"Russian Navy Unveils New Class of Submarines" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
| Tango01 | 20 Mar 2014 9:57 p.m. PST |
" A prospective series of Russia's new fifth-generation conventional submarine equipped with an advanced air-independent propulsion system will be designated the Kalina-class, the commander of the country's navy said Wednesday. "Russia is currently designing a fifth-generation conventional submarine, dubbed Project Kalina, which will be fitted with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system," Adm. Viktor Chirkov said. "Our industry promises to develop this AIP system by 2017 and build the first boat fitted with such a system by 2018," Chirkov said…"
Full article here.
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Klebert L Hall | 21 Mar 2014 7:54 a.m. PST |
I think this a picture of one of these new subs:
-Kle. |
| Lion in the Stars | 21 Mar 2014 10:21 a.m. PST |
The Russians have been playing with AIP for a long, long time. Closed-cycle Diesels for the most part. You really need a fuel cell or baby nuclear reactor for quiet AIP, though. And it's not like nuke subs need to have pumps running all the time, if you know what you're doing with the design of the reactor (natural circulation) and your main condensers (using the boat's forward motion to push cold seawater through your condensers). You still have the pumps installed, you just don't need them most of the time. |
| Wellspring | 21 Mar 2014 1:50 p.m. PST |
To me, the real news is that they're back to building non-nuclear attack subs. |
| Lion in the Stars | 21 Mar 2014 3:32 p.m. PST |
Easier to sell diesel-electrics overseas. |
| Wellspring | 23 Mar 2014 4:52 p.m. PST |
It was a major tenet of their doctrine. Subs and naval aviation were considered primary assets, and the carriers, cruisers, destroyers, etc were considered support units. An all-nuke sub force was essential to achieving global reach. Don't get me wrong, I see the point of diesel. The risks are lower (especially after the Kursk disaster). Diesel is much cheaper, much quieter. And, as you say, easier to export. It's not a bad idea, but it's surprising that they'd depart from their naval doctrine that way. |
| Lion in the Stars | 23 Mar 2014 6:18 p.m. PST |
The Kursk disaster was a high-test peroxide torpedo accident, coupled with lousy shaft seals. most AIP systems have some source of oxygen. Whether that's high-test peroxide, liquid oxygen, or 2500psi high-pressure gas bottles, you still have a massive explosion risk. And that's still safer than using a monopropellant like Otto fuel, which the US uses in torpedoes. |
|
tries out the expansion roads set.
