Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nath[BDP] on January 16, 2014, 05:05:12 PM
-
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131230/186086621/Russias-Northern-Fleet-Deploys-New-Borey-Class-Nuclear-Subs.html
-
Now if only they could get its missiles to work they'd have a pretty good boomer.
-
They are still really loud.
-
They are still really loud.
Based on what?
-
Based on what?
Bodhi sabotaged them with Ben Affleck during production run. They filed off the screws to create cavitation - the dumb russkies never will know what hit them! :D
-
Ben Affleck makes everything worse, even subs!
-
Ben Affleck makes everything worse, even subs!
Very true.
-
Based on what?
Read up, it's not too hard to find.
-
I read that the subs are extremely quiet but the drunken crew singing and the empty vodka bottles rolling around the floor create noise.
-
Read up, it's not too hard to find.
Care to point me in the right direction?
-
Care to point me in the right direction?
I'm not finding it, myself.
http://rt.com/news/russian-noiseless-borei-submarine-106/
I know we could track Soviet submarines easier than our own when I was serving but that was twenty-six years ago.
-
Oh great 7 New Coffins.
:pray Kursk :pray
-
I'm not finding it, myself.
http://rt.com/news/russian-noiseless-borei-submarine-106/
I know we could track Soviet submarines easier than our own when I was serving but that was twenty-six years ago.
Twenty six years ago soviets were still soviets and they didn't have access to western technology.
-
Twenty six years ago soviets were still soviets and they didn't have access to western technology.
Wow. A lot has changed. ;)
-
Wow. A lot has changed. ;)
Yeah well actually the KGB had a pretty decent spying operation going on so they knew a lot of stuff.
-
I have a feeling that with Putin's new natural resources policy and his pledged rearming of the Russian Federation to match China and the USA by the mid 2020's.
That the Pentagon will be taking them alot more seriously than you think. Every time we (The West) has considered someone an inferior enemy they tend to either kick the crap out of us to begin with or surprise us with something we weren't expecting and have to race to catch them.
I think the Russians are starting to make a comeback.
-
The Russians have always been an inferior enemy. The only thing they ever had that was a credible threat, was the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Why do you think they opposed Star Wars and ballistic missile shields? It removed their own true threat that they posed to the west.
-
You speak like you've actually fought them...
-
Since there was nothing more than Cold War between the US and the Russians, only the submariners can really claim to have fought. I am not a submariner.
-
I'm sure we'll just tag along on their cruises like we always have and like we always will. I had a couple of OCS buddies that went Submarine...they said it was like playing tag in the dark...they couldn't see us but they knew we were there.
-
I'm sure we'll just tag along on their cruises like we always have and like we always will. I had a couple of OCS buddies that went Submarine...they said it was like playing tag in the dark...they couldn't see us but they knew we were there.
How long ago was that?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDdEq6GGCEo
-
Since there was nothing more than Cold War between the US and the Russians, only the submariners can really claim to have fought. I am not a submariner.
That's ignorant. You're spitting on the graves of thousands who died during the "cold" war. Not sure what point you're trying to make but it failed...
-
How long ago was that?
I haven't talked with him about Navy life since last summer when he pegged to make Admiral at the end of his Pentagon tour in 2015. Why? I don't imagine his opinion has changed much. If you have a good reason for asking, I'll ask him.
-
We'll have subs assigned to track them simply because we need to gauge their effectiveness (P-3 squadrons, as well). Whether it'll be done as aggressively as during the official
Cold War is another thing. There's quite a few documented incidents of pushing it. The 'end' of the Cold War is an illusion, imo btw (granted, I don't have OCS buddy captains at the pentagon that are willing to discuss confidential matters with me).
-
I haven't talked with him about Navy life since last summer when he pegged to make Admiral at the end of his Pentagon tour in 2015. Why? I don't imagine his opinion has changed much. If you have a good reason for asking, I'll ask him.
I'm asking because if it was pre-1985 (pre-Akula, pre-John Walker) it is far from the reality of today.
-
I'm asking because if it was pre-1985 (pre-Akula, pre-John Walker) it is far from the reality of today.
He certainly could be feeding me disinformation given my past clearances and current civilian clearances, lol.
-
He certainly could be feeding me disinformation given my past clearances and current civilian clearances, lol.
Clearances you clearly deserve.
-
Clearances you clearly deserve.
Clearly because I understand the difference between things like public awareness of the US and British Navys tracking Russian ballistic missile submarines to establish patrol patterns and technology vs the tactics and technology to accomplish it.
-
The US Administrations through the years dismissed the Japanese as inferior... They dismissed Al-Quaeda and the Taliban to be inferior.... And as many here can attest they dismissed the communist nations of South East Asia to be inferior.
In all three cases they have been the bloodiest, longest, and most traumatizing wars the USA has ever fought.
Dismissing both the 2nd and 3rd most powerful military nations on earth (Russia and China) who due to the market and resource boom are also now two of the richest.... doesn't seem prudent.
I would take ANY new weapons development by China or Russia VERY seriously.
EDIT: A conventional war between the USA and the USSR in Europe would be very similar to WW2 I would think. The USA would have a higher KD, but would lose due to overwhelming numbers and the draining of public support. As well as logistics. Not the mention the USSR's absolutely UNMATCHED Air Defence capabilities.
-
Chicomm boomers are too loud to be a threat. SOSUS picks them up as soon as they hit deep water but the new Russian subs are setting the standard for quiet.
-
Yeah... How many SOSUS stations remain active? Three?
-
Frankly, unless you're in the business of listening to Russian submarines this entire thread is just talking out of your a**.
Those that are in the business never open their mouths and with good reason. Having worked, played, and drank with many 'silent service' gentleman out of Groton Connecticut I learned that the 'silent service' description is accurate both at sea and in port.
-
Frankly, unless you're in the business of listening to Russian submarines this entire thread is just talking out of your a**.
Those that are in the business never open their mouths and with good reason. Having worked, played, and drank with many 'silent service' gentleman out of Groton Connecticut I learned that the 'silent service' description is accurate both at sea and in port.
amen
-
Yeah... How many SOSUS stations remain active? Three?
Less than 4 and apparently, with in difference to Del, the ARTICLE that spit that factoid out of its a** indicated the ChiComm subs are loud enough to not need more in the Pacific. The article that talked out its a** quoted intel sources that were talking out of their a**es.
-
Frankly, unless you're in the business of listening to Russian submarines this entire thread is just talking out of your a**.
Not me, I played the Harpoon tabletop wargame back in the early 90's, so I consider myself an expert on such matters! :old:
-
That's ignorant. You're spitting on the graves of thousands who died during the "cold" war. Not sure what point you're trying to make but it failed...
I am not pissing on the graves of anyone. You are misconstruing what I said.
-
I have a feeling that with Putin's new natural resources policy and his pledged rearming of the Russian Federation to match China and the USA by the mid 2020's.
That the Pentagon will be taking them alot more seriously than you think. Every time we (The West) has considered someone an inferior enemy they tend to either kick the crap out of us to begin with or surprise us with something we weren't expecting and have to race to catch them.
I think the Russians are starting to make a comeback.
So its Russia,North Korea,Syria,Iran and China who are going to take the White House hostage again? :)
Thank goodness, we can have Russian baddies in James Bonds films again :old:
You can't turn your back on any of em!
-
Even if the military wouldn't be able to track the enemy at all (or especially then) for propaganda reasons they would report that their superior tech can track the enemy at all times.
-
Thank goodness, we can have Russian baddies in James Bonds films again :old:
You can't turn your back on any of em!
(http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n579/hookedonmovies/Movie%20Soundtracks/the-spy-who-loved-me.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/hookedonmovies/media/Movie%20Soundtracks/the-spy-who-loved-me.jpg.html)
-
To paraphrase/quote Sun Tzu:
"War is simply an extension of policy and should never be taken lightly as it dictates the very survival of the state. It is therefore a necessity to enter a war with all powers available to you as it is fatal if not done so".
In short. If the Russian's have indeed built a quiet submarine, Sneaky Soviet Red October style, then The Pentagon better be on the way with a highly sensitive Sonar System.
-
Gibberish :old:
-
Frankly, unless you're in the business of listening to Russian submarines this entire thread is just talking out of your a**.
Those that are in the business never open their mouths and with good reason. Having worked, played, and drank with many 'silent service' gentleman out of Groton Connecticut I learned that the 'silent service' description is accurate both at sea and in port.
Very true. Our own "KillnU" is a long serving Chief on one of the USA's 688 boats, and you won't get much other than what boat he's on, and that it goes in the water out of him. It's a very serious business, right on the pointy end and lives are at stake every time a boat goes to sea to help protect our freedoms and lifestyle in the western world.
I've read much the opposite regarding current Russian naval subs, that they've gotten very quiet, not as good as the Virginia, Seawolf, and some of the Nato AIP propulsion electric subs, but they have vastly improved compared to the old louder classes. The same goes for the Chinese, their latest, and I mean latest subs are a full order of magnitude better than previous units with regards to sound footprint and systems. http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2013.htm has some great info on Chinese naval assets, and Jeff Head is a former US Navy expert on their capabilities. Email him some questions regarding Russian and Chinese subs, and you'll get your eyes opened as to what the actual state of things are - underestimating them would be a massive, massive error.
I always think of the AA-11 R73 missile when people start to blow off Russian/Soviet technology. This missile was in service a long, long time before the Aim9m, and Aim9x, and for years the Russians had an IR missile that was superior to the Western counterparts of the era, like the Aim9L and others. Also, not to mention the fact that it could be fired off axis from the helmet mounted sights the Soviets/Russians had which none in NATO did at the time. All the while many writers, analysts, and interested civilians thought that the current Sidewinders were the king of the roost, when it just wasn't so. Writing off the Russians and other potential adversaries as making "inferior crap" is a vastly oversimplified and incorrect way of evaluating their capabilities IMO.
-
I work with many many ex navy/navy nukes.. Had a couple telling me how a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of one of our Battle groups... That is not suppose to be possible.. but seems it is..
Kinda silly to think we have the only capable Navy...
-
I work with many many ex navy/navy nukes.. Had a couple telling me how a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of one of our Battle groups... That is not suppose to be possible.. but seems it is..
Kinda silly to think we have the only capable Navy...
Wait...ex Submariners spoke to you?? Those bubbleheads will be kilt.
Don't tell Del...
-
Wait...ex Submariners spoke to you?? Those bubbleheads will be kilt.
Don't tell Del...
And he didn't even mention his security clearances, past and present, or his old friend in the Pentagon to leverage some sort of authority on the subject. Sea stories live on. :D
-
And he didn't even mention his security clearances, past and present, or his old friend in the Pentagon to leverage some sort of authority on the subject. Sea stories live on. :D
It must suck to not have friends like that huh Arlo...thanks for the hump....again.
-
It must suck to not have friends like that huh Arlo...thanks for the hump....again.
You mean imaginary friends like that? I'm good. Don't need `em. (And even if I had `em, they would appreciate my ability to keep them out of some sort of need to impress others on an internet game forum). You're welcome, hissy-ann. :aok
-
You mean imaginary friends like that? I'm good. Don't need `em. (And even if I had `em, they would appreciate my ability to keep them out of some sort of need to impress others on an internet game forum). You're welcome, hissy-ann. :aok
I'm sure you rationalizing them as imaginary makes you feel better about yourself shorty.
-
I'm sure you rationalizing them as imaginary makes you feel better about yourself shorty.
I feel great about myself on a pretty regular basis without any inflation, Rageup. :D
-
I feel great about myself on a pretty regular basis without any inflation, Rageup. :D
If you actually felt that great about yourself, I'm certain we wouldn't be talking about how great you feel about yourself.
-
If you actually felt that great about yourself, I'm certain we wouldn't be talking about how great you feel about yourself.
If I was the one that brought it up then you may almost convince me.
Is this gonna go on much longer? Are you gonna start fantasizing about my wife in public again? :D
-
Conn, sonar. I have a new contact bearing one eight zero. Designated Ankle Humper One.
-
Conn, sonar. I have a new contact bearing one eight zero. Designated Ankle Humper One.
Lapdog attachment sighted. :D
-
Conn, sonar. We're picking up what sounds like terrible folk music coming from Ankle Humper One. Also picking up faint sounds of the word "Changeup" mixed with skin to skin slapping sounds.
-
Conn, sonar. We're picking up what sounds like terrible folk music coming from Ankle Humper One. Also picking up faint sounds of the word "Changeup" mixed with skin to skin slapping sounds.
Reckon that last part is Rageup fantasizing about my wife again. So, have you taken over for him per his request or is this just habit? ;)
-
Conn, sonar. Ankle Humper One identified as an Arlo Burke class thread destroyer.
(http://i769.photobucket.com/albums/xx336/ahtriton/ArloLOL_zpse4309e5e.jpg) (http://s769.photobucket.com/user/ahtriton/media/ArloLOL_zpse4309e5e.jpg.html)
Contact appears to be moving in circles, sir.
-
Either you misunderstood the question or you're too ashamed to answer. :D
-
Our impression of Russian submariners during the Cold War:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C-sR8cwCNU
:aok
-
I work with many many ex navy/navy nukes.. Had a couple telling me how a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of one of our Battle groups... That is not suppose to be possible.. but seems it is..
Kinda silly to think we have the only capable Navy...
They say a diesel electric sub sitting still is like a hole in the water. They don't even have reactor noise.
-
They say a diesel electric sub sitting still is like a hole in the water. They don't even have reactor noise.
Which is good since they don't have a reactor. ;)
Active sonar requires an idea of where to ping, true.
-
They say a diesel electric sub sitting still is like a hole in the water. They don't even have reactor noise.
Unfortunately for them they are relatively slow. They DO have to surface or schnorkal, have relatively short ranges and much shorter submerged times then SSNs, the only limiting factor being how much food is stored. Also a modern USN SSN at a dead stop is a black hole as well. It is also able to get to the fighting faster, stay longer, carry more weapons, and never ever have to surface.
There are quite a few navies in the world either spending tons to improve/increase their SSN fleet or even creating one. Brazil, India, and Argentina come to mind as exploring the SSN option.
-
Modern diesel electrics have air independent systems that allow the sub to navigate submerged for days or weeks.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8QKbeS-flM
-
Modern diesel electrics have air independent systems that allow the sub to navigate submerged for days or weeks.
Time dependent on speed. They are not a very good option for a blue water navy those for most they are a fine option.
There are very few navies that have to travel vast distances with their boats and the ones that do all have SSNs. Yes and SSP can stay submerged for weeks but must limit their speed to only a few knots to do so.
Diesels and SSPs have come a long way however and are a serious threat. Most of all in shallow water and choke points. I think we made a mistake in not developing our own. Most of all in the early '90s when the threat changed.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8QKbeS-flM
Nice vid. :)
-
http://youtu.be/TfjYZUiOkUw
Continuing to set the standard even after Nazi Germany
-
Um... I posted that video three posts ago...
-
Um... I posted that video three posts ago...
I was making sure they saw it, lol
-
Wait...ex Submariners spoke to you?? Those bubbleheads will be kilt.
Don't tell Del...
most were bubbleheads as they call themselves.. others were targets as again the bubbleheads refer to them.. almost all were navy nukes.. always interesting talking to them comparing our systems with the navy's..
They say a diesel electric sub sitting still is like a hole in the water. They don't even have reactor noise.
as stated those boats don't have a core.. Rx cores don't make 'noise' anyway.. 8) But I'm told they are still extremely quiet.. Obviously they are or at least smart enough to be in the right place/time if the 'sea stories' are true..
most folk I work with don't really have anything to prove.. can't see why they would tell a 'sea story' to discredit what they served even if they're happy to be retired or no longer enlisted..
Conn, sonar. Ankle Humper One identified as an Arlo Burke class thread destroyer.
(http://i769.photobucket.com/albums/xx336/ahtriton/ArloLOL_zpse4309e5e.jpg) (http://s769.photobucket.com/user/ahtriton/media/ArloLOL_zpse4309e5e.jpg.html)
Contact appears to be moving in circles, sir.
I got no fuel in this core.. but that there is pretty damn funny.. hehe
-
as stated those boats don't have a core..
Well duh. And reactors do make noise because they need constant cooling flow once they're critical. A diesel electric running on battery doesn't have necessarily any heavy duty moving parts.
-
Well duh. And reactors do make noise because they need constant cooling flow once they're critical. A diesel electric running on battery doesn't have necessarily any heavy duty moving parts.
you're right.. the support systems make noise.. but the core is solid and does not.. 8)
-
But it does make beautiful light. :)
-
Conn, sonar. Ankle Humper One identified as an Arlo Burke class thread destroyer.
THAT was funny! :lol
-
And reactors do make noise because they need constant cooling flow once they're critical
This is true, but a very oversimplified answer. The USN reactors in various SSN's do need constant cooling, but what you aren't saying is that at low power output levels, the pumps which MAKE the noise from the "constant cooling flow" you're talking about aren't needed to be run. The design of the cooling fluid loop and other classified stuff is such that, as I said, there is no additional noise generated as there is nothing running that would do so. Once power is increased to add revolutions to the screw, which is how you get more power/speed, only then are pumps needed to increase the flow/cooling rate. This is called "natural circulation technology". This and many other things engineered into the design of the reactors on the 688, Seawolf, Virginia, Ohio's, and all their predecessors are specifically made to make things quieter by eliminating additional sound sources like reactor cooling pumps at slower speeds. When the coolant is circulating on its own, the only noise would be the movement of fluid through the piping and vessel itself, which makes little if any detectable signatures outside of the hull.
So, while reactors do need constant cooling, it isn't just from cooling pumps that this is accomplished depending on power/speed of the submarine.
Also, regarding AIP powered submarines, the idea that they can only creep at "a few knots" in order to stay submerged is ridiculous. The German, Swedish, and other boats currently in service can run at 25 knts or higher at max power, and do long range cruises at 15 knts and still have weeks of patrolling left in them with regards to fuel/fuel cell/etc for the AIP propulsion systems. The reason D/E subs could and would only run at very slow creep speeds was that their batteries charge would be very quickly depleted during high power/speed runs and settings, requiring them to snorkel and run the diesel motors to recharge, which creates a huge sound signature- well the AIP are NOT batteries which need to be recharged due to quickly discharging their power levels during high speed maneuvers. That's the revolutionary part of AIP, it isn't just that snorkeling is virtually eliminated, although the AIP subs still do it to recharge their batteries, it's that the need to snorkel is reduced by an order of magnitude, as the AIP system can power the boat completely independently of the old diesel/electric circuit. D/E subs until the advent of AIP systems were pretty much a manned, moveable minefield. That just isn't the case any more, and while they don't have the speed or range of the fleet SSN's, they aren't tied to a coastline or supply vessel nearly as much as they formerly were. The Israeli Dolphins, German 212/etc, Swedish and Aussie boats, and others, have all come across both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to the USA home waters to train, and most of them effected their crossings at 10-15 knts sustained.
Newer US subs like the Seawolf and Virginia have new classified sonar systems specifically designed to detect AIP subs, and the specific frequency and such that these propulsion systems operate around. That's how effective the AIP systems have been, they spawned a completely new type of detection system. How good it works in doing so isn't being told to the public much.
One thing I've read about in a lot of the defense sites and journals is that the US Navy since the decline of the USSR's sub fleet has spent less time and money on the training of the surface combatant fleets in ASW work. That is completely understandable, when a threat diminishes, and other threats pop up, you change to meet that threat, right? IMO this is an important factor in the success of small AIP and D/E subs in exercises vs US Navy frigs and destroyers. The Aussies, Swedes, Germans, and even Canadian navies with their small subs have had a lot of publicized success recently, but I'm not convinced that it is merely a technological leap, and I feel that it is also a training and focus issue as well.
I will agree that while the AIP subs are ground breaking, they are certainly NOT as capable as a fleet SSN in terms of the ranges they can be deployed at, and their sustainability. All subs are governed by the food and supplies they can store, it used to be that the D/E subs were limited by fuel and range/speed due to the nature of their systems, but the AIP systems have pushed that to at least 60 days of combat ops in terms of power levels/speed settings, so they are catching up to the SSN's, but they'll never catch or overtake them IMO. Current US SSN's are at least 10 knts faster at max power settings, and that's likely on the low side, and can keep that up indefinitely, where as an AIP/DE sub can only get short bursts by comparison.
D/E non AIP subs are still dangerous as well. Even though they don't have the range/speed options that the AIP subs do, they can still be effective. The HMS Illustrious is the "varsity" in the Nato/USN fleets for ASW work - this ship and crew has "the" reputation for hunting subs in exercises. Well, a newcomer to the block, an x-brit D/E sub from the Canadian Navy did this to them in a EX just a couple of years ago. This proves the point IMO that even really good, well trained and experienced surface crews are usually at a disadvantage to even a D/E sub in a fight.
(http://quotulatiousness.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/HMS-Illustrious-in-HMCS-Corner-Brooks-periscope.jpg)
At this range it's only a 2 minute run for a Mk48 ADCAP torpedo - just not enough time to evade it from a head on quartering shot like this, and in a real war, that ASW ship would have taken hits for a virtual certainty.
-
That's the revolutionary part of AIP, it isn't just that snorkeling is virtually eliminated, although the AIP subs still do it to recharge their batteries, it's that the need to snorkel is reduced by an order of magnitude, as the AIP system can power the boat completely independently of the old diesel/electric circuit. D/E subs until the advent of AIP systems were pretty much a manned, moveable minefield. That just isn't the case any more, and while they don't have the speed or range of the fleet SSN's, they aren't tied to a coastline or supply vessel nearly as much as they formerly were. The Israeli Dolphins, German 212/etc, Swedish and Aussie boats, and others, have all come across both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to the USA home waters to train, and most of them effected their crossings at 10-15 knts sustained.
Im no submarine expert but I'd have to see legitimate referance material to believe this. First off the Aussie Collins class is not AIP and no way could sustain cross oceanic voyages underwater at 15 knots. Nor could the AIP assisted ones. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a538633.pdf
The principle use of the AIP drive is for slow underwater patrol and anything faster is going to take the assist of the batteries which will eventually force the boat to have to run its generators to recharge them. I dont believe any of these boats were able to cross the Pacific submerged at a sustained 10 to 15 knts.
-
But it does make beautiful light. :)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/thedudeDVant/GlowingSpentFuelBundle1.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/thedudeDVant/media/GlowingSpentFuelBundle1.jpg.html)
yup 8)
-
What is that kappa?
-
D/E subs are today very defensive in nature, operating mostly in or close to littoral waters. With AIP they have a greater ability to sortie out from the littorals and strike at enemy vessels several hundred nautical miles out, and doing so more stealthily than nukes. In a defensive role they are arguably better than nukes, and definitively better when production and operating costs are considered. For the price of a single Virginia class nuke a country could operate 8 German type 212/214 AIP subs.
And in littoral waters the small, maneuverable, stealthy D/E sub is king.
----
During the exercise Joint Winter 2004, a landing force is tasked with taking back a land area. The landing force consists mostly of British naval units :
COMATG Headquarters
HMS Albion
HMS Invincible CV
HMS Iron Duke
HMS Manchester
HMS Sir Galahad
HMS Sir Tristram
HMS Sir Percival
HMS Fort George
HMS Fort Rosalie
Commando Helicopter Force Headquarters
845 squadron Naval Air Station (NAS) (Sea-King)
846 squadron NAS (Sea-King)
847 squadron NAS (Lynx- and Gazelle)
849 Bravo Fleet
Special Boat Service Task Group Headquarters
17 Port & Maritime Det RLC
Brambleleaf
Oakleaf
Naval Home Guard AREA 1592: 4 Cutters
But things did not go as the British had planned. The Norwegian submarine KNM Utvaer sunk a number of the British ships, including HMS Albion, HMS Invincible, HMS Iron Duke and HMS Manchester. Eventually KNM Utvaer was taken out of the exercise for 72 hours, by the exercise leaders, so that the landing operation could continue as planned. But before that happened, the British forces never located the submarine.
Small sub overthrew big fleet
2004-03-21
UTVÆR: A single Norwegian submarine prevented Bluelands landing operation. The crew of KNM Utvær did infact do so well that they were removed from the exercise for 72 hours.
The mood was good on KNM Utvær, even though they were taken out of the exercise Joint Winter for three days. They simply did too good a job and was removed to let the landing and field operations part of the exercise begin. The commander of the boat, Øistein Helge Jensen, gave stealth the highest priority and got so many British kills that they lost count in the end.
PERISCOPE: British HMS Albion photographed through the periscope of KNM Utværs, before the Norwegian sub was removed from the exercise to let the landing begin.
- I was given great freedom, the missions were as open as "monitor and report" or "attack and sink", says Jensen, and displays a picture of the two naval commanders in the exercise.
- It was a mind game, and I have attempted to understand how they thought. As long as the water isn't perfectly transparent then finding subs will always be hard. In these water we always took advantage of the bottow topography, and this is one of the better exercise I have taken part as we have done a lot though work in the littorals. It is fun to put it mildly when no one discovered us, says the Lieutenant. He describes the exercise as intense and they lived in constant fear of discovery.
OPS-ROOM: Boat commander Øistein Helge Jensen at work in KNM Utvær.
- Because we are a diesel vi have to ascend to snorkel, and I have used every opportunity to get air and radio messages. The tactic I laid out worked. We work all the time almost at the maximal of our potential, and I think I am able to get into the head of the surface commander. A crucial condition is that you trust the boat and the crew. It is also important to stretch the limits, for example if you are going through a narrow strait with a warship on the surface and a bad depth, says Jensen.
On board KNM Utvær during Joint Winter was also the Canadian Leuitenant James Clarke, who is attending the RNoN's submarine course next year.
COLLEGUES: Leuitenant James Clarke from Canada is an observer on KNM Utvær dunring Joint Winter. Here in conversation with ops-chief Leuitenant Jim Hansen.
- I have seen much I have never seen before. We have been moving more in the littorals and the navigation has been more demanding than I'm used too. It has been a great experience and I hope I can get a CD-Rom with periscope pictures of Albion, Invincible, the destroyers and the frigates we sunk and the bridges we have sailed under. Vi have done things that is every submarines dream, says Clarke.
-
What is that kappa?
Cherenkov radiation from a nuclear core.
-
Yea.. one spent fuel rod from a core.. but it is over a fuel pool.. kinda like a staging area for new and used fuel assemblies..
-
Pretty!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg/456px-Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg)
-
This is a core during refueling ops.. 8)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/thedudeDVant/coreshotI.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/thedudeDVant/media/coreshotI.jpg.html)
-
Nice! What boat is that?
-
For the price of a single Virginia class nuke a country could operate 8 German type 212/214 AIP subs.
I truly doubt its anywheres near 8. Also a big problem with SSPs is if they are chasing CV groups which are much faster then they are, which means they have to operate at much faster speeds, which increase cavitation and other noises. ANY submarine is hard to detect in shallow water because of the background noise tho its true smaller submarines are more maneuverable.
You cant operate effectively in the open ocean at the speeds SSPs have to keep at for very silent running.
They have their place but they are not super weapons. The biggest reasons countries get them is because they are cheaper and the country does not have the resources or infrastructure to maintain a SSN force. Its no accident the best submarine navies in the world operate SSNs. If you have blue water requirements you need SSNs.
-
Just going by wikipedia here. Virginia class is $2,707 million per unit. The 212/214 is $330 million per unit.
-
They dismissed Al-Quaeda and the Taliban to be inferior....
We created Al-Quaeda.
-
Im no submarine expert but I'd have to see legitimate referance material to believe this. First off the Aussie Collins class is not AIP and no way could sustain cross oceanic voyages underwater at 15 knots. Nor could the AIP assisted ones
I never said that they made long distance sorties only on their AIP systems, what I wrote was that they are no longer just moveable close to shore manned minefields, and are able to cross oceans at 10 to 15 kts, which they did, just not on AIP. AIP on a 212 submarine for example would have expended its fuel in about 24 hours at max power settings, so I don't think they would cross at whatever power settings 12 kts or so would be. 1000km at max power on AIP is still not a horrible range for staying as quiet as they are even at 20+ knts on AI propulsion.
There is still no replacement for a nuclear powered SSN, there just isn't. Even if the 8 to 1 ratio is correct regarding the costs of buying and operating AIP to Nuclear subs, I would still rather have just the single SSN in my fleet than the 8 AIP's.
-
Thats just it. They cant stay at 20 knts on AIP. 5 knts is more like it. To go any faster they have to use their batteries. And sustaining 20 knts on battery would force them to recharge which would leave them vulnerable.
I never said that they made long distance sorties only on their AIP systems, what I wrote was that they are no longer just moveable close to shore manned minefields, and are able to cross oceans at 10 to 15 kts, which they did, just not on AIP. AIP on a 212 submarine for example would have expended its fuel in about 24 hours at max power settings, so I don't think they would cross at whatever power settings 12 kts or so would be. 1000km at max power on AIP is still not a horrible range for staying as quiet as they are even at 20+ knts on AI propulsion.
There is still no replacement for a nuclear powered SSN, there just isn't. Even if the 8 to 1 ratio is correct regarding the costs of buying and operating AIP to Nuclear subs, I would still rather have just the single SSN in my fleet than the 8 AIP's.
I humbly wait for your reference material. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm
An AIP Perspective
Although it is a remarkable tribute to Hellmuth Walter's engineering genius that he fielded a fully functional - if troublesome - 5,000-horsepower AIP system in 1945, the maximum power output of current AIP installations is typically on the order of 400 horsepower (300 kilowatts). In comparison, the conventional diesel-electric plant of the U 212 class described above is rated at over 3,000 horsepower, and a typical nuclear submarine propulsion plant produces over 20,000. Since the power required to propel a submerged body varies with the cube of its velocity, it should be apparent that at least for the near future, AIP will be valuable primarily as a low-speed, long-endurance adjunct to the under- water performance of conventional submarines. There is little short-term prospect for AIP to become a primary, full-performance alternative to either diesel or nuclear power. Even the phrase "closed cycle" is something of a misnomer, because except for fuel cells, all AIP alternatives require ejecting exhaust gases overboard, which limits both depth capability and stealth.
-
Thats just it. They cant stay at 20 knts on AIP. 5 knts is more like it. To go any faster they have to use their batteries. And sustaining 20 knts on battery would force them to recharge which would leave them vulnerable.
The SSK/AIP subs can sustain 20 knts on AIP power for at least 24 hours, it's probably a bit more, but classified, but I've seen it written several places and on several graphs in various papers that there is enough fuel in all the various AIP systems on the varying subs to give them around 1000km range at max power before running the fuel cell out. 5 knts is the sustained cruise speed on the AIP for 3 or 4 weeks without having to snort. I wasn't talking about AIP, AGAIN, when the SSK's are transiting to the operational area. The crossings are done on D/E power, and, like I've said to you twice now, at speeds between 10 to 15 kts. Even in the second world war the US and German fleet subs transited to operational areas in the double digits speed wise. Are you saying with your "humble" request for references that modern subs aren't going that speed?
http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2012/03/australia-should-choose-nuclear.html
THat is one of three places I've read that AIP powered subs burn off most of their AIP fuel source in approximately 24 hours at 20knts or greater. Pretty simple math to get 1000km range, 20 kts x 24 hrs = about 1000km or more. Regarding crossings or long distance sorties, I'm not sure why or what you're asking for. How is it you think I've hoodwinked you somehow by saying modern D/E/AIP SSK subs do? A relative of mine who was on the Canadian Oberon classes and then the Victoria class for a short while before retiring said they carried more than enough diesel in their tanks to bring the subs home from the UK when they bought them at speeds of 12 knts or better, and they aren't AIP equipped, just D/E.
This is what I've said and maintain - AIP subs can run roughly 24 hours at max power, at least 20knts, likely more but it's classified, until they exhaust the fuel cell or other AIP fuel being used depending on the type. At 5 knts, they can cruise on the AIP for weeks, even up to a month without snorkeling or using the battery charge or diesel to recharge the battery. Cruising 10, 12, or even up to 15knts on the batteries while constantly snorkeling and running the diesel, or surfacing to fast charge as well, they can cross oceans easily, and that's precisely what they do when they operate long distances. Do you think that while transiting to the USA for excises the AIP subs that have come ran at 4 kts on diesel/elec power? The absolute minimum speeds they run is 8-10 knts while transiting, and that is part of a formula based on detection vs submerged speed of economic advance, and stored energy levels. The charts on the below show that sustained long term cruising at 8-10 kts is very easy for most of the modern D/E/AIP subs listed, and 10-15 kts is no stretch at all, and just requires 2 to 3 snorts a day instead of 1 to 2.
http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/SubmarinePowerandPropulsion-Trends%26Opportunities.pdf
This paper also shows that 12 knts is the typical transit speed of SSK/AIP submarines, and while transiting they are typically near the surface and snorkeling as needed to maintain that speed.
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1057740/BMTDSL-Optimising-SSK-Transit-Performance-Confpaper-Pacific-Jan12.pdf
A quote from the above:
At submerged speeds greater than 14kts, it becomes beneficial to increase the proportion of the transit distance spent on the surface.
This is stating that once speed increases to 14 kts, snorkeling operations start taking up more time in the equation, as speeds are usually reduced to around 5 to 7 knts for snorting, so running on the surface to charge the batteries again is a faster way to do it, and get back submerged and back up to the 14 kt transit speed.
It's pretty obvious from all I've heard and read that SSK/AIP subs typically use high power diesel and electric propulsion for transiting to the operational area, and then use primarily the AIP system to stay covert, and once in the operational area only use their battery charge in certain situations where it is a tactical requirement, ie having to escape or evade surface contacts or other enemy submarines, to avoid burning off AIP fuel unless absolutely necessary.
That should satisfy your humble reference requests. I can post up a dozen other similar links and papers, but it'd be a waste of time repeating the obvious and self evident. Google it yourself if you think any of the above is incorrect, and produce your own references as to why.
-
Nice! What boat is that?
Not a boat my friend.. that is a commercial power plant licensed to over 3450MWt.. One of the larger boiling reactors in the country..
-
Ah... Looked very "naval" and seemingly cramped, but the scale is difficult to judge from a photo. :)
-
The SSK/AIP subs can sustain 20 knts on AIP power for at least 24 hours, it's probably a bit more, but classified, but I've seen it written several places and on several graphs in various papers that there is enough fuel in all the various AIP systems on the varying subs to give them around 1000km range at max power before running the fuel cell out. 5 knts is the sustained cruise speed on the AIP for 3 or 4 weeks without having to snort. I wasn't talking about AIP, AGAIN, when the SSK's are transiting to the operational area. The crossings are done on D/E power, and, like I've said to you twice now, at speeds between 10 to 15 kts. Even in the second world war the US and German fleet subs transited to operational areas in the double digits speed wise. Are you saying with your "humble" request for references that modern subs aren't going that speed?
Of course they can but they arent doing it on AIP drive strictly. They are using their batteries too which forces them to recharge. Thats all I was saying, that AIP alone wont allow them such transit speeds/times.
THat is one of three places I've read that AIP powered subs burn off most of their AIP fuel source in approximately 24 hours at 20knts or greater. Pretty simple math to get 1000km range, 20 kts x 24 hrs = about 1000km or more. Regarding crossings or long distance sorties, I'm not sure why or what you're asking for. How is it you think I've hoodwinked you somehow by saying modern D/E/AIP SSK subs do? A relative of mine who was on the Canadian Oberon classes and then the Victoria class for a short while before retiring said they carried more than enough diesel in their tanks to bring the subs home from the UK when they bought them at speeds of 12 knts or better, and they aren't AIP equipped, just D/E.
Again you seem confused about "abilities" and "realistic combat requirements". No skipper is going to run down his AIP like that, regardless of whether they are capable of this or not. 1000 km in the open ocean is nothing. Not when your chasing a combat group that can do 30 knts+ for about 3 times around the world.
And thats the point. Whatever their capabilities are they are far outclassed in the blue water by a modern nuclear navy. Their place is in the littorals and the shallows, no serious submariner disputes that. And in that theater the modern SSP is a very dangerous opponent. This is where a top Naval force can really get hurt by a 3rd world navy operating modern SSPs. Ive already said the US made a mistake not developing our own, most of all with the robust export market for them.
I really see nothing in your links saying the 24 hour at 20 knts with AIP only. Please quote the exact paragraph WITH the link.
-
Of course they can but they arent doing it on AIP drive strictly. They are using their batteries too which forces them to recharge.
If you mean they have to use their diesels to recharge that's not entirely accurate. Both the Swedes with their Stirling engine and the Germans with their hydrogen fuel cells can recharge the batteries using the AIP system (at a reduced speed of course). They don't have to snorkel after having dashed at high speed for a while using the batteries. However, it will of course reduce their total AIP range.
-
The Siemens AIP system on the 212/214 is a 240 kilowatt plant. The Siemens Permasyn electric motor requires 2.85 megawatts to operate at max power. The diesels provide 3.96 megawatts for propulsion and recharging. The AIP system provides less than 10% of the energy required to run at flank speed. The rest will have to come from the batteries. A sub nuke plant is typically 20+ megawatts. Top speed on AIP alone is 6 knots. Range on AIP alone: 1,248 nm at 4 knots. Range at 8 knots (using AIP+batteries): 420 nm. Endurance at 20 kts is only a couple of hours or approximately 50 nm. Mission endurance: 12 weeks. Submerged without snorkelling: 3 weeks. Max range total: 8,000 nm (12,000 nm for the 214).
-
Cerenkov radiation is very pretty. When I was in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan, we had an open-pool reactor, so you saw lots of Cerenkov radiation. Alas, it has since been dismantled.
(http://um2017.org/2017_Website/Phoenix_Project_files/Nuclear%20Ford%20Nuclear%20Reactor.jpg)
I had a nuclear-engineering classmate in NROTC who was on a nuclear attack sub for a summer in the 1980's and had some interesting stories.
-
No, you're the one who is confused. I never once said that it is something an AIP SSK would do, just that it is a capability that the system has, regarding running the AIP at full power. I realize that there isn't a situation where running your AIP fuel cell dry for no reason isn't something that a sub would do during normal operations, it's just that is simply what the system is capable of.
You asked me to provide reference to SSK AIP subs crossing in transit the ocean at the speeds I claimed, on regular D/E propulsion, which I clearly did. Nothing you're saying now is something I ever contradicted, so stop dancing please, thanks. Nor did I every say a sub would run it's AIP out by running at max power, just that it is possible for them to run 20 kts on AIP and go at least 1000km, it's right there in the first report, as well as the 2nd one in the graphs as well. If you can't bother to read it, it's right under the paragraph regarding Australia's requirements, where it states that an AIP SSK on the offense going after an enemy target will run its AIP fuel out within 24 hours at max~20kts speed, which is why a nuclear SSN is a better hunter killer for them. Look at the graphs, it's right in front of your nose as well regarding max power and speed on the AIP system, not to mention spelled out in words in the first report if you can't figure the graphs out in the second.
SSK AIP subs transit at speeds varying from 8 to 15 kts, usually in the 12 to 14 range, then cruise at 5 kts in the operational area on their AIP system for up to a month. They also have the capability to use max AIP power and stay very covert in order to evade threats or make tactical movements as the situation requires, and do so for up to 24hrs or more on their AIP tied in systems until the fuel cell is expended. That's the end of story. I provided the material which directly discusses modern SSK transit times, and it shows every single modern SSK sub. I never once said that they crossed in transit using the AIP system, that's something you're creating, again not something I ever claimed. All I said was that the modern SSK AIP's are no longer tied to coastlines and operational areas near home, since they can use their bunker fuel for transit at high speed to the operational area, then slow cruise at 5 kts in near silent mode on the AIP system for a month once they get there, and use high speeds of 20kts for approx 24hrs of use on the AIP system without the diesel running at all, when required for tactical reasons in the operational area. That's it, plain and simple. All this other noise you're making is just to cloud the fact that you don't like being shown the precise information you asked for.
The AIP system provides less than 10% of the energy required to run at flank speed. The rest will have to come from the batteries.
This is correct, and if you look at the graphs in the 2nd and 3rd links, the AIP system is tied in with the batteries, the batteries are air independent as well until they are discharged, which gives max flank speeds of greater than 20kts, the real max is likely a little higher than this, but certainly not near SSN speeds. Again, as I've stated enough times now, at 20 kts or whatever flanks speed is in each SSKAIP sub, the fuel cell can only sustain that for around 24 hours, roughly 1000km or just over, and then it's expended, and the snorts have to start and continue for the remainder of operations. The European built AIP SSK's are truly something now, very, very dangerous units that are cheap enough for non-USA countries to operate. I'm hoping Canada purchases some more to supplement the D/E boats we have now, the German boats being preferred IMO. Anti aircraft launched missile systems through the tubes while submerged, cruise missile capable, decent torps, although not up the the MK48 ADCAPS we had to convert our Upholder classes to in order to use our existing stockpile of them. The crazy thing is that the mods ended up costing 2x as much as the Spearfish torps we could have taken with the subs which were already fitted out for those. We could have sold our Mk48's to a country that uses them, or even donated them, and still come out further ahead. This is what happens when committees of civilians who don't know much about weapons or money get involved in military affairs up here.
-
Oh cut and paste the exact paragraphs, and paste the reference. Between your long links that DONT support what you say, and your 1,000 word diatribes, your giving me a head ache.
-
Using "your" when "you're" is called for gives me an equal headache.
I've spelled it out simply for you 2 times now, if you don't like challenging information and then not getting the results you like, that's your problem. You asked me to provide reference that SSK AIP powered subs transit to operational areas at speeds between 10-15 kts. I did so. Twice.
You asked for reference that SSK AIP subs on AIP propulsion can move at 20 kts. I provided it from 3 sources. The AIP system which is tied into the electrical/battery powered systems can either cruise at 4-5 kts for 21-30 days on most models, or run at 20kts+ for about 24 hours, before needing to snorkel. There are tons of power level settings in between, I can't cut and paste the graphs from a pdf, but it should take you less than 1 minute to look at all three in the sources I linked and see that at speeds between 12 to 15 kts, the number of hours each type of SSK AIP listed, about 4 or 5 types listed, varies slightly, and only really effects how often the sub has to snort or surface charge while in transit mode. They can choose to tie in the fuel cell part of the AIP system, or just run on battery power while transiting, or use both simultaneously.
From source 1:
At maximum speed (around 20 knots an AIP material will last about a day. This is in comparison to nuclear attack submarines moving at 34 knots fully submerged for 3 months)
From source 2:
Transit speeds of 10 knts are therefore to be expected with snorting between once and twice a day. Transit speeds of 12 to 14 knts are expected with snorting between 2 and 3 times per day
From source 3:
SPEED: SSK design speed is governed by the need for an optimised quiet speed that allows the maximum time submerged on batteries/AIP, and a high top speed for transitand evasion.
The SSK submarine hullform has been designed and optimized for a transit speed of 12-13 knts
At submerged speeds greater than 14kts, it becomes beneficial to increase the proportion of the transit distance spent on the surface. This is due to the time spent snorting becoming dominant in submerged operation
- This paragraph speaks specifically to AIP SSK's transiting at speeds over 14kts, like 15 or slightly higher - the can still stay submerged, but slowing to 6 knts to snorkel and recharge become less efficient than surface charging - they don't HAVE to surface, it just becomes a slightly shorter trip if they choose to. Point is, it's obvious the SSK's can transit at 10-15 kts from this paper, which is what you seem to be all wrapped up over, humbly demanding proof. There it is, and this is just the tip of the iceberg from these reports or the dozens of others you can find on google. I'm not going to hold your hand and cut/paste direct quotes or interpret graphs for you again - if you can't understand them, just ask for them to be explained by PM. That, or you can PM KillnU, who is a chief with long service on a current SSN out of Hawaii, and see if any of this is wrong, and your opinions/ideas are right.
-
At maximum speed (around 20 knots an AIP material will last about a day. This is in comparison to nuclear attack submarines moving at 34 knots fully submerged for 3 months)
Yeah thats a real nice try. You forget I can actually read. Heres the real quote At maximum speed (around 20 knts) an AIP material may last less then a day. This in comparison to nuclear attack submarines moving at 34 knots fully submerged for 4 months.
Its about 1/3 down the page if anyone wants to check. http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2012/03/australia-should-choose-nuclear.html
will last about a day
is not the same thing as may last less then a day.
But I guess it sounded better to you.
I can expect the rest of your crap is dishonestly posted to. So Im not going to check it and Im done talking to you. BTW your an arrogant, insulting little cuss. As well as dishonest.
Have a nice day.
-
You'll notice that you can't cut and paste from that first document. Try it, you can't click and highlight. I typed it from memory, I'm sorry one word is missing or different, I humbly apologize. The other 2 aren't much better, go try to cut and pasted from them, and watch what happens, it pastes everything in a vertical column and misses words, but I took the time to do it anyway with the last 2.
You did read the rest unlike your statement, you just don't like what you read as it doesn't agree with you. The paper is actually called "Issues regarding SSK Transit times". Anyone here can read it, it plainly states both points you originally didn't think were correct in fact are.
It's obvious from every paper I've read about SSK's that they typically transit at speeds of at LEAST 12 knts in peacetime conditions and factoring in other things like weather.
Figure 14 shows how an average speed of 12 knots is achieved with the snort and submerged speeds stated above. In such a case a distance of 10,000nm would be covered in 34 days which is consistent with the likely provisions assigned to the mission.
Source: http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/e-udt008-jb.pdf
Looking at some of your earlier arguments you've gotten into, you behave in pretty much the same manner. You can call names all you like, I won't report you because I think it's humorous that you can't simply say that the material is right - that's where I got it from. Do you think the subject subs we're talking about do transits at 4 or 6 kts or something? It would take 6 weeks to get here, longer for the Israeli subs, they would be eating their shoes at that point on the smaller sized SSKs. A German 212 sub did set a world record in 2006 doing 1500 miles completely submerged on just it's fuel cells, not running the battery part of the AIP loop as it didn't want to snort to recharge at all, which was part of the record. But that's just on fuel cell power, not on the full AIP power capability with the battery tied in, not to mention 2 or 3 snorts a day. Maybe that's what you're thinking of, who can say.
The next generation of SSK's aren't far away, and they'll be doing transits of 20 knts+, submerged, for long distances, thousands of nautical miles. That's nearly a jump of 2x from 12 knts to 20 knts.
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1056784/BMTDSL-SSGT-Datasheet.pdf
-
Cherenkov effect is cool and blue but I keep seeing people calling air that is beign subjected to ionizing radiation "cherenkov radiation" when it is not.
That is a cool picture of cherenkov radiation.
-
Cherenkov effect is cool and blue but I keep seeing people calling air that is beign subjected to ionizing radiation "cherenkov radiation" when it is not.
That is a cool picture of cherenkov radiation.
lol One attempting to take those pictures of the fuel assemblies suspended in the 'air' would not live to make it back to a computer to upload them..
-
Now this is a cool Russian sub... :old:
(http://chivethethrottle.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/russian-sub-26.jpg?w=500&h=341)
http://thethrottle.thechive.com/2010/12/21/a-russian-builds-a-single-serving-submarine-28-photos/
-
lol One attempting to take those pictures of the fuel assemblies suspended in the 'air' would not live to make it back to a computer to upload them..
They would live a few weeks.
-
They would live a few weeks.
Depends how you look at it. They would be already dead, just not necessarily know it yet.
-
They would live a few weeks.
It all depends on how big the dose is. A big enough radiation dose takes out the nervous system
and you die almost immediately.
-
A few of the guys at chernobyl stood 100 feet away from the crater that used to be the reactor and looked directly into it.
A few of the other guys stood next to a piece of fuel radiating 20,000 rads per hour receiving fatal doses.
Vladimir Pravik stood line of sight to the reactor for a few hours and died two weeks later.
-
They would live a few weeks.
ummm, no..
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/thread_map_zps875df148.png)
-
:rofl
-
hahah
-
:rofl :aok
-
ummm, no..
UM.....yes.
Proven cases carefully observed.
-
UM.....yes.
Proven cases carefully observed.
Wow! There's actually been a case where a person has been standing in an unshielded reactor core?! Not the crater of a destroyed reactor...
-
The Chernobyl reactor core in which they directly looked into had just suffered a huge excursion to near 1000 times the normal power levels and was far more radioactive than a properly functioning reactor.
They were also surrounded by chunks of fuel and moderator that was ejected from the core.
You will be hard pressed to find anybody exposed to a higher dose than some of those guys yet they lived a few weeks.
-
I've done a fair share of reading on radiation, nuclear power, etc, but... I gotta say..
based on the photo provided, I would assume kappa works in the industry... so.. sorry icepac, but I'm going with him. Plus i've read that certain levels of radiation CAN be instant incapacitation.. or nearly so... thus the purpose of a "Neutron Bomb" to kill/incapacitate tank crews quickly, at a much greater range than blast/thermal alone would.. (modern tanks are actually pretty resistant to the blast and thermal damage of a nuke, depending on range)...
Kappa, do correct me if I am wrong on my assumption about your chosen career field..
-
20,000 roentgens per hour is pretty intense which is what the fuel chunks and core of chernobyl was emitting.
-
I would think that radiation level would definitely depend on the size of the fuel "chunk" as you put it. Inside the core itself, sure, I could believe that level of radiation intensity, but, also remember, the 3 most important factors in reducing radiation dose.. Time, Distance, Shielding..focus on distance for this case.. no matter if they were looking into the core, standing above it, etc, there was still quite a distance between the emission and thier location. So, while inside the core may have been 20k/hr, I doubt the persons "observing" the core would have experienced that dose rate, it would have been, while still QUITE lethal, quite a bit less than that... Whereas int he scenerio Kappa and you were speaking about (the irradiated fuel rod in open air over a fuel pool) the dose rate would be significantly higher, since the distance between the source, and the person observing, would be measured in feet, rather than tens or hundreds of feet...
Again, I don't work in this industry, nor do I have any training in it, although if I were starting out fresh and new, I would seriously consider it, I am just a person who is fascinated by all things science, and especially nuclear power/physics... so take my post here for what it's worth...
-
It's fully apparent you are not at all acquainted with what happened at Chernobyl and the doses the workers received.
There absolutely no chance that a fuel assembly from a properly shut down reactor is more radioactive than the core of a reactor that ran away to the point of ejecting it's core.
It blew off the 2 million pound upper biological shield and ejected much of the core and burning hot fuel through the roof of the building and onto the roofs of surrounding buildings.
Each piece of fuel the guys pictured are picking up with shovels is radiating 20,000 roentgens per hour and only the guys who spent hours up there actually died and nobody was incapacitated until hours later.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/5/12/1242124093105/Workers-remove-radioactiv-001.jpg)
20 years later, the smoking hole that used to be the core is still emitting over 10,000 roentgens.
A couple of guys (sitnikov and pravik) were on top of the roof near the stack looking down into the reactor.
That's about as high a dose as anybody who has ever lived received.
They lived at least a week if not two.
(http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/chernobyl_25th_anniversary/bp2.jpg)
-
In the field of fuel processing, there have been a few deaths due to criticality accidents where operators poured liquid containing U-235 into containers that achieved critical mass, resulting in a blue flash of light and physical effects felt immediately by the operators.
In the US, one such accident in the 1960's resulted in 7 Sv (700 rem) dose to the operator, who was incapacitated within about a minute and dead within 49 hours.
In Japan, another such accident in 1999 resulted in 10 Sv and 17 Sv dose to operators who were incapacitated quickly (seconds to minutes). One died 7 months later and the other 3 months later. Both were under modern, intensive medical care, without which they would have died much sooner.
-
In the field of fuel processing, there have been a few deaths due to criticality accidents where operators poured liquid containing U-235 into containers that achieved critical mass, resulting in a blue flash of light and physical effects felt immediately by the operators.
In the US, one such accident in the 1960's resulted in 7 Sv (700 rem) dose to the operator, who was incapacitated within about a minute and dead within 49 hours.
In Japan, another such accident in 1999 resulted in 10 Sv and 17 Sv dose to operators who were incapacitated quickly (seconds to minutes). One died 7 months later and the other 3 months later. Both were under modern, intensive medical care, without which they would have died much sooner.
Wow I wouldn't hesitate to choose the 49 hours one instead of 3 months having your body eaten up inside out.
-
Using "your" when "you're" is called for gives me an equal headache.
I've spelled it out simply for you 2 times now, if you don't like challenging information and then not getting the results you like, that's your problem. You asked me to provide reference that SSK AIP powered subs transit to operational areas at speeds between 10-15 kts. I did so. Twice.
You asked for reference that SSK AIP subs on AIP propulsion can move at 20 kts. I provided it from 3 sources. The AIP system which is tied into the electrical/battery powered systems can either cruise at 4-5 kts for 21-30 days on most models, or run at 20kts+ for about 24 hours, before needing to snorkel. There are tons of power level settings in between, I can't cut and paste the graphs from a pdf, but it should take you less than 1 minute to look at all three in the sources I linked and see that at speeds between 12 to 15 kts, the number of hours each type of SSK AIP listed, about 4 or 5 types listed, varies slightly, and only really effects how often the sub has to snort or surface charge while in transit mode. They can choose to tie in the fuel cell part of the AIP system, or just run on battery power while transiting, or use both simultaneously.
From source 1:
From source 2:
From source 3: - This paragraph speaks specifically to AIP SSK's transiting at speeds over 14kts, like 15 or slightly higher - the can still stay submerged, but slowing to 6 knts to snorkel and recharge become less efficient than surface charging - they don't HAVE to surface, it just becomes a slightly shorter trip if they choose to. Point is, it's obvious the SSK's can transit at 10-15 kts from this paper, which is what you seem to be all wrapped up over, humbly demanding proof. There it is, and this is just the tip of the iceberg from these reports or the dozens of others you can find on google. I'm not going to hold your hand and cut/paste direct quotes or interpret graphs for you again - if you can't understand them, just ask for them to be explained by PM. That, or you can PM KillnU, who is a chief with long service on a current SSN out of Hawaii, and see if any of this is wrong, and your opinions/ideas are right.
Where exactly would you like him to use "you're"? From what I can see, everything Rich had written required "your". Just saying :aok
-
There absolutely no chance that a fuel assembly from a properly shut down reactor is more radioactive than...
Hey... No one said the reactor was shut down, "properly" or at all. Kappa was referring to an open pool reactor and what would happen if you took the water away while standing there looking at it. There would be no Cherenkov radiation and the person would be dead. The reactor would also melt down, but that's beyond the scope of Kappas comment.
-
Where exactly would you like him to use "you're"? From what I can see, everything Rich had written required "your". Just saying :aok
And you call yourself British... Tsk tsk.
Oh cut and paste the exact paragraphs, and paste the reference. Between your long links that DONT support what you say, and your 1,000 word diatribes, your giving me a head ache.
-
It's fully apparent you are not at all acquainted with what happened at Chernobyl and the doses the workers received.
There absolutely no chance that a fuel assembly from a properly shut down reactor is more radioactive than the core of a reactor that ran away to the point of ejecting it's core.
It blew off the 2 million pound upper biological shield and ejected much of the core and burning hot fuel through the roof of the building and onto the roofs of surrounding buildings.
Each piece of fuel the guys pictured are picking up with shovels is radiating 20,000 roentgens per hour and only the guys who spent hours up there actually died and nobody was incapacitated until hours later.
20 years later, the smoking hole that used to be the core is still emitting over 10,000 roentgens.
A couple of guys (sitnikov and pravik) were on top of the roof near the stack looking down into the reactor.
That's about as high a dose as anybody who has ever lived received.
They lived at least a week if not two.
(note removed the images n the quote for sake of not reposting them and cluttering the board)
I seriously doubt every chunk of the fuel was radiating at that level. The size of the source plays a large role in the radiation levels.. smaller chunk, smaller dose... (if the material is of the same composition, and stage of half-life)...
A tiny piece of Co-60 would be a whole lot less dangerous/damaging than a 5 pound chunk.. I dont doubt one bit that in the pit levels were nearly 20k/hr, but on the roof, while still extremely high, and lethal, they wouldn't compare to what was happening inside the core itself.
As was previously posted, there have been several criticality excursions in the US and abroad, which have given doses lower than the 20k range, and yet those people were incapacitated in minutes, and many dead within hours...
To cite an example of what distance can do to reduce radiation, look to Louis Slotin's incident with the "Demon Core" during the manhattan project. He was doign something pretty dumb really, and created a burst of supercriticality, which exposed him to over 1000 rads, killed him 9 days later (this @ only 1k rads), however, there were other scientists in the room, only tens of feet away, who recieved less than a lethal dose from the same incident. Proximity plays a HUGE role...
Quote from an article about the slotin incident below:
On May 21, 1946, physicist Louis Slotin and seven other Los Alamos personnel were in a Los Alamos laboratory conducting an experiment to verify the exact point at which a subcritical mass (core) of fissile material could be made critical by the positioning of neutron reflectors. The test was known as "tickling the dragon's tail" for its extreme risk. It required the operator to place two half-spheres of beryllium (a neutron reflector) around the core to be tested and manually lower the top reflector over the core via a thumb hole on the top. As the reflectors were manually moved closer and farther away from each other, scintillation counters measured the relative activity from the core. Allowing them to close completely could result in the instantaneous formation of a critical mass and a lethal power excursion. Under Slotin's unapproved protocol, the only thing preventing this was the blade of a standard flathead screwdriver, manipulated by the scientist's other hand. Slotin, who was given to bravado, became the local expert, performing the test almost a dozen separate times, often in his trademark bluejeans and cowboy boots, in front of a roomful of observers. Enrico Fermi reportedly told Slotin and others they would be "dead within a year" if they continued performing it.
While lowering the top reflector, Slotin's screwdriver slipped outward a fraction of an inch, allowing the top reflector to fall into place around the core. Instantly there was a flash of blue light and a wave of heat across Slotin's skin; the core had become supercritical, releasing a massive burst of neutron radiation. He quickly knocked the two halves apart, stopping the chain reaction and presumably saving the lives of the other men in the laboratory, though it is now known that the heating of the core and shells stopped the criticality within milliseconds of its initiation. Slotin's body's positioning over the apparatus also shielded the others from much of the neutron radiation. He received a lethal dose of 1000 rads neutron/114 rads gamma in under a second and died nine days later from acute radiation poisoning. The nearest person to Slotin, Alvin C. Graves, was watching over Slotin's shoulder and was thus partially shielded by him, received a high but non-lethal radiation dose of 166 neutron/26 gamma rads. Graves was hospitalized for several weeks with severe radiation poisoning, developed chronic neurological and vision problems as a result of the exposure, and died 20 years later of a heart attack probably caused by complications from radiation exposure.
Besides Graves, there were 6 others in the room, who recieved doses that caused long term problems (cancers etc) but had no acute phase...
Distance+shielding+time... makes all the difference...
-
My entire point is that you simply don't immediately drop dead from high radiation doses as the situation of pulling a spent fuel assembly from the pond.
The highest doses stem from accidents when people are exposed to sources of shorter lived nucleides such as cobalt 60 and iridium 192 used in the medical and food industry in which some people received doses several times of what Slotin got.............but all of them got up and walked away to die or lose body parts later.
I'm sure someone exposed in a high power partical accelerator or a bomb designed for enhanced neutron radiation could kill instantly.
-
Sol75, you're correct on all points..
icepac,
The fuel assembly I posted was a spent fuel assembly.. I cannot tell you the exact amount as it would vary between remaining fuel/time in the core, but I have been told these fuel assemblies are in excess of 1,000,000Rem levels on contact.. Our fuel pools are 40ft deep.. The assemblies are 12ft long..
Compare that to a new never used assembly that has 0 rad levels.. Perfectly safe..
Here, we enrich fuel to roughly 4-5% compared to the much much smaller cores the navy uses enriched to 99.8ish%.. Commercial plants are refueled every 2yrs replacing 1/3 of the fuel assemblies.. So a fuel assembly should last 6years or 3burns... Navy cores last 20yrs..
Chernobyl had a different type core.. They used graphite for a moderator where we use water.. In our boiling water reactors in an accident scenario of lowering water levels in the core, power goes down (less moderation).. Their core actually increased power as they lost their water level (more moderation).. When they finally got water back into the core the resulting expansion of water (steam explosion) is what blew their containment apart.. Most of the chunks you see in those pictures is actually their concrete containment.. No doubt with some small elements of fuel scattered about.. The Chernobyl accident was massive to say the least and still worse than what happened in Japan.. afaik.. Oddly enough they were testing safety systems and their ability to get water to a core with a loss of offsite power, against the wishes of the actual operators, that the accident resulted from..
-
Kappa:
If I am not mistaken, the accident was technically speaking, caused by Xenon poisoning, which forced them to withdraw the rods too far, then on top of the, a positive void coefficient, AND thier control rods were tipped with Graphite, thus INCREASING the reactivty momentarily, during a SCRAM situation...
-
Kappa:
If I am not mistaken, the accident was technically speaking, caused by Xenon poisoning, which forced them to withdraw the rods too far, then on top of the, a positive void coefficient, AND thier control rods were tipped with Graphite, thus INCREASING the reactivty momentarily, during a SCRAM situation...
humm.. Xenon does add negative reactivity.. They did have a pos void coefficient.. their scram situation was a low water level. I'm pretty positive they were doing some sort of testing of safety systems.. A loss of offsite power.. Not heard of the control rods tipped w/ graphite.. Hindsight says its a pretty bad design for a reactor.. so who knows!? hehe
-
My entire point is that you simply don't immediately drop dead from high radiation doses as the situation of pulling a spent fuel assembly from the pond.
The highest doses stem from accidents when people are exposed to sources of shorter lived nucleides such as cobalt 60 and iridium 192 used in the medical and food industry in which some people received doses several times of what Slotin got.............but all of them got up and walked away to die or lose body parts later.
I'm sure someone exposed in a high power partical accelerator or a bomb designed for enhanced neutron radiation could kill instantly.
I wasn't referring to Slotin's incident as an example of "quick incapacitation", rather I was referring to it as an example of the huge difference distance makes. 20k RAD contact, is a WHOLE lot less at a distance. The distance between CONCENTRATED fuel sources in Chernobyl (the pit), was much greater than the distance between a person standing ont he catwalk above a spent fuel pool, and an exposed fuel element.....thus why the latter could/would be much more rapidly incapacitating..
-
The accident was, causally speaking, a result of the inherent ineptitude and corruption of the Soviet political system.
-
humm.. Xenon does add negative reactivity.. They did have a pos void coefficient.. their scram situation was a low water level. I'm pretty positive they were doing some sort of testing of safety systems.. A loss of offsite power.. Not heard of the control rods tipped w/ graphite.. Hindsight says its a pretty bad design for a reactor.. so who knows!? hehe
I'm pretty sure one of the remediations the RBMK reactor type underwent post-chernobyl, was to remove that graphite tip. It was there due to something having to due with the rod displacing water.. I forget the details, but it was intended to keep the moderation up when the rod was partially withdrawn.. but due to the low water level, when it scrammed, the tip didnt displace any water, it only added moderation, thus reactivity...
-
I'm pretty sure one of the remediations the RBMK reactor type underwent post-chernobyl, was to remove that graphite tip. It was there due to something having to due with the rod displacing water.. I forget the details, but it was intended to keep the moderation up when the rod was partially withdrawn.. but due to the low water level, when it scrammed, the tip didnt displace any water, it only added moderation, thus reactivity...
Could be.. as i recall the largest power rise was due to lowering water levels.. They used water as a neutron absorber.. No water meant many extra zoomies flying around to be absorbed by u235... But you're answer sounds much better and most likely more technically correct.. hehe
edit: i bet you're exactly right.. it was the instantaneous power excursion flashing what water they had to steam resulting in a steam explosion perhaps?
-
The accident was, causally speaking, a result of the inherent ineptitude and corruption of the Soviet political system.
humor?
-
Could be.. as i recall the largest power rise was due to lowering water levels.. They used water as a neutron absorber.. No water meant many extra zoomies flying around to be absorbed by u235... But you're answer sounds much better and most likely more technically correct.. hehe
edit: i bet you're exactly right.. it was the instantaneous power excursion flashing what water they had to steam resulting in a steam explosion perhaps?
Yea, thats what I've read on the subject... not bad for someone never trained in this stuff huh? lol :devil
-
Yea, thats what I've read on the subject... not bad for someone never trained in this stuff huh? lol :devil
lol I agree! Reactor physics can really kick a person's ass.. Sometimes you gotta just push the 'I believe' button and step away.. haha seems like you got a pretty good handle on it..
-
humor?
No. In the Cold War, which threatened at times to become hot, the plutonium production aspect of the RBMK-reactor imposed a sense of urgency on their design, construction and operation; no time was to be "wasted" on improvements however essential to a safe operation. The scientists and engineers worked under one and only one guideline: to produce weapons-grade plutonium - as much as possible and as quickly as possible. Budgetary problems drove them in the same direction. Not that there was any question of reducing expenses but simply of using the funds available to produce the maximum amount of the highest quality weapons-grade plutonium-239 as quickly as possible.
It was under these circumstances that the Minister of Electrification declared at a Politburo meeting on May 2, 1986, six days after the explosion: "In spite of the accident, the construction team will meet its socialist obligations and soon begin to build reactor number 5."
The culture of secrecy was universal in the USSR. It imposed compartmentalization of knowledge: no single person was allowed to see the big picture and to integrate all aspects of the safety of the operation. In civilian nuclear energy the Soviet culture of secrecy lasted until 1989. Some Soviet scientists were strictly honest and open. Others who were as competent, and known to be so, were motivated more by their personal interests than by scientific objectivity and lacked the courage to be scientifically rigorous. They accepted or even encouraged the political powers-that-be to make certain questionable and even dangerous decisions. The struggle for influence replaced scientific, technical and technological debate.
The design errors of the reactor did not arise from incompetence of the engineers. They were rather the result of the bureaucratic dictatorship which presided over all decisions in the Soviet system, even those dealing with safety. It is clear that the explosion of the Chernobyl reactor was made possible by the many shortcomings of the Soviet system; one may well say that the Chernobyl explosion was more a Soviet event than a nuclear event.
-
This stuff has caught my attention. I have found this to be an excellent read. Kappa if I may ask, do you actually work at a plant?
-
They used water as a neutron absorber..
The Mi-8 that was dropping the neutron absorbers flew into a cable line and crashed which resulted in virtually none of the neutron absorbers reaching the core.
ack-ack
-
The Mi-8 that was dropping the neutron absorbers flew into a cable line and crashed which resulted in virtually none of the neutron absorbers reaching the core.
ack-ack
Im pretty sure he meant it is used as an absorberof excess neutrons during operation of the reactor as well as a coolant... I believe the mi8 was dropping sand (to extinguish the fire) and boron to stop any chain reactions still occurring.
-
This stuff has caught my attention. I have found this to be an excellent read. Kappa if I may ask, do you actually work at a plant?
yea man.. I do.. im an operator.. we start our unit3 refueling outage week after next. 8)
The Mi-8 that was dropping the neutron absorbers flew into a cable line and crashed which resulted in virtually none of the neutron absorbers reaching the core.
ack-ack
hehe
Absorption as in the likelihood of what type nucleus the neutron will be absorbed into and the possibility that absorption will cause a fission event..
just a quick goggle.. might not be the best explanation..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section
A neutron's relative energy state.. Fast neutrons and slow neutrons also known as thermal neutrons.. Fast neutrons become thermal neutrons after passing through some type of moderator and losing E from collisions..
Something like 99.6% of all fissions result in a prompt neutron.. This is a neutron born in a really really short time after the event..
.4% of neutrons are born as delayed neutrons.. These neutrons are born at a slightly longer time after the fission event and even up to minutes later.. Amazing enough, these delayed neutrons are how the nuclear reaction is controlled and not allowed to go prompt critical(nuclear blast)..
Yea, I have a I believe button for that one.. hehe
Edit.. I don't mean to say a commercial core could explode like a nuclear blast... just attempting to describe the term prompt critical..
-
Do you guys wear something that monitors how much radiation you receive while working?
-
yes.. this little thing about the size of a 1990s pager.. measures in mRem..
but its not crazy or anything.. we are admin limited to 1Rem/yr which maybe 1 worker might even begin to approach on a year we have 2 refuel outages like this year..
Common airline pilots will receive more dose in a year than an average nuclear worker..
-
Oh okay I see.
-
one may well say that the Chernobyl explosion was more a Soviet event than a nuclear event.
I think it is a very good match to compare a communist dictatorship and a nuclear disaster. Both have about the same kind of results.
-
No. In the Cold War, which threatened at times to become hot, the plutonium production aspect of the RBMK-reactor imposed a sense of urgency on their design, construction and operation; no time was to be "wasted" on improvements however essential to a safe operation. The scientists and engineers worked under one and only one guideline: to produce weapons-grade plutonium - as much as possible and as quickly as possible. Budgetary problems drove them in the same direction. Not that there was any question of reducing expenses but simply of using the funds available to produce the maximum amount of the highest quality weapons-grade plutonium-239 as quickly as possible.
It was under these circumstances that the Minister of Electrification declared at a Politburo meeting on May 2, 1986, six days after the explosion: "In spite of the accident, the construction team will meet its socialist obligations and soon begin to build reactor number 5."
The culture of secrecy was universal in the USSR. It imposed compartmentalization of knowledge: no single person was allowed to see the big picture and to integrate all aspects of the safety of the operation. In civilian nuclear energy the Soviet culture of secrecy lasted until 1989. Some Soviet scientists were strictly honest and open. Others who were as competent, and known to be so, were motivated more by their personal interests than by scientific objectivity and lacked the courage to be scientifically rigorous. They accepted or even encouraged the political powers-that-be to make certain questionable and even dangerous decisions. The struggle for influence replaced scientific, technical and technological debate.
The design errors of the reactor did not arise from incompetence of the engineers. They were rather the result of the bureaucratic dictatorship which presided over all decisions in the Soviet system, even those dealing with safety. It is clear that the explosion of the Chernobyl reactor was made possible by the many shortcomings of the Soviet system; one may well say that the Chernobyl explosion was more a Soviet event than a nuclear event.
Interesting.. I see what you're saying.. Powers that be wanted the production over safety.. Good points!
We build in Pu-239 in the upper parts of our cores.. Its a process called spectral hardening.. U-238 absorbs a neutron and decays to Pu-239.. This process is mainly for end of cycle so keep power up.. Down side is Pu-239 produces more prompt neutrons.. blah blah.. hehe never mind..
-
None of those glow like this baby
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#nswr
---
Also.. Wouldn't your own vitreous humor (+-99% H2O) glow cherenkov, given bad enough exposure?
Yep..: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation#Characteristics