Military Review

Why a nuclear reactor on a promising Russian destroyer

118



“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. ”

- Press Service of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, statement from 11 September 2013

The power plant is the heart of any technology. The parameters of all mechanisms and subsystems that make up the structure under consideration are rigidly tied to the energy source. The choice of the power plant is the most difficult stage in the design of a technical system, on the correctness of which (and the availability of a suitable SU) everything depends.

The expediency of having a nuclear power plant on a prospective Russian destroyer causes long discussions. Each of the parties cites noteworthy arguments, and official sources do not give any specific explanations about the characteristics and appearance of the future ship.

Baseline data are as follows. To date, the need for a nuclear power plant (YASU) has been confirmed in three classes of ships and vessels:

- on submarines (the reason is obvious - the need for powerful air independent power plant);

- on icebreakers, due to their long work in the mode of maximum power. The installed capacity utilization for modern nuclear-powered icebreakers is 0,6 ... 0,65 - twice as high as that of any naval combat ship. Icebreakers literally “break” in the ice, while not being able to leave the track to replenish fuel supplies;

Why a nuclear reactor on a promising Russian destroyer


- on supercarriers, where monstrous size and power make it unprofitable to use conventional SU. However, British designers have recently refuted this claim - on a new aircraft carrier, preference was given to gas turbines. At the same time, Queen Elizabeth (60 thous. Tons) was planned to be equipped with an extremely energy-intensive system - an electromagnetic EMAPS catapult.

The need to equip YSU ships of other classes looks doubtful. By the beginning of the twenty-first century. There are practically no cruiser / destroyer class nuclear surface ships in the world. Moreover, there are no plans abroad to create such ships. The Americans wrote off all their nuclear-powered cruisers as early as the middle of the 90-s, with the wording “unreasonably high operating costs, with no specific advantages”.

The only exception is the Russian heavy nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great (simultaneously considered the largest and most expensive non-aircraft-carrying ship in the world) and its counterpart — the Admiral Nakhimov TARKR (formerly the cruiser Kalinin, launched three decades ago).



It would seem that everything is obvious: a promising atomic destroyer for the Russian Navy looks like a complete anachronism. But the problem is much deeper than it seems at first glance.

The arguments "against" and "for"

The argument of the opponents of the construction of nuclear destroyers is based on five “postulates” put forward in the report of the operational management of the US Navy headquarters in 1961:

1. The factor of increasing the cruising range at maximum speeds for surface ships is not decisive. In other words, naval sailors do not need to cross the seas and oceans on the 30 hub.

Patrolling, control of maritime communications, search for submarines, escort of convoys, humanitarian and military operations in the coastal zone - all this requires much lower speeds. Weather conditions and hydrographic conditions often impede movement in full swing. Finally, it is worth thinking about the safety of the resource mechanisms - the head Orlan (Kirov, he is Admiral Ushakov) finally “killed” his power plant during the march to the place of death of the Komsomolets. Four days at full speed!


2. The higher cost of a ship with YASU. At the time when the report was written, it was known that the construction of a nuclear cruiser is obtained in 1,3 — 1,5 times as expensive as building a ship with a conventional propulsion system similar in composition. The comparison of the operating costs was not possible, due to the lack of experience in the operation of nuclear-powered ships in those years.

Currently this item still raises the most questions. The main secret is the cost of fuel uranium assemblies (including their transportation and disposal). However, according to recent calculations, while maintaining the current dynamics of oil prices, the cost of the 30-year life cycle of the surface ships of the main classes will, on average, be 19% higher than the cost of the cycle of their non-atom counterparts. The construction of an atomic destroyer will be expedient only with an increase in the price of oil to $ 233 per barrel by the year 2040. The existence of an atomic assault ship (of the Mistral type) will be beneficial only if the price of oil rises to $ 323 per barrel by the 2040 year (based on 4,7% per year).

The growth of energy consumption and the installation of advanced equipment on board destroyers is also not too concerned for sailors. The capabilities of existing ship generators are enough to power super radars with a peak power of 6 MW. In the case of even more voracious systems (AMDR, 10 megawatts), the designers propose to solve the problem by installing an additional generator in one of the Orly Burk helicopter hangars, without drastic changes in the design and damage to the combat capabilities of the small destroyer.



Stop! And who ever said that a nuclear power plant should have more power than a gas turbine of similar size ?! This will be discussed in the next paragraph.

3. As of the beginning of the 60-x, the weight and dimensions of the shipboard YSU significantly exceeded those of conventional GEM (with the same power on the propeller shafts). The reactor, with its cooling circuits and biological protection, weighed no more than a water boiler or a gas turbine with a supply of fuel.

Nuclear Steam Plant (PPI) is not all. To convert the energy of superheated steam into the kinetic energy of rotating screws, the main turbo gear unit (GTZA) is required. It is a bulky turbine with a gearbox, which is not inferior in size to a conventional gas turbine.

It becomes clear why the atomic cruisers of the Cold War times each time turned out to be larger than their non-nuclear colleagues.

There is every reason to believe that this situation continues to this day. The stated indicators of promising nuclear steam power plants suitable for installation on ships (RHYTHM 200, 80 thousand hp, mass 2200 tons) suggest certain conclusions: the PPG weighs no less than a set of gas turbines (typical LM2500 weighs within 100 tons, Each of the destroyers is equipped with four such installations) and the necessary fuel reserve (average for modern cruisers and destroyers - 1300 ... 1500 tons).

From the presented advertising booklet OKBM them. I. Afrikantov is not clear whether this figure (2200 tons) includes the mass of turbo-generators, but it is clear that this mass does not include the mass of the rowing electric motors. (note. RITM 200 PPE was created for the newest icebreakers of the 22220 Ave. with full electric propulsion).

And this despite the fact that any nuclear-powered icebreaker is necessarily equipped with a backup power plant (diesel engines / boilers), which in the event of an accident at YASU, crawls to the coast at the minimum speed. These are standard safety requirements.


Engine room amphibious assault "America".
The ship is propelled by two General Electric gas turbines LM2500

4. The fourth postulate states that for the maintenance of YASU, a greater number of attendants are needed, moreover, of higher qualification. What entails a further increase in displacement and cost of operating the ship.

Perhaps this situation was true for the beginning of the atomic era fleet. But already in the 70s it lost its meaning. This can be easily seen by looking at the number of crews of nuclear submarines (an average of 100-150 people). To manage the huge two-reactor "loaf" (Project 949A), 130 people were enough. The record is inimitable “Lira” (pr. 705), whose crew consisted of 32 officers and midshipmen!

5. The most important note. The autonomy of the ship is limited not only by fuel supplies. There is still autonomy for provisions, for ammunition, for spare parts and consumables (lubricants, etc.). For example, the estimated supply of food on board the Peter the Great is only 60 days (with a crew of 635 people)

There is no problem with fresh water - it is received directly on board in any necessary quantities. But there are problems with the reliability of mechanisms and equipment. As with the endurance of the crew - the sailors can not spend half a year on the high seas without going ashore. People and technology need rest.

Finally, discussions around unlimited cruising range lose their meaning when discussing actions in a squadron. It is not possible to equip YASU with each helicopter carrier, minesweeper or frigate - the atomic destroyer, in one way or another, will have to drag along with everyone, watching how other ships replenish their fuel with the help of the KSS and naval tankers.

Proponents of the use of YASU, on the contrary, argue that any allegations of autonomy over the reserves of provisions are a cheap provocation. The greatest problems always deliver fuel. Thousands of tons of fuel! Everything else - food, spare parts - has a relatively compact size. They can be easily and quickly delivered to the ship or stored in advance in the compartments (when it is known that a trip to full autonomy is planned).


British destroyer HMS Daring.
Today it is the most advanced destroyer in the world

Opponents of nuclear energy have their own serious arguments. The best of the modern GEMs, built on a full electric propulsion scheme (FEP) and using a combination of economic propulsion and afterburner gas turbines (CODLOG), demonstrate impressive efficiency and economy. The modest destroyer "Daring" is able to overcome nautical miles (from Murmansk to Rio de Janeiro) at one gas station to 7000.

When operating in remote marine areas, the autonomy of such a ship is almost no different from the autonomy of an atomic ship. A lower cruising speed than a nuclear ship is not critical in the age of radars, aviation and rocket weapons. Moreover, as noted above, the icebreaker also cannot continuously move at a speed of 30 + nodes - otherwise, it will need an annual overhaul with the complete replacement of the power plant.

At the same time, one naval tanker (integrated supply ship) is able to fill five to ten such destroyers in one voyage!


The destroyers "Guangzhou" (Ave. 052B, board No. 168) and "Haikou" (Ave. 052C, board. No. 171) take fuel from the KC "Qiandaohu" (board. No. 887)

Of the other arguments put forward by opponents of the construction of nuclear surface ships, it should be noted doubts about the high survivability of the nuclear destroyer and its safety in the event of receiving combat damage. After all, a damaged gas turbine is an ordinary pile of metal. The damaged reactor core is a deadly emitter capable of killing all those who managed to survive the attack of the enemy.

The facts show that fears about the consequences of damage to the reactor are greatly exaggerated. Suffice it to recall the death of the submarine "Kursk". The terrible explosion that destroyed several compartments did not cause a radiation catastrophe. Both reactors were automatically shut down and safely lay for a whole year at a depth of over 100 meters.


Blessed memory to the fallen

It is worth adding that, in addition to local booking of the reactor compartment, the casing of the reactor itself is made of a powerful metal array with a thickness of decimeter. None of the modern RCC is not able to disturb the active zone of the reactor.

The survivability of an atomic-powered vessel is hardly very different from the survivability of conventional destroyers. The combat strength of a ship with YASU can be even higher, due to the absence of thousands of tons of fuel on board. At the same time, his death can cause irreparable consequences for others. This risk should always be considered when sending a nuclear-powered icebreaker to the war. Any emergency on board, fire or grounding will become a global incident (as happens with the submarine).

Unhealthy public attention to nuclear ships, fueled by dishonest environmentalists, creates major problems for the development of shipboard nuclear weapons systems. And if the ban on approaching the coast of N. Zealand is unlikely to have any significance for the domestic fleet, then an international ban on the entry of nuclear ships into the Black Sea can cause a lot of trouble and problems for the Russian Navy. Basing destroyers in Sevastopol would be impossible. In addition, problems will arise during the passage of the Suez and Panama canals. The owners of hydraulic structures will not miss the opportunity and, in addition to long paperwork, will impose a triple tribute to sailors.

Why does Russia have an atomic destroyer?

On the technical side, nuclear destroyers will not have any serious advantages or disadvantages over ships with conventional GEMs (gas turbine or combined type).

A higher cruising speed, unlimited (in theory) autonomy for fuel reserves and no need for refueling during the entire combat campaign ... Alas, all these advantages can hardly be realized in practice during real combat services of the Navy. And because they are not of particular interest to the fleet. Otherwise, nuclear and conventional GEM have approximately equal weights, dimensions and provide the same power on the propeller shafts. The danger of radiation accidents can be neglected - as the experience of operating the domestic icebreaker fleet shows, the probability of such an event is close to zero.

The only disadvantage of the shipboard JSU is their higher cost. At least, this is indicated by the data of open reports of the US Navy and the absence of atomic destroyers in the composition of foreign fleets.

Another drawback of the ships with YSU is connected with the geographical position of Russia - the Black Sea Fleet remains without destroyers.

At the same time, the use of YASU on Russian ships has a number of important prerequisites. As you know, power plants have always been a weak point of domestic ships. The destroyers of 956 Ave., which were frozen at the piers, with the "killed" boiler-turbine power plant became a talk of the town, as well as the ocean cruises of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrying cruiser (in case of another breakdown of the power plant). Experts express their claims to the overly complicated and confusing scheme of the gas turbine power plant of Atlant-type missile cruisers (1164 Ave.) - with a heat recovery loop and auxiliary steam turbines. Observant photographers excite the public with photographs of Russian corvettes of 20380 Ave, emitting caps of thick smoke. As if we are not the newest ships, built on technology "stealth", and paddle steamer on the Mississippi River.



And against the background of this disgrace - countless world tours of the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great, which is worn without stopping around the globe. Maneuvers in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, Tartus - and now the mass of the cruiser, accompanied by icebreakers, is lost in the mist in the area of ​​the Novosibirsk Islands. Russian atomic icebreakers demonstrate no less reliability and efficiency (however, the word “Russian” here is superfluous - not a single country in the world, except the Russian Federation, has atomic icebreakers). 30 July 2013, the nuclear icebreaker "50 years of Victory" for the hundredth time reached the North Pole. Impressive?

It turns out that the Russians have learned something. If we have such successful experience in the development and operation of shipboard YSU - why not use it when creating promising warships? Yes, obviously such a ship will turn out to be more expensive than its non-nuclear counterpart. But, in fact, we simply have no alternative to YASU.

Also, do not forget that, unlike the American fleet, we have a completely different concept of the development of the Navy.

The Yankees relied on massive construction of destroyers, with the use of full standardization and unification of their components and mechanisms (which, however, did not help much - the ships still turned out to be monstrously complex and expensive).

Our surface component, due to different national characteristics, will look different: a couple of large attack destroyers, similar in size to the experimental American destroyer Zamvolt, surrounded by cheaper and mass frigates. Russian destroyers will be an expensive “piece goods”, and the use of YASU is unlikely to have a significant impact on the cost of operating these monsters. Nuclear destroyer or destroyer with a conventional GEM? In my opinion, each of these options in our case is win-win. The main thing is that USC and the Ministry of Defense would quickly move from words to deeds and start building new Russian destroyer class ships.

Author:
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ar-ren
    ar-ren April 28 2014 08: 48
    +23
    >> - on super-aircraft carriers, where monstrous size and power make the use of conventional SUs unprofitable. However, British designers have recently denied this statement - on the new aircraft carrier, gas turbines were preferred. At the same time, it was planned to equip Queen Elizabeth (60 thousand tons) with an extremely energy-consuming system - the EMALS electromagnetic catapult.

    Here the author is grossly mistaken. The feasibility of nuclear weapons on an aircraft carrier stems only and only from the fact that a steam catapult is essentially a "steam locomotive for aircraft." That is, it has a monstrously low efficiency of about 5%. That is, for every liter of fuel burned to launch aircraft, you need to burn another 19 purely because of poor efficiency. And since the plane needs to be launched every two minutes, you need to have huge boilers so that they can quickly burn masses of fuel, generating steam. In addition, the steam catapult needs to be warmed up for 8 hours before launches; in emergency mode, warming up for at least 200 hours before launches. And you need to heat up to XNUMX degrees Celsius! These are all fuel costs.

    Unlike boilers, nuclear power plants do not care what load they give out, the fuel in the reactor degrades at about the same rate and in any case it will need to be changed after a certain period, regardless of the amount of energy generated.

    Unlike steam catapults, electric ones have an efficiency of 60%, that is, per liter of useful work, 667 grams of losses in efficiency must be burned. And these catapults do not need to be heated.

    Hence, the meaning of YU on aircraft carriers completely disappears.
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB April 28 2014 10: 20
      +29
      Another question is that Russia has little revenge for restocking, there are no bases abroad, unlike the United States, and the nuclear installation, with all its shortcomings, is more "long-range" ...
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 April 28 2014 11: 54
        +5
        ShturmKGB
        Another question is that Russia has little revenge replenishment

        and indeed the Russians were very successful in nuclear engineering ... laughing
        1. Deniska
          Deniska April 28 2014 11: 59
          +8
          This is my opinion. I do not think that nuclear weapons should be placed on destroyers at this stage of the development of military technologies. Now, if there are plans to equip these destroyers with energy-intensive weapons, for example, lasers, then there is a need. Everything goes to a new type of weapons, lasers, railguns, and who knows what else they will come up with, maybe a "plasmagun".
          1. crazyrom
            crazyrom April 29 2014 22: 48
            0
            The answer to the question in the title of the article: why, for the railgun!
    2. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat April 28 2014 14: 07
      +11
      That's what I thought ... what
      Progress does not stand still, indicators of energy intensity and charging time of electric batteries improve from year to year. When they are comparable in terms of power reserve and autonomy with a diesel or gas turbine power plant, the following scheme can be implemented:
      A flagship with a reactor on board, and the rest of the squadron with electric motors (which are lighter and more compact) and electric batteries.
      When the squadron runs out of power, it charges the batteries from the flagship reactor.

      Benefits of the scheme:
      1. Refueling is no longer necessary.
      2. The number of "gas stations" is not limited.
      3. The survivability of the squadron increases due to the lack of combustible fuel on board.
      4. Electric motors are simpler than internal combustion engines structurally, and are more resistant to breakdowns, therefore, less technical personnel are needed to service them.
      5. Staffing is cheaper.
      6. Fuel savings in huge quantities.

      The only drawback is that it will take time, there are no ready-made technologies yet, but I don’t think that they are just around the corner. (For example, the startup StoreDot announced a development that allows you to charge mobile devices in 30 seconds, thanks to nanotechnology, and the Japanese from Sinets managed to develop material that will increase the energy consumption of the battery by ten times.)


      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2014 14: 33
        +16
        Quote: And Us Rat
        Only flaw

        If some contagion slam the flagship, then the squadron will have an unusually pale appearance
        1. And Us Rat
          And Us Rat April 28 2014 18: 53
          +5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          If some contagion slam the flagship, then the squadron will have an unusually pale appearance

          And how does this differ from the current situation with tankers? The flagship is still a survivable tanker request
        2. MstislavHrabr
          MstislavHrabr April 28 2014 18: 54
          +5
          So the reactor is needed not only on the flagship ...
        3. SAG
          SAG April 29 2014 01: 11
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

          If some contagion slam the flagship, then the squadron will have an unusually pale appearance

          ... in this case, our Israeli friend has solar panels on each ship from the squadron ... laughing which are also being improved from year to year (I heard about 45% of German scientists about efficiency)
      2. Tektor
        Tektor April 28 2014 14: 49
        +6
        YaSU has its justification in two undeniable cases:
        1. Long solo swimming with a lack of mat-technical supply bases.
        2. Work in northern (polar) latitudes, where it is possible to get into ice captivity: in the absence of a "bridge", the crew will have to survive in harsh conditions.
        Therefore, the AUXILIARY nuclear battery is very necessary.
      3. PAM
        PAM April 28 2014 17: 25
        +4
        but the thought is not bad!
      4. Korablev
        Korablev April 28 2014 18: 50
        0
        Quote: And Us Rat
        You can implement the following scheme:
        A flagship with a reactor on board, and the rest of the squadron with electric motors (which are lighter and more compact) and electric batteries.
        When the squadron runs out of power, it charges the batteries from the flagship reactor.

        this is complete nonsense.
        1. And Us Rat
          And Us Rat April 28 2014 18: 55
          +5
          Quote: Korablev
          this is complete nonsense.

      5. Symbiotos
        Symbiotos 10 May 2014 00: 45
        0
        cold has a great effect on the capacity of batteries and batteries. And our country is northern. Although maybe this analogy with car batteries is not entirely true ...
    3. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer April 28 2014 16: 09
      +4
      Hence, the meaning of YU on aircraft carriers completely disappears.

      YaU makes room for fuel, ammunition, weapons and place
      crew habitat
      . In aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons are justified by 100.
      1. Santa Fe
        April 28 2014 16: 51
        +1
        Quote: Sledgehammer
        YaU makes room for fuel, ammunition, weapons and crew habitat

        Misconception
        1. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer April 28 2014 18: 44
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          Misconception


          What is more specific?
          1. Santa Fe
            April 28 2014 23: 00
            0
            Below is a detailed comment (comparison of Nimitz and Forrestal)
            1. Sledgehammer
              Sledgehammer April 29 2014 00: 42
              +1
              Below is a detailed comment (comparison of Nimitz and Forrestal)

              Forrestal
              The stock of jet fuel is 2,84 million liters of gasoline and 2,97 million liters of JP-5 kerosene. Cellar aviation ammunition contained 1650 tons of bombs and missiles.

              "Nimitz"
              The total (combat) supply of jet fuel - 10,22 million liters, max, the capacity of the cellars of air bombs - 2970 tons.

              Two-fold increase with an increase in displacement by 20 percent.
              Next.
              Forrestal
              SEU "Forrestal" included 4 tiers machine-boiler rooms, in each of which there was one GTZA and two boilers. This arrangement allowed to reduce the length of the MKO to 20% of the length of the ship, and their volume - to 5,5% of the volume of the hull.

              "Nimitz"
              With its two reactors, the MO volume is no more than that of Forrestal
              which still needs volumes for fuel + the mass of this fuel.

              The gain in the free space and the total mass
              propulsion and fuel is obvious.
              1. ar-ren
                ar-ren April 29 2014 00: 58
                +2
                You are blatantly mistaken in that matter, since the Forrestol power plant is currently outdated.
                1. Now there are no boilers at all.
                2. GTE directly burns fuel and turns the screws.
                3. GTE consumes 2.5 times less fuel for the same work as boilers + turbines.
                4. A gas turbine engine with a capacity of 36 MW, type MT30, weighs approximately 100 tons in total.
                1. Sledgehammer
                  Sledgehammer April 29 2014 12: 32
                  0
                  You are grossly mistaken in that matter

                  You are grossly mistaken in the fact that I am grossly mistaken)
                  I never said that the Forrestal power plant was outdated,
                  I believe that it is less profitable than AEU.
                  But the statement that it is out of date follows from your own words)

                  1. Now there are no boilers at all.
                  3. GTE consumes 2.5 times less fuel for the same work as boilers + turbines.

                  By the way
                  2. GTE directly burns fuel ...

                  and KotTurbEU directly burn fuel.
                  and twists the screws ...

                  Turns the screws (direct mech. Communication) on ships much smaller
                  displacement, large through the generator and electric motor
              2. Santa Fe
                April 29 2014 02: 09
                0
                Two-fold increase with an increase in displacement by 20 percent.

                Yes)) While the increase is 1 thousand tons of PSUs and 4 thousand tons of fuel

                Nimitz total displacement increased on xnumx thousand tons
                Quote: Sledgehammer
                The gain in the free space and the total mass of propulsion and fuel is obvious.

                Obvious)) A few crumbs won,
                the ship has become a quarter larger

                By the way, Forrestal is older than Nimitz by 20 years.
                1. Sledgehammer
                  Sledgehammer April 29 2014 12: 04
                  +1
                  Yes)) While the increase is 1 thousand tons of PSUs and 4 thousand tons of fuel
                  total displacement of Nimitz increased by 25 thousand tons

                  At 1500 tons of PSU and almost twice as much fuel, you attention. watched?
                  Twice the greater autonomy of the wing.
                  "Forrestal" has a displacement of 76500 tons, "Nimitz" 91500 tons what are there
                  25000 t
                  ?
                  On "Nimitz" the crew (ob.n.) is about 1000 hours more, accommodation + place for work.
                  Not to mention the supply of fuel to the squadron and infantry battalion where there is also a decrease in numbers.
                  transport and real money savings.
                  What crumbs are there)) win very solid.

                  By the way, Forrestal is older than Nimitz by 20 years.

                  And what follows from this?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    April 29 2014 12: 33
                    0
                    Quote: Sledgehammer
                    "Nimitz" With its two reactors, the MO volume is no more than that of "Forrestal" which still needs volumes for fuel + the mass of this fuel.

                    The result is a funny paradox
                    Xnumx tons of oil were absent on Nimitz, compared with Forrestal

                    It would seem that almost 8 thousand tons of reserve - as a result, mere pennies could be won: 1220 tons of ammunition and 4 thousand tons of fuel. (despite the fact that the ship itself became larger by 20 thousand tons)

                    By the way, on the displacement:
                    Nimitz
                    Light Displacement: 78280 tons
                    Full Displacement: 101196 tons

                    Forrestal
                    Light Displacement: 61235 tons
                    Full Displacement: 81101 tons
                    Quote: Sledgehammer
                    Forrestal is older than Nimitz for 20 years. And what follows from this?

                    From this it follows that each device on Nimitz should have been easier than on an old ship. This is inevitably a consequence of progress.

                    That is why Nimitz is more interesting to compare with the younger Kitty Hawk. The mass of aviation fuel is 5880 tons, the mass of ammunition is 1650 ... 2000 tons (moreover, the KX is still less than Nimitz by 20 thousand tons)
                    1. Sledgehammer
                      Sledgehammer April 29 2014 13: 29
                      +1
                      By the way, on the displacement

                      Forrestal
                      61163/76614 t

                      http://hghltd.yandex.net/yandbtm?fmode=inject&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpentagonus.ru%2Fp
                      ubl%2F44-1-0-1031&tld=ru&lang=ru&la=&text=%D0%90%D0%92%20%22%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D
                      1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%22&l10n=ru&mime=html&sign=1f41ffc734d33346ac3
                      96fa6e8a6489f&keyno=0
                      "Nimitz"
                      73973/91440 t

                      http://hghltd.yandex.net/yandbtm?fmode=inject&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpentagonus.ru%2Fp
                      ubl%2F27-1-0-1034&tld=ru&lang=ru&la=&text=%D0%90%D0%92%20%22%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D
                      0%B8%D1%82%D1%86%22&l10n=ru&mime=html&sign=35a4fc5f5bc2e1a3f58fcbcee1836034&keyn
                      o = 0

                      Do you compare "Independence" 62000/80643 t
                      И cultured project "Nimitz".


                      It would seem that almost 8 thousand tons of reserve - as a result, mere pennies could be won: 1220 tons of ammunition and 4 thousand tons of fuel. (despite the fact that the ship itself became larger by 20 thousand tons)

                      Already cited data.
                      Forrestal
                      The stock of jet fuel is 2,84 million liters of gasoline and 2,97 million liters of JP-5 kerosene. Cellar aviation ammunition contained 1650 tons of bombs and missiles.

                      "Nimitz"
                      The total (combat) supply of jet fuel - 10,22 million liters, max, the capacity of the cellars of air bombs - 2970 tons.

                      And not at 20000 tons but at 15000t:))
                      Two-fold increase with an increase in displacement by 20 percent.


                      From this it follows that each device on Nimitz should have been easier than on an old ship. This is inevitably a consequence of progress ...

                      It's strange, because the displacement of the main classes of warships is growing :)))
                      1. Santa Fe
                        April 29 2014 14: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Are you comparing Independence 62000/80643 t
                        And the improved Nimitz project.

                        No, I compared the head Nimitz and Saratoga (sorry, I made a mistake on the 1 figure - CV-60 instead of CV-59, Forrestal)
                        Data - US Navy Register, http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/AVT59.htm

                        At Forrestal
                        Light Displacement: 59468 tons
                        Full Displacement: 79015 tons
                        vs 78280 / 101196 Nimitz
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        And not on 20000 t but on 15000t :))

                        20+
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Two-fold increase with an increase in displacement by 20 percent.

                        And it should be six times!)))
                        Exactly such a reserve of load was obtained at atomic AB, with an increase in / and by 20 thousand tons and the abandonment of 8,5 thousand tons of oil
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Strange, because the displacement of the main classes of warships is growing

                        So what. Their firepower is growing disproportionately to the growth in / and

                        Will we compare the nimitz with Kitty hawk?)) The conversation was about increasing fuel and ammunition due to the smaller size of nuclear weapons (which is a misconception)
                      2. Sledgehammer
                        Sledgehammer April 29 2014 14: 44
                        0
                        At Forrestal
                        Light Displacement: 59468 tons
                        Full Displacement: 79015 tons vs 78280/101196 Nimitz

                        Forrestal
                        61163/76614 t
                        "Nimitz"
                        73973/91440 t

                        20+

                        No, that's 15000 tons :)

                        Starting with CVN-71, aircraft carriers are being built on an advanced design. They strengthened the protection of ammunition cellars, decks and important military posts (including through the use of armor from Kevlar), and improved electronic equipment. The total displacement of these ships reached 102 tons. The crew of the CVN-000 increased to 74

                        And it should be six times!)))
                        Exactly such a reserve of load was obtained at atomic AB, with an increase in / and by 20 thousand tons and the abandonment of 8,5 thousand tons of oil

                        This is in theory, but the practice is different, different things :)
                        Forrestal Crew 2764 people (+1912 air personnel)
                        "Nimitz" Crew 5621 people.
                        Crew on Nimitz 1000 hours more, accommodation + additional
                        life resources which need space for work :)
                        So what. Their firepower is growing disproportionately to the growth in / and

                        Like the aircraft carriers. What about then
                        From this it follows that each device on Nimitz should have been easier than on an old ship. This is inevitably a consequence of progress.

                        There is a contradiction :)
                        Will we compare the nimitz with Kitty hawk?))

                        It’s wiser to compare Nimitz and Independes, the age difference is less :)
                        But here the difference is not even in favor of KTEU.
                        The conversation was about increasing fuel and ammunition due to the smaller size of nuclear weapons (which is a misconception)

                        Perhaps, but not mine :)
                        Yes, and it was about
                        YaU makes room for fuel, ammunition, weapons and a place
                        crew habitat. In aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons are justified by 100.

                        in my comment above :)
                      3. Santa Fe
                        April 29 2014 15: 54
                        -1
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Forrestal 61163/76614 t

                        US Navy Register cites other numbers
                        http://www.nvr.navy.mil/

                        Starting with CVN-71, aircraft carriers are being built on an advanced design
                        They have 3 sub-series. But the difference between them is not 10 thousand tons

                        Crew on Nimitz 1000 hours more
                        It could not use up a reserve of 20 thousand tons
                        20 thousand tons is a good heavy cruiser of WWII times with a crew of 2 thousand people.

                        Like the aircraft carriers.
                        Yes, but in the opposite direction
                        8500 tons of oil disappeared - instead of them, only 4 thousand tons of fuel and 1200 tons of PS were added (despite the fact that the ship itself increased sharply in size)

                        It makes more sense to compare Nimitz and Independes
                        Independence is a project from 50's. Forestola Twin
                        It is necessary to compare with KittyHawk, and preferably D.F. Kennedy, who was originally planned with YaSU

                        Compare with Nimitz - be surprised

                        The YSU does not in any way affect the dimensions of the cellars and aviation fuel tanks. "Increase" (1200 tons + fuel 4 thousand tons) - pitiful crumbs, 5% of the ship. The appearance of the increase is due to the large size of nuclear aircraft carriers
                      4. Sledgehammer
                        Sledgehammer April 29 2014 16: 36
                        0
                        SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But the difference between them is not 10 thousand tons

                        It is in 10000 tons.
                        It could not use up a reserve of 20 thousand tons

                        At 15000 tons
                        Yes, but in the opposite direction

                        On the contrary, planes are improving and opportunities
                        their applications are becoming wider, as are their weapons.
                        8500 tons of oil disappeared - instead of them only 4 thousand tons of fuel and 1200 tons of BP were added

                        BP 2970 tons instead of 1500 tons than for "Forrestal"
                        The stock of aviation fuel is 10,22 million liters instead of 2,84 million liters of gasoline and 2,97 million liters of kerosene than that of Forrestal.
                        And they need to be placed and booked, will provide access to them
                        + many more conditions.
                        The crew + 1000h, arguments have already led to them.
                        Do you even read my comments? :)
                        (despite the fact that the ship itself has increased dramatically in size)

                        Why are you so grown up? :)
                        "Nimitz"
                        331,7 (317,1 vl) x 78,5 (40,8 vl) x 11,2 m
                        Forrestal
                        316,8 (301,8 vl) x 76,2 (39,4 vl) x 10,3 m
                        Compare with Nimitz - be surprised

                        I don’t see the point :)
                      5. Santa Fe
                        April 29 2014 21: 14
                        -1
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        And they need to be placed and booked, will provide access to them

                        on the forrestal is not necessary))
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Crew + 1000h

                        Now I checked - the number of crews of both was the same
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Why are you so grown up? :)

                        Max. dimensions are not an indicator. It all depends on the contours of the underwater body
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        I don’t see the point :)

                        ... are an improved version of Forrestal. Aircraft lifters have become more powerful and complex in configuration (load capacity - 40 t, dimensions - 21,4 / 25,9x15,9 m). Catapults - 4 type C-13 length 95 m, aerofinisher - 5 type MK-7-2. The dimensions of the hangar remained the same. The stock of aviation fuel JP-5 increased to 6,955 million liters, while the capacity of aircraft gasoline tanks decreased to 353,5 thousand liters. Ammunition cellar capacity - 1800 tons For the first time on AB they used a new fully mechanized ammunition supply system for aircraft, consisting of a horizontal conveyor with automatic opening of waterproof doors and hatches

                        In other words, Kitty Hawk almost caught up with Nimitz in jet fuel supplies. As for the ammunition supply - an extra thousand tons (1% of the total production of Nimitz) is an insignificant figure that does not give any reason to believe that:
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        YaU makes room for fuel, ammunition, weapons and crew habitat


                        Moreover, as usual, Kitty Hawk is less than Nimitz by 15-20 thousand tons. And older by 10 years
                      6. Sledgehammer
                        Sledgehammer April 29 2014 22: 13
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        on the forrestal is not necessary))

                        Twice as much volume means more armor, weight (read displacement) and space :)
                        Now I checked - the number of crews of both was the same

                        Where did they check? Give me a link:)
                        Max. dimensions are not an indicator. It all depends on the contours of the underwater body

                        So it’s already below the waterline abruptly increased:)))
                        JP-5 aviation fuel stock increased to 6,955 million liters, while the capacity of aircraft gasoline tanks decreased to 353,5 thousand liters. Ammunition cellar capacity - 1800 tons

                        Kitty Hawk
                        60005 * / 80945 t. +4000 t of displacement to "Forrestal" :)
                        319,3 (301,8 hl) x 76,7 (39,4 hl) x 11,4 m.
                        Stock 8000 tons of oil -Here is the increase in the volume of tanks for air.
                        kerosene :) Reduced fuel reserves for KTEU by 570 tons.

                        The crew is again 1000 fewer than the Nimitz.
                        Miracles do not happen :)))
                        Everything I said for Forrestal is also true for Kitty Hawk.
                        He warned, it makes no sense :)
                      7. Santa Fe
                        April 29 2014 23: 13
                        -1
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Where did they check? Give me a link:)

                        http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm
                        http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-59.htm
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        60005 * / 80945 t. +4000 t displacement to Forrestal :)

                        40-ton lifts, mechanized ammunition conveyor belt, SeaSperrow self-defense systems
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Reduced fuel reserves for KHPPs by 570 tons

                        570 tons of oil were removed - increased kerosene supply by 1,5 mln liters (1000 with more than tons) + increase in ammunition
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        The crew is again 1000 fewer than the Nimitz.

                        Ship's Company: 3,150 - Air Wing: 2,480
                      8. Sledgehammer
                        Sledgehammer April 30 2014 13: 13
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm
                        http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-59.htm

                        It says "CV-59 FORRESTAL class" which means generalized
                        class information.
                        Here are the data, I have cited them repeatedly all from http://pentagonus.ru
                        AB "Forrestal"
                        61163/76614 t, 316,8 (301,8 vl) x 76,2 (39,4 vl) x 10,3 m. Crew 2764 people. (+1912 people. Air personnel).
                        AB "Kitty Hawk"
                        60005 * / 80945 t, 319,3 (301,8 hl) x 76,7 (39,4 hl) x 11,4 m. 8000 t of oil. Armor: like on the Forrestal.
                        Crew 3306 (+1379 people)
                        AB "Nimitz"
                        73973 * / 91440 t, 331,7 (317,1 vl) x 78,5 (40,8 vl) x 11,2 m.
                        Crew 5621 people. (including air personnel)

                        40-ton lifts, mechanized ammunition conveyor belt, SeaSperrow self-defense systems

                        So what, 45 tons of aircraft lifts were installed on Forrestal.
                        They were already on the Nimitz.
                        Sea Sparrow was installed after dismantling the Terrier.

                        570 tons of oil were removed - increased kerosene supply by 1,5 mln liters (1000 with more than tons) + increase in ammunition

                        "Nimitz" -bp 2970 t instead of 1800 t than Kitty Hawk
                        The stock of jet fuel is 10,22 million liters instead of 6.9 million liters of kerosene than Kitty Hawk.
                        The "Nimitz" has +1000 people. crew.
                        Further along the "Nimitz" The capacity of the ship's power plant reached a record value: 8 turbine generators with a capacity of 8000 kW and 4 diesel generators with a capacity of 2000 kW were installed on AB. It is reported that each of the ships has about 30 thousand light bulbs, 2000 telephones, more than 900 miles of cables and wires.
                        In this case, difference with "Kitty Hawk" in 10500 tonnes of displacement.
  • Realist1989
    Realist1989 April 29 2014 14: 07
    +1
    Can a gas turbine power plant provide the required amount of energy to an electromagnetic catapult? There seem to be huge numbers ... for some reason, the Americans did not abandon the nuclear power plant at Ford ...
    1. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer April 29 2014 15: 01
      0
      Can a gas turbine power plant provide the required amount of energy to an electromagnetic catapult?

      GTE MT30 power 36 MW with a mass of 120 tons, such should stand
      on Queen Elizabeth. It should be enough. It's kind of like there
      this option, but after they become operational
      on the avian. USA.
      For some reason, the Americans did not abandon the nuclear power plant at Ford

      Good question:)
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren April 29 2014 16: 25
        0
        Quote: Sledgehammer
        Good question:)


        At the time of design, it was not clear whether EMALS would be ready. Therefore, he can supply steam if EMALS is not ready.
        1. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer April 29 2014 17: 09
          0
          Quote: ar-ren

          At the time of design, it was not clear whether EMALS would be ready. Therefore, he can supply steam if EMALS is not ready.

          There will definitely be no steam.
          In 2012, for economic reasons, it was decided to return to the procurement of F-35B aircraft, abandoning the idea of ​​a catapult launch. The reason was the high cost of the electromagnetic catapult.

          Wicca.
    2. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 29 2014 16: 24
      0
      Quote: Realist1989
      Can a gas turbine power plant provide the required amount of energy to an electromagnetic catapult? There seem to be huge numbers ... for some reason, the Americans did not abandon the nuclear power plant at Ford ...


      Above there are calculations. It takes 880 kW DGU to launch the Su-33 weighing 33 tons every two minutes on one catapult. For four catapults, multiply by 4.
      1. Sledgehammer
        Sledgehammer April 29 2014 17: 18
        0
        Quote: ar-ren

        Above there are calculations. It takes 880 kW DGU to launch the Su-33 weighing 33 tons every two minutes on one catapult. For four catapults, multiply by 4.

        Wikki provides other data.
        It is expected that the operation of the 90-meter catapult will require a linear electric motor with a capacity of 90 MW.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren April 29 2014 17: 43
          0
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          It is expected that the operation of the 90-meter catapult will require a linear electric motor with a capacity of 90 MW.


          You had a shitty teacher at school who couldn’t explain to you that power = energy per unit time. And the more we need to transform energy into a unit of time, the more we need power. Therefore, since the charging of the catapult's ionistors will take 2 minutes (120 seconds), we need a small generator power. And you need to drain this energy in 2-3 seconds. Which requires the monstrous power of the linear catapult engine.
          1. Sledgehammer
            Sledgehammer April 29 2014 18: 59
            0
            Quote: ar-ren

            You had a bad teacher at school ...

            These are the calculations in an article from WICKI, in the course about this?
            1. ar-ren
              ar-ren April 29 2014 19: 45
              0
              Quote: Sledgehammer
              These are the calculations in an article from WICKI, in the course about this?


              About that and speech! They read the article, but did not understand what it meant. Because the physics teacher failed to put the concept of "energy, time, power" into your head.
              1. Sledgehammer
                Sledgehammer April 29 2014 20: 00
                0
                Quote: ar-ren
                They read the article, but they did not understand what it meant. Because the physics teacher failed to put the concept of "energy, time, power" into your head

                Yes, everything went to you (sarcasm) :)))
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 April 30 2014 13: 17
    0
    Are you going to get electricity from the air? The reactor will still remain. An aircraft carrier (I’ll tell you a secret) must have a move. And all AUG depends on its course.
  • Voenruk
    Voenruk April 28 2014 08: 53
    .
    “What happened to the submarine?”
    - she drowned
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz April 28 2014 09: 07
      +21
      Generally in the subject! And funny, the main thing!
    2. sv68
      sv68 April 28 2014 11: 58
      +12
      what happened to the military instructor? he was blamed. for what? for stupid and inappropriate humor fool
      1. Arberes
        Arberes April 28 2014 13: 51
        +7
        Quote: sv68
        for stupid and inappropriate humor

        I agree with you. A joke to the place is good. On the face of complete tactlessness to the work of the author and the memory of the dead sailors!
        I would be in your place, dear Voenruk , would you apologize for your inappropriate humor?
        By destroyers! Personally, I am not a supporter of YaU. There is another argument against recycling!
        All the waste products of his life will then have to be stored and disposed of somewhere? The author correctly noted that such ships would be ordered to some seas and straits, and these future powerful units of our fleet should go everywhere! In my opinion, their number should be three times more than what a respected author suggests? In the future, new destroyers should also replace our aging cruisers, both EAGLES and ATLANTS!
        In general, to be honest, I would like to wait and see own This newest and most powerful ship under the eyes of ANDREYEV BAG!
        Thank you Oleg for the article about the fleet, like a breath of fresh air, otherwise everything is about Ukraine and Ukraine! hi drinks
    3. abdrah
      abdrah April 28 2014 16: 22
      +6
      Quote: Voenruk
      “What happened to the submarine?” She drowned.


      these "military officers" often began to come across on the site, like and not with a negative rating, but what stuff they began to do! It looks like long-term bookmarks. Like spies who were silent until the hour X, they crawled out something at once, on different branches, different resources and in quantity ..
    4. izGOI
      izGOI April 29 2014 04: 20
      +2
      Like in a puddle .....
  • invisibility
    invisibility April 28 2014 08: 59
    +16
    I would add one more point in defense of YaSU. Not to develop nuclear facilities means stepping on the throat of progress. We cannot be left behind in such areas. Any development is an invaluable experience.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes April 28 2014 14: 00
      +4
      Quote: invisible
      I would add one more point in defense of YaSU. Not to develop nuclear facilities means stepping on the throat of progress. We cannot be left behind in such areas. Any development is an invaluable experience.

      I don’t even argue with you, dear invisibility hi
      But for this there are other military and other submarine platforms, icebreakers, aircraft carriers!
      By aircraft carriers! As far as the statements of our senior officials from the Moscow Region follow, the aircraft carrier’s projects are now in the development stage of technical documentation and the construction of these ships will begin in 2020!
      PS
      Well, unless of course by this time the plans of our leadership will not change ??? drinks
      Everyone needs to run to work! Sorry for not being able to continue the conversation, with respect!
      1. invisibility
        invisibility April 28 2014 15: 31
        +1
        Quote: Arberes
        But for this there are other military and other submarine platforms, icebreakers, aircraft carriers!

        Yes you are right! But installation on destroyers requires its subtleties.
        Quote: Arberes
        aircraft carrier projects are now in the development stage of technical documentation and with 2020 the construction of these ships will begin

        I know that many are aspirated aircraft carriers.
        And my opinion is that building an aircraft carrier for us is a waste of time and money. Unless we change the concept of the use of the Navy.
        Whatever they say, at the moment the fleet needs to be restored both quantitatively and qualitatively. And an aircraft carrier is an expensive toy, even in 2020.
  • Takashi
    Takashi April 28 2014 08: 59
    +6
    Sometimes it seems to me that nuclear weapons on the ship are a kind of weapon. If a missile hits, the enemy will get another "Chernobyl".

    How long does the destroyer live in modern combat? And why does he need such an expensive propulsion system?
    1. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul April 28 2014 10: 17
      +7
      How long does the destroyer live in modern combat? And why does he need such an expensive propulsion system?
      Following your logic, then you need to formulate the question: why then have a modern fleet, if it does not live long and expensive to service? wink
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 April 28 2014 11: 57
        +9
        Quote: Gomunkul
        if he does not live long and expensive to service?

        and at the same time, for more than fifty years the USSR-RF lost nothing in naval combat, for there were none.
        The threat itself in this case is a warning of the use of force.
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 April 30 2014 13: 24
          0
          Lost it. When performing combat patrols, how many of our boats died / crashed? And you say nothing was lost ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Per se.
      Per se. April 28 2014 10: 40
      +3
      Quote: Takashi
      How long does the destroyer live in modern combat? And why does he need such an expensive propulsion system?
      Almost 70 years have passed since World War II, during this time there was only one significant war at sea, this is the conflict between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). The battles at the Falklands showed the role of aviation at sea (both base and deck), the role of the fleet itself, which can actively affect the enemy anywhere in the world’s oceans, and the difficulty of supplying the squadron at great distances from its bases. Russia does not have as many bases as the United States, therefore, for our large ships, nuclear power plants is not an idle topic.
      Sometimes it seems to me that nuclear weapons on the ship are a kind of weapon. If a missile hits, the enemy will get another "Chernobyl".
      If a large-scale war begins, there will be no time for the Chernobyl effect. Secondly, large surface ships (modern destroyers surpassed or approached the cruisers of the First and Second World Wars in terms of displacement) need protection from torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, first of all, their power plant, control systems and communications.
    4. alex86
      alex86 April 28 2014 21: 32
      +1
      Quote: Takashi
      And why does he need such an expensive propulsion system?

      I heard such a bike (?) From a man from Sevastopol (USSR times): they brought a certain anti-submarine ship in tow, put it on a barrel on duty, it controlled the ASG approaches (the bike claimed that the range of the ASU was to Turkey). Not being a specialist at all, I listened without objecting (although I thought that my friend was driving me). The point of mentioning this tale is that it was displayed in tow to save the power plant resource.
  • gandalf
    gandalf April 28 2014 09: 00
    +10
    The globe is rather big. It’s often necessary to swim far. I think more autonomy will be a plus.
  • duchy
    duchy April 28 2014 09: 08
    +6
    Stop talking, you have to build! am
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz April 28 2014 09: 10
    +4
    If the Prospective Destroyer is planned as a replacement for the Eagles or an addition to them, then YaSU is needed.
  • MVV
    MVV April 28 2014 09: 20
    +5
    Both projects need to be developed.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz April 28 2014 09: 46
      +3
      As a non-nuclear one, there is Project 21956 "Leader". It will immediately replace the destroyers of Project 956 and, possibly, the cruiser 1164.
  • Metlik
    Metlik April 28 2014 09: 20
    +5
    If the railgun is brought to mind, then you need ships with a powerful generator of energy. It would be nice that Russia would have such. Or at least the operating time.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 09: 25
      -4
      Not needed! The railgun is good because it does not require a lot of power to drive.
      1. Metlik
        Metlik April 28 2014 09: 47
        +1
        A number of serious problems are associated with the manufacture of the railgun: the current pulse must be so powerful and sharp that the projectile does not have time to evaporate and fly apart, but there would be an accelerating force that accelerates it forward.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren April 28 2014 09: 56
          +1
          Here BAE solves this problem. =)
      2. sv68
        sv68 April 28 2014 12: 03
        +4
        ar-ren what kind of nonsense? do you think that for the railgun to work there will be enough power and a regular car battery - argue or explain your statement
    2. Cosmos1987
      Cosmos1987 April 28 2014 10: 17
      0
      As a designer, I see no problem in creating an electromagnetic catapult, the work of which in miniature resembles a regular speaker in tape recorders. for the diffuser, take permanent magnet, the external magnetic field is the windings of several electromagnets, which are included in the work in turn, thereby creating a linear motion.
      1. sv68
        sv68 April 28 2014 12: 10
        +4
        space 1987-I would like to argue, but I won’t, everything is smooth on paper or in words. only a bunch of problems can be solved such as weight dimensions alloy for magnets, get rid of spurious currents without harm to the apparatus and people, from magnetic radiation. I can continue the list but I won’t , I mean that you have already decided everything in words, but how it will actually come out ...
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas April 28 2014 09: 20
    +3
    Oleg "forgot" about the main drawback of ships with nuclear power plants. This is recycling. This is not just a headache, it is a problem of problems. What to do with the reactor compartment? It is clear that, in the absence of our own production of gas turbines, there is not much to choose (Siemens confirmed that it breaks off all contacts with Russia, which deprives us of the production of high-power gas turbines), but there can be no talk of any massive fleet, to build ten destroyers with a nuclear power plant we will not be able ...
    1. Timeout
      Timeout April 28 2014 12: 04
      +5
      Quote: Nayhas
      It is clear that in our absence of our own production of gas turbines

      Ural Turbine Works, produces any turbines. Near St. Petersburg the Siemens turbine plant, more than 50% of the capital is Russian.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 28 2014 12: 59
        +1
        Quote: Timeout
        Ural Turbine Plant, produces any turbine.

        Except ship.
        Quote: Timeout
        Near St. Petersburg the Siemens turbine plant, more than 50% of the capital is Russian.

        It’s not finished, and Siemens said ... how is it in German goodbye?
        MOSCOW, April 27 - RIA News. The head of the German Siemens corporation, Joe Keser, said that the company recognizes the priority of politics and will strictly adhere to the sanctions regime against Russia, writes Frankfurter Allgemaine Zeitung.
        RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/world/20140427/1005619007.html#ixzz30AZ8HzTN

        By the way, Russian capital there was only 35%.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 28 2014 17: 17
      +3
      Yes? I went specifically to the site of Siemens. I haven’t read anything like that. I remember at the end of March, the company's chief executive Joe Kather said in a personal conversation with Putin that Siemens is NOT planning to break off relations.
  • avt
    avt April 28 2014 09: 23
    +7
    ,, Two or three large attack destroyers, similar in size to the experimental American destroyer Zamvolt, surrounded by cheaper and more massive frigates. Russian destroyers will be expensive "piece goods", and the use of nuclear systems is unlikely to have a significant impact on the cost of operating these monsters. A nuclear destroyer or a destroyer with a conventional power plant - in my opinion, each of these options in our case is a win-win. The main thing is that the USC and the Ministry of Defense quickly move from words to deeds and begin the construction of new Russian destroyer-class ships. "------- Perhaps so. I agree with Oleg, besides the win-win options, here the situation of the late Soviet and nowadays, if they make nuclear weapons, it will not be a destroyer in our understanding, but rather a "destroyer" - to replace the "Orlans" and a hundred poods of admirals will demand a larger series after the first sample, but a cheap version like the Atlantis "and a bunch of larger gas ducts accompanying this good. Anyone who does not agree can be convinced of my correctness in the current situation, when they started to make frigates 22350, then they urgently began to sculpt 11356, although smart people immediately suggested doing a completely mastered project. The same canoe with 22380, when to the surprise of the admirals he, suddenly "was overloaded with weapons and, as a result, limited in movement in terms of range and time, and as a consequence - a project for ,, the far zone and the demonstration of the flag." As it all goes by poke, alas.
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 28 2014 09: 29
    +1
    Commentators, ay! The author correctly said: the full cycle of a non-nuclear ship is 20% cheaper than a nuclear ship. For the same money, instead of four nuclear ships, you can five! Instead of eight - 10. Instead of 32x - 40! Etc.
    1. Genry
      Genry April 28 2014 10: 01
      +7
      Quote: ar-ren
      The author correctly said: the full cycle of a non-nuclear ship is 20% cheaper than a nuclear ship.

      A figure from the ceiling? Where is the confirmation?
      In the northern seas - only nuclear powered ships. After all, situations with stuck in the ice are possible. And the fuel in the north is expensive, and in the conditions of military operations - generally gold.
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren April 28 2014 10: 04
        +4
        >> A number from the ceiling? Where is the confirmation?

        Well, shake the author! He introduced this figure. But in fact, if ships with nuclear weapons were more profitable, everyone would have built them. But do not build! even huge ships are not built by nuclear. Excluding specific ones, the same nuclear-powered ships that can get stuck in ice, or aircraft carriers with catapults.

        This means that the ships I NU are simply less profitable, read - "more expensive on a full cycle" - than non-nuclear.
      2. Santa Fe
        April 28 2014 13: 12
        +1
        Quote: Genry
        In the northern seas - only nuclear powered ships. After all, situations with stuck in the ice are possible.

        In the northern seas, stuck in the ice)))
        1. A chance to get stuck in ice in the Barents or Norwegian Sea = 0 (if you do not climb above the edge of the ice, you need to deviate a thousand miles north of Medvezhy Island)
        2. Conducting military operations in the Arctic with the help of surface combat boats is complete nonsense. Then it’s better than the submarine - for them the ice situation does not matter
        3. Who will come to fight in the Arctic? The NSR is completely controlled by the Russian Federation: only our ships can get there with the help of our icebreakers
        Quote: Genry
        A figure from the ceiling? Where is the confirmation?

        The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships (Report
        May 12, 2011)
        - report: Expediency of the use of nuclear weapons on surface combat ships

        full version here:
        http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41454
  • shurup
    shurup April 28 2014 09: 29
    +2
    If there are disagreements, then it is necessary to build both options, as much as possible unified in terms of housing and modular equipment. Excess displacement in one of them may not be superfluous.
  • ilya_oz
    ilya_oz April 28 2014 09: 31
    +3
    Is it possible to buy several German ship engines and study? And by the way, which factory makes our ship engines ordinary?
    1. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul April 28 2014 10: 40
      +2
      And by the way, which factory makes our ship engines ordinary?
      The Russian company NPO Saturn has received an order for the manufacture of gas turbine units for the ships of the Russian Navy, which were previously equipped with Ukrainian-made engines, Interfax reports.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Deniska
      Deniska April 28 2014 11: 54
      +1
      Uhaah .. Ordinary ship engines ... This is not for you to stamp pelvis !! There, each installation is individual and manual assembly.
      1. ilya_oz
        ilya_oz April 28 2014 12: 17
        +3
        I meant a non-nuclear engine under the word "normal"
  • NIVH
    NIVH April 28 2014 09: 34
    +6
    We need to build what we can. If YaSU is better, then it is necessary to begin with them. A plus for the future is that if we start building aircraft carriers, then it will probably also be with nuclear warheads - there will be less problems with security ships. And you can experiment with conventional power plants later, when the minimum necessary series will be built.
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 28 2014 09: 36
    +2
    Quote: ilya_oz
    Is it possible to buy several German ship engines and study? And by the way, which factory makes our ship engines ordinary?


    what for? We have a gas turbine of comparable power, but a slightly lower efficiency. http://www.avid.ru/products/gtugp/gtu-25p/
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 28 2014 09: 41
    +5
    Quote: NIVH
    We need to build what we can.

    If Stalin lived according to this logic, the USSR would never have nuclear weapons.
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz April 28 2014 09: 51
    0
    And what about the anti-ship weapons for the destroyer? "Caliber" with a range of 300 km and that's it? belay
  • rezident
    rezident April 28 2014 09: 51
    +6
    If less than 15 thousand tons, I think you should not bother. And then to produce reactors causes healthy fears Well, I don’t know all the subtleties because my opinion is personally not truthful.
  • e_krendel
    e_krendel April 28 2014 10: 14
    +6
    Quote: ar-ren
    Unlike steam catapults, electric ones have an efficiency of 60%,

    and what, electricity itself on the ship with efficiency = 100% is obtained? But it is obtained from the same fuel. And so on the e-magn. a huge amount of power is given out to the catapult almost instantly; you need a device that stores previously generated electrical energy.

    A steam boiler is both a steam generator and a "one bottle" steam reserve.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 10: 21
      +2
      : facespalm: To launch an airplane weighing 25 tons at a speed of 200 km / h will require 31 MJ of energy. With an efficiency of 60%, this is 51 MJ of energy. Given the efficiency of a 50% diesel generator, this is a little more ... ta da da da m! ... 2 kilograms of fuel oil!

      PS Energy is stored in ionistors.
      1. turanchox
        turanchox April 28 2014 15: 09
        +1
        super flywheels more efficient
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 April 28 2014 10: 15
    +5
    1. The article is interesting. +!
    2. The presence of the Northern and Pacific fleets makes us think about increasing autonomy, hence displacement.
    3. This is not about creating entire squadrons of nuclear destroyers.
    4. For several decades, the created ship can be designed in both versions.
    The conclusion of a simple layman: you can try a couple of atomic destroyers (preferably ice class). One per SF and Pacific Fleet. And since they are atomic, then when sanctions are introduced against Russia, they should be brought closer to the enemy’s coast from the windward side.
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 28 2014 10: 25
    +2
    Quote: samoletil18
    1. The article is interesting. +!
    The conclusion of a simple layman: you can try a couple of atomic destroyers (preferably ice class). One per SF and Pacific Fleet. And since they are atomic, then when sanctions are introduced against Russia, they should be brought closer to the enemy’s coast from the windward side.


    The conclusion is completely wrong. The cost of developing the ship is monstrous. Therefore, the same aircraft carrier Ford will be built until 2050 in order to "spread" the development cost over as many ships as possible.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 28 2014 18: 06
      +1
      The conclusion is completely wrong. The cost of developing the ship is monstrous. Therefore, the same aircraft carrier Ford will be built until 2050 in order to "spread" the development cost over as many ships as possible.

      Can you confirm?
      Than
      Ship development cost
      one different from another?
      Ford past. As if soft-warm
  • e_krendel
    e_krendel April 28 2014 10: 27
    +3
    Quote: ar-ren
    Not needed! The railgun is good because it does not require a lot of power to drive.

    Is that so? To disperse a plane weighing (say) 15 tons to a speed (say) 300 km / h, you need to apply a certain amount of energy to it, regardless of whether it will be pushed by a steam or electromagnetic catapult, or 100500 sailors from a hyper-mega slingshot.
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 28 2014 10: 31
    +1
    Quote: e_krendel
    Quote: ar-ren
    Not needed! The railgun is good because it does not require a lot of power to drive.

    Is that so? To disperse a plane weighing (say) 15 tons to a speed (say) 300 km / h, you need to apply a certain amount of energy to it, regardless of whether it will be pushed by a steam or electromagnetic catapult, or 100500 sailors from a hyper-mega slingshot.

    Energy for ten seconds between shots is accumulated in ionistors, from where, within a fraction of a second at the moment of a shot, it "merges" into the gun.

    Power is the amount of energy per unit of time. The more power, the faster the supercapacitors will be "refueled" between shots. The whole criterion is how often our cannon should fire.
  • e_krendel
    e_krendel April 28 2014 10: 33
    +2
    Quote: ar-ren
    The more power, the faster the supercapacitors will be "charged"

    and at what expense they will be refueled? We need a generator of such power to have time to "fill" them
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 28 2014 10: 37
    +1
    Quote: e_krendel
    Quote: ar-ren
    The more power, the faster the supercapacitors will be "charged"

    and at what expense they will be refueled? We need a generator of such power to have time to "fill" them


    The military determines the rate of fire of the gun, the designers consider the power. Railgun efficiency is approximately 50%. The energy of the shot is approximately 34 MJ. Given the efficiency, it means - 68 MJ. If we need to shoot once every 10 seconds, we need to accumulate 6,8 MJ of energy per second, or have a 6,8 MW diesel generator set. How many megawatts does the propulsion system of a typical destroyer have? :) Correctly! more than 50 MW.
    1. 52
      52 April 28 2014 19: 12
      +4
      Here's an interesting discussion of the "spherical horse in a vacuum". The efficiency of the railgun is 50%, and the efficiency of the gun is 85-93%. Only the transformer is cooler.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs April 28 2014 10: 43
    +4
    Analyzing the pros and cons, one should not take examples from the US Navy. Their AUG is more than 20 pennants and may well protect a tanker with fuel. Our ships most often go in three pennants: the ship itself, a tanker with fuel and a sea tug. After destroying a tanker, you can take the warship with your bare hands. Therefore, there is no need to count money, it is necessary to equip destroyers with nuclear power plants and it is desirable to develop a new corresponding reactor for them.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 10: 52
      +1
      I honestly do not know what is going on in the head in the head of such "specialists". No, you just get a grasp of what they write! "To make the destroyer incapacitated, you must destroy the tanker!" What the hell to aim at a tanker in a war and leave a military surface ship afloat ?! Well, what ?! So that the destroyer, having lost its tanker, on reflection, would launch a counterstrike ?!

      No, just imagine for a second that such "admirals" are sitting in our headquarters! They, damn it, will arrange a raid on the AUG tankers, in the hope of "depriving the aircraft carrier's guards of combat capability"!
      1. Assistant
        Assistant April 28 2014 20: 22
        +2
        What the hell in a war to aim at a tanker and keep afloat a military surface ship ?! Well, what ?!


        Shlissen and Moltke are suckers, the concept of a blitzkrieg is not viable, those who broke through the defense lines and went away to smash the enemy’s rear did not understand anything in the war.
        Only by what miracle did such people win?

        They, damn it, will arrange a raid on the AUG tankers, in the expectation of "depriving the guard of the aircraft carrier"!


        In the USSR, this was not planned as the main option, because not such mattresses are fools and poor people to substitute transports under attack.
        And if the
        go in three pennants: the ship itself, a tanker with fuel and a sea tug

        where the real combat unit is a ship, and the rest can, in the best sense of the battle, portray something, it’s easier, if possible, to first enter the tanker and the tug with airplanes, and then drive a warship limited in fuel and spare parts across the ocean, let it consume as much as possible, during this time even its own ships can catch up.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre April 28 2014 21: 51
          0
          A tugboat is similarly protected by a missile defense SAM system.
          1. Assistant
            Assistant April 29 2014 14: 43
            0
            This means that one destroyer will have to defend, besides itself, 2 more ships squeezing to it, which will not increase the freedom of maneuver in any way.
      2. Andrey77
        Andrey77 1 May 2014 11: 03
        0
        If I were in the place of the commander of the American "Elk", I would have hit the tanker and left. Kuzya will not last long without fuel, which means there will be new goals. It is dumb to enter a war with escort ships, and it is not necessary if there is no specific order.
    2. e_krendel
      e_krendel April 28 2014 11: 01
      +3
      Our ships most often go in three pennants: the ship itself, a tanker with fuel and a sea tug. After destroying the tanker, you can take the warship with your bare hands. Therefore, it is not necessary to count money, it is necessary to equip destroyers of nuclear power plants and it is advisable to develop a new appropriate reactor for them.

      I agree! At the end of the 19th century, Russia had steam-powered cruisers, but the sailing equipment remained. For this they were criticized, but just due to the sails, they had almost unlimited autonomy, and "worked" alone.
      Now destroyers are actually analogs of those single cruisers, and only nuclear power plants can provide them with the opportunity to be "loners".
      1. mpa945
        mpa945 April 28 2014 18: 22
        +1
        Moreover, unexpected introductory comments often arise. We need to run somewhere urgently. And stocks are running out. The task failed. (Secret companion stolen) joke.
        There is an option - two destroyers instead of one. Or base every 500 miles. But then all the talk about the high cost of YAR is an idle talk.
  • e_krendel
    e_krendel April 28 2014 10: 55
    +3
    Quote: ar-ren
    The energy of the shot is approximately 34 MJ. Given the efficiency, it means - 68 MJ. If we need to shoot once every 10 seconds, we need to accumulate 6,8 MJ of energy per second, or have a 6,8 MW diesel generator set.

    For example, SU-33: max. takeoff weight of almost 30 tons, takeoff speed (approximately) 300 km / h. To launch, it is necessary to "pump" 104 MJ into it, with the railgun efficiency of 208 MJ, the power for launching 1 time in 10 sec. almost 21 MW is needed.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 11: 07
      +3
      Quote: e_krendel

      For example, SU-33: max. takeoff weight of almost 30 tons, takeoff speed (approximately) 300 km / h. To launch, it is necessary to "pump" 104 MJ into it, with the railgun efficiency of 208 MJ, the power for launching 1 time in 10 sec. almost 21 MW is needed.


      Pretzel studied very, very poorly at school and understands absolutely nothing in aircraft carriers, but undertakes to consider what we put a plus for. But he thinks it is wrong, for which we put a minus.

      Let's go sort the bugs!

      1. Su-33, maximum takeoff 33 tons, takeoff speed 280 km / h. How much. But only "as it were".
      2. No wonder the aircraft carriers make a speed of 30 knots. 30 knots is 55,56 km / h.
      3. We pass from the starting speed of Drying the speed of the aircraft carrier. 280 - 55,56 = 224.44 (approximately 225).
      4. That is, our catapult must "throw" the plane from the aircraft carrier at a speed of 225 km / h.
      5. We consider energy: 33000 kg * (62,5 m / s * 62,5 m / s) / 2 = 64 MJ.
      6. Taking into account the efficiency of EMALS - 64/60% = 107 MJ
      7. A minimum of 2 minutes passes between aircraft launches. Faster just do not install the plane on a catapult. Or 120 seconds.
      8. Required power 107 MJ / 120 s = 0,88 MW = 880 kW.
      9. There are 4 catapults on the ship. It is necessary 880 kW * 4 = 3,55 MW DGU.
      10. With the required power of 3,55 MW, the power of auxiliary (!) DGU TAVKR Kuznetsov is 6 at 1.5 MW = 9 MW.

      These are the layouts.
      1. common man
        common man April 28 2014 14: 48
        +2
        Quote: ar-ren
        Let's go sort the bugs!

        1. Wind power was not taken into account. And if a passing?
        2. Something with a killer wise. Kilowatts are counted in hours, and you in seconds. Either multiply by 3600, or indicate where I am wrong.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren April 28 2014 15: 11
          +2
          Quote: man in the street
          1. Wind power was not taken into account. And if a passing?


          I will always answer a simple question. :) An aircraft carrier is not an airfield, an aircraft carrier ALWAYS turns its nose against the wind during take-off and landing.

          Quote: man in the street
          2. Something with a killer wise. Kilowatts are counted in hours, and you in seconds. Or multiply at 3600, or indicate where i'm wrong.


          But the stranger’s orders of a stranger do not fulfill fundamentally. Therefore, I will not say where you are mistaken. Search for yourself! Ask (!) A familiar student to explain. Etc.
          1. common man
            common man April 28 2014 16: 30
            +3
            First order You no one was going to. Do not be so painfully suspicious. Secondly, there is a problem with schoolchildren, children have left school age, and grandchildren are not mature. So I somehow somehow myself. AND Youif you issue calculations in detail,
            Quote: ar-ren
            8. Required power 107 MJ / 120 s = 0,88 MW = 880 kW.
            , give them correctly, or write one answer, we will take your word for it.
            As for the speed of the ship, you should not take it into account, as well as movement against the wind. Otherwise, just these 50 km / h might someday not be enough for takeoff. There are all sorts of situations.
            1. ar-ren
              ar-ren April 28 2014 18: 28
              +1
              Quote: man in the street
              give them correctly, or write one answer, we will take your word for it.


              I have all the calculations correct, as well as physical dimensional quantities. No physics students? Perfectly! There are forums of physics teachers. Register, transfer texts, ask (!!!!!!!) to explain which of the two of us is wrong.

              You can copy the result of the conversation here, I already know what will be answered there.
              1. common man
                common man April 28 2014 18: 52
                +5
                You have no calculation, you have the correct answer. But how it turned out, according to your records, it is somehow not visible. Sorry, not all Nobel laureates in physics are here, like YOU. Five-digit numbers in the mind to multiply. It’s much easier to write: 107 MJ * 0,277 (conversion factor MJ to kW) * 3600 (conversion hour. Per second) / 120 sec = 880 kW, or 0,88 MW.
                They would write right away: "I have already multiplied by 3600.", and no questions. And then we all show off, show off. I apologize if I offended you.
                1. mpa945
                  mpa945 April 28 2014 19: 42
                  +3
                  You plus
                  0,88 MW.

                  And this is per second. Now back * 3600 = 3158 MW - the required power of the installation.
                  1. common man
                    common man April 28 2014 19: 50
                    +2
                    I apologize.
                    Quote: man in the street
                    3600 (hour / second conversion
                    it is necessary to "transfer seconds per hour". Therefore, the result is still 0,88 MW. Right.
                    1. mpa945
                      mpa945 April 28 2014 21: 18
                      +2
                      Ok, let's do it differently.
                      The specific fuel consumption for modern diesel engines is 260 g / kW. Or about 0,3 liters.
                      For 880 kW * 0,3 = 264 liters. We must burn them in 120 seconds. Smiles at me.
                      70 aircraft * 264 liters = 18480 liters of fuel to raise a / c once. Economically. And this is not taking into account the efficiency of the electronic machines.
                      And 120 sorties per day * 264 liters = 31680 liters.
                      Total real 40 tons per day just not a catapult.
                      Almost 10% of the needs of a / c
                      1. ar-ren
                        ar-ren April 28 2014 21: 53
                        +1
                        fool
                        Everything is easier! See above
                        1. The net cost of starting a full Su-33 is 64 MJ.
                        2. Given the efficiency of the EMALS catapult - 107 MJ.
                        3. Modern DGUs have a CDP of about 40%.
                        4. Taking into account the efficiency of DGU, we get the energy consumption - 107/40% = 267,5 MJ to start in the fuel.
                        5. The specific heat of combustion of diesel fuel is 42,7 MJ / kg.
                        6. From here, you need 267,5 / 42,7 = 6,26 kg of diesel fuel to start.
                        7. Bearing in mind that we consider the weight to the maximum, and to the maximum that 33 tons of fuel is poured into the Su-9,5, the fuel consumption for take-off is 0,066% of the fuel needed for the aircraft.
                        8. Further, I think, commenting is not required.
                        9. All your other calculations fly to the urn. =)
                      2. mpa945
                        mpa945 April 28 2014 22: 08
                        +1
                        8. Required power 107 MJ / 120 s = 0,88 MW = 880 kW.

                        This is your number. So what
                        9. All your other calculations fly to the urn. =)
                      3. ar-ren
                        ar-ren April 28 2014 22: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: mpa945
                        This is your number. So what


                        Do you have any complaints? Well, voice it! In numbers.
                2. ar-ren
                  ar-ren April 28 2014 21: 34
                  +1
                  Quote: man in the street
                  it is necessary to "transfer seconds per hour". Therefore, the result is still 0,88 MW. Right.

                  Well, since you figured it out yourself, well done! In general, "power is the amount of energy in one second." That is, to calculate the power, simply divide the power in joules by the time in seconds. And you don't need any kWh! For more details see http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power

                  PS kWh is not power anymore, it is energy. This is a power of 1 kW for 1 hour of operation.
                  1. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 28 2014 21: 57
                    +1
                    That is, in your DG electric power of 500 kW per hour will give 500 * 3600 = 1800000 kW?
                  2. ar-ren
                    ar-ren April 28 2014 22: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: mpa945
                    That is, in your DG electric power of 500 kW per hour will give 500 * 3600 = 1800000 kW?


                    DGU with a capacity of 500 kW per hour will generate 500 kWh of energy. Self-evident! :)
                  3. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 28 2014 23: 09
                    +1
                    And how do you want to remove this power from it in a second?
                    And do you have the same fuel consumption per second and per hour?
                    In general, "power is the amount of energy in one second"
                    In general, "power is the amount of energy in one second"

                    good
                  4. ar-ren
                    ar-ren April 28 2014 23: 23
                    +1
                    Quote: mpa945
                    And how do you want to remove this power from it in a second? And do you have the same fuel consumption per second and per hour?


                    As I see, you have no idea what is power, what is energy, how they relate to each other. Make, for fun, a test calculation for the following problem - "A diesel generator set with a capacity of 880 kW charges in 2 minutes the supercapult ionistors of an aircraft carrier. How much fuel will the diesel generator spend if the specific consumption of the diesel generator set according to the passport is 220 g / (kW * h)?"
                  5. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 28 2014 23: 38
                    +1
                    I already brought it to you above.
                    The whole world is struggling with the problem of where to get so much energy for "fashion toys". And that's how it turns out, Mikhalych. (from)
                  6. ar-ren
                    ar-ren April 28 2014 23: 46
                    0
                    Quote: mpa945
                    I already brought it to you above.
                    The whole world is struggling with the problem of where to get so much energy for "fashion toys". And that's how it turns out, Mikhalych. (from)


                    So - do not understand the issue. And you are not going to understand ... Ok!

                    I give an answer to my own riddle above, and on that our communication ends absolutely.
                    "A diesel generator set with a capacity of 880 kW charges in 2 minutes the ionistors of an aircraft carrier catapult. How much fuel will the diesel generator spend if the specific consumption of the diesel generator set according to the passport is 220 g / (kW * h)?"

                    1. Since 220 g is consumed per kilowatt-hour, 220 / (60 * 60) = 0,061 grams of fuel will be consumed per kilowatt-hour per second.
                    2. Since the power is 880, then per second diesel generator will spend 880 * 0,061 = 53,7 grams of fuel.
                    3. Since, according to the condition, the ionistors charge 2 minutes or 120 seconds, then the diesel generator sets will charge 53,7 g / s * 120 s = 6444 grams or 6,4 kg of fuel to charge the ionizers.
                    4. You can compare with the figure that I calculated purely from the efficiency of DGU above.
                    Good luck!
                  7. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 29 2014 00: 54
                    +1
                    will the DGS spend fuel if the specific consumption of DGS according to the passport is 220 g / (kW * h)? "

                    Real diesel engines 260, but these are trifles.
                    Answer, how stupid mattresses for 10 years can not do such a hell?
                    And yes, there are no "pulse" DG and TG, it will work all day. It makes no sense to count for a minute.
                    And the catapults 4, still four.
                    The resource of the diesel engine ASDG-800 is 3000 hours before repair, total every two years the bulkhead.
                    Therefore, the "efficiency" of obtaining energy from DG and raises doubts.
                    1 ATG - 3200 kW, does not require a separate fuel supply. Why fence a garden?
                    In terms of the prospect of the E / M catapult, I do not argue about the steam, but there is no working sample yet.
                  8. ar-ren
                    ar-ren April 29 2014 01: 10
                    +1
                    mpa945 believes that diesel engines cannot be turned off because it does not know that the start-stop method for marine diesel engines is normal.
                    mpa945 believes that a diesel generator without load spends the same amount of fuel as with a load.
                    mpa945 believes that the consumption of a typical diesel generator set is 260 g / (kW * h), but in reality it is about 220 g / (kW * h). Although some achieve even better performance. For example - http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/EPD0176A. From the specification it is easy to calculate that this diesel generator at 75% consumes 194 g / (kW * h).
                    ====
                    morality? no. Fortunately, I do not communicate with him. Although I will not refuse on occasion to show honest people how stupid he is. =)
                  9. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 29 2014 08: 02
                    +1
                    mpa945 believes that diesel engines cannot be turned off because it does not know that the start-stop method for marine diesel engines is normal.

                    Link is that normal?
                    mpa945 believes that a diesel generator without load spends the same amount of fuel as with a load.

                    And ar-ren believes that on xx DG feeds on the holy spirit.
                    Although some achieve even better performance. For example - http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/EPD0176A. From the specification it is easy to calculate that this diesel generator at 75% consumes 194 g / (kW * h).

                    This link for 100% consumption - 0,28 l / kW / h

                    When you invent an engine that can turn on from a cold position under load, work out 120 seconds. and turn off. Yes, and consider this mode operational, then your theoretical calculations will be closer to the truth.
                    In the meantime, we have:
                    1 Kerosene for l / a
                    2 DT for DG
                    3 Fuel oil for GT or marine diesel
                    Cool "economical" logistics

                    In addition, adherents of non-nuclear power plants forget that neither Ship diesel nor GT can reverse. Therefore, it is necessary to add a reverse gear.
                    A steam turbine reverses.
                    Is the efficiency 20% like a steam locomotive? From the evil one. There is no fuel supply. And besides, steam "extracts" both electricity and fresh water.
                    Expensive? It is expensive to carry several types of fuel to each ship.
                    Mattress data on the "high cost" of the life cycle only take into account the fact that they do not have their own nuclear fuel. They buy it. They do not know how to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and have to pay money for reprocessing to others.
                    So, the link to their calculations is valid for their calculations, and no more.
                3. Kassandra
                  Kassandra April 29 2014 15: 21
                  0
                  all this is, and for a long time.
                4. Sledgehammer
                  Sledgehammer April 29 2014 20: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: mpa945
                  The resource of the diesel engine ASDG-800 is 3000 hours before repair, total every two years the bulkhead.

                  And this is a resource for continuous work at optimal
                  revolutions.
                  Quote: ar-ren
                  mpa945 believes that diesel engines cannot be turned off because it does not know that the start-stop method for marine diesel engines is normal.

                  Namely, in a diesel engine (with frequent start / stop)in this moment
                  the highest wear. In any case, they will have to "drive"
                  albeit at idle.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • zulusuluz
    zulusuluz April 28 2014 21: 35
    +2
    280000 (m / h) / 3600 (s) = 77,8 m / s
    F = (m * V ^ 2) / 2 = 33000 * 77.8 ^ 2 = 99.87 MJ
    1J - 1W * s or 3600J = 1W / h, and 3,6MJ - 1 kW / h
    Where do we have 99,87 / 3,6 = 27,74 kW / h. And since this energy must be obtained in 2 minutes, then the power of the power plant should be: 27,74 * 2/60 (min) = 832 kW.
    If energy does not accumulate, but is given only during the start-up, then power (or overload capacity) should provide this.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 21: 44
      +1
      Quote: zulusuluz
      280000 (m / h) / 3600 (s) = 77,8 m / s F = (m * V ^ 2) / 2 = 33000 * 77.8 ^ 2 = 99.87 MJ1J - 1W * s or 3600J = 1W / h, and 3,6 1MJ - XNUMX kW / h


      They did not take into account that it is necessary to deduct the speed of the aircraft carrier, which is 30 knots (approximately 55 km / h), from the launch speed of the aircraft. See my calculations above. In total, the speed of the aircraft exit from the catapult should be 280 - 55 = 225 km / h. Then we calculate the required energy according to the formula "Em Ve square divided by 2" in joules. Then we divide the received energy in joules by the energy storage time of 120 seconds, we get the required power in watts. And you don't need any kWh! Don't look for adventures on the 5th point!
  • patsantre
    patsantre April 28 2014 17: 45
    0
    Quote: ar-ren
    2. No wonder the aircraft carriers make a speed of 30 knots. 30 knots is 55,56 km / h.
    3. We pass from the starting speed of Drying the speed of the aircraft carrier. 280 - 55,56 = 224.44 (approximately 225).
    4. That is, our catapult must "throw" the plane from the aircraft carrier at a speed of 225 km / h.

    I did not understand the situation. The plane starts relative to the aircraft carrier, and not the surface of the earth or ocean. In fact, these same extra 50 km / h he will have to develop in order not to fly off the aircraft carrier and stand still relative to him (but the friction force does not give him anyway to fall). In your opinion, if an aircraft carrier moved at a speed of 280 km / h, would the Su-33 take off without engines?
    An interesting point, in fact, is for someone to explain.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 18: 24
      +4
      Quote: patsantre
      In your opinion, if an aircraft carrier moved at a speed of 280 km / h, would the Su-33 take off without engines?


      Have you ever seen a kite? A man is standing on the ground, speed relative to the ground is 0, and a kite, an apparatus heavier than air, flies!

      So it is here. If there is a "wind in the mug" 280 km / h, drying will take off. And whether it will be due to a hurricane, or whether it will be due to the speed of the aircraft carrier of 280 km / h, or will it be dispersed by a cable (catapult) - it does not matter. Air speed is important.
  • archi.sailor
    archi.sailor April 28 2014 11: 04
    +5
    To manage the huge two-reactor "loaf" (Project 949A), 130 people were enough. The record is inimitable “Lira” (pr. 705), whose crew consisted of 32 officers and midshipmen!(quote)
    the author was mistaken a little-949A project never 130 people the crew was (from personal experience), and the 705th project was the largest only 23-26 people crew (midshipmen were not there at first) hi
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 28 2014 18: 29
      +1
      The author is closer to the truth
  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 April 28 2014 11: 05
    +7
    The first photo shows the Project 1157 Missile Cruiser.

    The project of this ship was developed in the USSR as opposed to the American class destroyers Airlie Björk. The main idea of ​​this project was, so to speak, stealth modernization of the Slava type cruisers.
    Even today, the characteristics of this ship are simply impressive. Even if now the Russian leadership decides to build this ship (and in almost 20 years, it has not lost its relevance), it will be the strongest ship in the world. A true modern battleship.

    The following is known from the performance characteristics. Length - 186 meters, width - 20 meters, draft - 7,6 meters. The displacement of the cruiser was supposed to be 13200 tons. The ship was to be equipped with a 4-band radar, hundreds of different missiles, including the SA-N-24 (in fact, the sea-based S400) and 4 Kashtan anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems.

    The propulsion system was to consist of 4 gas turbines, which allowed the ship to reach a maximum speed of 33 knots. The cruising range of the ship was 6000 miles at a speed of 15 knots.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman April 28 2014 12: 36
      +1
      an interesting project, it does not reach the cruiser in terms of tonnage. Recent modifications Burke have a similar displacement.
      But still confused by the range of 6 miles at 000 knots.
      Although if it is done in JaSS, then the tonnage will increase.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 28 2014 17: 50
        +3
        You are not right at all, the last birks have a VI of 10k, this cruiser has 13k, while cruisers 1164 have the same 10k, and ticonderogs have even less. Despite the fact that the destroyer zumwalt generally has 14k.
        From this we can draw 2 conclusions.
        1) In terms of tonnage, he is quite up to the cruiser.
        2) A ship class is awarded not only by tonnage.
        3) I would say that this is the designer’s job, what should I call the ship. The amers have a 14 thousandth zumwalt - a destroyer, and Iran a destroyer - a 2.5 thousandth trough.
        1. Nonik
          Nonik April 29 2014 00: 34
          0
          Quote: patsantre
          3) I would say that this is the designer’s job, what should I call the ship. The amers have a 14 thousandth zumwalt - a destroyer, and Iran a destroyer - a 2.5 thousandth trough.
          It's just that amers often have gigantomania winked
      2. GHG
        GHG April 28 2014 18: 17
        +1
        I think that it will not increase ... he will not need a fuel reserve of a thousand tons.
  • e_krendel
    e_krendel April 28 2014 11: 14
    +4
    Quote: ar-ren
    Pretzel studied very, very poorly at school and understands absolutely nothing in aircraft carriers, but undertakes to consider what we put a plus for. But he thinks it is wrong, for which we put a minus.

    Studied well, here you are wrong. I don't understand in aircraft carriers, here you are right (for the "land rat" smile ) If everything is as you described, then indeed, an aircraft carrier does not cost anything to launch planes in batches, only have time to put on deck. All that's left is nothing, to come up with a railgun (sort of like already) and experience yes
  • qwert
    qwert April 28 2014 11: 14
    +12
    RUSSIAN destroyers MUST BE ATOMIC.
    Since lasers, quasers, powerful protective force fields require a huge amount of energy.
    In addition, no gas turbine installation will ensure the operation of a quasi-modulation levitation modulator. Only a nuclear reactor can do this, although a thermonuclear fusion reactor would be more promising. smile
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 11: 31
      +2
      plus one for humor!
    2. Assistant
      Assistant April 28 2014 20: 00
      +1
      Why does everyone forget about the teleport to the marine base on the mainland that is constantly working in duplex?
      And as for the energy consumption of a compact time machine that allows you to replay any battle, I generally will not say anything. There can not do without a fusion reactor!
  • HollyGremlin
    HollyGremlin April 28 2014 11: 22
    +7
    In the distant 80s, wiring in apartments was calculated from a pair of light bulbs and a TV. Now everyone is completely pulling wires from the shields to power the air conditioners, washing machines, computers, microwaves. Once they assured that 128kb of memory would be enough. It seems to me a power reserve plus that you need to correctly use.
    1. Nonik
      Nonik April 29 2014 00: 37
      0
      Quote: HollyGremlin
      Once they assured that 128kb of memory would be enough.
      640Kb wink
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat April 28 2014 11: 24
    +2
    I am a supporter of the theory of Suvorov and Ushakov - speed and maneuver are the main things on the battlefield.
    Although I'm interested in the question wai abandoned the concept of ekranoplans? A pair of ekranoplanes links can be arranged by Kuzkin’s mother to any fleet and after a couple of raids or fleets will not be or he will be demoralized (although the old Su24 was enough for this)
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 28 2014 11: 29
      +4
      Quote: ShadowCat
      Although I'm interested in the question wai abandoned the concept of ekranoplans?


      Lun: 500 km / h, 6 mosquitoes, 11 crew, glows under the radar like a New Year tree, does not go with waves of 5 points or more (EMNIP), a good chance to gain full engine birds, only anti-ship work (cannot shoot fighters or bomb )


      3 Raphael (or 3 F / A-18E / F). 2000+ km / h, 6 Mosquitoes, 3 crew members, stealth, excitement - burial, a chance to encounter birds only on take-off / landing, wagon (can shoot fighters, bomb, etc.).
      1. Assistant
        Assistant April 28 2014 20: 08
        +3
        3 Raphael (or 3 F / A-18E / F). 2000+ km / h, 6 Mosquitoes


        Can Rafali and Hornets carry Mosquito-class missiles? I have heard that even the Su-33 can carry the Mosquito only in theory. Can you tell us more about the airborne deployment of such heavy missiles?
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city April 28 2014 11: 29
    +2
    ShturmKGB
    Another question is that Russia has little revenge for restocking, there are no bases abroad, unlike the United States, and the nuclear installation, with all its shortcomings, is more "long-range" ...

    I completely agree, in the absence of normal supply bases and a large auxiliary fleet (which will also have to be built, so add it to the cost), the reactor looks more appropriate. And most importantly, we have developments and technologies that have been tested on the same icebreakers. As for turbines, whoever said that Simmens was put on warships wasn’t my opinion.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 28 2014 18: 34
      +1
      Power Generators (when it was not Siemens)
  • ASh666
    ASh666 April 28 2014 12: 06
    +2
    Quote: Takashi


    How long does the destroyer live in modern combat? And why does he need such an expensive propulsion system?


    Do you have such statistics? Does it even exist? How many destroyers have died in this "modern battle" of yours in the last 60 years? And what percentage of the existing destroyers participated in "modern combat"? Or maybe military equipment in peacetime is created not only and not so much for the purpose of instant heroic death?
  • saag
    saag April 28 2014 12: 25
    -1
    The destroyer in modern combat lives as long as the anti-ship missile launched on it flies :-)
  • RPG_
    RPG_ April 28 2014 12: 25
    +1
    Yes, it’s not the USSR to steal the LM2500 drawings and there is no way to make its own analogue. But its own reliable gas turbine is still needed.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa April 28 2014 12: 43
    +2
    Why not focus first on restoring the combat readiness of existing destroyers pr.956. 6pcs left ships, this is enough for both fleets for another twenty years. The Chinese are 4pcs. brought to mind and enjoy, but of course we need only new ones, only atomic ones, only hardcore, more shiny and new toys.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 28 2014 21: 30
      0
      Two fleets? I don’t think so. It makes sense to carry out their repair-modernization and include it in the Black Sea Fleet. And for the oceans it’s better to build new ships
  • Gomunkul
    Gomunkul April 28 2014 12: 55
    +1
    MOSCOW, April 26 - RIA Novosti. The newest, fully automated sea tanker "Akademik Pashin" has begun to build for the Russian Navy OJSC "Nevsky Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Plant", said on Saturday a spokesman for the press service and information of the Russian Ministry of Defense on the Navy.
    "Akademik Pashin" is a new generation vessel in its class and will be used to support the naval forces in the sea and ocean zones. It is fully automated and capable of replenishing supplies simultaneously on three ships on the move at sea. Ships of this type were not built for the Russian Navy for about 35 years.

    "Today, on April 26, 2014, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, took part in the keel-laying ceremony for the medium sea tanker of project 23130 Akademik Pashin, which is being built for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation at the Nevsky Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Plant," the message says.

    According to the Commander-in-Chief, the tanker will become the main ship in a series of six that the plant will build for the Russian Navy. The vessel will be 130 meters long, 21 meters wide, and draft - 7 meters. The total displacement of the tanker is 14 thousand tons, and the deadweight is 9 thousand tons. The crew will be 24 people.


    РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140426/1005569555.html#ixzz30AZ06T44
  • Kornilovets
    Kornilovets April 28 2014 13: 20
    +1
    Oleg ATP! Good article.
  • saag
    saag April 28 2014 13: 22
    +3
    Quote: Gomunkul
    The crew will be 24 people.

    Well, because I thought that on a modern automated tanker there should be two living things - a man and a dog, the task of the person would be feeding the dog, and the task of the dog is to dig into the throat of a person at the first attempt to smoke :-)
  • goose
    goose April 28 2014 13: 23
    +2
    Quote: ar-ren
    Hence, the meaning of YU on aircraft carriers completely disappears.

    And if you think about it? There was an analytical article that compared Forrestal to Nimitz. The latter has 4 times more ammunition, 5 times more fuel for aircraft, can produce 3 times more steam for catapults (EMALS is just a project!) - and this is a dramatic increase in the size of the air group being raised. There are no chimneys in hangars and in the superstructure - the size of the deckhouse is minimized and the size of the deck and hangars is increased, there is no corrosion of the superstructures / antenna devices and perfect visibility due to the complete absence of smoke and warm air. There is a possibility for a long time to walk at full speed to launch aircraft - more take-off weight. Virtually unlimited supplies for energy and heating in cold waters. (We recall the eternally rusty deck of Kuznetsov and the traditional absence of "correct" mooring piers for warships at the base). A steam turbine for converting heat into steam is much simpler and cheaper than the new fashionable gas turbines, there are no differences in other mechanisms. Let me remind you that at present the possibilities of producing gas turbines for surface ships on the territory of Russia are very limited.
    Perhaps I forgot something else, but I always believed that nuclear power plants have unkillable trump cards, especially for large ships, and especially for aircraft carriers, and why not remember them?
    1. Santa Fe
      April 28 2014 13: 43
      +1
      Quote: goose
      compared Forrestal with Nimitz. The latter has 4 times more ammunition, 5 times more fuel, for airplanes, can produce steam for catapults 3 times more

      This is erroneous data.

      Forrestal:
      The projected stock of jet fuel is 2,84 mln liters of gasoline and 2,97 mln liters of JP-5 brand kerosene. Cellar aviation ammunition contained 1650 tons of bombs and missiles.

      "Nimitz":
      8600 tons of fuel, 2500 tons of ammunition

      Two notes:
      - the larger ammunition and aviation fuel stock of the Nimitz is not due to its nuclear installation, but rather its large size - it is 25 tons larger than Forrestal

      - At Forestol, part of the fuel oil tanks were used for storing jet fuel, the sailing range in this case was reduced from 12 to 8 thousand miles. By the way, the estimated fuel reserve of Forrestal is 8570 tons of oil


      Transport C-130 on the Forrestal deck
    2. Kassandra
      Kassandra April 29 2014 15: 23
      0
      because for some the worse the better ...

      There was only one non-nuclear aircraft carrier among the Americans, because it is based in Japan, which should not have a military atom on its territory.
  • Cossacks
    Cossacks April 28 2014 13: 30
    +2
    Long time ago I did not read such excellent articles. Not modest of me, but unconditionally subscribe.
  • Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 April 28 2014 14: 28
    +1
    The patrol ship of the 22100 project “Ocean” - an ice-class border patrol ship - up to 80 centimeters of the ice field.
    Displacement 2700 tons (full)
    Speed ​​20 knots (cruising)
    Cruising range 12 000 miles
    The autonomy of swimming 60 day
    Here is a small model of a YaSU destroyer.
    Speed ​​30 knots (cruising with YaSU).
    Direct drive, thruster small electric motors.
    The entire mass of running vehicles, where everything is included, will soon be similar to a non-nuclear one with a margin of 1 a thousand miles.
    - on icebreakers, due to their long-term operation in maximum power mode. The installed capacity utilization factor for modern nuclear-powered icebreakers is 0,6 ... 0,65 - twice as high as that of any naval warship. Icebreakers literally “tear” in the ice
  • marder4
    marder4 April 28 2014 14: 34
    +1
    Quote: Cossacks
    Long time ago I did not read such excellent articles. Not modest of me, but unconditionally subscribe.


    I join
  • postman
    postman April 28 2014 14: 47
    +5
    Quote: Author
    Why a nuclear reactor on a promising Russian destroyer

    The answer (s) is obvious:
    1. so as not to repeat "Way of the Cross of Nebogatov's Detachment" - sabotage of the British (and others) during bunkering.
    They will not refuse food, drink (and it is not necessary) (in the worst case, you can requisition along the way), but in fuel, yes!
    (there, earlier, the Angchians crap with Cardiff)
    So that while sailing to the next Venezuela, do not stay empty when the next Hugo Chavez reveres in the Bose
    2. YaSU aboard SAMA itself is a formidable weapon: there are many who want to attack a ship with YaSU near their territorial (economic, fishing)

    ) water to get "Chernobyl" at your side? AND? this is it
    3. no need to have a fleet of tankers (who need a crew, food, and oh! Fuel again)
    American missile cruiser Chosin pulling in tow in the Pacific Ocean, the Canadian Navy supply ship Protecter, the propulsion system of which failed due to a fire.

    4. No need to have the infrastructure for, n 3.
    5.Difficulties? Output: Modularity and Fast Reactor
    Desalination plants based on BN-350


    6.а "pluses"? - development of Rosatom, and related industries
    7. oil prices are growing unpredictably, resources are scarce, and SO is not enough, and the ship (well, big), "eats" ogogo (approx. Tirpitz, Bismarck)
    8.Prices? so take an interest in the "politioca" of Rosatom, on the delivery of NPP units to "aliens" - SURPRISE!
    on credit, with CRAZY INSTALLMENTS, at a meager percentage (3%?)
    So it’s better for the domestic Navy, than Bulgaria (alien that in NATO)
    =======================
    no, of course, if you swim only in the Finnish puddle and on the Black Sea, but along the coasts ... YES CAN BE DROPPED, and if not?
    Quote: Author
    Stop! And who ever said that a nuclear power plant should have more power than a similar sized gas turbine ?!


    Oh well!
    In the same way, you "manipulate" the data
    Quote: Author
    As of the beginning of the 60s, the weights and dimensions of shipboard nuclear warheads were significantly higher than those of conventional power plants (with the same power on the propeller shafts)

    Take the weight of the active zone ONLY (which is comical essno), or rather: to the gas turbine (or internal combustion engine) ADD THE WHOLE FUEL RESERVE, its mass is more accurate
    And, starting from these introductory facts, CALCULATE SPECIFIC POWER: N / mass of total =
    And?
    And it turns out YASU-FAVORABLE

    Quote: Author
    Facts show that fears about the consequences of reactor damage are greatly exaggerated. Suffice it to recall the death of the Kursk submarine

    1. The reactor and circuits were NOT damaged.
    2. in the bowels of the boat, at the bottom, separated just rusting over time, TONS of enriched uranium and its decay products (in AZ), as well as radioactive heat walls, lie.
    1. postman
      postman April 28 2014 14: 51
      +3
      Quote: Postman
      3. no need to have a fleet of tankers (who need a crew, food, and oh! Fuel again)


      and oharana, and escort, etc ...
      Again, the "refueling" process is the most dangerous (well, in the sense of attacking), for tanks and vehicles, in any case, I don't think there are any differences for ships
    2. Santa Fe
      April 28 2014 16: 07
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      so as not to repeat the "Way of the Cross of Nebogatov's Detachment" - sabotage of the British (and others) during bunkering.

      There was enough mess without the English

      The formation of the Third Pacific Squadron took place in the context of the revolution that had begun. The continuous series of defeats on land and at sea in the war with Japan, the brutal reprisals of the January 9 over a peaceful demonstration in St. Petersburg were revolutionized by crews of squadron ships. This was also facilitated by the close communication of the sailors with the St. Petersburg workers sent to Libau. ...
      Neither the repression, nor the primitive demagogy of A.I.Iretsky, dressed up in the toga as a defender of the lower ranks, could not prevent the insight of the sailor masses. The defenders of the throne had only one way to maintain discipline: as soon as possible to push the ships out of Libau under the muzzle of Japanese guns.
      “If we had stood in Libau even longer, I don’t know if our battleships would have left,” the senior officer of the coastal defense battleship Admiral Senyavin, Captain 2nd Rank F.F.Artschwager, said later at the trial.


      It was even more fun on the way
      Quote: Postman
      3.No need to have a fleet of tankers

      Do you propose to install YaSU on each frigate and Mistral? Minesweeper and ocean rescue complex
      Quote: Postman
      7. oil prices are growing unpredictably, resources are scarce, and SO is not enough, and the ship (well, big), "eats" ogogo (approx. Tirpitz, Bismarck)

      The Yankees calculated that YaSu is more expensive. Much more expensive
      Quote: Postman
      Take weight ONLY the core

      Why all this? If the dimensions of the ship itself are known. Bainbridge was larger than Lehi. Virginia is larger than Ticonderoga

      YaSU with converters is larger
      Quote: Postman
      1. The reactor and circuits were NOT damaged.

      So that's the whole joke
      To survive after such an explosion, which turned half of the boat!
      1. xtur
        xtur April 28 2014 16: 45
        +2
        > Why all this? If the dimensions of the ship itself are known.
        > YSU with converters is larger

        on "ash trees" the turbine is located on the reactor itself, that is, the weight and dimensions of such a nuclear reactor will be much less than the one that you took for comparison, because it has steam generators and additional equipment that takes up space and has no small weight

        but how much less is hard to say
        1. Santa Fe
          April 28 2014 16: 56
          0
          Quote: xtur
          on "ash trees" the turbine is located on the reactor itself, that is, the weight and dimensions of such a nuclear reactor will be much less than the one that you took for comparison, because it has steam generators and additional equipment that takes up space and has no small weight

          I doubt about the ash - there are the good old OK-650Б and OK-9ВМ
          Moreover, the boat has a cunning "transmission" with an uncoupling clutch. At low speeds, in the "sneaking" mode, the boat is driven by an electric motor

          In the article I took for comparison the two-reactor combined installation of RITM 200 (YaSU + GTZA, 2200 tons, output power 80 thousand hp)
      2. postman
        postman April 28 2014 17: 51
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There was enough mess without the English

        I ONLY about bunkering and Sabotage UK in bunkering.
        the same will be with diesel fuel / fuel oil
        And with YaSU- you are independent
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Propose to install YaSU

        What are the little things: on FPS boats and cars.
        DO NOT ANGLE.
        ships of the ocean and coastal, different things
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Why all this?

        and then, evaluating the specific parameter (power / mass (volume)), you and supporters WHY then take both the weight of the core and biosecurity and pipelines (for nuclear power plants), and at gas turbine -Current turbine.
        scam.
        For gas turbines (diesel) it is also necessary to take into account: fuel and fuel tanks, cooling system and EXHAUST (pipes).
        AMAZING THE RESULT
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Virginia is larger than Ticonderoga

        Quantity in quality (VI Lenin).
        Do not muddy. From a certain size YASU FAVORABLE
        NIMITS and Nuka its analogue to GTU (or diesel) -A? WHAT WEAK?
        +
        60s technology, it's not 21st century technology

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Yankees calculated that YaSu is more expensive. Much more expensive

        1. 60s technology (didn’t do anything new, Fukushima is an old thing for itself)
        2. cost of fuel (oil)
        3. There is a suspicion (justified by the American TVEL) that the Americans have few of them, the quality is so-so +

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So that's the whole joke

        Which half? The bow, to the reactor, as to the end of the foodball field
        +
        Quote: POST
        2.JASU on board SAMA itself is a formidable weapon: there are many who want to attack a ship with nuclear warheads near their territorial (economic, fishing)

        =======
        Well, you just didn’t read the remaining arguments (judging by the remarks)
  • Magic archer
    Magic archer April 28 2014 14: 50
    +2
    Great stuff! I wonder if you can create a warship based on an atomic icebreaker? This would solve many problems in the Northern Fleet.
    1. jayich
      jayich April 29 2014 11: 44
      0
      Well, as if the Soviet icebreakers had a dual purpose, and in the nose reserved a place for art installation caliber 130mm, but what else I xs.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra April 29 2014 14: 59
        0
        places for TA and much more
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 4 May 2014 14: 55
          0
          For a lot of things will not work. No fantasy.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Giant thought
    Giant thought April 28 2014 15: 25
    +2
    With any power plants, but do gentlemen good. The fleet was waiting for new powerful combat surface ships.
  • Nik SU
    Nik SU April 28 2014 16: 11
    +3
    I think it is necessary to put nuclear weapons because, as the author rightly notes, “The danger of radiation accidents can be neglected - as the experience of operating the domestic icebreaker fleet shows, the probability of such an event is close to zero.” And any attack on such a ship will be tantamount to a declaration of war with all the consequences, including the use of nuclear weapons. And the question of the possible radioactive infection of some water area, due to damage to the destroyer, will be, if not in the last, then probably in one of the last places.