Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
It would be great if Russia used nuclear power on these ships. After all they have nuclear icebreakers and generally have a lot of capability in this arena.
+8
limb
Isos
Rodion_Romanovic
Singular_Transform
Big_Gazza
GarryB
SeigSoloyvov
mnztr
12 posters
Nuclear power in Russian ships
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
PapaDragon- Posts : 13456
Points : 13496
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
mnztr wrote:It would be great if Russia used nuclear power on these ships. After all they have nuclear icebreakers and generally have a lot of capability in this arena.
This will be a big cargo ship with helicopters, no need for nuclear power
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
PapaDragon wrote:mnztr wrote:It would be great if Russia used nuclear power on these ships. After all they have nuclear icebreakers and generally have a lot of capability in this arena.
This will be a big cargo ship with helicopters, no need for nuclear power
Why would you not need nuclear power? For a ship that will be in service this long it would probably save a ton of money. Why does the US build nuclear carriers? becasue they have unlimited range and the group can carry probably 2 fewer tankers in it.
SeigSoloyvov
SeigSoloyvov- Posts : 3860
Points : 3838
Join date : 2016-04-08
mnztr wrote:PapaDragon wrote:mnztr wrote:It would be great if Russia used nuclear power on these ships. After all they have nuclear icebreakers and generally have a lot of capability in this arena.
This will be a big cargo ship with helicopters, no need for nuclear power
Why would you not need nuclear power? For a ship that will be in service this long it would probably save a ton of money. Why does the US build nuclear carriers? becasue they have unlimited range and the group can carry probably 2 fewer tankers in it.
Because these ships aren't in deep water sea long enough to warrant it. They don't function like carriers and thus don't need it, even if they hit 50k tons. Nuke power still wouldn't be needed.
Even the America-class which is the best Assault Ship in the world currently uses general propulsion and if the Navy thought it needed Nucealr power we would have made them Nuclear.
It actually wouldn't save money upkeep for Nuclear vessel is really expensive yeah you don't spend fuel but you spend big bucks in other areas. Traditional powered ships are cheaper to make and cheaper to maintain that nuclear-powered ships.
marat likes this post
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
The USA has naval bases all over the world, Russia does not.
GarryB- Posts : 40439
Points : 40939
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Would take a lot longer to build with nuclear propulsion...
A helicopter carrier like this is for supporting landing operations or disaster relief... and I would argue that a rushed landing is more dangerous than it is worth.
If your air defence requires fixed wing aircraft then high speed CVNs make sense as long as the ships it operates can keep up, so all nuke carrier groups make sense, but for helicopter carriers it would not be a huge advantage.
Plus the drawing of the ship seems to have two smoke stacks...
A helicopter carrier like this is for supporting landing operations or disaster relief... and I would argue that a rushed landing is more dangerous than it is worth.
If your air defence requires fixed wing aircraft then high speed CVNs make sense as long as the ships it operates can keep up, so all nuke carrier groups make sense, but for helicopter carriers it would not be a huge advantage.
Plus the drawing of the ship seems to have two smoke stacks...
SeigSoloyvov- Posts : 3860
Points : 3838
Join date : 2016-04-08
mnztr wrote:The USA has naval bases all over the world, Russia does not.
Naval base location doesn't determine what type of propulsion a ship gets.
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4851
Points : 4841
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
SeigSoloyvov wrote:mnztr wrote:The USA has naval bases all over the world, Russia does not.
Naval base location doesn't determine what type of propulsion a ship gets.
Well... if you don't have a global network of bases (or a string of friendly nations that will reliably provide bunkering) then nuke propulsion starts to look mighty favorable if your intention is to have a true all-aspect blue-water power projection capability.
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
SeigSoloyvov wrote:mnztr wrote:The USA has naval bases all over the world, Russia does not.
Naval base location doesn't determine what type of propulsion a ship gets.
Are you saying logistics is not a consideration in propulsion?
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
GarryB wrote:Would take a lot longer to build with nuclear propulsion...
A helicopter carrier like this is for supporting landing operations or disaster relief... and I would argue that a rushed landing is more dangerous than it is worth.
If your air defence requires fixed wing aircraft then high speed CVNs make sense as long as the ships it operates can keep up, so all nuke carrier groups make sense, but for helicopter carriers it would not be a huge advantage.
Plus the drawing of the ship seems to have two smoke stacks...
I am not saying they will do it, but depending on their plans, I don't think Russia has access to the Diesel/Electric power that the Mistrals use, they have a shortage of Turbines, but seem to have been able to reliably supply nuclear powerplants for Ice breakers, subs and a floating powerplant. Plus on the horizon they have Leider and maybe a nuclear carrier..so who knows.
SeigSoloyvov- Posts : 3860
Points : 3838
Join date : 2016-04-08
mnztr wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:mnztr wrote:The USA has naval bases all over the world, Russia does not.
Naval base location doesn't determine what type of propulsion a ship gets.
Are you saying logistics is not a consideration in propulsion?
No, because at that stage even frigates would be made with nuclear power. Not all blue water ships are made with Nuclear power.
Traditional powered ships carry enough fuel to be at sea for months. The ship would run out of food before it would run out of fuel.
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
SeigSoloyvov wrote:mnztr wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:mnztr wrote:The USA has naval bases all over the world, Russia does not.
Naval base location doesn't determine what type of propulsion a ship gets.
Are you saying logistics is not a consideration in propulsion?
No, because at that stage even frigates would be made with nuclear power. Not all blue water ships are made with Nuclear power.
Traditional powered ships carry enough fuel to be at sea for months. The ship would run out of food before it would run out of fuel.
So what deterimines if a ship is nuclear? Why was Kirov class made as a nuclear ship? The US made the USS Enterprise then built non Nuke carriers until the Nimitz class. Why? If you don't have to carry 5000 tons of fuel, you can carry 5K tons of food, aviation fuel and weapons. So your ability to stay at sea can be extended significantly with less logistics support.
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
mnztr wrote:
So what deterimines if a ship is nuclear? Why was Kirov class made as a nuclear ship? The US made the USS Enterprise then built non Nuke carriers until the Nimitz class. Why? If you don't have to carry 5000 tons of fuel, you can carry 5K tons of food, aviation fuel and weapons. So your ability to stay at sea can be extended significantly with less logistics support.
Nuclear submarines.
The conventional ship can sail only with cruise speed, if say double its speed then the fuel consumption will increase eightfold.
It means if the ship has arange of 8000 km with 20 km/hours, then with 60 km/hour it will have a range of 300km.
The nuclear propulsion means a submarine can search the target with full speed, for weeks, and it has very high chance to found its target in short period of time.
Due to that hte USA was forced to install nuclear reactors to the carriers, to be able to run from the nuclear submarines.
As an answer the CCCP developed extreme long range missiles against the carriers : D negating all advantage of nuclear propulsion.
And now the extreme long range missiles become very small ,so even a crovette can sink a carrier these days.
GarryB- Posts : 40439
Points : 40939
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Soviets invested a lot of money on nuclear propulsion systems for their submarines, but not for their ships...
AFAIK the Kirovs were the only nuclear powered surface ships they had, and even then they were only partly nuclear powered because the nuclear power unit they used wasn't powerful enough so they added on conventional power for speed boosts.
With nuke power only they could run at 18 knots or thereabouts... to get to full speed the had to run their gas turbines too but could only do so for 5,000 nautical miles or so.
The Slava class were built in case the Kirovs were a failure...
They plan to have their destroyers and cruisers and new carriers using NPP afaik, but that might be part of the reason they are delaying them... will need a lot of testing and work to get those right.
You need support ships to support remote naval operations even if all your ships are nukes... the helicopters they operate wont be... and of course any fighters etc will also need fuel and of course vast amounts of ammo and food and of course any landing forces will need even more ammo and fuel and parts.
Nuclear propulsion will reduce the amount of fuel needed for ships to use so for instance a CVN can carry a lot more aviation fuel for its air component.
But even nuclear powered ships have diesel engines and gas turbine engines for emergency power or other purposes if the reactors have to be shut down.
At 25K tons they would be an opportunity to test a NPP (nuclear power propulsion system) that could be used on destroyers and cruisers too... those 30 year life time reactors that are fairly low maintenance and don't need refuelling every 5 years...
I wouldn't be upset if they made it a nuke...
AFAIK the Kirovs were the only nuclear powered surface ships they had, and even then they were only partly nuclear powered because the nuclear power unit they used wasn't powerful enough so they added on conventional power for speed boosts.
With nuke power only they could run at 18 knots or thereabouts... to get to full speed the had to run their gas turbines too but could only do so for 5,000 nautical miles or so.
The Slava class were built in case the Kirovs were a failure...
They plan to have their destroyers and cruisers and new carriers using NPP afaik, but that might be part of the reason they are delaying them... will need a lot of testing and work to get those right.
You need support ships to support remote naval operations even if all your ships are nukes... the helicopters they operate wont be... and of course any fighters etc will also need fuel and of course vast amounts of ammo and food and of course any landing forces will need even more ammo and fuel and parts.
Nuclear propulsion will reduce the amount of fuel needed for ships to use so for instance a CVN can carry a lot more aviation fuel for its air component.
But even nuclear powered ships have diesel engines and gas turbine engines for emergency power or other purposes if the reactors have to be shut down.
At 25K tons they would be an opportunity to test a NPP (nuclear power propulsion system) that could be used on destroyers and cruisers too... those 30 year life time reactors that are fairly low maintenance and don't need refuelling every 5 years...
I wouldn't be upset if they made it a nuke...
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
Singular_Transform wrote:
Nuclear submarines.
The conventional ship can sail only with cruise speed, if say double its speed then the fuel consumption will increase eightfold.
It means if the ship has arange of 8000 km with 20 km/hours, then with 60 km/hour it will have a range of 300km.
The nuclear propulsion means a submarine can search the target with full speed, for weeks, and it has very high chance to found its target in short period of time.
Due to that hte USA was forced to install nuclear reactors to the carriers, to be able to run from the nuclear submarines.
As an answer the CCCP developed extreme long range missiles against the carriers : D negating all advantage of nuclear propulsion.
And now the extreme long range missiles become very small ,so even a crovette can sink a carrier these days.
I don't agree the US use of Nuclear power in CVNs was to flee from subs. When they went all nuclear the speed capabilities of subs were already well known and the even the Alfa class was around. The Carrier is a power projection platform. If you look at Mistral its range at 18 knots is 10800 km at 15 knots 19800 km.. HUGE difference. If these ships are for power projection, being able to cruise at 30 knots with nuclear power will be like building 4 ships instead of 2. Plus you can also delete one tanker from the task force as an additional big savings..then add the ability to carry more fuel, ammo, medical supplies ,spares and provisions for the troops on board and you start to see the beauty of nuclear power for this class of vessel. I am not saying they will do it. Just imagine these ships being able to storm off at 30-35 knots to a trouble spot escorted by a lurking 949 AM submarine and one Leidier class or updated Kirov class.. that is a serious amount of power projection with 3 ships.
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
mnztr wrote:Singular_Transform wrote:
Nuclear submarines.
The conventional ship can sail only with cruise speed, if say double its speed then the fuel consumption will increase eightfold.
It means if the ship has arange of 8000 km with 20 km/hours, then with 60 km/hour it will have a range of 300km.
The nuclear propulsion means a submarine can search the target with full speed, for weeks, and it has very high chance to found its target in short period of time.
Due to that hte USA was forced to install nuclear reactors to the carriers, to be able to run from the nuclear submarines.
As an answer the CCCP developed extreme long range missiles against the carriers : D negating all advantage of nuclear propulsion.
And now the extreme long range missiles become very small ,so even a crovette can sink a carrier these days.
I don't agree the US use of Nuclear power in CVNs was to flee from subs. When they went all nuclear the speed capabilities of subs were already well known and the even the Alfa class was around. The Carrier is a power projection platform. If you look at Mistral its range at 18 knots is 10800 km at 15 knots 19800 km.. HUGE difference. If these ships are for power projection, being able to cruise at 30 knots with nuclear power will be like building 4 ships instead of 2. Plus you can also delete one tanker from the task force as an additional big savings..then add the ability to carry more fuel, ammo, medical supplies ,spares and provisions for the troops on board and you start to see the beauty of nuclear power for this class of vessel. I am not saying they will do it. Just imagine these ships being able to storm off at 30-35 knots to a trouble spot escorted by a lurking 949 AM submarine and one Leidier class or updated Kirov class.. that is a serious amount of power projection with 3 ships.
The nuclear power makes the ship very epensive, negating all saving on the other side of the book.
Additionaly the USA carriers hasn't got any self defence capability , means they needs the conventionally powered destroyer escort .
So, haveing nulear power doesn'T makes them faster and doesn't make possible te decrease the number of ships, but it makes possibel for them to move very fast in the battle area, and outrun any conventional sub, and makes hard and easy to detect the nuclear subs, as they tray to keep up with them.
Speed is the only defence of the carriers.
LMFS likes this post
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
GarryB wrote:The Soviets invested a lot of money on nuclear propulsion systems for their submarines, but not for their ships...
AFAIK the Kirovs were the only nuclear powered surface ships they had, and even then they were only partly nuclear powered because the nuclear power unit they used wasn't powerful enough so they added on conventional power for speed boosts.
With nuke power only they could run at 18 knots or thereabouts... to get to full speed the had to run their gas turbines too but could only do so for 5,000 nautical miles or so.
AFIK the Kirov used oil super heaters to add more energy to the steam circuit for more power. I suspect it was a stopgap measure as the reactors could not deliver their rated power. They are rated at 300MW (400K + HP), meanwhile the Iowa class can hit 34 knots with 212K HP. Does not add up unless they severely screwed up the hull design. The Kirov can only sprint for 1000 NM and unlimited cruise at 20 knots.
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
mnztr wrote:GarryB wrote:The Soviets invested a lot of money on nuclear propulsion systems for their submarines, but not for their ships...
AFAIK the Kirovs were the only nuclear powered surface ships they had, and even then they were only partly nuclear powered because the nuclear power unit they used wasn't powerful enough so they added on conventional power for speed boosts.
With nuke power only they could run at 18 knots or thereabouts... to get to full speed the had to run their gas turbines too but could only do so for 5,000 nautical miles or so.
AFIK the Kirov used oil super heaters to add more energy to the steam circuit for more power. I suspect it was a stopgap measure as the reactors could not deliver their rated power. They are rated at 300MW (400K + HP), meanwhile the Iowa class can hit 34 knots with 212K HP. Does not add up unless they severely screwed up the hull design. The Kirov can only sprint for 1000 NM and unlimited cruise at 20 knots.
Or the data about the Kirov useless ,and doesn't reflect teh real capability.
Big_Gazza likes this post
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
Singular_Transform wrote:
Or the data about the Kirov useless ,and doesn't reflect teh real capability.
Something is amiss for sure as they should not really need any oil fired boost with 300MW nukes.
GarryB- Posts : 40439
Points : 40939
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
If you look at Mistral its range at 18 knots is 10800 km at 15 knots 19800 km.. HUGE difference
It is a huge difference but ships don't sail alone... right now Russia doesn't have any nuclear powered ships except two Kirov class vessels and they are only part nuclear powered so they can't sail 10,000 nautical miles at full speed anyway... and even if they did and they had these two helicopter carriers with them that also ran at similar speeds potentially as far as they need to they will arrive a targets more than 10,000 nautical miles away first without any support except possibly submarines or ships already in situ.
The point is that even with the Kuznetsov replaced by two CVNs and the two Kirovs fully upgraded, two nuclear powered helicopter carriers would need to operate at the speed of the slowest ship in the group which will probably be about 16 knots.
With all the ships conventionally powered they could operate at 16 knots as far as they need to go because refuelling tankers can be sent to meet them on their way like inflight refuelling aircraft.
The point is that you never rush a landing... the time taken for the helicopter carrier to get there is time for special forces to explore the shore and sea bed for obstacles and mines and defences as well as checking currents and for stability of surfaces... you don't want to dump a force of armoured vehicles onto a beach only to find it is quicksand at this time of the year because of the tides in that particular estuary or whatever...
On the other hand if you have ships in trouble sometimes you do want to get there in a hurry... so CVNs and Cruisers and Destroyers would benefit from nuclear propulsion and long range at high speed.
When the Israelis were attacking a US vessel they attacked over and over with Mirage jets using cannon and unguided rocket fire, and small attack boats that launch a torpedo which did the most damage and killed the most sailors... they only "realised" it was a US ship when a nearby carrier group responded to their radio calls for assistance with the message that Tomcats were on the way at full speed... obviously aircraft move much faster than carriers... but getting ships to a contentious region relatively quickly gives you more options.
Plus you can also delete one tanker from the task force as an additional big savings..then add the ability to carry more fuel, ammo, medical supplies ,spares and provisions for the troops on board and you start to see the beauty of nuclear power for this class of vessel.
Even nuclear powered ships have gas turbines and diesel engines inside for power generation backups... keeping the tanker and needing to send it back for refuelling less often is a better idea... but carrying more av gas to keep the planes flying longer is a good thing too.
As I keep suggesting... a CVN that can carry 90 fighters is ideal because it would have fuel space for operations for 90 fighters plus helicopters and also munitions and food and equipment for 90 fighters so most operations you would only carry 48 fighters and have extra munitions and fuel and more space for the pilots and maintenance crews... you could even carry extra drones.
Working out you only need 48 fighters and making the ship able to carry 48 fighters means no real ability to expand or change requirements... CVNs are not cheap so why make it less capable by saving a little bit of money... having a multi hull type design could dramatically reduce the weight of such a ship too.
I am not saying they will do it. Just imagine these ships being able to storm off at 30-35 knots to a trouble spot escorted by a lurking 949 AM submarine and one Leidier class or updated Kirov class.. that is a serious amount of power projection with 3 ships.
It is not going to have the same impact with a helicopter carrier as it would with an actual CVN... and even updated Kirovs would need a full refuelling on the way most of the time...
AFIK the Kirov used oil super heaters to add more energy to the steam circuit for more power. I suspect it was a stopgap measure as the reactors could not deliver their rated power.
AFAIK they were submarine reactors and they never expected them to provide full power to the ship... they decided to use conventional power for dash speed to chase something down but that running at top speed everywhere was pointless because they would quickly outrun their escorts and the other vessels they were operating with.
They are rated at 300MW (400K + HP), meanwhile the Iowa class can hit 34 knots with 212K HP. Does not add up unless they severely screwed up the hull design.
If the numbers don't add up then some of them must be lies... official speeds and actual speeds are not achieved speeds most of the time.
Something is amiss for sure as they should not really need any oil fired boost with 300MW nukes.
Would depend how the power is used for propulsion... a steam generator or electric motor or some other means perhaps?
Electric motors have improved dramatically over recent years...
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2634
Points : 2803
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
mnztr wrote:Singular_Transform wrote:
Or the data about the Kirov useless ,and doesn't reflect teh real capability.
Something is amiss for sure as they should not really need any oil fired boost with 300MW nukes.
The 300 MW are thermals, not the power available for propulsion.
The energy actually available for propulsion is much less.
Normally nuclear powerplant have an efficiency around 30 - 37%.
As an example the Nimitz-class supercarriers have two reactors rated at 550 MWth each. These generate enough steam to produce approximately 100 MW of electricity, plus 140,000 shaft horsepower (104 MW) for each of the ship's four shafts – two per propulsion plant.
204 MW (electric + shaft horsepower) /550 MW=0.37
If we consider the same efficiency for the nuclear powerplant in the kirov class it would mean a total of about 125MW available for both propulsion and energy generation.
To do a comparison the slava class cruisers, that have less than half of the displacement of Kirov class have 4 COGOG gas turbines, 2 shafts 121,000 shp (90,000 kW)
Anyway the new Ritm400 nuclear reactors that have been developed for the lider class cruiser are rated at 340 MW Thermals. That means that each of them is as powerful as the 2 mounted on the kirov..
Big_Gazza likes this post
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
Singular_Transform wrote:[
The nuclear power makes the ship very epensive, negating all saving on the other side of the book.
Additionaly the USA carriers hasn't got any self defence capability , means they needs the conventionally powered destroyer escort .
So, haveing nulear power doesn'T makes them faster and doesn't make possible te decrease the number of ships, but it makes possibel for them to move very fast in the battle area, and outrun any conventional sub, and makes hard and easy to detect the nuclear subs, as they tray to keep up with them.
Speed is the only defence of the carriers.
The reason the cost is so high is really more to do with the specialized logistics of nuclear powered ships. Russia is massively investing in this. Nuclear power allows the ship to move at top speed, which can be much higher, on a sustained basis. So if it needs to transit to a new hotspot it can do so at 30+ knots vs 15, that means it can cover 720NM/day vs 360, plus not have to slow down to conduct refulling. It will also arrive fully fuelled and ready to fight. I am not sure what the premium is based on Russian nuclear economics as the US math does not really apply in Russia.
mnztr- Posts : 2888
Points : 2926
Join date : 2018-01-21
GarryB wrote:
AFAIK they were submarine reactors and they never expected them to provide full power to the ship... they decided to use conventional power for dash speed to chase something down but that running at top speed everywhere was pointless because they would quickly outrun their escorts and the other vessels they were operating with.
They are rated at 300MW (400K + HP), meanwhile the Iowa class can hit 34 knots with 212K HP. Does not add up unless they severely screwed up the hull design.
If the numbers don't add up then some of them must be lies... official speeds and actual speeds are not achieved speeds most of the time.
Something is amiss for sure as they should not really need any oil fired boost with 300MW nukes.
Would depend how the power is used for propulsion... a steam generator or electric motor or some other means perhaps?
Electric motors have improved dramatically over recent years...
I seriously doubt the Russian have yet developed large electric drive motors yet, not seen any evidence of it, let alone back in the day when Kirovs were built. I have seen pics of a Kirov class at full speed blowing some serious smoke.. It is a straight steam turbine shaft drive.
I did wonder about the reactors being Sub based, but they seem unique based on designation, however who the heck knows. It should not really be that hard to add multiple sub reactors, but maybe space becomes a problem. In any case, maybe they are able to fix the reactors with the upgrade. The Helo carriers will be in service for 30 years + so builiding them Nuclear with the plan to build Nuclear Leider class will make sense. Of course a helo carrier is not a CVN, but its also used in emegencies so transit time with or without escorts is useful. Plus as I said a Kazan or Oscar class can always be lurking around to launch missiles at any targets designated by drones, helos or radar from the Helo carrier. Having to do under way replinishment for one Gorshkov vs both ships also makes a BIG difference in transit time and logstics.
GarryB- Posts : 40439
Points : 40939
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
New equipment like massice AESA radar arrays and of course everything being electric and computerised means a modern ship likely needs more electric current than older ships.
The Russians will need nuclear powered ships and experience in making them smaller and more effective is becoming more and more an issue... they have had icebreakers with azipods with propellers and electric motors in external pods that can turn 360 degrees to manouver the ship without enormous drive shafts which on bigger ships can be thousands of tons of dead weight.
Having electric drive pods means you don't need your engine or power generation rooms located on the end of three or four massive drive shafts... you can place them like ballast so you don't need useless dead weight in your ship providing ballast.
It means less super high pressure and high temperature pipes through your ship... it will have direct impact on electric cars and trucks and buses and trains and indeed helicopters, drones and aircraft...
Electric drive vehicles are the way of the future.
Nuclear power plants are relatively compact and efficient power supplies... especially when you have models that only need to be refuelled every 30 or 40 years.
With their improved technology regarding fast breeder reactors and being able to reprocess fuel so there is no nuclear waste from the process it actually becomes as green as hydro electric or solar or wind... but much more reliable.
It doesn't matter how powerful they are though... they need two engine rooms so that whether from battle damage or just one reactor failing you still have power and can limp home....
Not really.... AFAIK their underway fuel replenishment ships can pump fuel over each side of the ship and over the rear to a vessel under tow... at about 12 knots...
I would have a look at one of those boat tracking websites and zoom in and look at all that traffic that covers most oceans... most of the time there is no gallivanting around at 35knts... night or day... or you might find you cause some fishermen to overturn and you start getting demands for new boats.
The Russians will need nuclear powered ships and experience in making them smaller and more effective is becoming more and more an issue... they have had icebreakers with azipods with propellers and electric motors in external pods that can turn 360 degrees to manouver the ship without enormous drive shafts which on bigger ships can be thousands of tons of dead weight.
Having electric drive pods means you don't need your engine or power generation rooms located on the end of three or four massive drive shafts... you can place them like ballast so you don't need useless dead weight in your ship providing ballast.
It means less super high pressure and high temperature pipes through your ship... it will have direct impact on electric cars and trucks and buses and trains and indeed helicopters, drones and aircraft...
Electric drive vehicles are the way of the future.
Nuclear power plants are relatively compact and efficient power supplies... especially when you have models that only need to be refuelled every 30 or 40 years.
With their improved technology regarding fast breeder reactors and being able to reprocess fuel so there is no nuclear waste from the process it actually becomes as green as hydro electric or solar or wind... but much more reliable.
It doesn't matter how powerful they are though... they need two engine rooms so that whether from battle damage or just one reactor failing you still have power and can limp home....
Having to do under way replinishment for one Gorshkov vs both ships also makes a BIG difference in transit time and logstics.
Not really.... AFAIK their underway fuel replenishment ships can pump fuel over each side of the ship and over the rear to a vessel under tow... at about 12 knots...
I would have a look at one of those boat tracking websites and zoom in and look at all that traffic that covers most oceans... most of the time there is no gallivanting around at 35knts... night or day... or you might find you cause some fishermen to overturn and you start getting demands for new boats.
Singular_Transform- Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13
mnztr wrote:
I seriously doubt the Russian have yet developed large electric drive motors yet, not seen any evidence of it, let alone back in the day when Kirovs were built. I have seen pics of a Kirov class at full speed blowing some serious smoke.. It is a straight steam turbine shaft drive.
I did wonder about the reactors being Sub based, but they seem unique based on designation, however who the heck knows. It should not really be that hard to add multiple sub reactors, but maybe space becomes a problem. In any case, maybe they are able to fix the reactors with the upgrade. The Helo carriers will be in service for 30 years + so builiding them Nuclear with the plan to build Nuclear Leider class will make sense. Of course a helo carrier is not a CVN, but its also used in emegencies so transit time with or without escorts is useful. Plus as I said a Kazan or Oscar class can always be lurking around to launch missiles at any targets designated by drones, helos or radar from the Helo carrier. Having to do under way replinishment for one Gorshkov vs both ships also makes a BIG difference in transit time and logstics.
Electric motors aren't the hight tech at all.
Main reason why everyone avoid them on warship is beacuse they consume space and weight from weapon systems.
They don't increase the max speed, but weight more than a conventional turbine-gear combination.