Project 955: Borei class SSBN

GarryB wrote:
Of course despite your low opinion of conventional subs I would argue that they are actually rather more useful and cost effective and EXPORTABLE.

Garry , Borei will also be using OK 650 reactor right ...?

What's the weight of the OK 650 reactor ?

RTN wrote:

Garry , Borei will also be using OK 650 reactor right ...?

What's the weight of the OK 650 reactor ?

This information is kinda rare.. I'm also looking for it.

Nonetheless, you can try estimating them based from following table :



Borei is using OK-650 with OK-9 GTZA (Turbine) With around 50000 Shaft horse power or 37284 Kw. The latest OK-650 as far as i know is a monoblock construction where steam generator is "unified" With the reactor, making it more compact. Thus we can assume specific weight of 21 Kg/Kw

Thus the reactor along with its steam generator would weigh 37284*21=782964 Kg or some 782 ton discounting the shield tank and foundation.

If we included those parts, assuming specific weight of 7 Kg/Kw the weight of the foundation and shield tank would be 7*37284=260988 or 261 ton.

Bring total weight of 1043 Ton.

Stealthflanker wrote:
This information is kinda rare.. I'm also looking for it.

Nonetheless, you can try estimating them based from following table :

Thanks Stealthflanker . I kinda did the math on this based on the numbers that you provided . It seems Russian reactors for submarines are quite heavy compared to US ones . Not sure of the reason though .

First, the power generation you mentioned in the kilowatt range for actual unmanned spacecraft is probably from a thermoelectric generator as opposed to a fission reactor.  

A thermoelectric generator converts the heat generated from natural radioactive decay into electric power.  Due to design considerations it is not practical for thermoelectric generators to be large enough to produce more than about a kilowatt of electricity.  Based on pure physics, however, here is the thermoelectric generator calculation.

Plutonium is often used in space applications because of its long half-life.  So, if a space craft is on a decades-long mission, A Pu power source should be able to function continuously.  The downside of plutonium is that it is extremely heavy.  Considering plutonium-238 for the moment, its specific power is 0.56 Watts/gm due to natural radioactive decay.  So, to generate 1 kW, we need 1000*0.56 gm = 560 gm or 0.56 kg.  This is thermal energy due to radioactive decay.  The thermoelectric generator which converts the thermal energy to electric energy has an efficiency of only a few percent.  For our example, let's assume a 5% conversion efficiency.  Then, the 0.56 kg will generate 0.05*1000 Watts = 50 Watts electric power, or, we can get 89 Watts per kilogram.  For 1 Kw, our mass is 11 Kg.  For  1 MW, our mass is 11,000 kg.

Now, onto a more practical means for generation 1 MW of power using a Plutonium fission reaction.  

To calculate the mass required to obtain a certain power level, we have to know the neutron flux and the fission cross-section.  Let’s assume the flux is 1E14 neutron/cm2/sec, the cross section for fast fission of Pu-239 is about 2 barns (2E-24 cm2), the energy release per fission is 204 MeV, and the Pu-239 number density is 4.939E22 atoms/cm3.  Then the power is

P = flux * number density * cross section * Mev per fission * 1.602E-13 Watt/MeV
P = 1E14 * 4.939E22 * 2E-24  * 204  * 1.602E-13  = 323 W/cm3

So, for 1 MW, we need  1E6/323 = 3100 cm3.  Given a density of 19.6 gm/cm3, this is 19.6*3100 = 60,760 gm or 60.76 kg.  

The next question to ask is: how long do you want to sustain this reaction?  In other words, what is the total energy output?

For example, a Watt is one Joule per second.  So, to sustain a 1 MW reaction for 1 year, the total energy is 1E6 J/s * 3.15E7 s/year = 3.15E13 J

For Pu-239, we have 204 Mev per fission and we have 6.023E23./239 = 2.52E21 atoms/gm.  So, the energy release per gram is 2.52E21 * 204 Mev/fission * 1.602E-13 J/Mev = 8.24E10 J/gm.

Therefore, to sustain 1 MW for 1 year, we will use 3.15E13 J / 8.24E10 J/gm = 382 gm of Pu-239 or 0.382 kg.  This is only a small fraction of the total 60.76 kg needed for the fission reaction.

Finally, this is thermal energy.  Our current light water reactors have about a 35% efficiency for conversion to electric power.  So, you can take these numbers and essentially multiply by 3 to get a rough answer for the total Pu-239 needed: 3 x 60.76 = 182 kg.  Rounding up, you would need roughly 200 kg for a long term sustained 1 MW fission reaction with a 35% conversion efficieny.

These calculations assume quite a bit and I wouldn’t use these numbers to design a real reactor, but they should give you a ballpark idea of the masses involved.

RTN wrote:

Thanks Stealthflanker . I kinda did the math on this based on the numbers that you provided . It seems Russian reactors for submarines are quite heavy compared to US ones . Not sure of the reason though .

How so ? I think US reactors aren't much lighter than Russian one considering they have somewhat excessive safety imposed on them.



This is only for the reactor compartment.. Which would mean it contain the reactor, steam generator and the foundation along with other structural member.

First, the power generation you mentioned in the kilowatt range for actual unmanned spacecraft is probably from a thermoelectric generator as opposed to a fission reactor.  


A thermoelectric generator converts the heat generated from natural radioactive decay into electric power.  Due to design considerations it is not practical for thermoelectric generators to be large enough to produce more than about a kilowatt of electricity.  Based on pure physics, however, here is the thermoelectric generator calculation.

Plutonium is often used in space applications because of its long half-life.  So, if a space craft is on a decades-long mission, A Pu power source should be able to function continuously.  The downside of plutonium is that it is extremely heavy.  Considering plutonium-238 for the moment, its specific power is 0.56 Watts/gm due to natural radioactive decay.  So, to generate 1 kW, we need 1000*0.56 gm = 560 gm or 0.56 kg.  This is thermal energy due to radioactive decay.  The thermoelectric generator which converts the thermal energy to electric energy has an efficiency of only a few percent.  For our example, let's assume a 5% conversion efficiency.  Then, the 0.56 kg will generate 0.05*1000 Watts = 50 Watts electric power, or, we can get 89 Watts per kilogram.  For 1 Kw, our mass is 11 Kg.  For  1 MW, our mass is 11,000 kg.

Now, onto a more practical means for generation 1 MW of power using a Plutonium fission reaction.  

To calculate the mass required to obtain a certain power level, we have to know the neutron flux and the fission cross-section.  Let’s assume the flux is 1E14 neutron/cm2/sec, the cross section for fast fission of Pu-239 is about 2 barns (2E-24 cm2), the energy release per fission is 204 MeV, and the Pu-239 number density is 4.939E22 atoms/cm3.  Then the power is

P = flux * number density * cross section * Mev per fission * 1.602E-13 Watt/MeV
P = 1E14 * 4.939E22 * 2E-24  * 204  * 1.602E-13  = 323 W/cm3

So, for 1 MW, we need  1E6/323 = 3100 cm3.  Given a density of 19.6 gm/cm3, this is 19.6*3100 = 60,760 gm or 60.76 kg.  

The next question to ask is: how long do you want to sustain this reaction?  In other words, what is the total energy output?

For example, a Watt is one Joule per second.  So, to sustain a 1 MW reaction for 1 year, the total energy is 1E6 J/s * 3.15E7 s/year = 3.15E13 J

For Pu-239, we have 204 Mev per fission and we have 6.023E23./239 = 2.52E21 atoms/gm.  So, the energy release per gram is 2.52E21 * 204 Mev/fission * 1.602E-13 J/Mev = 8.24E10 J/gm.

Therefore, to sustain 1 MW for 1 year, we will use 3.15E13 J / 8.24E10 J/gm = 382 gm of Pu-239 or 0.382 kg.  This is only a small fraction of the total 60.76 kg needed for the fission reaction.

Finally, this is thermal energy.  Our current light water reactors have about a 35% efficiency for conversion to electric power.  So, you can take these numbers and essentially multiply by 3 to get a rough answer for the total Pu-239 needed: 3 x 60.76 = 182 kg.  Rounding up, you would need roughly 200 kg for a long term sustained 1 MW fission reaction with a 35% conversion efficieny.

These calculations assume quite a bit and I wouldn’t use these numbers to design a real reactor, but they should give you a ballpark idea of the masses involved.

I've seen this math before.. Nonetheless haven't tried it.

Typical naval reactor however uses highly enriched uranium with level of 20-93% Mainly to prolong core life and to provide excess reactivity to allow rapid restart.

Their fissile energy should be higher than provided at the math above.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Nuclear/US_Naval_Reactors.htm

The link deals with uranium enrichment to fissile energy.

for nuclear submarines weight is less of an issue its volume that is premium.
but i would agree with garry in ocean 1 on 1 diesel sub cant go against nuclear but in sea and coastal areas ...
the diesel sub is getting some very advanced technologies its cheaper and you can build and operate many more of them.

RTN wrote:Russian reactors for submarines are quite heavy compared to US ones

The math that you have provided does not prove that Russian nuclear reactors are heavier.

If we include  the weight of  the shield tank and foundation the weight of the reactor is bound to increase .

The exact clean weight of the OK 650 is therefore not known .

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/916623.html

Great photo of Monomach trials.

Borei-Class Submarines Enter Service Ahead of Russian Navy Day

MOSCOW, July 25 (RIA Novosti) – Two Russian submarines are entering service just in time for the Russian Navy Day, which falls on July 27 this year: a Yasen-class nuclear attack submarine Severodvinsk and a Borei-class ballistic missile submarine Alexander Nevsky.

Construction of the Severodvinsk began in 1993, but its completion was significantly delayed because of limited funding as a result of economic problems Russia faced in the 1990s. The submarine was finally launched in 2010.

The submarine, whose rivals are the US Navy’s Seawolf-class and Virginia-class submarines, is equipped with the Russian equivalent of the US Tomahawk missile, which can carry a nuclear warhead and has a firing range of up to 3,000 kilometers (1,800 miles).

The Yasen-class submarine also has additional missiles that can be used for high-precision strikes against ground targets.

The Borei-class Alexander Nevsky submarine began trials in October 2010. It was involved in test-firing Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles, which all Borei-class submarines are equipped with. Aleksander Nevsky is the first series-built submarine of the Borei class.

Two additional Borei-class submarines and two Yasen-class submarines are currently under construction. In total, Russia plans to build 8 Borei-class submarines and 8 Yasen-class submarines by 2020.

Russia has been stepping up the development of its navy since Crimea became part of the Russian Federation in March. In addition to the Russian naval base in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, Russia is developing a port in the country’s southern city of Novorossiysk, so that part of Russian’s Black Sea Fleet vessels and troops could be deployed there.

By 2017, six Adm. Grigorovich-class frigates and six improved Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines will join the Black Sea Fleet.

Russia is also awaiting the delivery of two French-made Mistral-class assault carriers. The first one, Vladivostok, is expected in St. Petersburg in October, where it will be equipped with Russian weapons. The second carrier, Sevastopol, should be delivered in 2015.

How can Russia commission Borei submarines without weapons?  Does the problems with Bulava missiles
have been fixed. ?  they were supposed to try again 6 more launches ,to finally be sure if it can do the job
after too many failures.

Vladimir Monomakh, Borei Class:

http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/310054.html

Interesting. Boats starting with Knyaz Oleg, will have classical sail, not the sharply raked variant.

Vann7 wrote:How can Russia commission Borei submarines without weapons?  Does the problems with Bulava missiles
have been fixed. ?  they were supposed to try again 6 more launches ,to finally be sure if it can do the job
after too many failures.

I thought that the problems with the Bulava were fixed, maybe not...

TR1 wrote:http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/310054.html

Interesting. Boats starting with Knyaz Oleg, will have classical sail, not the sharply raked variant.

Back to classical trademark of Rubin OKB   

5th Borei project 955A Princ Oleg

Russia’s new Alexander Nevsky submarine to arrive in Kamchatka by year-end

MOSCOW, August 21. /ITAR-TASS/. Russia’s new nuclear submarine Alexander Nevsky will arrive at its base in Kamchatka before the end of the year to begin combat training, Eastern Military District Commander, Colonel-General Sergei Surovikin said on Thursday.

Surovikin is inspecting the construction of infrastructure facilities for the fourth-generation submarines in Vilyuchinsk, Kamchatka.

“The commander inspected the construction of the pier, including mooring areas and support facilities, to ensure that work was proceeding according to the schedule approved by the ministry of defense,” Eastern Military District spokesperson Alexander Gordeyev told ITAR-TASS.

The general demanded strict compliance with the construction schedule and technical specifications approved by the Defense Ministry and the Navy, which require improved seismic resistance and the use of high anti-corrosion technologies.

The Alexander Nevsky is the second Borei-class submarine and the first serial Project 955 ship of the Borei Class. It was laid down on March 19, 2004. This is a fourth generation strategic underwater missile cruiser.

The leading submarine of the series, Yuri Dolgoruky, went into service in January 2013. It was the 129th nuclear-powered submarine built by the Sevmash shipyard and the first one in the past 12 years. Prior to that, in December 2001, the shipyard handed over the multirole submarine Gepard (carrying no ballistic missiles) to the Navy.

The Alexander Nevsky is the first serial strategic rocket carrier of the Borei class. It is 170 metres long, 13.5 metres wide, maximum operating depth is 450 metres, underwater speed is 29 knots, and a crew of 17 sailors.

Borei class submarines are designed to serve as the basis of Russia's strategic nuclear capabilities for the decades to come. They are designed by the St. Petersburg-based Naval Design Bureau Rubin. Each submarine can be armed with 12 ICBMs with MIRVs. They will also have an escape capsule for all crewmembers.

The Borei claims to be a state-of-the-art submarine, featuring characteristics superior to any submarine currently in service, such as the ability to cruise silently and be less detectable to sonar. Advances include a compact and integrated hydrodynamically efficient hull for reduced broadband noise and the first ever use of pump-jet propulsion on a Russian nuclear submarine.

The submarines will be armed with Bulava missiles. The Bulava carries the NATO reporting name SS-NX-30 and has been assigned the GRAU index 3M30. In international treaties, the common designation RSM-56 is used.

The Russian Defense Ministry plans to build at least eight new Borei-class submarines that should become the main naval component of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.

Russian Navy to get Vladimir Monomakh sub by end of 2014

ST.PETERSBURG, August 22. /ITAR-TASS/. The third Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine will be handed over to the Russian Navy by the end of 2014, the president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation said Friday. "The submarine will enter service by the end of this year as planned," Alexei Rakhmanov said.

The construction of the Vladimir Monomakh submarine began at the Sevmash shipyard in 2006. The first two Borey-class submarines, the Alexander Nevsky and Yuri Dolgoruky, were commissioned in 2013.

The Borey-class ballistic-missile submarines are to become the backbone of the Navy's strategic nuclear deterrent.
Russia’s new nuclear submarine to use only domestically made components

The submarines displace 24,000 tons, reach speeds of 29 knots (some 54 km per hour), can dive to 450 meters and carry crews of 107 people. The vessels will be armed with up to 16 Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which have range of over 8,000 kilometers.

A total of eight Borey-class boats are to be built for the Russian Navy by 2020.

It seems like they might really reach their 2020 deadmark... I doubted it at first, but they seem to be speeding things up.

RT says that an upgraded version of the Borei Class (project 955) will carry 20 SLBM missiles and not 16 like the previous ones..

http://rt.com/news/yury-dolgoruky-submarine-ceremony-678/

In May 2012 the Navy has also contracted development of [b]an upgraded version of the Borei class submarine, which will carry 20 ICBMs,[/b] compared to the regular version’s 16. It will also have improved characteristics, such as reduced noise, better measurability and more advanced weapon controls. The keel of the lead advanced vessel, Knyaz Vladimir, was laid down in July 2012, with four more submarines expected to be built. wrote:

And following more information.. Wikipedia  says the 4th Borei submarine .  
(K-??? Knyaz Vladimir) (project 955-А) lay down in 30 july 2012.. will be the one with 20 x Bulavas missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei-class_submarine

So only the first 3 Borei I subs will be 16 bulavas and the upgraded version (Borei II) subs from 4th to the 8th submarine will carry 20 and with new advanced controls and more modern technology they testing that the first ones..

I thought that was already known... All Boreis after the first three will carry 20 Bulavas. - Which is great, should make the West change their diaper.

There is an alternative view - that while current treaties limit the number of warheads, such a restriction cannot be guaranteed as the US could elect to withdraw from START should relations degrade catastrophically. It makes sense to build SSBNs that can meet peace time treaty limits while only using (for example) 70% of total installed missile throw weight, and which have the option to sacrifice penetration aids to significantly upgrade the warhead load if required.

Cost is probably the major determining factor - ie which is less expensive? Adding 4x tubes to 5x Borei Mk II (ie 20 tubes total) or an extra Borei Mk I+ with the system upgrades but retaining the original complement of 16 tubes? I'd guess the extra boomer is a significantly higher cost? Plus the extra SSBN needs to be operated (extra crew trained) and maintained.