Military Review

Construction of a promising American SSBN will begin in 2021

68
Construction of a promising American SSBN will begin in 2021The US Navy seeks to reduce the cost of developing a promising SSBN (X) SSBN to replace Ohio-class strategic submarines through the use of Virginia strike nuclear submarine technologies, DoD BUZZ reports September 27, citing senior representatives fleet.


The fleet made adjustments to the program in order to reduce its cost, said Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge, director of the systems of the US Navy underwater warfare, in an interview to Military.com.

12 prospective SSBNs should replace Ohio's 14 submarines. The development of the boat is carried out in the company Electric Boat, which is a branch of General Dynamics. Five-year R & D work has an 1,85 billion value. Excluding the design work, the cost of one SSBN should be 4,9 billion dollars (previously the price was 5,4 billion dollars). The construction of the head SSBN should begin in 2021 year.

The new SSBN will have 16 launchers of SLBMs compared to the 24 of the Ohio submarine, refueling the nuclear power plant only once before handing over the Navy, the estimated service life of the submarine 42 of the year (the SSBB Ohio has been refilled several times during the operation) . The number of new SSBNs - 12 units - is calculated taking into account the minimum requirements of the Navy in this component of strategic nuclear deterrence. On the boat, in particular, will be used spherical antenna GUS, mast / periscope fiber-optic data transmission lines, high-definition cameras, remote control with touch panels and joysticks used on the submarine "Virginia".

Next year, the number of US Navy SSBN combat patrols will exceed 4000, Breckenridge said. “Having a naval strategic component with 1960’s prevented the outbreak of a major war using nuclear weapons and gave the highest guarantees of security of our country, "said Rear Admiral. Meanwhile, the Russian and Chinese navies are building new SSBNs with nuclear weapons, Breckenridge warned.

“Submarines are almost an ideal second strike weapon; they provide the potential for a counterstroke in any circumstances. Sea-based missiles are more accurate than ICBMs and significantly more efficient than strategic bombers, ”said Chris Preble, vice president of defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute (Washington, DC).
Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sirs
    Sirs 1 October 2013 15: 01 New
    +5
    Will they all start? already it’s time to finish it with such a state. debt.
    1. olol
      olol 1 October 2013 15: 07 New
      26
      On a public debt to them no difference. How much is needed and will be printed.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 1 October 2013 22: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: olol
        On a public debt to them no difference. How much is needed and will be printed.

        Well then, why don’t they print for Detroit and others who are breathing incense, for health care, education, social needs?
        Their time is up.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 2 October 2013 05: 43 New
          +3
          production from Detroit was withdrawn, and there it was almost Harlem, so they put it in Detroit ... yes
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 2 October 2013 21: 59 New
        0
        Quote: olol
        On a public debt to them no difference. How much is needed and will be printed.


        In this light, the outcome of the Cold War needs to be reviewed. If you look from the point of view of a radical, or otherwise not called, reduction of the marine nuclear component, the war was played in a draw ... and then we will see who else will survive after it ...
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco 1 October 2013 15: 45 New
      +5
      Quote: Sirs
      Will they all start? already it’s time to finish it with such a state. debt.

      You are not farsighted. Now these submarines will be built, and let's go to sea-oceans to engage in piracy, this way they will replenish the budget and forgive debts laughing And this movie is pretty darn good)))
      1. Canep
        Canep 1 October 2013 16: 49 New
        +5
        I agree about the film, laughed heartily “Remove the re-scope”. There are no anti-Russian sentiments in it. You can watch.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 1 October 2013 17: 00 New
          +7
          Quote: Canep
          There are no anti-Russian sentiments in it.

          There anti-American sentiment on the very nostrils (or, at least, American anti-government) laughing
          1. Canep
            Canep 1 October 2013 17: 14 New
            +3
            Well, this is their business, we also regularly iron Dimon against the wool.
            But in fact, can sonar in a submarine hear anti-submarine aircraft?
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 1 October 2013 22: 56 New
              +3
              Quote: Canep
              Can a sonar in a submarine hear an anti-submarine aircraft?
              On a nuclear submarine going 200 m? Or on the submarine below the surface of the water in low noise mode, when almost everything is stopped? These are all different things. In addition, the PLO plane, when circling in a suspicious area, usually also throws buoys, but this is not difficult to hear
    3. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 1 October 2013 17: 54 New
      +7
      Here is a very interesting and fun reading about the US Nuclear Potential.

      http://vg-news.ru/news/20120241074.html

      1. clidon
        clidon 1 October 2013 18: 08 New
        +3
        Well, this is humor no more. There are so many jambs in that article that you get tired of bending your fingers.
        1. SHILO
          SHILO 1 October 2013 21: 00 New
          0
          There can be many shoals, but the article is definitely pleasant!
          One - "If the United States completely ceases to see the coast and sends us its largest armed forces in the world, in response we just slam the tan with a nuclear slipper, like a cockroach." What is it worth! lol

          “And this despite the fact that the average age of an American nuclear warhead is more than 30 years,” I read (although it’s naive to expect frankness in such matters) that the warranty period for Soviet ammunition was 7 years. Think about it. what
          1. clidon
            clidon 1 October 2013 21: 23 New
            +3
            I don’t know how to enjoy such humor.

            The warranty period for any warhead is about 15-20 years, what we have, what the Americans have. That is why they are undergoing modernization. What do we have, what do they have. And that is why they are combat ready.
          2. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 2 October 2013 05: 52 New
            +1
            and the "mace" is "ready", here the mattresses are probably panicking ... wassat in general, the article is about nothing, so ... the author’s fantasies ...
    4. Siberian German
      Siberian German 1 October 2013 19: 09 New
      +1
      have they ever paid attention to it
    5. alone
      alone 1 October 2013 19: 27 New
      +1
      something is not visible that the public debt is interfering with their plans.
      1. old man54
        old man54 1 October 2013 21: 42 New
        +4
        Quote: lonely
        something is not visible that the public debt is interfering with their plans.

        Omar, welcome! fellow
        It is still, but the laws of economics, like mathematics can not be fooled, or do you think otherwise? wink Neither will they build anything in the 21 year, nor any new super0 super boats, this is their statement a bunch in the water, the necessary demarche to maintain a decrepit image! So it will be, you see! tongue
        1. alone
          alone 1 October 2013 23: 31 New
          +3
          I welcome Andrey! I always adhere to one rule:

          it’s better to overestimate them and prepare seriously against them than to underestimate them. hi
  2. waisson
    waisson 1 October 2013 15: 02 New
    -1
    and in fact they will build, and we ?????????????
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 1 October 2013 15: 05 New
      +2
      We build!)) Not everything flies but we build), here is a photo fact - http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/216450.html
      Threat. They will test and bring both the mace and the carriers.
    2. Russ69
      Russ69 1 October 2013 15: 19 New
      0
      Quote: waisson
      and in fact they will build, and we ?????????????

      We have a plan, a new boat is planned in 2025 ...
      The deadline is still long, therefore, what and who will succeed is not known ...
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 1 October 2013 15: 54 New
        0
        This is what is planned by us new for 2025 year? Descent of an aircraft carrier? Bylob biting!
        Enlighten please.
        1. Russ69
          Russ69 1 October 2013 16: 42 New
          0
          Quote: ben gun
          Enlighten please.

          Nothing specific yet. The conversation was about a new generation ...
    3. AVV
      AVV 1 October 2013 15: 46 New
      +2
      And we are building, even taking them into service, and temporary malfunctions with the Mace will end all the same !!! And we hope that very soon !!!
    4. Vadivak
      Vadivak 1 October 2013 15: 52 New
      +5
      Quote: waisson
      and in fact they will build


      And we have gas first. Sevmash - he is a manufacturer of nuclear submarines for the Navy, has finally taken up the real business - is building universal offshore submersible platforms weighing more than 100 thousand tons.
    5. Misantrop
      Misantrop 1 October 2013 17: 03 New
      +6
      Quote: waisson
      and after all, will we build?
      What year is the new Yankees submarine scheduled for? And the PR began NOW. By the time of its launching into the subcortex of the population of the entire planet, it will already be tightly hammering in that the PERFECT THIS IS SIMPLY NOT HAPPENED. And according to the hell, what characteristics there actually will turn out to be, they still will not get into the open press wassat
  3. il grand casino
    il grand casino 1 October 2013 15: 02 New
    11
    Well, it's interesting what our overseas "partners" come up with ...
    Pleased with the quote: “The presence of a naval strategic component in our country since the 1960s prevented the outbreak of a major war with the use of nuclear weapons and gave the highest guarantees for the security of our country.” It is more likely to say here that if they weren’t in the USSR, then nothing would have prevented the start of a big war using nuclear weapons
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 October 2013 01: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: il grand casino
      Well, it’s interesting what our overseas “partners” will come up with.

      “Submarines are almost the ideal weapon of the second strike, they provide the potential for counterattack in any circumstances. Sea-based missiles are more accurate than ICBMs and significantly more effective than strategic bombers. ”

      Mr. Admiral is disingenuous: according to their VM doctrines, SSBNs are the weapon of the first disarming strike, since the KVO at Trident-2 is of the order of 120-250м. Which is enough to create p = 200 kg / cm2. Such pressure is guaranteed to destroy silos, silos, etc.
      Well, since 100% of the combat-ready SSBNs / rpkSN is neither guaranteed to us, nor guaranteed to be destroyed and destroyed in one fell swoop, "they provide counter-strike potential under any circumstances." The "balance of fear" stopped the stripes, not their peacefulness.
  4. ben gun
    ben gun 1 October 2013 15: 03 New
    +1
    It is a pity it is not said what missiles and what else these boats will be equipped with.
    And somehow I hardly believe in the 4,5 yard of greenery for the ship. The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford will be launching 43 yards apiece recently.
    1. Turbo 253
      Turbo 253 1 October 2013 15: 18 New
      +2
      Ford class aircraft carriers will replace Nimitz class ships developed in 1960. The Navy plans to spend $ 43 billion on three new aircraft carriers, which will be equipped with advanced technologies "that are designed to create operational efficiency while providing a higher departure price with lower manpower compared to current carriers."

      Ford class will include "a new electromagnetic system for launching aircraft to propel aircraft from a ship," "advanced aerofinisher rebuild aircraft"; updated "anti-aircraft missile systems;" “a dual radar range that combines two radars operating on different frequency bands to provide air traffic control,” and other innovative technologies, including new power plants, water generation and waste management systems.
      1. smirnov
        smirnov 1 October 2013 16: 41 New
        +5
        Water generation is very dangerous))) laughing
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 1 October 2013 19: 54 New
        +4
        Quote: Turbo 253
        and other innovative technologies, including new power plants, water generation and waste management systems.

        What is it ?? What fucking nonsense is that? Google translator into Russian amused from the heart! laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
  5. Turbo 253
    Turbo 253 1 October 2013 15: 20 New
    -1
    ----------------------
    1. SHILO
      SHILO 1 October 2013 23: 16 New
      +3


      Who likes what video! what bully
      1. Zeus
        Zeus 2 October 2013 01: 01 New
        0
        What kind of play?
        1. smirnov
          smirnov 2 October 2013 16: 21 New
          0
          Some part from the Silent Hunter series apparently ...
  6. Gennady1973
    Gennady1973 1 October 2013 15: 24 New
    +6
    Personally, I would very much like that this boat never goes out to sea but "floats" .....
    1. Turbo 253
      Turbo 253 1 October 2013 15: 29 New
      -15
      nobody cares what you want
      1. Gennady1973
        Gennady1973 1 October 2013 15: 35 New
        +5
        Turbo 253 I expressed my opinion and judging by your "rainbow" flag you are not pleased! What did you forget on this site? Former patriot? emigrant? here and live chat with those whose flag you showed "shit"
      2. Russ69
        Russ69 1 October 2013 15: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Turbo 253
        nobody cares what you want

        So behave accordingly and don’t stick your nose anywhere ... Sooner or later we’ll pinch anyone ...
        1. Turbo 253
          Turbo 253 1 October 2013 16: 04 New
          -8
          In the USSR, people worked and did things. in Russia, just words
          1. guran
            guran 1 October 2013 17: 24 New
            13
            German Chancellor Helmut Kohl once said in an interview with the American president: "You underestimate the monstrous power of the Russians. Russia's latent potential is huge and invisible for the time being. And this is dangerous."

            Helmut Kohl is a German, but who else but the Helmuts know Russia so? The German swam, the German knows))
          2. GSH-18
            GSH-18 1 October 2013 20: 07 New
            +4
            Quote: Turbo 253
            In the USSR, people worked and did things. in Russia, just words

            Please tell me, where did you get such amazing information ?? belay Be careful, otherwise the FBI will declare you a traitor to your homeland without trial, and you will sit in Sheremetyevo without a passport!
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco 1 October 2013 15: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Gennady1973
      "swam" .....

      Why are you insulting the American shipbuilding industry so much? it. Although your train of thought is correct, the Premier League is trying to plunge, but does not exit, because IT only floats. lol
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 1 October 2013 15: 58 New
        +2
        In my opinion, let IT float))) but ONLY vertically down, towards the Mariana Trench, everything that has been done and serves under the mattress flag. starting with the existing ones and ending with the promising landers. although the bottom will be wicked, so at least G .. on the surface will be less.
  7. Mhpv
    Mhpv 1 October 2013 15: 36 New
    +6
    Helping us cut the Sharks in 90x, they laid the prospect of destroying their Ohio laughing as unnecessary. You give a repetition of the fate of the USSR in the arms race in America. good
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 1 October 2013 15: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: mhpv
      . You give a repeat of the fate of the USSR in the arms race in America.

      It's time to collect stones. Boats and ships are also outdated, and have an unsightly appearance)))) But on the whole we have swung far, Let's see what happens.
    2. clidon
      clidon 1 October 2013 18: 10 New
      0
      And so already 4 submarines were converted into arsenal boats.
  8. Gennady1973
    Gennady1973 1 October 2013 15: 40 New
    +3
    Sirocco Good afternoon! At one time, I served on the SF and wrote "floated" ... but did not go out or plunged. Respectfully.
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 1 October 2013 16: 11 New
      +3
      Genady and you do not get sick. I am bursting with pride in the Soviet fleet, and the way they kicked the Americans in the back in the late 80s with a boot.
      1. diver1977
        diver1977 2 October 2013 09: 12 New
        0
        She smiled about the blacks-grief-firefighters) In fact, they have a different attitude to the service, they will not risk their lives. They do not serve, but work as military men with all the ensuing consequences. Black Sea fellow! So, from time to time, they need to be reminded of where their place, the Spartans are bad! And then the Arabs got the hang of chasing slings and consider themselves the best warriors of the planet.
  9. Misantrop
    Misantrop 1 October 2013 15: 49 New
    +9
    And another stupid thing is reactors with a fuel reserve of 40 years of operation. FUCK, if reloading nuclear weapons is not at all a big problem? But why aren't they planning a supply of products for the crew for the same period? lol
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 1 October 2013 15: 59 New
      13
      Yeah. And the crew so that it could multiply and be supplemented by budding from each other (blue hedgehogs) laughing all 40 years old!
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 1 October 2013 16: 03 New
      11
      Quote: Misantrop
      But why aren't they planning a supply of products for the crew for the same period?


      Then the crew must be recruited from the convicts for this period.
    3. Mhpv
      Mhpv 1 October 2013 16: 38 New
      +2
      There, instead of the galley McDonald's or Burger King or KFC hi
      Depending on rank
    4. clidon
      clidon 1 October 2013 18: 11 New
      0
      Potmou, that the reactor can be refueled by 40 lei and not be soared with recharging, creating infrastructure, personnel for it, etc. But this will not work with people.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 1 October 2013 23: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: clidon
        the reactor can be refueled by 40 lei and not be sweated with recharging, creating infrastructure, personnel for it, etc.
        Well, and what size will it work? By the way, on the Northern Fleet the entire infrastructure for reloading nuclear weapons is only ONE PM-12, it is enough for the entire fleet. Moreover, it was enough in the days of the USSR, when the overload of nuclear weapons was not a rare exotic. Active zones can be overloaded directly in the database, even it is not required to drive to the plant
        1. clidon
          clidon 2 October 2013 20: 25 New
          0
          And why should the reactor get bigger?

          Now there are “PM-63” and “PM-12” at the SA (by the way 13100 tons of displacement!)
          Technical transport Amur (8400 tons) and technical tanker TNT-12 (2300 tons).
          All this has crews, technical personnel, plus it is necessary to periodically send fuel on rails for processing (to the Urals), where it is stored and maintained. Plus storage and transportation of fresh fuel. And for all this, the staff, and highly qualified.
          And so all this headache is postponed until the cutting of the ship.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 2 October 2013 22: 33 New
            0
            Here is the PM-12 at Olenaya. PM-63, judging by the photo, the same type with her, in Severodvinsk. The technical tanker TNT-12 is needed for any purpose, drainage tanks of the 1st circuit must be drained into it, not drained overboard. And then it doesn’t matter what core resource, drainage during operation will still be the same as the core overload ships, you can’t do without them anyway. And the crews on them too. And if they work a little more often, then their qualifications are higher, right? Or, for each overload, to collect specialists "with a pine forest" who do not have either sufficient qualifications or experience in working together, nichrome. And hope they don’t mess up?
            Quote: clidon
            And why should the reactor get bigger?
            Weird question. The fuel supply is five times longer, sort of, and it will take up more space. Not counting all the associated iron. If now the core has a volume of the order of a cubic meter, then ... wink
            1. clidon
              clidon 3 October 2013 19: 46 New
              0
              Yes, of course, you won’t be able to completely get rid of the infrastructure, but it’s one thing when it’s almost routine work, another thing is to deactivate the device only when disposing of the ship. That is, it is 4-5 times less work. You can keep one set for two fleets, transferring submarines to one recycling point, with one storage and one PM, rather than 4 as of now. Up to the missions of Rosatom’s specialists, we have not only the Navy who knows how to unload fuel.

              According to the reactor:
              The fuel supply is not necessarily five times larger. You can increase its enrichment, you can increase the percentage of burnout, increase the efficiency of heat removal using liquid metal media. You can have a lot of things.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 4 October 2013 09: 53 New
                0
                Quote: clidon
                it’s one thing when it’s almost routine work, another thing is to deactivate the device only when disposing of the ship.
                This WAS routine work with the number of nuclear facilities that existed in the USSR. Decontamination, by the way, is required when the emergency (with broken shells) zone is unloaded. If it worked properly, almost all activity remains in it and does not spread along the contour.
                By the way, Rosatom is now in the same mess as everywhere else. Some thieves. Their staff is in charge of Madame, who used to be in charge of the personnel of the Metro chain of stores. One of the department heads is a former student of my acquaintance (nuclear physicist). According to him, the dumbass is simply phenomenal. The rest is not much better. As for the single point of disposal, there is one at the moment. It was created on the basis of the former naval base of Gremikha by my immediate superior, Rear Admiral Panteleev Valery Nikolaevich. It is there that those zones are unloaded, to which they could not even approach before because of the transcendental activity. The storage area for the unloaded reactor compartments was created in another former base in Sayda Guba, where another colleague is my chief engineer. Well, until recently, the third was the chief engineer of the PM-12 overload. So I'm more or less up to date on all these matters. wink

                Quote: clidon
                You can increase its enrichment, you can increase the percentage of burnout, increase the efficiency of heat removal using liquid metal media. You can have a lot of things.
                It is possible, BUT on a different elemental base and with completely different technologies. When they appear, it is clear that the installations will become significantly more compact. In the meantime, and so everything is at the limit. MMT in this form is not very reliable, there are too many unsolved problems. The water coolant is already at the limit (the "triple point of water" is too close) An increase in enrichment will lead to an increase in the swelling of the fuel mixture. And so - everywhere, wherever you stumble, any solution carries with it a heap of problems that aggravate the installation and increase its dimensions. At the moment and at the current utilization rate, the service life of the fuel assembly is oriented to the period between the repairs between the submarines (which is why it was chosen)
                1. clidon
                  clidon 5 October 2013 09: 50 New
                  0
                  Be that as it may, I think it’s not worth arguing that the infrastructure involved in refueling operations is 8 times more likely than in the case of “maintenance-free” reactors. In the Russian case, this is at least the failure of two, and most likely all three (non-acidic in size) PM-ok with the transfer of the disposal work "to outsourcing".
                  As for Rosatom, whatever ladies and other managers may be, the organization is quite active in working with nuclear materials of all kinds (fuel production, production, storage of nuclear materials and isotopes, operation of existing ones and construction of new nuclear power plants) and, I think, will be able to cope with the disposal of old transport vehicles.
                  However, initially, I recall, it is about the Americans.

                  According to the MMT, of course, everything is foggy - in Russia they have long worn with the Brest project, in the USA they put a pilot installation on Sea Wolf, but I really don’t know what really settled the matter. It is also known that there is an experience of increasing fuel enrichment from 45% enrichment is up to 70-80% and the effect is positive. On the whole, we have quite a living Virginia with a watercraft on board and a life of 33 years. I don’t think that pulling up with another half dozen years of operation will be a big problem.
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 1 October 2013 20: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Misantrop
      And another stupid thing is reactors with a fuel reserve of 40 years of operation. FUCK, if reloading nuclear weapons is not at all a big problem?

      Is not. But it requires the availability of a special dock, appropriate infrastructure of the base, and specialists. There is a reason for this innovation. Another question is reliability?
  10. kaptri
    kaptri 1 October 2013 17: 03 New
    +1
    A non-reloadable core is something new. Perhaps no one plans that these boats will serve 40 years. Their simultaneous end will come much earlier .... Why would it?
  11. Backfire
    Backfire 1 October 2013 18: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Misantrop
    And another stupid thing is reactors with a fuel reserve of 40 years of operation. FUCK, if reloading nuclear weapons is not at all a big problem? But why aren't they planning a supply of products for the crew for the same period? lol

    Can you even imagine what you are writing about?
    Cut the "durable" hull, actually disassemble part of the boat. Then collect, mount everything that was removed, for access to the reactor. Many, long and very carefully check and double-check everything. And how will the rector behave? Then you need to go through a new cycle of sea trials.
    For all this time, the boat falls out of the combat schedule.
    And how much money does it all cost, you thought?
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 1 October 2013 20: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Backfire
      Can you even imagine what you are writing about?
      Cut the "durable" hull, actually disassemble part of the boat.

      On Russian nuclear submarines, replacing reactor fuel is a regular operation that does not require disassembling the nuclear submarine and removing the reactor. And on the staff, what? Do you need to disassemble the entire submarine? belay You invented it cool! Well this is how much dough you can capitalize! laughing
      1. pl675
        pl675 1 October 2013 20: 54 New
        0
        I’m embarrassed to ask - will the "fuel rods" / fuel elements / sailors manually through the "CPU" in this case be dragged?

        regular operation. Yes.
        but without dismantling parts of a sturdy case, unfortunately in no way.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 1 October 2013 21: 09 New
          +5
          On Russian nuclear submarines, hatches are provided for this operation in the upper part of the hull, from where it is previously placed in a protective container (this operation is performed in the reactor compartment, everything is tight), the reactor fuel is unloaded with a special crane, and fresh is immediately loaded. There is no need to disassemble the case. If necessary, this operation can be performed at a regular pier. How to change on the US submarines, Backfire told us lol
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 1 October 2013 21: 33 New
            +3
            If necessary, this operation can be performed at a regular pier.




            Theoretically, yes, not one Fleet Commander would take such a risk. This operation is carried out on separate berths, not in a permanent connection base. With the necessary technical support. And authorized personnel carrying out transshipment. Otherwise, it will be like in August 1985, in Chazhma Bay, in the Red Banner Pacific Fleet.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 1 October 2013 22: 16 New
              0
              Quote: gunnerminer
              Theoretically, yes, not one Fleet Commander would take such a risk. This operation is carried out on separate berths, not in a permanent connection base. With the necessary technical support. And authorized personnel carrying out transshipment. Otherwise, it will be like in August 1985, in Chazhma Bay, in the Red Banner Pacific Fleet.

              To avoid these difficulties, amers used a reactor with a period of 40 years. Interesting news. Does anyone know what the trick is? We wouldn’t be hindered by this, and not just on the nuclear submarines.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 2 October 2013 02: 13 New
                +2
                Quote: GSH-18
                amers and used a reactor with a period of 40 years. Interesting news. Does anyone know what the trick is?

                The trick is that they managed to increase the percentage of burnup of nuclear fuel to 80%. At our first reactors, it amounted to about 20%, so after 3 of the year - be so kind as to reset the zone (AZ). Now the time between overloads is 8-10 years. True, they try to do this during the period of average repair. The whole snag and the terrible "military" secret lies in the moderator, which allows you to evenly burn the assembly to the end without losing the amount of thermal neutrons. And the resulting fragments do not absorb their overwhelming number. This is an area of ​​high technology, physical chemistry, etc.
                And the rest (with minor inaccuracies), colleague Misanthrope correctly put everything on the shelves.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 2 October 2013 10: 03 New
                  +1
                  Quote: BoA KAA
                  The trick is that they managed to increase the percentage of burnup of nuclear fuel to 80%. At our first reactors, it was about 20%, so after 3 years, please be kind to reset the zone (AZ). Now the time between overloads is 8-10 years. True, they try to do this during the period of average repair. The whole snag and the terrible "military" secret lies in a moderator, which allows you to evenly burn the assembly to the end without losing the amount of thermal neutrons.
                  A rather small percentage of active zones was finalized until the campaign was completely exhausted; more often, they were forced to reload according to the maximum activity of 1 circuit due to the destruction of the fuel element shells (or fuel assemblies, depending on the assembly design). With moderators and neutron flux regulators, the problem was more or less managed to be solved already in the second generation. A much more pressing problem is the swelling of the fuel composition as the fuel burns out, whatever shape of the shells they have experienced. The Americans seem to have taken a slightly different path, since this problem has not been solved for them either. Judging if only because the assemblies of their Westinghouse swell regularly
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 2 October 2013 11: 33 New
                    0
                    KAA boa, Misantrop, thanks for the clarification! In my opinion, such a significant increase in the reactor operating cycle (from 3 years to 40!) Is either an original technical solution (in the reactor design) or a serious technological breakthrough (physical chemistry, radiochemistry). And perhaps both. The advantages of such a source of electricity are obvious (subject to the stated reliability) -not mandatory availability of the maintenance infrastructure of the base (or its minimal availability). Etc. It would be nice for the GRU to ventilate this issue. yes
            2. Misantrop
              Misantrop 1 October 2013 23: 19 New
              +1
              Quote: gunnerminer
              No Fleet Commander would take such a risk. This operation is carried out on separate berths, not in a permanent connection base. With the necessary technical support. And authorized personnel carrying out transshipment. Otherwise, it will be like in August 1985, in Chazhma Bay, on the Red Banner Pacific the navy.
              Alas, there was a complete mess in Chazhma when they started overloading zones without any standard equipment for this submarine project, using improvised means. Not that there was no special crane, they didn’t even bother to make a standard trapeze with a release rod for a compensating grate. And they didn’t block the movement in the water area (the floating crane rocked the speeding boat, which started it all). And on the SF for this purpose there has long been a specialized PM-12 (made in Nikolaev). Another thing is that they try to coincide with the replacement of active zones for the average repair of nuclear submarines, since work on opening a solid hull is still necessary. The so-called "removable sheets" (structurally adapted for this) are cut above the reactors
      2. atalef
        atalef 3 October 2013 20: 57 New
        0
        On Russian nuclear submarines, replacing reactor fuel is a regular operation that does not require disassembling the nuclear submarine and removing the reactor. And on the staff, what? Do you need to disassemble the entire submarine? You invented it cool! Well this is how much dough you can capitalize!

        but without fairy tales, the reloading of nuclear fuel into the reactor implies opening the compartment, etc., etc.
        By the way, regarding the above, the respected Misantropom regarding the incredible size of the reactor, the active zone of which does not need to be changed for the entire service (as in the new states nuclear submarines)
        I remember that on the first boats the active zone was changed almost every year. So, modern nuclear submarine reactors have a higher degree of enriched uranium (they could have achieved this before), but the engineering and fuel elements were not ready (in particular, due to zirconium deformation. Then get acquainted with the topic, boil the reactors a little, what, where and how and after how long core recharging required.
        Reactors with a single charge of the core will be used on the new Amerov’s aircraft carriers.
        Of course, fairy tales can be told about an infinite number of bucks printed, but the Pentagon is always trying to save money both by fixing June and using technical achievements from other projects, so they planned to build a message like 5.4 lard, and built 4,7 for normal. I would like to see something like that in RA that I wanted to spend 1 trill. , but let’s say it’s 800 billion, it’s just not going to happen, in Russia, in this respect, it’s the other way around, they wanted to meet the trillion, they’ve economized and kept in two
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 1 October 2013 23: 07 New
      +4
      Quote: Backfire
      Can you even imagine what you are writing about?
      Cut the "durable" hull, actually disassemble part of the boat. Then collect, mount everything that was removed, for access to the reactor. Many, long and very carefully check and double-check everything. And how will the rector behave? Then you need to go through a new cycle of sea trials.
      For all this time, the boat falls out of the combat schedule.
      And how much money does it all cost, you thought?

      Actually, for a sufficient number of years I was the commander of the reactor compartment on the nuclear submarines. And I imagine the whole process in detail. lol
  12. voliador
    voliador 1 October 2013 19: 02 New
    -3
    And we have a mace, either a rocket or a submarine - it sank almost as much as it took off.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 2 October 2013 10: 28 New
      0
      And here we are all fools here, we don’t know the chronology of events.
      In the case, that is, what can I say?
  13. Nitup
    Nitup 1 October 2013 19: 08 New
    0
    What, interestingly, for the rockets will stand on these boats?
    1. clidon
      clidon 1 October 2013 19: 29 New
      0
      Collecting 16 pieces of Trident-2 LE
  14. avg
    avg 1 October 2013 19: 22 New
    +2
    “The presence of a naval strategic component in our country since the 1960s prevented the outbreak of a major war with the use of nuclear weapons and gave the highest guarantees of the security of our country”

    Now they are pushing this thought everywhere. as if we surrounded their bases and climbed to them across all air and sea borders. We need to deal more actively with counter-propaganda, and even on our TV American documentaries are played where these advanced avaliable pigeons hold back the terrible, but backward Russians.
  15. TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 1 October 2013 19: 56 New
    +2
    and this bankrupt country puts some other plans for the future when there is no money even for the salaries of civil servants. for them at least a year to exist, and then it will be for them a task from the category of impossible. Still, ordinary Americans must destroy this military-financial-terrorist hydra called the United States. Americans must abandon claims to world domination, acknowledge their crimes against humanity, reduce their armed forces to a minimum, abandon aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and nuclear weapons; Americans must close all their military bases abroad, withdraw from NATO, stop cooperating, organize, arm, create, lead terrorist organizations; recognize that the United States in its current form is a threat to peace and America should be transformed into a community of peaceful independent 50 states. and only then can it be said that America has become closer to the civilized community and has rejected the hateful barbaric policy of the scavenger. IMHO.
  16. moreman78
    moreman78 1 October 2013 20: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: Misantrop
    And another stupid thing is reactors with a fuel reserve of 40 years of operation. FUCK, if reloading nuclear weapons is not at all a big problem? But why aren't they planning a supply of products for the crew for the same period? lol


    I look at us solid specialists here - they all know how, they all know, all this is not a problem for them! At least for a start, familiarize yourself with this topic, and then you will shine with eloquence ...
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 2 October 2013 09: 48 New
      0
      Quote: moreman78
      I look at us solid specialists here
      Where is yours? And with what exactly is it necessary to familiarize yourself with the full set of construction documentation for a new project? Well, lay out, get acquainted
  17. Max otto
    Max otto 1 October 2013 21: 28 New
    +1
    Comrades, I watched the news about the US budget, NASA goes on unpaid leave in the amount of 97% (???) of the staff, even I did not consider it that way? What kind of submarines can we talk about after that?
  18. KBPC50
    KBPC50 1 October 2013 22: 07 New
    0
    I still do not understand the idiots from the production of weapons! To hell with me, we residents of the ball, depending on a piece of shit flying in space is all this necessary? Something left to live until 2036, maybe until 2072? NO WHO WILL NOT WIN ANYONE !!! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
  19. Army strong
    Army strong 2 October 2013 00: 01 New
    0
    Quote: GSH-18
    Quote: Turbo 253
    and other innovative technologies, including new power plants, water generation and waste management systems.

    What is it ?? What fucking nonsense is that? Google translator into Russian amused from the heart! laughing


    Yes, and imagine how stupidly amuses Google translator from Russian to English
    I've translated your funny phrase:

    "Google translator into Russian amused from the heart!"

    that's what happened:

    Google release of a Russian translator for fun from the heart!

    laughing laughing laughing laughing
  20. Army strong
    Army strong 2 October 2013 00: 08 New
    0
    Quote: SHILO


    Who likes what video! what bully


    This is not a video. This is a computer toy. Forgot the name, Silent Hunter, something like that
  21. aszzz888
    aszzz888 2 October 2013 00: 21 New
    0
    Will the US Congress not accept the budget for 2014?
    And there you look and a technical foul with a public debt just around the corner.
    Over 1 million people have already gone on vacation. I am so wondering that 12-15 million mericatos would contain THEIR BEACHES. And let yourself sunbathe longer ...
  22. pl675
    pl675 3 October 2013 14: 25 New
    0
    Quote: GSH-18
    On Russian nuclear submarines, hatches are provided for this operation in the upper part of the hull, from where it is previously placed in a protective container (this operation is performed in the reactor compartment, everything is tight), the reactor fuel is unloaded with a special crane, and fresh is immediately loaded. There is no need to disassemble the case. If necessary, this operation can be performed at a regular pier. How to change on the US submarines, Backfire told us lol



    approx.
    we call things differently.
    dismantling of removable sheets / two - PB and LB / - is not there a partial analysis of the case? the sheets have a set of stamps, and this operation does not take two hours.
    and yes - I didn’t hear about the “necessity” of replacing the core at the pier. I repent. on tf all the old 675s / and not only / projects were overloaded in chazhma.