5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine

Big_Gazza wrote:...The article repeats the usual garbage about pump-jets making boats quieter and say that "curved propeller blades" are old fashioned...  FFS....

Curved propellers are old fashioned but it doesn't mean they are necessarily noisier

Author himself says as much:

. There are lots of elements and compromises involved in submarine stealth. And it’s a safe bet that Laika will be as quiet or quieter than existing Russian boats.

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:...The article repeats the usual garbage about pump-jets making boats quieter and say that "curved propeller blades" are old fashioned...  FFS....

Curved propellers are old fashioned but it doesn't mean they are necessarily noisier

Author himself says as much:

. There are lots of elements and compromises involved in submarine stealth. And it’s a safe bet that Laika will be as quiet or quieter than existing Russian boats.

Nothing this author says is credible with a moronic claim such as above. Clearly this clown is not talking about MHD drive (aka Red October).
Propellers are not optional and thus the physics that governs such propulsion devices is relevant. Their current shapes are the result
of decades of experience and computer simulations. They are not some aesthetic choice.

You can tell this article is brain dead anti-Russian propaganda by the drivel being spewed in it.

Will the lead-bismuth cooled reactors from Alfa class make a come back? from what I read there are some major advantages of this setup. When you shut down you do need to use super heated steam to before restart however...not sure why they could not install a gas turbine APU to generate the steam electrically to do this. In any case, the sub can be made nice an compact at the rear which offers a lot of streamlining potential. The Alfas were amazing boats.

mnztr wrote:Will the lead-bismuth cooled reactors from Alfa class make a come back? from what I read there are some major advantages of this setup...

Doubtful, they were Gucci but they were also colossal pain in the ass to operate and maintain especially when in port

Their advantage was speed but nowadays silence is most desirable feature and Alfas were exceptionally noisy


Reactors were quite safe because should they ever malfunction entire thing would brick itself instantly thus preventing anything going critical (reactor was a write-off in that case)

Given that lead-bismuth eutectic melts at 123.5 deg C, i don't see why the reactor cannot be equipped with a heat tracing system to restart it after a shutdown (eg for maintenance purposes). Something like a hot-oil system where the reactor has a externally-fed re-heat exchanger and small-bore tubing is welded to the coolant lines and where an external hot-oil supply system provides the heated oil media at 200-250 deg C. Its well-established technology for temperature maintenance in bitumen/asphalt storage and handling systems.

I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.

Big_Gazza wrote:Given that lead-bismuth eutectic melts at 123.5 deg C, i don't see why the reactor cannot be equipped with a heat tracing system to restart it after a shutdown (eg for maintenance purposes). Something like a hot-oil system where the reactor has a externally-fed re-heat exchanger and small-bore tubing is welded to the coolant lines and where an external hot-oil supply system provides the heated oil media at 200-250 deg C. Its well-established technology for temperature maintenance in bitumen/asphalt storage and handling systems.

I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.

All the arguments against the lead-bismuth coolant are BS and engineered to make excuses for the criminal scrapping of the Lira. The scrapping
of the Lira was obvious brown nosing by Gorbie and Yeltsin to their new bosses in Washington. Washington refused to believe such tech
was possible and naturally demanded it scrapping as tribute of submission.

123.5C remelting of lead-bismuth is a joke considering the low heat capacity involved compared to water. Supposedly, if the coolant froze
it would reduce the war readiness of the submarine. They can re-design the reactor to operate in an "idle" mode to keep the coolant liquid
without any more bitching about it being such a terminal pain.

Big_Gazza wrote:Given that lead-bismuth eutectic melts at 123.5 deg C, i don't see why the reactor cannot be equipped with a heat tracing system to restart it after a shutdown (eg for maintenance purposes). Something like a hot-oil system where the reactor has a externally-fed re-heat exchanger and small-bore tubing is welded to the coolant lines and where an external hot-oil supply system provides the heated oil media at 200-250 deg C. Its well-established technology for temperature maintenance in bitumen/asphalt storage and handling systems.

I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.

I heard rumors on balancers(russian speaking defense forum with a lot of insiders), that there were experiments on shutting down and then reheating/restarting the reactor from a cold state and that there was indeed success, however, the class itself was generally not very viable anymore. The reactor tech itself I believe very much is, as you can get a far smaller reactor for the same power, which is always incredibly useful for a submarine.

This was supposed to be a "AWACS" type submarine for the interceptor class(Lira/Alfa), this idea is quite worth revisiting in my opinion with more up to date sonar/non-sonar detection methods and combined with underwater unmanned platforms.

I find it had to belive the Russians would not continue to develop such earth shattering tech as the liquid metal reactor. It should actually be much quieter and safer then a pressureised water reactor that operates under massive pressure and if you are gonna get blasted with super heated steam or molten lead its no real difference. The main diff is the pressures are much lower, the amount of heat transfer per cc of liquid metal is MUCH higher so you can pump much less. Leaks are self fixing. On shutdown you can just let the metal drain into a sump which is electrically heated. I suspect the nuke cruise missile or doomsday torpedo may have one.

I think the main issue was with the fuel assemblies being in the liquid metal itself which likely posed significant issues with the control arms.

x_54_u43 wrote:I think the main issue was with the fuel assemblies being in the liquid metal itself which likely posed significant issues with the control arms.

By all accounts the reactors were quite reliable in operations, its only the shut down, start up cycle that caused logistical headaches.

Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?

mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?

Nope

mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?

What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.

AlfaT8 wrote:

mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?

What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.

That's the Yasen's role.

Husky will be a SSN to fight other subs.

Isos wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?

What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.

That's the Yasen's role.

Husky will be a SSN to fight other subs.

Yasen is SSGN

Borei is SSBN

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?

What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.

That's the Yasen's role.

Husky will be a SSN to fight other subs.

Yasen is SSGN

Borei is SSBN

The plan is for Husky to be the basis for all classis just like the Columbia class will be based on the Virginia class. Considering the first Huskey will emerge after a bunch of Borei AND Yassens have been laid down it makes sense it will be an SSN, unless they have decided that purebred SSNs are not really worth building any more as an SSGN can do that and a while lot more. In fact anything is possible

mnztr wrote:.....

The plan is for Husky to be the basis for all classis just like the Columbia class will be based on the Virginia class.

Columbia will not be based on Virginia, they abandoned that approach in favor of completely new design

"Laika-VMF": pause
Navykorabel.ru



The fact that Russia is designing nuclear submarines of the 5th generation, as far as the author knows, was first reported by Commander-in-Chief of the Navy V. Chirkov in March 2015. Later, what was said was veiledly confirmed in the annual report of the SPMBM "Malahit" for the same year - as "the implementation of research to justify the appearance of a promising order for a new project, indicated in the" Long-term program of military shipbuilding until 2050 ".
In August 2016, Malachite General Director V. Dorofeev announced the conclusion of a state contract for the development of a new generation multi-purpose submarine , and in April 2018, the completion of its preliminary project in the previous month. According to the annual report of the SPMBM for 2019, during the reporting period, the research work "Huska" and "Huska-Malachite" (that's right - "Huska", not "Husky", as some media write) was completed to ensure the creation of ships of the 5th generation .
In addition, based on the results of the research work, a state contract was concluded for the implementation of the Laika-VMF R&D. As part of the named R&D, as stated in the report for 2020, the bureau developed a draft design of a new submarine (link 6, p. 6). The report for 2021 was not published, however, in mid-2022, the fate of the project became clear.


Simplified scheme of a multi-purpose submarine (APKR) pr. Laika (Marine collection, No. 7/2022)


In the journal "Sea Collection" No. 7 for 2022, an article by Commander-in-Chief of the Navy N. Evmenov "Operational and tactical requirements for fifth-generation submarines" was published, which states that in Russia "scientific and technical groundwork for promising submarines began to form during the development of the preliminary project of the multi-purpose submarine of the "Laika" project. The project provides for an increase in strike capabilities relative to the 4th generation submarine of the Yasen-M project, while maintaining optimal dimensions and improving driving characteristics. This will allow the use of submarines in various environmental conditions and in all areas of the World Ocean .
It is assumed that the submarine will have increased self-defense capabilities, low noise level, be the carrier of advanced weapons systems, including various RTK, PTZ and GPA, which will significantly increase its combat stability. [NB] The technical proposals and studies received as a result of the preliminary project showed high risks of project implementation, which did not allow moving on to the creation of a new generation ship on time, so it was decided to postpone the start of technical design to the next program period"

Commenting on the above quote, in addition to deciphering some abbreviations (RTK - robotic complex, PTZ - anti-torpedo protection, GPA - hydroacoustic countermeasures), it is necessary to clarify the preliminary project and the program period. According to the regulatory documents, the preliminary project (like R&D) precedes the R&D, on its basis the TTZ for the R&D is developed (in other words, it is done in order to justify the possibility of implementing the requirements of the TTZ in the future). R&D, in turn, begins with a draft design, then comes a technical design, a working design (RKD), the construction of the lead ship (which is a prototype of the VT product), its state tests and, finally, the approval of the RKD for serial construction (with the assignment of the letter "O1"). Since the reports of "Malachite" include a state contract for R & D with the code "Laika-VMF" and the development of a preliminary design, the "high risks" that the commander-in-chief writes about were revealed not as a result of the preliminary project, but in the process of preliminary design. It can be assumed that some additional research was required to ensure the development work of Laika-VMF or its components, or it was decided to make changes to the TTZ and re-develop several versions of the draft design, which is generally a common thing.

It is easy to guess that the "next program period" in the article under consideration means the next state armaments program, which should replace the current SAP 2018-2027. According to the rules, the SAP should be developed for 10 years and revised after half of its validity period, i.e. after 5 years. In practice, however, this rule was almost never followed. Thus, the SAP 2011-2020 was to be restarted in 2016, but for a number of reasons (mainly due to the events of 2014 - the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, the fall in hydrocarbon prices and the instability of the national currency) this happened two years later.
Prior to the start of the SMO, it was planned to adopt a new state armament program next year for the period 2024-2033. . Now no one can guarantee that its start will not shift to the right, which is primarily due to the need to review the needs of the Armed Forces in weapons and military equipment, taking into account a detailed understanding of the experience of military operations in Ukraine. Let's hope that the hypothetical shift in the timing of the SAP will be minimal (one, maximum two years), and the development of a technical project for a 5th generation nuclear submarine cruiser will begin no later than 2025-2026.

However, we don't need to be in a hurry. 885M ("Yasen-M") is an excellent project, which, among other things, is evidenced by at least the fact that in the process of evolution of the Virginia on the Block V modification, the Americans came to an identical surface displacement and the location of most of the missile weapons, in other words - took our boat as a role model. By and large, we can build "Yasen" for a very long time, making minor changes (improvements) to the project and gradually bringing the number of nuclear multi-purpose submarine forces of the Russian Navy to an acceptable level (say, 2x6 submarines in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet), and when the time comes, we will begin to smoothly replace them on the slipways and in the fleets with "Laikas". In conclusion, a few words about the performance characteristics of the latter. According to the available data (see photo at the end of the post), with a displacement of 11340 tons (I'm sure it's underwater), their Dboost will be the same as that of the 885M (according to the author - 9200 tons), the speed will be higher (35 vs 31 knots) . The diagram from the "Naval Collection" behind the OVU probably shows 2x5 UVP, which equalizes their missile ammunition with the "Virginia" mod. V (40 missiles). Compared to Yasen, the number of TAs or torpedo tubes is less (2x3 versus 2x5), but in front of the OVU there is something similar to the UVP for anti-torpedoes, GPA and RTK devices (*)

The scheme given in the "Sea Collection" is not clear, so some things can only be guessed at. So, the number of UVP for attack missiles behind the OVU (cutting fence) can be from 2x4, if you count on the top, to 2x5, if you count on the bottom. An increase in the ammunition load of one UVP from 4 to 5 missiles is hardly possible, and since the commander-in-chief writes about an increase in the strike capabilities of the anti-aircraft missile system, it is reasonable to assume that the number of UVPs will be increased from 8 to 10. In addition, the author has no information about technical solutions related with the placement of anti-torpedoes, GPA and RTK devices in vertical launchers located inside the pressure hull.
However, for the first two types of products, such a launch method (it doesn’t matter, up or down) has the same obvious advantage as SAMs - the ability to turn towards the attacking weapon (in our case, torpedoes), which distinguishes it favorably from on-board deployment Launcher inside or outside the PC when the starboard launcher cannot be used to repel an attack from the port side and vice versa. With the length of the UVP close to the diameter of the PC, in each launch shaft (pipe) it will be possible to place several ammunition with self-exit or with a pneumatic or hydromechanical launch system (as, for example, in the German IDAS boat missiles).


https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/292492.html

As far as we know, the Russians have announced that they are planning to build two more project 955A submarines and two more project 885M submarines.
Whether that will happen remains to be seen, especially for the 885M submarines.
As for the successor to the 885М submarines, it may be as you write, and it may be that we will have to wait a few more years.
Currently, in the halls of Sevmash, you have ten submarines under construction and they are; 5 submarines of project 885M, one 09851 and another 4 submarines of project 955A.

The BIGGEST number of simultaneously built submarines inside the Sevmash hall was 12, and the total largest number was 14, but those two submarines had already been launched. So it's a matter of capacity.
In this table you have two numbers under a certain year, for example under 2019 it says 14/12, that is 14 submarines in total under construction and 12 under construction in the factory halls...




So, my opinion is that if they decide to build 2 more submarines of project 955A and two more of project 885M, then the keels for project 545A will not be laid for a few more years. And there is the factor of submarines of project 09853, which will also be built..
This is a chart from 2018 and as far as I can see the entry year assumption for the 955A submarines turned out to be correct while for the 885M submarines.....they are late and by a lot..
And since it is 2018, the Voronezh and Vladivostok submarines whose keels were laid in 2020 are not in the table. Therefore, the blogger's assumption was not correct since he assumed in 2018 that the construction of 885M submarines would not continue.

Podlodka77 wrote:As far as we know, the Russians have announced that they are planning to build two more project 955A submarines and two more project 885M submarines.

So, my opinion is that if they decide to build 2 more submarines of project 955A and two more of project 885M, then the keels for project 545A will not be laid for a few more years. And there is the factor of submarines of project 09853, which will also be built..
This is a chart from 2018 and as far as I can see the entry year assumption for the 955A submarines turned out to be correct while for the 885M submarines.....they are late and by a lot..

this is old and only the opinion of the author

It does not seem that they are going to build more than 12 Borey's
And on the Yasen, maybe there will be 10 or at most another 12, although the Ulyanovsk is for the Poseidon system and surely another one will be made based on the 885M to reach 4 units.

If the 11th and 12th Borey's are started in 2023-2024, the Husky's could be started as early as 2025-2026 and surely the construction time will take less time.

AMCXXL wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:As far as we know, the Russians have announced that they are planning to build two more project 955A submarines and two more project 885M submarines.

So, my opinion is that if they decide to build 2 more submarines of project 955A and two more of project 885M, then the keels for project 545A will not be laid for a few more years. And there is the factor of submarines of project 09853, which will also be built..
This is a chart from 2018 and as far as I can see the entry year assumption for the 955A submarines turned out to be correct while for the 885M submarines.....they are late and by a lot..

this is old and only the opinion of the author

It does not seem that they are going to build more than 12 Borey's
And on the Yasen, maybe there will be 10 or at most another 12, although the Ulyanovsk is for the Poseidon system and surely another one will be made based on the 885M to reach 4 units.

If the 11th and 12th Borey's are started in 2023-2024, the Husky's could be started as early as 2025-2026 and surely the construction time will take less time.

I think that the main link here should be to the State Armament Program as a program document, according to which such things are financed. So at present, I think, the construction of new nuclear submarines will be transferred to the GPV-2035 or later.

The next GPV is GPV 2024-2033. Waiting for 2033-20XX for the next GPV to include the construction of a new class submarine is too late UNLESS construction of the existing 885M submarines continues.
Russia needs a replacement for Project 971 submarines.
With the exception of the "Gepard" submarine, all the others are 28+ years old, which is a lot.