Register here

Author Topic: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans  (Read 56354 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #270 on: January 14, 2019, 08:16:35 am »
Russian Navy to Put Over 30 Poseidon Strategic Underwater Drones on Combat Duty

"MOSCOW --- The Russian Navy plans to place more than 30 Poseidon strategic nuclear-capable underwater drones on combat duty, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on Saturday.

"Two Poseidon-carrying submarines are expected to enter service with the Northern Fleet and the other two will join the Pacific Fleet. Each of the submarines will carry a maximum of eight drones and, therefore, the total number of Poseidons on combat duty may reach 32 vehicles," the source said.

The special-purpose nuclear-powered submarine Khabarovsk currently being built at the Sevmash Shipyard will become one of the organic carriers of the Poseidon nuclear-capable underwater drone. Also, special-purpose submarines and Project 949A nuclear-powered underwater cruisers operational in the Russian Navy may be used as the carriers "after their appropriate upgrade," the source noted."


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/199067/russia-to-deploy-over-30-poseidon-strategic-underwater-drones.html
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #271 on: January 18, 2019, 04:59:02 pm »
Talking about Poseidon. What do you guys think about what kind of nuclear propulsion system powering this thing... e.g what kind of reactor and cycles used ?

Working from the Hisutton's article on Kanyon, Tom Stefanick's book, Norman Polmar's book and "Theory of Submarine Design" by Rubin design bureau.

With baseline dimension of 24m in length and about 2 meter in height.  The claimed speed of some 70-100 Knot seems to be way too high for what volume available for its possible propulsion plant.  Assuming "neutral buoyancy" where Weight=Volume. The Kanyon will weigh/displace at least 74.5 Metric tonne. However some margin is tolerable as this is a torpedo and can gain some lift by keep moving. This again Sutton's margin of 100 metric tonne looks feasible. 

The 70 Knot speed, for the size requires about 8.5 MegaWatt of shaft power (about 11500 SHP). The PWR plant required to achieve that power weighs about 200 metric ton, Liquid metal reactor (LMCR)can be much lighter but might be still too heavy 61 metric ton. There is however another option namely the HTGR (High Temperature Gas Reactor). This can be much lighter, assuming Helium or maybe CO2 as working fluid, this reactor can be made with 15 metric ton of weight.   

Clearly only LMCR and HTGR that could possibly meet the probable small constraint of Kanyon and attempt to attain high speed.  Another thing of concern is that conventional steam turbine system might also be too heavy, with steam turbine assembly for the installed power can weigh as heavy as 94 metric ton. But i am curious if Russian actually tries other cycle like Brayton Cycle instead of Rankine. Thus making it a nuclear gas turbine. The turbine assembly for this could be lighter. LMCR however might be too inefficient as it needs to heat a secondary working fluid/gas to drive the turbine. Assuming the gas turbine can be made lighter maybe about slightly half the steam turbine and HTGR being sought. The turbine and associated turbo alternator (as kanyon needs power too) can weigh 55 metric ton.

The total propulsion group weight for the 70 knot speed, adding the shielding (reduced as it carries no man), backup battery and the propulsion gear (shaft, gearings) Yield following :

PWR= 361.3 metric ton
LMCR= 144.1 metric ton
HTGR= 99.4 metric ton

Those seems still bit way too heavy, not including other systems such as warhead, structural elements and guidance.

Thus i suspect that the speed could be much lower than what Russian claim.  Maybe in the order of 40-50 Knot. At 49 Knot speed however only requires 3 MW of power, the propulsion plant weight drops accordingly to following

PWR= 128.8 metric ton
LMCR= 51.4 metric ton
HTGR= 35.4 metric ton

A more reasonable value and still within the "neutral buoyancy" envelope. PWR however seems totally impractical for Kanyon.  The one i have not considered yet is BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) as the reactor was never really tested nor envisaged for submarine operation.


Offline Austin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #272 on: January 27, 2019, 07:21:48 pm »
A brief write-up on Avangard program and Hypersonic vehicle by me

AVANGARD HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLEr

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1631
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #273 on: February 04, 2019, 01:44:03 pm »
https://twitter.com/KomissarWhipla/status/1092318547282407424

Quote
Something will fly from Plesetsk to Kura between Feb 6th and 8th. Sarmat flight tests? Re-check of life extended ICBMs? New payload?

Offline Austin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #274 on: February 10, 2019, 12:50:28 am »
Official Russian MOD write up on Avangard and describes some of the features of the system.

Its in Russian so have to use some translator

Who will catch up with "Vanguard"

https://rg.ru/2019/01/31/pochemu-giperzvukovoj-avangard-neuiazvim-dlia-liuboj-pro.html

Offline gTg

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 100
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #275 on: Today at 04:09:19 am »
A brief write-up on Avangard program and Hypersonic vehicle by me

AVANGARD HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLEr
Thank you Austin!  B)
The article was helpful, especially the explanation of the difference between BGRV and HGV.