苍老的少年-评俄罗斯雅森级核潜艇（转帖）

私货不少啊→_→

顶，俄罗斯的军事装备思路与西方有很大差异，不光是海军，空军和陆军也是有很大的不同，但是这种体系也创造了无数的辉煌

不知道与天朝的核潜艇比怎么样？

其实也就是伊尔476相比于伊尔76，重建产能的意义大于装备意义

其实也就是伊尔476相比于伊尔76，重建产能的意义大于装备意义

zhaishengmao 发表于 2012-10-3 09:36
不知道与天朝的核潜艇比怎么样？
天朝的还不能和他们比

。。。。眼花了，看成苍井空。。。。。。。。

话说毛子的核潜艇是必须搞好的，这可是他们安身立命的本钱。。。。。

私货不少啊→_→
有点私货，但基本属实！

笑了，要找对的地方还真是不容易。
比平大师评价TG的文章私货与错误还多。

图都看不到了，转至QQ空间嘛

雅森比海狼还重？不可思议啊，海狼的大体积可是被那套复杂的自然循环系统给逼出来的啊，
哪位大大能证明下这是真的么？

天朝的还不能和他们比
二代堆的水平至少不会亚于OK-650吧？

无知，说的都是那些都不懂技术的

我还以为有什么干货呢，，全是私货。。。

确实老了不行了，靠的是以前的经验和底子了
苏联一开始走电子管的路子真是贻害万年啊

hw2clchip 发表于 2012-10-3 10:41
我还以为有什么干货呢，，全是私货。。。
[:a6:]新来的 木有干货 抛砖引玉

就以鱼雷 来说  文中说“击沉库尔斯克号的53-65鱼雷” 明明是65-76型鱼雷。  65型鱼雷是个大家族，种类很多，看起来作者就没搞清楚毛子看重的那一型。
另外 作者对毛子鱼雷的了解似乎仅限于65 MK48， 俄罗斯重型鱼雷种类繁多 ，如UGST 鱼雷 TEST/SET 系列鱼雷等等，而美帝的鱼雷光MK48 就至少有7个型号。 如此比较，太过于笼统，看不出来什么东西。

下面一段“新式鱼雷遥遥无期” 更是荒谬之极，70年代末期毛子装备的TEST-71M的制导方式就是线导+主被动声导。文章居然说什么线导 都是遥不可及。。。真是黑出翔了。。

gykgb3399 发表于 2012-10-3 10:59
新来的 木有干货 抛砖引玉

就以鱼雷 来说  文中说“击沉库尔斯克号的53-65鱼雷” 明明是65-76型鱼雷。  65型鱼雷是个大家族，种类很多，看起来作者就没搞清楚毛子看重的那一型。
另外 作者对毛子鱼雷的了解似乎仅限于65 MK48， 俄罗斯重型鱼雷种类繁多 ，如UGST 鱼雷 TEST/SET 系列鱼雷等等，而美帝的鱼雷光MK48 就至少有7个型号。 如此比较，太过于笼统，看不出来什么东西。

下面一段“新式鱼雷遥遥无期” 更是荒谬之极，70年代末期毛子装备的TEST-71M的制导方式就是线导+主被动声导。文章居然说什么线导 都是遥不可及。。。真是黑出翔了。。

该型反应堆热功率190MW，可提供轴功率38.2MW（52000马力），堆芯高度只有1000毫米，可以25年不更换燃料。一回路压力16.5MPA，二回路过热蒸汽温度290℃、压力4.0MPA。其功率密度与S6W接近，但是S6W是采用93%浓度的核燃料才实现的高功率密度，而OK-650的核燃料密度只有6%，这就可以知道其需要付出相当的代价才能实现这样的功率密度。

纯属扯淡。

93%的核燃料啊，可以做原子弹了吧？估计是点错了小数点，9.3%还差不多。

美国核能潜艇的燃料密度就是用这么高的highly enriched uranium (HEU)，然后这几年越来越注重整个寿期生涯都不要花钱换燃料，不知道浓度会不会进一步提高：

Prospects for Conversion of U.S. Naval Propulsion Reactors

http://www.heuphaseout.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Ward.pdf

Today the United States has the world’s largest nuclear-powered fleet
with 84 submarines and aircraft carriers, all of which use highly enriched uranium (HEU)
fuel, which Frank von Hippel estimates requires the use of approximately 2 tons of HEU
per year.2

................

Because of the much higher fissile material content in HEU sub fuel (>93%
235U versus 20% 235U in LEU), the achievable power density is much greater than with
LEU fuel.

This allows for the production of more power than an LEU core of equal
volume, or the same power with a smaller core volume (compactness). The higher fissile
material content also means the core can continue to produce power for longer periods of
time without refueling (as compared to an LEU core comparable in size), which has
allowed the U.S. Navy to develop lifetime cores.

但是最有意思的是这篇paper的主旨却是研究美国海军转换成低浓度核燃料（LEU）的可能性，依照文中叙述，
制造高浓度核燃料就会衍生是否挪用到核武这种问题...{:soso_e120:}  所以才有以下文字：

As mentioned earlier, conversion to
LEU without significant fuel improvements would nominally require either an increase in
core volume or more frequent refueling to compensate for the reduction in fissile material
content.


HEU was chosen
for this application because of its ability to produce a large amount of power in a small
volume, making it ideal for space-constrained naval reactor applications. However, its
properties also make it an attractive target for both state and non-state actors wishing to
develop a crude nuclear weapon. This paper explores the technical and political prospects
of converting the United States’ naval reactor fleet from HEU to low-enriched uranium
(LEU) in light of the French Navy’s progress on conversion.

还拿法国海军当作用LEU燃料的借镜

The French naval fleet
historically used HEU-fueled reactors, but currently operates all LEU-fueled reactors.
The topic of naval reactor conversion is of particular interest because it represents
a military instance of an otherwise civilian problem. As such, the issue must be examined
with attention to different priorities and faces greater obstacles than the largely successful
conversion of critical research reactors. Like other uses of HEU, naval reactors present a
case where the behavior of the United States may have an appreciable influence over
other nations. Three non-nuclear weapons states that currently do not possess nuclear
submarines have expressed serious interest in the development of a nuclear-powered
submarine fleet, and two of these nations, India and Brazil, have decided to pursue
development. The decision of these two nations as to whether to use LEU or HEU could
be heavily influenced by the United States’ use of HEU.（这种观点恐怕是以道德居多而不是技术）
The use of HEU for naval propulsion also has implications for drafting and eventually
implementing the terms of aproposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).

This paper highlights the views of the United States Navy on conversion
prospects and provides lessons learned from the French conversion case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors

U.S. Naval reactors are pressurized water reactors, which differ from commercial reactors producing electricity in that:

    they have a high power density in a small volume and run either on low-enriched uranium (as do some French and Chinese submarines) or on highly enriched uranium (>20% U-235, current U.S. submarines use fuel enriched to at least 93%,[3] compared to between 21–45% in current Russian models, although Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker reactors are enriched up to 90%)

superdirex 发表于 2012-10-3 13:08
该型反应堆热功率190MW，可提供轴功率38.2MW（52000马力），堆芯高度只有1000毫米，可以25年不更换燃料。一 ...

美国核能潜艇的燃料密度就是用这么高的highly enriched uranium (HEU)，然后这几年越来越注重整个寿期生涯都不要花钱换燃料，不知道浓度会不会进一步提高：

Prospects for Conversion of U.S. Naval Propulsion Reactors

http://www.heuphaseout.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Ward.pdf

Today the United States has the world’s largest nuclear-powered fleet
with 84 submarines and aircraft carriers, all of which use highly enriched uranium (HEU)
fuel, which Frank von Hippel estimates requires the use of approximately 2 tons of HEU
per year.2

................

Because of the much higher fissile material content in HEU sub fuel (>93%
235U versus 20% 235U in LEU), the achievable power density is much greater than with
LEU fuel.

This allows for the production of more power than an LEU core of equal
volume, or the same power with a smaller core volume (compactness). The higher fissile
material content also means the core can continue to produce power for longer periods of
time without refueling (as compared to an LEU core comparable in size), which has
allowed the U.S. Navy to develop lifetime cores.

但是最有意思的是这篇paper的主旨却是研究美国海军转换成低浓度核燃料（LEU）的可能性，依照文中叙述，
制造高浓度核燃料就会衍生是否挪用到核武这种问题...{:soso_e120:}  所以才有以下文字：

As mentioned earlier, conversion to
LEU without significant fuel improvements would nominally require either an increase in
core volume or more frequent refueling to compensate for the reduction in fissile material
content.


HEU was chosen
for this application because of its ability to produce a large amount of power in a small
volume, making it ideal for space-constrained naval reactor applications. However, its
properties also make it an attractive target for both state and non-state actors wishing to
develop a crude nuclear weapon. This paper explores the technical and political prospects
of converting the United States’ naval reactor fleet from HEU to low-enriched uranium
(LEU) in light of the French Navy’s progress on conversion.

还拿法国海军当作用LEU燃料的借镜

The French naval fleet
historically used HEU-fueled reactors, but currently operates all LEU-fueled reactors.
The topic of naval reactor conversion is of particular interest because it represents
a military instance of an otherwise civilian problem. As such, the issue must be examined
with attention to different priorities and faces greater obstacles than the largely successful
conversion of critical research reactors. Like other uses of HEU, naval reactors present a
case where the behavior of the United States may have an appreciable influence over
other nations. Three non-nuclear weapons states that currently do not possess nuclear
submarines have expressed serious interest in the development of a nuclear-powered
submarine fleet, and two of these nations, India and Brazil, have decided to pursue
development. The decision of these two nations as to whether to use LEU or HEU could
be heavily influenced by the United States’ use of HEU.（这种观点恐怕是以道德居多而不是技术）
The use of HEU for naval propulsion also has implications for drafting and eventually
implementing the terms of aproposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).

This paper highlights the views of the United States Navy on conversion
prospects and provides lessons learned from the French conversion case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors

U.S. Naval reactors are pressurized water reactors, which differ from commercial reactors producing electricity in that:

    they have a high power density in a small volume and run either on low-enriched uranium (as do some French and Chinese submarines) or on highly enriched uranium (>20% U-235, current U.S. submarines use fuel enriched to at least 93%,[3] compared to between 21–45% in current Russian models, although Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker reactors are enriched up to 90%)

真不懂 你懂俄潜艇啊

美国海军第一次在海中监听观察Akula II时就认为它比688-I（当时美国最安静的SSN，几年后海狼才服役）还安静一些。

但是俄罗斯这二十年大断层流失的技术与人才会影响潜艇的施工品质，这些都可能导致折腾太久的第一艘Project 885噪音超标。

看到氧气动力鱼雷就觉得这人纯扯淡的。我基本上是BKC派的，但是看这种东西拍屁股走人拉倒。

superdirex 发表于 2012-10-3 16:25
嘿嘿，这个东西别对咱科普，咱就干这个的。
93%的浓缩铀除了用于核武器装料，还用于研究堆和工程堆等对中 ...
反正美国海军的所有核动力船舰一向都用HEU，如果要改，兹事体大；美国海军将来希望尽量避免核动力船舰服役寿期的再装填工程，那个也很烧钱又减少船舰实际在海上的值勤时间。如果要改用LEU，避免增加再装填的唯一办法大概就是多带些燃料。目前没听说美国海军以后想改用LEU，这目前还是非主流意见。

动力上亚森和T50还蛮像的，都是三代动力的伪四代呐

我承认我邪恶的看成了《苍老师的少年》

无知者无畏。。。

图挂了，LZ

毛子已死有事烧纸

zhaishengmao 发表于 2012-10-3 09:36
不知道与天朝的核潜艇比怎么样？
差远了，天壤之别——人家在天上，咱们在地下。

superdirex 发表于 2012-10-3 18:58
唉，再说一次好了，美国海军舰艇反应堆不是用93%武器级铀做燃料，其核燃料浓缩度不过30%左右；
以核潜 ...
那我也再说一次好了，您根本没有看我引用的资料，美国海军核能舰艇就是用浓度这么高的HEU燃料，您可以自己去查证国外资料，这是长久以来众所周知的事情。当然，也只有美国海军这么干，俄罗斯、法国、中国等其他操作核能舰艇的国家的确都用LEU。您或许在中国核能工业工作，但请不要把本国业界的经验与知识套用在别人身上，美国情况不一样。

bikaqu10 发表于 2012-10-3 18:01
我承认我邪恶的看成了《苍老师的少年》
我晕，我也看成苍老师的少年！:D

jin4jin5jin6 发表于 2012-10-3 09:54
雅森比海狼还重？不可思议啊，海狼的大体积可是被那套复杂的自然循环系统给逼出来的啊，
哪位大大能证明下 ...
971排水量就上万吨了

这是站在美国的高度上来看俄罗斯的核潜艇，文章里面也有很多学术争议，楼主是比较反对苏式思想的一派，苏联在整体实力差于美国的情况下转换思路强调特点也是必然。至于中国几年内还不会有比阿库拉更好的核潜艇，更别说是885了，二代堆的水平恐怕也未必能比650好

juju4107 发表于 2012-10-3 09:31
私货不少啊→_→
你就知道喷

好文章，该说的，基本都说了，其实鹅毛也意识到了，所以885只建一艘，然后升级成885M，问题是现在连885都搞不定，问题一堆，海试一拖再拖

看成《苍老师的少年》的一律拖出去斩了

zqyuan 发表于 2012-10-3 21:25
好文章，该说的，基本都说了，其实鹅毛也意识到了，所以885只建一艘，然后升级成885M，问题是现在连885都搞 ...
就是885M也没有确切消息换新一代反应堆。至于泵喷则已经没戏。

那就很遗憾，您选择用您过去对自身系统的经验以及若干印象中的片段数据（美国商业核能电站也不会用HEU，您认为他们的体系是同一套？）来否定世界上的事实且不愿意查证，个人也没有意见。我可以贴更多资料但也没意义了，这跟要证明太阳从东边出来一样没意义。事实不会因此而改变，美国海军核子动力船舰用了几十年的HEU，人家很早有更硬的技术成熟驾驭，也不吝惜耗费更多的成本。当然也以找到很多杂音，认为英美不该继续用这种与核武级接近的核燃料。

倒是一个小地方需要修正，接受老美技术转移的英国核子潜艇部队也用HEU，所以HEU不全然是美国海军独家；现在两国同时间要开发新一代SSBN还考虑技术与核子燃料共通呢！

superdirex 发表于 2012-10-3 19:31
这些东西咱不用看，老美的核燃料生产情况咱心中有数。
同样的铀235总量的情况下，别觉得用93%的武器级铀 ...

那就很遗憾，您选择用您过去对自身系统的经验以及若干印象中的片段数据（美国商业核能电站也不会用HEU，您认为他们的体系是同一套？）来否定世界上的事实且不愿意查证，个人也没有意见。我可以贴更多资料但也没意义了，这跟要证明太阳从东边出来一样没意义。事实不会因此而改变，美国海军核子动力船舰用了几十年的HEU，人家很早有更硬的技术成熟驾驭，也不吝惜耗费更多的成本。当然也以找到很多杂音，认为英美不该继续用这种与核武级接近的核燃料。

倒是一个小地方需要修正，接受老美技术转移的英国核子潜艇部队也用HEU，所以HEU不全然是美国海军独家；现在两国同时间要开发新一代SSBN还考虑技术与核子燃料共通呢！

涡轮 发表于 2012-10-4 14:22
就是885M也没有确切消息换新一代反应堆。至于泵喷则已经没戏。
但是新的955有喷泵，885如果愿意修改幅度大些也不是不可以上。

看一些资料，885的反应器型号的确没换，但俄罗斯潜艇的公开资料细节不多，也不好太深入追究。

即便俄罗斯采用高规格，实际性能表现和品质也可能被断层20年后大幅衰退的核子动力潜艇制造工业的水平拉低，连拉达号SSK测试都有很多问题，885一开始没遇到麻烦才奇怪。