quality service. In a qualified and well paid carriage. You have to pay for the service, a lot, on time and legally. You cannot hire "Kenya penguin shipbuilding" for this, and you cannot pay with the remains of a batch of pork with high-calorie plague in the kit. Explain to Kirienka how cool you are, you can suffer in earnest, he is a serious uncle and the team is for him.
            A highly qualified crew must be treated politely, respectfully and wisely. The vile gangster is ill with cramps, and if you force them to say that for three days in a row, he even dies. For them, scum, it's even harder than paying. So the trash that we had at the place of shipping companies doesn’t need a nuclear ship categorically, despite all the benefits ...
  • little man
    little man 16 September 2013 11: 47
    0
    Unlike the topic of aircraft carriers, Oleg is very convincing here.
    That's when the lasers will bring to mind and begin to put on the destroyers, then another thing.
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 14: 30
      0
      And why only lasers, all the more now the most promising direction is chemical lasers, radars, and electronic warfare equipment that do not require energy?
    2. lucidlook
      lucidlook 16 September 2013 15: 51
      +1
      Quote: man
      That's when lasers bring to mind

      Then the Russians will invent climatic weapons, and arrange a continuous fog in the area of ​​military operations. winked
  • ed65b
    ed65b 16 September 2013 12: 06
    +2
    Well, how will oil end on the planet? Kirdyk, all but vigorous giants will stand up. We need to work on promising reactors, reduce overall dimensions and riveting ships.
    1. ka5280
      ka5280 16 September 2013 13: 14
      +1
      Well, uranium will have nothing to mine in this situation. Or do you have a project for nuclear mining machines?
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 14: 33
        +5
        YOU are absolutely far from this problem apparently. Have you heard about breeders about reactors? What about MOX fuel? Read.
  • AlexP47
    AlexP47 16 September 2013 12: 34
    0
    I agree with the author. For nuclear destroyers (the path of even large ones) is a bust. It is also necessary to take into account the specifics of our fleet, when it is actually divided into 4-5 isolated theaters. Accordingly, for economic reasons, we will not be able to maintain a large number of expensive nuclear ships in all directions, especially since they should not be in principle at the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet. Conclusion: we need a unified destroyer project with GTZA for all fleets (except for the Caspian, of course).
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 13: 07
      +3
      The author referred to the high cost of servicing ships with nuclear power plants but didn’t give any figures, I can also do that — for example, the cost of electric energy produced by a nuclear power plant is lower than the cost of electric energy from thermal stations and nuclear power plants is cleaner than thermal stations with their emissions tongue
      1. Santa Fe
        16 September 2013 14: 38
        0
        Quote: viruskvartirus
        The author referred to the high cost of servicing ships with nuclear power plants but did not give any figures

        Really?

        Let me quote the data from the report for the US Congress (Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, 2010): the Yankees honestly admitted that equipping a surface-mounted combat ship with nuclear weapons will automatically increase its life cycle cost by 600-800 million dollars, compared with its non-nuclear counterpart.

        This is easily seen by comparing the destroyer’s average mileage over the entire life cycle (usually no more than two or three hundred thousand miles) with fuel consumption (tons / 1 a mile of the way) and the cost of 1 tons of fuel. And then compare the resulting amount with the cost of recharging the reactor (taking into account the disposal of spent nuclear fuel). For comparison: the reloading of a multi-purpose atomic boat can cost up to 200 million dollars at a time, and the cost of reloading the reactors of the Nimitz aircraft carrier is 510 million dollars in 2007 prices of the year!
        1. viruskvartirus
          viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 18: 26
          +1
          The numbers are certainly impressive, but don’t forget that this is a highly enriched fuel reactor, and then it works without overload for a very long time. At promising reactors, it is planned to bring the operating time without overload to 30 years.
          1. Santa Fe
            16 September 2013 18: 46
            0
            Quote: viruskvartirus
            At promising reactors, it is planned to increase the operating time without overload to 30 years.

            It's just that the cost of a high-tech boat will be a couple of billion dollars, that's all.

            How it happened with the American "Virginias"

            The Navy's proposed FY2014 budget estimates the combined procurement cost of the two boats requested for FY2014 at $ 5,414.2 million
            - from a report to Congress Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, August 6, 2013

            not sour for two boats (even if the procurement cost includes part of the life cycle cost)
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 16 September 2013 15: 01
        +1
        Quote: viruskvartirus
        for example, the cost of electric energy produced by nuclear power plants is lower than the cost of electric energy of thermal stations


        Sorry, but only this for the manufacturer. They give it to us in full.
        1. Genry
          Genry 16 September 2013 17: 06
          +1
          Do you have an iron for atomic electricity?
          No nuclear power or thermal power. There is simply an electricity market and consumer delivery services.
          1. papik09
            papik09 17 September 2013 03: 51
            0
            Okay. And why then they "sell" electricity to us for 28 kopecks. per kW / hour, and in Poland OUR electricity is sold to the population for 10 kopecks. per kWh.
            Threat. I apologize to everyone for the comment is not the topic. It's just that Genry is a little bit wrong. hi
            1. M. Peter
              M. Peter 17 September 2013 18: 08
              0
              In Buryatia, they charge 2.75 rubles per kilowatt, I would be glad if we had a nuclear power plant stuck.

              Don’t say that, but atom is cheap power.
        2. viruskvartirus
          viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 17: 53
          0
          This price affects the overall rate.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 16 September 2013 14: 30
      +2
      But how did you get this conclusion? It is the theaters of operation that are spaced apart in space that dictate the maximum "atomization" of the fleet. To be able, in case of emergency, to transfer ships from the North to the Pacific Fleet, for example, without a convoy of escort tankers. At least strike ships.
  • Sirozha
    Sirozha 16 September 2013 12: 46
    0
    I don’t know how about the connection between a nuclear power plant and the destroyer’s firepower ...

    Probably they will install combat lasers! wink laughing
    We have to say something to the officials, that they’ll make anything, so that it would be easier to cut money.
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 16 September 2013 12: 53
    +1
    even managed to put nuclear weapons on the plane, I think that they are developing 2 projects out of boredom, maybe they are developing or already have new-generation compact nuclear weapons (they won’t write about this in the media), and as mentioned above, new promising weapons and systems for increased energy consumption have already been and China announced equipping advanced destroyers with laser weapons.
  • viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 13: 03
    +5
    The author is a staunch opponent of nuclear power plants on ships, many of the calculations are very controversial (especially ridiculed about autonomy, Nuka as a result of a round-the-world without surfacing on the DPS laughing ) AEU has its very big advantages and disadvantages, like any equipment, but it is worth remembering that the technology still does not stand still.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 16 September 2013 13: 13
    0
    Maybe not in the subject. Today in Primorye, on "Zvezda" nuclear submarine Tomsk caught fire. They extinguished for more than 5 hours. Seems no sacrifice, and no "background". since the reactor was shut down before repairs.
    God grant that!
    And then the locals still remember the explosion in Chazhma.
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 14: 21
      +4
      In a fire, especially in a drowned reactor, there can be no explosion of a reactor. The boat may burn, sink, but the tank reactor will ensure safety. At K-431, there was a completely different situation, where a compensating grating was pulled by a crane.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 September 2013 20: 46
        +4
        Quote: viruskvartirus
        On K-431 there was a completely different situation, where the compensating grating was pulled by a crane.
        Serega Vinnik from our company then died there. Earth rest in peace ...
        1. viruskvartirus
          viruskvartirus 17 September 2013 10: 06
          +1
          Rest in peace hi
  • xtur
    xtur 16 September 2013 13: 38
    11
    and why I immediately find out the articles of this author ?

    For nuclear installations, irrespective of one / two loops, the conversion of reactor heat to electricity takes place on steam turbines. This part of them practically coincides with that used at thermal stations.
    But in the case of propulsion systems, the comparison will not be so simple, because the propulsion systems of ships do not convert fuel into electricity, they simply move the ships.
    As a result, we have two very different devices that cannot be compared by one / two components - or it is necessary to bring the total weight of the device along with the fuel, or to compare in detail.
    2200 is not much different from 1300 + 400 + unaccounted components

    the cost of nuclear fuel in the price of electricity of nuclear power plants is not more than 30%, the rest is the cost of equipment - annual reloading of fuel is a real minuscule in terms of price. And the rest of the equipment of the NPP is not so unique as to have sky-high prices, excluding GHGs.
    That is, the cost of servicing reactors is a 90% payment for the monopolism of manufacturers.
    The commercial price of a nuclear power plant and the cost price probably differ several times

    Well, to understand the operating costs of different types of propulsion systems, it makes sense to compare the price of electricity at nuclear power plants and thermal power plants - and so it distinguishes up to 4 times in favor of nuclear power plants
    So all the arguments presented by the author about the high cost of operation are unreliable and based on data not suitable for the USSR / Russia

    In addition, the choice of type of fuel is also a political issue that has many components, so the choice of type of propulsion system for a ship is a question built into the general national security programs.

    Let us say all of the above problems for installations with fast neutrons are insignificant. And since the prospect in the civilian sector is precisely for this type of plants, and new reactors of this type are already being built, then the fleet should also build / develop experience in operating such plants - and we must think how many such experimental plants are needed

    In a word, the topic is not revealed in its essence.
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 16 September 2013 13: 57
      0
      Quote: xtur


      the cost of nuclear fuel in the price of electricity of nuclear power plants is not more than 30%, the rest is the cost of equipment - annual reloading of fuel is a real minuscule in terms of price. And the rest of the equipment of the NPP is not so unique as to have sky-high prices, excluding GHGs.
      That is, the cost of servicing reactors is a 90% payment for the monopolism of manufacturers.
      The commercial price of a nuclear power plant and the cost price probably differ several times

      Well, to understand the operating costs of different types of propulsion systems, it makes sense to compare the price of electricity at nuclear power plants and thermal power plants - and so it distinguishes up to 4 times in favor of nuclear power plants
      So all the arguments presented by the author about the high cost of operation are unreliable and based on data not suitable for the USSR / Russia


      You do not take into account the specifics of the operation of the vessel, this is not a nuclear power plant. Even with heavy use, the main mode is parking. As this does not seem strange at first glance, lonely, this is exactly so.
      1. Santa Fe
        16 September 2013 15: 12
        -1
        Quote: Alex
        Even with heavy use, the main mode is parking.

        ))))))))
        You have no idea how right you are


        Norfolk, December 2012


        Position of 10 American "Nimitzes" as of September 5, 2013
      2. xtur
        xtur 17 September 2013 15: 01
        +1
        I am quite familiar with the operation of nuclear reactors - both with their operation at power, and with PPR, and with work at the level of their own needs.

        And I myself wrote that it is difficult to compare - different devices and even for a nuclear setting have different specifics. But some aspects of the comparison cannot change - if civilian nuclear power plants are up to 4 times cheaper to operate, then any military nuclear setpoints will be cheaper than any gas turbine plants.
        And the fact that the commercial price is many times higher than the real cost cannot change.

        It also cannot change that the choice of a motor setpoint is a matter of stimulating a particular sector of the country and should be associated with a security strategy.

        It’s clear that we won’t take into account everything, but it is impossible to reduce a very complex issue to the level of a journalistic investigation with a dagger
    2. lucidlook
      lucidlook 16 September 2013 15: 54
      0
      In general, I agree, but what about recycling?
      1. xtur
        xtur 17 September 2013 17: 11
        +1
        I am familiar with technologies that should have reduced the amount of radioactive waste to be disposed of by orders of magnitude.
        But these technologies were not given a ticket to life - the management did not want to work without a rollback, and the authors of the installation did not have great financial capabilities.
        This was even written in the press at the time.
        But even taking into account recycling, all this is cheaper
  • Alexey
    Alexey 16 September 2013 13: 52
    +3
    In general, the choice of a power plant for any ship, including a combat one, is the result of an analysis of operating conditions, customer requirements, and industry capabilities. In each case, this is a compromise of desires and opportunities.
    In general, I agree with the AEU regarding criticism of the destroyer and I think it will remain only in the draft. But I do not see anything wrong with the fact that the design bureau was given the task to work out such an option and to have the opportunity to compare and make an informed choice in the future.
  • moremansf
    moremansf 16 September 2013 14: 01
    +1
    The main thing is that the ships are built, and soon the fleet will not remain, and the truth can be known only by comparison ... There are problems in gas turbine installations ... If they are built, then all the shortcomings will be revealed on the head ... The Queen was also not believed, and we flew into space ... Time will tell ...
  • Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 16 September 2013 14: 06
    0
    Of course, you can agree with the critics of the author of the article. In the future, compact nuclear power plants, ship versions of Tokomakov, etc. will also appear. etc. But, as the article correctly says, we need ships of the ocean zone now, and not in the distant future. In order not to send rarities of fifty years to the Mediterranean Sea.
  • Mikola
    Mikola 16 September 2013 14: 20
    +3
    Articles Kaptsova O. as always in the style of melodrama))) I agree with the assessment of atomic cruisers. But it is surprising that the author, in defense of his thought, did not recall the fact-argument that all nuclear cruisers, both in the USA and the USSR, were built to interact with atomic aircraft carriers (and Kaptsov is a prominent opponent of all AUGs smile ) As far as ADIN is known in Russia so far) an aircraft carrier and it’s not an atomic one, with a bunch of unresolved illnesses for children and why it’s not clear what to build new nuclear destroyers now. Even introducing the old Eagles is a waste of money, there are Atlantes, which are not much inferior to them and much cheaper to operate. And the Eagles have two ways, either to scrap or rebuild at least one into an aircraft carrier, which with the cruiser (or s) to form an atomic AUG).
  • Diesel
    Diesel 16 September 2013 14: 36
    +2
    IMHO, ICE and GTD will soon become obsolete, we must look to the future.
    1. Mikola
      Mikola 16 September 2013 14: 39
      -2
      for diesels or something?)))
      1. Diesel
        Diesel 16 September 2013 14: 42
        0
        The diesel engine is also like
  • Mikola
    Mikola 16 September 2013 14: 44
    0
    YSU defenders on cruisers and destroyers! What strategic or tactical tasks should nuclear cruisers and destroyers solve if they are only "courtiers" of aircraft carriers and missile submarines and will always be "sacrificed" in comparison with them in battle in the first place?
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 16 September 2013 15: 02
      +2
      Destroyers air defense and anti-aircraft defense mean court?
      1. Mikola
        Mikola 16 September 2013 18: 27
        0
        DEFENSE, DEFENSE is your strike force fleet? And then what are your strike forces of the fleet?)))))
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 16 September 2013 15: 15
    +5
    There is no need to drop the reliability and security of a nuclear power plant from their shields. The death of the Kursk showed that during the monstrous explosion in the bow of the submarine, the ship's YSU was not damaged at all. To check the efficiency of a particular power plant, it is necessary to enter the maximum number of parameters that determine the main performance characteristics of the ships on which they are installed. In general, it is important to observe the "golden mean". Side-to-side bumbling (YaSU - conventional power plants) is unacceptable.
    1. Mikola
      Mikola 16 September 2013 18: 37
      0
      YU on a submarine and a surface collab are two different things. Here no one denies YaU on the submarine. Comparison is incorrect.
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 15: 53
    +2
    The author compares the masses of the power plants of a small destroyer and a HUGE icebreaker ... While the heavier the icebreaker, the better ... wassat
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 16: 09
      -2
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      The author compares the masses of the power plants of a small destroyer and a HUGE icebreaker

      So the power on the shafts is approximately equal

      The destroyer (Burke) has even more - 100 thousand against 80 ... 85 thousand at the icebreaker


      USS Spruance (DDG-111)
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 16: 22
        +2
        The capacity of the Kamaz diesel freight truck is 240 horses.
        BMW diesel passenger power - 218 horses.

        I hope you do not propose to compare the mass-dimensional characteristics of these engines?
        1. Santa Fe
          16 September 2013 16: 40
          -2
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          I hope you do not propose to compare the mass-dimensional characteristics of these engines?

          There plays a role torque
          In the case of ships, this is not observed (the icebreaker, for example, generally does not have a direct connection between the nuclear warhead and the propeller shafts).

          Yes, and Burke and the icebreaker themselves are not a bit like Kamaz and BMW - military units of Burke under 10 thousand tons. In icebreaker - 20 ... 30 (depending on precipitation)
          1. Ivan_Ivanov
            Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 16: 53
            +3
            The difference in weight between the mass of the icebreaker and Arly Burke is 2,8 times.
            The difference in weight between the mass of Kamaz and BMW x5 is 3,6 times.

            There is a difference, but not so significant.

            You want to say that comparing the Icebreaker and the Destroyer is correct?

            It seems to me much more correct to compare the mass of Arly Burke engines (displacement of 9100 tons) and the Sivulf nuclear submarine (displacement of 9100 tons).
            1. Santa Fe
              16 September 2013 17: 48
              -2
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              The difference in weight between the mass of Kamaz and BMW x5 is 3,6 times.

              IN LOAD !! ??
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              You want to say that comparing the Icebreaker and the Destroyer is correct?

              The power on the shafts is identical, but on which ships these power plants are and what are the technical characteristics of those ships - the tenth matter
              1. Ivan_Ivanov
                Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 17: 52
                +1
                Well, the power of a car and a truck is the same.
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 September 2013 18: 09
                  -1
                  Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
                  Well, the power of a car and a truck is the same.

                  DIFFERENT TORQUE (force x shoulder, lever rule)

                  The car example here is generally incorrect, on Daring and nuclear powered ships there is no direct connection with the screws - there is electric movement. It would be better to give an example of a trolleybus))
                  1. Ivan_Ivanov
                    Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 18: 24
                    +2
                    In fact, you're trying to compare the incomparable.

                    And I'm just trying to show the absurdity of this venture ... fool
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 September 2013 18: 51
                      -3
                      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
                      In fact, you're trying to compare the incomparable.

                      Two surface ships are compared, with the same power on the shafts.

                      this is your problem with examples - either Kamaz or BMW ...
                      No need for me to attribute your strange ideas
                      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
                      And I'm just trying to show the absurdity of this venture ...

                      Before proving anything - to start, study the topic, and then in addition to delusional examples and a dumb smile ( fool ) you could not present any arguments
                  2. lucidlook
                    lucidlook 16 September 2013 19: 47
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Torque MISCELLANEOUS

                    Well, and how different is it?

                    KAMAZ 4310 (740.10-20) - 667Nm at 1600-1800 rpm
                    BMW 535d - 600Nm at 1500-2500 rpm

                    Well, no matter how many times. This is to the question of numbers and comparison of (not) comparable.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 September 2013 20: 39
                      -3
                      Quote: lucidlook
                      Well, and how different is it?

                      Guys, I marvel at you. Such stupid comparisons: the power of the Kamaz vs BMW engine - except maybe for grade 5
                      It’s like you’ve never driven and never been in a car
                      Quote: lucidlook
                      KAMAZ 4310 (740.10-20) - 667Nm at 1600-1800 rpm

                      High torque on trucks is already achieved at the "bottom" - 1000 ... 1500 rpm (volume - 10,85 liters - this is not a joke)
                      In a passenger Behi, it is necessary to untwist a diesel engine up to 2000 and more

                      In any case, this has nothing to do with ship power plants

                      ps / are you sure that the BMB has as many as 600 Nm?
                      as far as I know, even the most powerful 535d diesel (E60 series, 272 hp) hardly produces 500-550

                      667 Nm is some kind of weak Kamaz. A normal ICE Kamaz740 has a torque of 800 or more Nm at 1600 rpm


                      Dynamic and traction calculation of the car - are you familiar with this concept?
                      1. lucidlook
                        lucidlook 16 September 2013 20: 47
                        +5
                        Tree sticks! Yes, not about the transmission and the wheels of speech! About engines and only about them. Higher Ivan_Ivanov drew an analogy. You have requested data. I brought them only to compare engines here and there. Only. After all, the argument was about engines, and not about the dynamics of the car. Weights and power were compared. Weights compared? Fine. Now compare the power. For a complete analogy.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        16 September 2013 21: 01
                        -2
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        After all, the argument was about engines, and not about the dynamics of the car.

                        The argument is about nothing at all.
                        It occurred to someone to compare Kamaz and BMW, although this has nothing to do with the fleet
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        equal weight and power. Weights compared? Fine. Now compare the power. For a complete analogy.

                        ))) I do not care about you

                        For a complete analogy, we must compare - at what speed the engine produces a certain value of power and torque. Otherwise, it makes no sense. Gearbox - a consequence of this feature of the internal combustion engine of the car.

                        the gearbox electric engine does not have - it always has the same torque at any rpm, ship diesel engines do not have a gearbox either (they work in a constant mode)

                        The scheme is nowhere simpler
                      3. Ivan_Ivanov
                        Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 22: 39
                        +5
                        comparing KAMAZ and a passenger BMW based on the fact that the characteristics of their engines (power and torque) are approximately the same is not correct as it is not correct to compare the power plant of a destroyer and an icebreaker based on the fact that both are ships.

                        is it clear?
                      4. Santa Fe
                        17 September 2013 01: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
                        it is not correct to compare the power plant of the destroyer and the icebreaker on the basis that both are ships.

                        If this doesn’t suit you personally, this is not an argument.

                        The example of Kamaz and BMW doesn’t roll either - the internal combustion engines of automobile engines are designed for DIFFERENT operating modes (vehicle speed / force on wheels). For example, ICE trucks and tractors are designed to max. cool. torque and power were issued at low revs, the passenger car engine, on the contrary, was designed for faster rotation of the crankshaft and high vehicle speed (maximum power is given out at 4-5 thousand rpm)

                        Unlike ICE vehicles, ship power plants are rotated by screws without any troubles (the water is the same everywhere, power is determined by the selected operating mode), giving out in max. power declared 54 (Daring), 85 (Icebreaker) or 100 (Burke) thousand hp

                        Daring and icebreakers are generally very similar, they have full electric movement.

                        So your "argument" with Kamaz is, to put it mildly, nonsense
                      5. lucidlook
                        lucidlook 17 October 2013 16: 22
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So your "argument" with Kamaz is, to put it mildly, nonsense

                        I don’t know how else to show you that power is power regardless of the manufacturer’s company and product brand. Maybe the video will give you a better idea? Let's try.

  • knn54
    knn54 16 September 2013 15: 54
    +2
    If in Tartus a compound of 1 atomic aircraft carrier and several ATOM destroyers plyed, I think this would cool the Yankees and their partners.
    And if you put the NWS on tankers, tugboats ... One can only imagine what kind of efficiency this connection will have!
    A bit of history - one of the reasons for the defeat of the 2nd Pacific Squadron, was Rozhdestvensky’s REFUSAL to “release” low-speed auxiliary vessels, and armadillos with cruisers instead of maneuvering and fighting, defended these “troughs”.
    PS The infrastructure for technological maintenance of ship reactors in the SF and Pacific Fleet has been practically eliminated. It is good that new generation reactors do not need to be recharged at all during their service. But operations with the reactor - loading "fuel" at the beginning of the operation of the ship and unloading it during disposal, too, someone must perform ...
    TO WHOM - THAT it is necessary to replace this service with YOUR commercial "offices".
    And are there now SPECIAL TECHNOLOGISTS who are on the "you" with nuclear fuel ...
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 16 September 2013 21: 05
      +3
      Quote: knn54
      And are there now SPECIAL TECHNOLOGISTS who are on the "you" with nuclear fuel ...

      Lip Deer. The photo shows the PM-12, a ship for reloading the active zones of shipboard nuclear weapons. It becomes next to the ship on which it is required to overload the active zones, and performs this operation. You don’t even need to drive to the factory for this.
  • Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 16 September 2013 16: 19
    +4
    RHYTHM-200, http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/russian/universalicebreaker Project 22220. Steam generators that were previously located outside the reactor are now located directly in it (integrated layout).
    Project 22220 Nuclear Icebreaker A steam generating unit in a containment 6 x 6 meters, while the weight of one reactor unit, including the containment, does not exceed 1 000 tons.
    2 pcs not pr. 2000 tons.
    For comparison, only the fuel oil reserve of the destroyer of the 956 project, with a displacement of 6 500 (8480) tons, is 1740 (2316 in overload) tons.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 16: 33
      -3
      Quote: Andriuha077
      the mass of one reactor installation, taking into account the containment, does not exceed 1 tons.

      you have erroneous data - http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/images/pdf/ritm.pdf

      TWO (60 tons) are nevertheless required to provide 2200MW on the icebreaker’s shafts
      Quote: Andriuha077
      Steam generators that were previously located outside the reactor are now located directly in it (integrated layout).

      What about running electric motors, auxiliary equipment, backup diesel generators, fuel supply and biological protection of the reactor compartment
      Quote: Andriuha077
      For comparison, only the fuel oil reserve of the destroyer of the project 956, with a displacement of the same 6 (500) tons, is 8480 (1740 overload) tons.

      Yes, it’s very funny to compare 40-year-old destroyers with the latest, not yet built, nuclear icebreaker

      Would you like to compare with "Daring"?
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 16: 55
        +3
        Do you want to compare with Sivulf?
        1. Santa Fe
          16 September 2013 18: 27
          -2
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          Do you want to compare with Sivulf?

          The example is vulgar

          The boat is completely unlike a surface ship (be it an icebreaker or Burke) - streamlined contours, a very large lengthening of the hull (the SSN-21 Sivulf 107 x 12,6 meters).

          Despite being almost equal (8000 tons of surface displacement versus 8500 tons of full cargo ship Berke), the exceptionally dense boat layout and spacious destroyer rooms differ like heaven and earth
          (just look at the composition of weapons, a set of detection tools and the number of crew)

          At the same time, the power of the SiVulf power plant (45 hp) is more than two times LESS than the power of the destroyer power plant (000 hp)
          1. Ivan_Ivanov
            Ivan_Ivanov 16 September 2013 22: 42
            +2
            I do not suggest that you compare the design of destroyers and submarines. don't do stupid things.

            Compare the mass-dimensional and specific-power characteristics of the engines.
            1. Santa Fe
              17 September 2013 00: 43
              -1
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              I do not suggest that you compare the design of destroyers and submarines. don't do stupid things.

              Then why the hell did you cite Sivulf as an example?
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              Do you want to compare with Sivulf?


              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              Compare the mass-dimensional and specific-power characteristics of the engines.

              on sivulf I have no data
              I read that the mass of the Ohio reactor plant (pressurized water reactor S8G) is 2750 tons - shaft power is 60 hp.

              However, according to Sivulf, everything is obvious - only 45 thousand hp, for the NK, a 1,5-2 times more powerful installation will be needed. Accordingly, it will be much larger
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 16 September 2013 21: 47
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What about running electric motors, auxiliary equipment, backup diesel generators, fuel supply and biological protection of the reactor compartment
        Rowing motors, a cooling circuit with all the equipment and biological protection are precisely the same power plant, the weight of which is given. At the same time, biosecurity is the same for two adjacent plants. But backup diesel engines with their own fuel supply are auxiliary power plants and are not included in the total weight. For example, we had two DG-460 and 30 tons of diesel fuel for them. Based on the assurance of the output of one side with the simultaneous commissioning of the installation of the second side with the provision of general ship systems and running under the propeller motors for XNUMX hours
        1. Santa Fe
          17 September 2013 00: 32
          -1
          Quote: Misantrop
          Propeller motors, a cooling circuit with all equipment and biological protection are precisely the same power plant, the weight of which is given

          Nothing like this
          http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/images/pdf/ritm.pdf

          By the way, how is 667BDR doing there?
          2 turbines of 20 thousand hp, the declared stroke of 24 knots.

          You don’t find it too small for a surface ship, the same 8000-ton Daring needs 54 thousand hp. on the propeller shafts (after power take-off for electrical power to consumers). The surface ship has completely different contours, dimensions and hull lengthening - the power that is barely enough for a submarine is not nearly enough for an NK

          Can you tell me the weight of the squid reactor compartment?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 17 September 2013 09: 40
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            By the way, how is 667BDR doing there?
            2 turbines of 20 thousand hp, the declared stroke of 24 knots.
            You will be surprised, but 667 BDRM with the same turbines at full speed gave out a little more than 25 knots during state tests. And he has a larger displacement than the BDR. I personally sat at the starboard console at this time. Better contours, less resistance. BUT it was a move in the UNDERWATER POSITION. On the surface, the maximum per measured mile was 18 knots at a power of about 65% of the nominal. Moreover, this maximum was not explained at all by the maximum power of the turbines (there was still a fair amount of reserve), but ... by the maximum load on the main thrust bearings (GUP-190) of the shaft lines. Replacing them with more powerful ones, the maximum surface speed could be increased (with the same power of installations). But ... it makes no sense, the surface mode is not the main one for the nuclear submarine. This difference in maximum speed is explained by the presence of the so-called "wave resistance". Surface tension is VERY powerful, especially when the hull shape is not optimized for surface travel. It is precisely because of her that the submarines go under the water ONLY with a trim, so as not to "stick". Otherwise, it is VERY difficult to come off, even in a 5-point storm

            But I will not name the weight of the reactor compartment. I just don’t remember already, but I don’t want to lie ... request

            PS The coolest thing, but once I once managed to disperse the ship to full speed in the BDR in the surface position, they were in a hurry to the base. Although they didn’t immediately reach full speed and speed, they didn’t want to translate the settings to the rated parameters and the central control valve at high speed. And with this combination, the capacity of the devices is limited to 40% of the nominal value (from TsNPK to BSK - 50%)
      3. xtur
        xtur 17 September 2013 17: 30
        +1
        http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/images/pdf/ritm.pdf - прошёлся по ссылке

        60MW gives one installation weighing 1100 tons within the containment. What is inside the containment is not indicated

        how it turns into 60 MW and 2200 t is unclear.
        1. Santa Fe
          17 September 2013 20: 20
          -1
          Quote: xtur
          60MW gives one installation weighing 1100t

          Стр. 3
          Inside the containment (for two switchgear)
          1. xtur
            xtur 18 September 2013 01: 38
            0
            on the third page, the last two lines:

            Dimensions of the containment (for two switchgears), m - 6x13,2x15,5
            Mass of RU within the containment, t - 1100


            here it’s not at all clear, we are talking about the mass of two switchgears or one, because it is indicated mass within containment which is one in two RU

            but even if we take that within the protective envelope 2x1100, then the electric power is obtained not 60MW, but 2x60MW for a mass of 2200t
            1. Santa Fe
              18 September 2013 02: 38
              0
              60 MW - this is the maximum power of the Icebreaker propeller motors (power on the propeller shafts)
  • Cristall
    Cristall 16 September 2013 16: 40
    +1
    Oh GP NPKG "Zorya-Mashproekt" (Ukraine) lit up with the gas-turbine engine M90FR
    Technical characteristics of M90FR

    Power in nominal mode (in a ship), hp - 27500
    Specific fuel consumption in nominal mode, kg / h.p. - 0,170
    Air consumption at the compressor inlet in nominal mode, kg / s - 72
    Resource (full / overhaul), hour - 40000 / 20000

    M90FR successfully passed state acceptance tests in 2005. at the test bench GP NPKG "Zorya-Mashproekt" (Nikolaev, Ukraine). Engine tests were carried out with the installed gearbox PO55.
    American. comparative numbers.
    General Electric LM2500
    Power - 18,4 MW, 24,050 liters. with. (at 100 ° Fahrenheit), ≈32000 l. s. (at 0 ° Fahrenheit)
    The engine speed is 3680 rpm.
    Length - 13,94 m.
    Width - 2,64 m.
    Height - 3,98 m.
    Weight - 198000 pounds
    Blade Material: Titanium and Nickel
    Return - 35,7%
    Fuel consumption - 0,280 l / s.
    Turbine temperature - 802 ° C
    General Electric LM2500 +
    Power - 29 MW, 40,500 liters. with. (at 0 ° Fahrenheit)
    The engine speed is 3680 rpm.
    Length - 14,38 m.
    Width - 3,12 m.
    Height - 3,99 m.
    Weight - 208000 pounds
    Blade Material: Titanium and Nickel
    Return - 38%
    Fuel consumption -
    Turbine temperature -
    General Electric LM2500 +
    Power - 35,32 MW, 45,370 liters. with. (at 0 ° Fahrenheit)
    Engine speed - 3680 rpm
    They are constantly improving it.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 16 September 2013 16: 44
    +2
    It would be interesting to read some author’s polemical article from the apologist of the nuclear power plant too.
  • Watchman
    Watchman 16 September 2013 16: 52
    0
    The main thing is that the destroyer in the design process does not grow to the size of the "Orlan".
  • slacker
    slacker 16 September 2013 17: 29
    0
    An interesting and informative article. Respect to the author!
  • Harmony
    Harmony 16 September 2013 18: 44
    +4
    I agree with those who favor a nuclear installation. We must think about the future !!! Ships serve at least thirty years, and in an unstable economy, as in our country, they can operate longer. By those years, according to the assumptions of different experts, pulse guns, lasers, etc. would be the best weapon. requiring tremendous energy. Only ships with a nuclear reactor will cope with this task. Then, when such weapons will be the norm for any strong state, we will not be able to build a whole nuclear fleet under it in a few years. And we may not have time. You need to start creating it now, make a modular design, just to change weapons later. And in order to stupidly significantly increase the number of ships now, you need to globally repair the old and existing ones. This is done!
    He who thinks differently is either an enemy or does not see beyond his own nose.
  • indiggo
    indiggo 16 September 2013 18: 46
    +2
    be patient, it will not be long soon the final advance project will be, and then we will discuss right now, just wasting no more time.
    both YaSU and ordinary have their pros and cons. it all depends on which fleet development concept will be chosen ...
  • Santa Fe
    16 September 2013 19: 11
    -3
    Quote: harmony
    By those years, according to the assumptions of different experts, pulse guns, lasers, etc. would be the best weapon. requiring tremendous energy. Only ships with a nuclear reactor will cope with this task.

    It was always interesting on what the above opinion is based.

    Electricity generation in Russia
    TPP - about 68% of electricity
    HPP - about 16% of electricity
    NPPs - about 16% of electricity

    As you can see - Energy is somehow managing without nuclear energy, even on a national scale
    The world leader in generating energy through nuclear power is the state - 836,63 billion kWh / year, 104 nuclear reactors operate in the United States, which provides 20% of the generated electricity. The result is similar. Thermal power plants (leaders in power generation) are not as weak as NPP defenders try to imagine them

    As for the destroyer-class surface warship, install an additional diesel generator and don't worry. There is enough energy for everyone.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 22 September 2013 11: 55
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      As you can see - Energy somehow copes without nuclear energy,

      In France, more than 74% of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants.
  • mithridate
    mithridate 16 September 2013 19: 48
    0
    the principle of expediency must be respected in everything
  • Mikola
    Mikola 16 September 2013 20: 15
    -2
    The meaning of the article can be described by the expression - the sins of the fathers should not fall on the children. The mistakes of the development of the USSR fleet should not be inherited by Russia.
  • altman
    altman 16 September 2013 20: 29
    -3
    I completely agree with the author of the article .. destroyers with a nuclear power plant are senseless !!
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2013 20: 43
      -2
      Slightly confused by the fact that the destroyer with nuclear warheads cannot be used in the Baltic and the Black Sea (there are international restrictions on the presence of nuclear warships in the waters)

      But the tasks of the fleet are different ..
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 16 September 2013 21: 07
      +3
      Quote: altman
      destroyers with a nuclear power plant are senseless !!
      ... for the author of the article and for you lol
  • No Name
    No Name 16 September 2013 20: 43
    +1
    I read it with interest.
    PS
    I’ll clarify one point.
    There were at least 3 power plant options for Anchar: nuclear, combined and gas turbine.
    In the figure pr.11990 in the article - a variant with a gas turbine installation. smile
  • Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 16 September 2013 22: 04
    +1
    It seems to me that it is necessary to take into account the possible limitation of resources during the period of hostilities. It’s not even a matter of having to drive a tanker, perhaps it will have nothing to carry. Moreover, we have a limited number of bases, almost none. Amer’s nuclear cruisers were created during the period of real confrontation, when they won’t stand behind any winnings.
  • Fofan
    Fofan 16 September 2013 22: 05
    -1
    tired of the eagles of berki in a vacuum! say that they need 10, but better 15?
    better tell me who are you going to fight with them? with terrorists in Chechnya? with nato? with china? exhale comrades, drink kompotika, do ikebana, go to the bathhouse in the end!
  • Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 16 September 2013 22: 12
    +3
    Quote: Fofan
    tired of the eagles of berki in a vacuum! say that they need 10, but better 15?
    better tell me who are you going to fight with them? with terrorists in Chechnya? with nato? with china? exhale comrades, drink kompotika, do ikebana, go to the bathhouse in the end!

    With no one. It is for this that the fleet and the army are needed.
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 16 September 2013 22: 27
      -1
      Quote: Yuri I.

      With no one. It is for this that the fleet and the army are needed.

      in order not to fight with anyone, it is necessary to tidy up the army and Syas. Russia is a continental country and the point in injecting trillions into the fleet is completely absent.
      1. Yuri Y.
        Yuri Y. 16 September 2013 23: 02
        +2
        Nobody seems to mind the order, especially if this includes accounting for missile defense and nuclear weapons of sea-based probable opponents. And so there are different interests in Syria, for example
        1. Fofan
          Fofan 16 September 2013 23: 23
          -1
          about hospadi!
          the article clearly states that the author wants non-nuclear ships to be added to the fleet. alternative - nuclear powered ships.
          displacement is considered the same. means the minimum that the author wants to add - 5-10 analogs of the cruiser Moscow. at the same time, no one will write off existing ships in the next 10 years.
          question: why do we need 10 more missile cruisers?
          against which countries do they plan to use them, what tasks will they solve, what weapons will they carry, where will they be used?
          I just do not see any need for these ships. you can’t fight with aug, to bombard any terrorists with cruise missiles?
          it’s just that this question is not the first time that has popped up on this forum and the answer is only one: patamushta this krutaaaaa !!!
          uhosh!
  • kostya_a
    kostya_a 16 September 2013 22: 15
    +2
    For me, it is necessary to develop an atom like this and if they develop a destroyer with nuclear power plants, then this will only be a plus. Time will show whether it is necessary or unnecessary, and experience can then be applied. The USSR-Russia has extensive experience in the development of the atom, especially peaceful. If I’m not mistaken in Russia, the only functioning fast neutron reactors in the world with sodium coolant are in the world. At the NPP them. Kurchatov in the Sverdlovsk region operates a BN 600 unit and now another power unit is being completed. And now it is still being designed with lead-bismuth coolant. So let them work out!
  • Fofan
    Fofan 16 September 2013 22: 49
    +3
    By the way, the author described in such detail the features and cost of operation in the US fleet, but nowhere did he cite data on the Russian fleet. But we have a fairly large number of nuclear powered ships and people who have been serving them for more than a dozen years. why there is no this information? Doesn’t fit into the picture of the high cost and unreliability of the nuclear fleet?
    1. Santa Fe
      17 September 2013 00: 20
      0
      Quote: Fofan
      By the way, the author described in such detail the features and cost of operation in the US fleet, but nowhere did he cite data on the Russian fleet. But we have a fairly large number of nuclear powered ships and people who have been serving them for more than a dozen years. why there is no this information? Doesn’t fit into the picture of the high cost and unreliability of the nuclear fleet?

      I can find any information with detailed photos and the history of the service of any state ship, the budget of the Air Force, Army and Navy for any fiscal year (all this is posted in the public domain), reports to Congress on the cost and effectiveness of a particular concept or system of naval weapons

      Alas, our State Duma is not discussing ships, but gay marriage.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 17 September 2013 09: 58
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I can find any information with detailed photos and the history of the service of any state ship, the budget of the Air Force, Army and Navy for any fiscal year (all this is posted in the public domain), reports to Congress on the cost and effectiveness of a particular concept or system of naval weapons

        The trouble is that if these figures, shall we say, are not very reliable. Not financially (most likely, everything is fine there). But the characteristics of the systems and their capabilities are often overstated (sometimes at times). For example, the numbers of the working depth of immersion and the power of the Los Angeles installations walking on the Internet cannot cause anything in them except a healthy laugh in people admitted to real documents ... lol With regard to domestic systems, the figures available in the public domain are also very far from real. True, here they can "walk" in both directions. I was convinced of this more than once, comparing what I met on the Internet with what I once taught or saw myself ... request
        1. Santa Fe
          17 September 2013 20: 25
          0
          Quote: Misantrop
          the power of the Los Angeles installations in people admitted to real documents cannot cause them anything but a healthy laugh ...

          What is wrong with them?

          water-water reactor S6G
          Thermal power - with D1W core (core?) - 150 MW
          with D2W core - 165 MW

          The shaft power is 26 MW (35 thousand hp), the official speed in the underwater position is 20+ knots. (real estimated at 30-35)
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 17 September 2013 21: 55
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What is wrong with them?
            There are a lot of things wrong. To begin with, more recently, nuclear power was written quite seriously not by 150 mW, but by 37 (and before that I came across 17 in general). Further, is the spread in maximum speed almost double, almost double? And the working depth of the dive, despite the fact that no one has seen moose at depths of more than 100 m?
            1. Santa Fe
              17 September 2013 22: 26
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              To begin with, more recently, nuclear power was written quite seriously not by 150 mW, but by 37 (and before that I came across 17 in general).

              Maybe our translators got it wrong

              - Moscow Inyaz?
              - Yes, Ay Daz!
              Quote: Misantrop
              Further, is the spread in maximum speed almost double, almost double?

              Yankees write 20+
              the rest is speculation and speculation
              Quote: Misantrop
              And the working depth of the dive, despite the fact that no one has seen moose at depths of more than 100 m?

              Curiously

              And how often did our submarines go at depths over 100 meters?
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 17 September 2013 22: 42
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                And how often did our submarines go at depths over 100 meters?
                Constantly. Standard working depths are 150-200 m. In the Atlantic there is at least a little cooler than at the surface, and in the North there is too much risk of breaking into ice. And at 200 m, it happened, stuck ...
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Maybe our translators got it wrong
                With numbers? belay How does one need to be a "specialist"?
                1. Santa Fe
                  17 September 2013 23: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  And how often did our submarines go at depths of over 100 meters?

                  I heard that the usual depth on combat patrols is about 60 meters
                  it’s worthless to go deeper, there will be problems with communication, etc.
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  The Atlantic is a little cooler than the surface

                  refrigerating machines?
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  With numbers?

                  your numbers 17, 30 - all this goes well with the "output" power on the shaft, close to the truth

                  And this was compared with the thermal power of the Soviet submarine reactors. Absurd?
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 17 September 2013 23: 35
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    I heard that the usual depth on combat patrols is about 60 meters
                    it’s worthless to go deeper, there will be problems with communication, etc.
                    I heard garbage, I'm sorry. 60m is the lower boundary of the launch corridor for rocket fire. And so that there are no communication problems, there are:
                    towed antenna
                    -system "Hall" (in the past - "Paravan"), something like a kite, only under water.
                    This is for emergency cases. And in the normal mode, depending on the degree of readiness, 1 or 2 times a day there is sub-floating to the communication session and determining the location (location accuracy in the sea is about 20 cm).
                    During my entire service I have never gone less than 150 m. And the standard one was just about 200 m.

                    your numbers 17, 30 - all this goes well with the "output" power on the shaft, close to the truth

                    And this was compared with the thermal power of the Soviet submarine reactors.
                    No, it was about the power of nuclear weapons. It’s a pity, now I can’t find any links.

                    refrigerating machines?
                    The chillers of our submarines feel good when the temperature is not too high overboard. And when there is +28, they hammer at the limit
                    1. Santa Fe
                      18 September 2013 00: 06
                      0
                      important Oleg, depth 60 meters, speed 5-6 knots

                      http://topwar.ru/29589-korabl-idet-prezhnim-kursom-ili-zachem-rossii-flot.html#

                      it seemed to me, at least, worthy of attention, but it turns out, everything is much deeper))
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      During my entire service I have never gone less than 150 m. And the standard one was just about 200 m.

                      What about the Yankees? Tea is not cardboard

                      for 30 years not a single serious accident with Elk (except for navigation)


                      Trieste who dived to the bottom of the Challenger Abyss
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 18 September 2013 00: 24
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        http://topwar.ru/29589-korabl-idet-prezhnim-kursom-ili-zachem-rossii-flot.html#

                        it seemed to me, at least, worthy of attention, but it turns out, everything is much deeper))

                        More than 30 years have passed since these depths were ordinary. wink
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What about the Yankees? Tea is not cardboard
                        Even funnier. I once came across something like "drip water seepage through the steel of a durable case is due to its characteristics and is not considered a malfunction." I, too, would not dare to climb deeper than 100 m on a boat that flows like a sieve what
            2. xtur
              xtur 18 September 2013 01: 29
              0
              so thermal 150 mw it's close to 37 mw electric
  • jjj
    jjj 16 September 2013 23: 11
    +5
    In reality, Russia has only two SF and Pacific Fleet fleets. Hence, access to the oceans. And ocean-going ships are simply obliged to be with nuclear power plants. We have no bases around the world, no supply infrastructure. Our principle is to carry everything with me. Therefore, there is no alternative to nuclear fuel. By price. The cost of operating a nuclear squadron at remote theaters will be much less than that of a conventional squadron, given the cost of operating the necessary infrastructure.
    Over the closed seas. And remember how "Peter" left Leningrad. Although, of course, the BF and the Black Sea Fleet require slightly different ships. And such a structure for the fleets has already taken shape. The case for ship replenishment
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 16 September 2013 23: 52
    -2
    you need to understand what tasks we set for our fleet. right now they have driven 50% of their combat ships to the shores of Syria. and what? God forbid a mess with the Americans. and 50% of our fleet is kapets, and among Americans and their allies only 10-20%. and as after the Tsushima battle we are without a fleet. the creation of expensive ships we do not need. why do we plow the whole ocean? we will not master it. we have lost all our ocean bases. to carry the auxiliary fleet with him? this is what string of ships will be ?! and you need to cover them. destroy them and in a few days the battle fist without food, fuel and water will turn into ghost ships.
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 17 September 2013 00: 08
      0
      Quote: bublic82009
      you need to understand what tasks we set for our fleet. right now they have driven 50% of their combat ships to the shores of Syria. and what? God forbid a mess with the Americans. and 50% of our fleet is kapets, and among Americans and their allies only 10-20%. and as after the Tsushima battle we are without a fleet. the creation of expensive ships we do not need. why do we plow the whole ocean? we will not master it. we have lost all our ocean bases. to carry the auxiliary fleet with him? this is what string of ships will be ?! and you need to cover them. destroy them and in a few days the battle fist without food, fuel and water will turn into ghost ships.

      admit how much alcohol you have already drunk? What a mess from the United States without the use of nuclear weapons? how will missile cruisers help in a nuclear war?
      about the loss of bases and concentration of effort on ships in the near sea zone. 100-150 people crew, UVP, the rest of the weapons are modular, fast pace of construction and relatively low price.
      A great addition to existing missile dreadnoughts. something about project 20380.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 September 2013 10: 13
      0
      Quote: bublic82009
      the creation of expensive ships we do not need. why do we plow the whole ocean? we will not master it.
      Why are you leaving home if you are not able to go around the whole planet? Maybe because you do not have this as your goal? Why go to the hypermarket? You are not able to buy it all together with sellers lol Or only his master and lord has the right to meddle in the ocean, while the rest can only sit on the shore? So I will disappoint you, in the coming centuries it is unlikely that such a lord will appear request