I first thought the thumbnail was a mistake because it looked like an Oscar and I was expecting a sub looking as streamlined as an Alfa. It achieved its speed by horsepower, like a 1970's muscle car.
Lead Bismuth alloys typically melt slightly above 212ºF or 100ºC , some can actually melt below if they have Antimony, but their boiling point is 1600ºC or 3000ºF (roughly) while superheated steam is in the realm of 300ºC and at high pressure. A low pressure circuit is safer and the lead Bismuth mix is not as corrosive as superheated pressurized water.
@@ScottKenny1978 You´re thinking the mix goes solid in the pipes, right? But what if you do a pipe in a pipe, with the lead/bismuth mix in the inner pipe, and water steam in the outer? You maintain the mix in liquid state, regardless of reactor temp. You just need one working reactor to keep the steam running. I suppose you could use one reactor to restart the other, after a shutdown. Alternatively, you can just have resistances coiled around the main pipe, and use batteries to melt the mix until the reactor is up to temp. Or induction magnets.
@@Biden_is_demented Pipe in pipe is a great engineering approach to heat exchange. It is thermally efficient and is compact . But you had better be sure of strength of pipe. Especially the inner pipe which is subject to two different substances with different thermal coefficients. In a submarine, subject to many thermal expansion cycles, and possible shock of combat . A depth charge or nearby torpedo detonation jars loose all sorts of components, breaks seals, and amplifies micro cracks. Soviets developed Alfa and one off Papa boats as underwater interceptors and not as patrol boats. Idea was to sortie out, in war, race towards NATO carrier groups, fire off their cruise missiles and torpedo warshots, then run for sanctuary . If Alfa was Mig-25 of boats , then Papa was YF-12 Oxcart, or at least a MIG-31.
Playing a Papa class in Cold Waters is one of the funnest things ever. Just go full throttle into the enemy, slow down to fire, and then speed up again to outrun the torpedoes coming at you. You can just YOLO around the naval group and pick them off without worrying about return fire.
Regardless of what he's saying on this PAPA report, it wasn't deployed at all after it's first deployment. It had all kinds of reactor problems and NATO boats could track it greater than 200K miles it was so noisy. My boat go closer than any other boat in PAPA's history. It was easier to trail than a type 1 Nuc (Hotel, Echo, November classes)
When I've hunted a Papa before (in my Trafalgar) and found the best technique was to slid close behind then dispatch with a pair or Tigerfish unseen/unheard.
11:32 To put the 80K HP that this 7K ton sub produces into further perspective, a 100K ton Nimitz class carrier produces a total of 400K shaft HP total. That's frickin crazy!
Where did you come up with that number? Nimitz Class CVNs produce 280,000 hp. The earlier ones originally made about 260,000 hp when built, but were uprated later in life. By the way I am a Ex Navy Nuke Machinist Mate.
@@scottcole7282 Well, you may be right about that. I could have sworn it was 100K per shaft, but I could be wrong. Ex Nuke ET with long hours on number 1 shaft of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, back when she was ported in Norfolk.
Once you have finished using a reactor, the safest way to dismantle it is to de-fuel it then leave it somewhere for thirty years, after that time 90% of the radioactive by-products have decayed away and it is much easier to work on.
@@robert48044 no, it carried the ssn 9, same missile as the Charlie 2 ssgn. I was taught during training that it was a test bed for the Oscar class. It uses the new stern technology the double Hogner stern found on the Oscar.
Used lead -bismuth eutectic ,LBE, is liquid at 255 degrees F, 123 degrees C, and as lead expands when heating, bismuth contracts, so the volume stays almost the same in use. It is ideal for cooling reactors, but must be kept hot all the time to keep it flowing, thus needing constant regulating of the whole nuclear system. It is also heavier than water as a system even though the volume can be kept smaller.
I wonder if this sub model had any affect on attaching subs to carrier battle groups. If this boat is stalking cbgs, it can’t exceed the speed of the groups. Which essentially negates its speed advantage until launches. But if you were tracking it, as long as you keep the sub on the inside perimeter and an asw craft outside, it realistically couldn’t outrun a solid coordinated launch plan. Which at that point, there’s really no purpose for radio silence.
Couple of questions on this sub. Is the ratio of officers to enlisted possibly due to the technical demands to maintain the sub? A more highly trained officer would be required to maintain the various systems that the usual enlisted or conscript might be capable of? Second, the twin screws turn in what to my eyes appears to be in two different directions. Assuming that this is done to prevent torque from spinning the entire boat in one direction, much like rotary engines in WWI fighters. Would this also create more water disturbance and create more noise at speed? Is the noisy nature of the Papa due to this or must the noise of the power plant and water flowing across her hull?
The officers on American nuclear submarines looked but never touched the equipment we always had a guy who was an expert on any system we had manuals on everything I understand the newer boats have the manuals stored electronically; I hope you can take an iPad to the work site
If I remember correctly all Russian subs already had a high ratio to begin with. A lot of that being that most of their enlisted men were conscripts & much of the technical stuff required years of training. Lots of warrant officers as well I believe.
Yes props were anti torque in effect, russian reactors during the cold war were generally a lot more noisy especially on the earlier models. The russian doctrine of instead of fixing it to try and equal NATO forces was numbers. A lot of Russian subs were mechanical drive as opposed to turning an electrical turbine to charge batteries to turn an electrical motor.
I think you meant on ww2 dual engine fighters. Ww1 Rotary engines even out the power pulses by rotating the crankshaft with the propeller. This makes ww1 planes like the Sopwith Camel has so much torque that it cannot bank quickly at some directions.
Where the heck did you hear this? Seriously I gotta say this is new one for me. I thought I had heard every single made up "fact" about Naval ships, but I gotta say this one is a doozy... No, they don't use diesel and JP-5 as shielding.
@@scottcole7282 Well, as a former us Navy nuclear reactor operator, I can assure you that this was the case. As you are probably aware, the proper shielding for gamma radiation is lead or steel. However, to shield neutron radiation you need a bunch of hydrogen atoms. Fossil fuels are long chains of carbon atoms with even more hydrogen atoms. Aircraft carriers used to use jet fuel for this. They have since switched to water, since each molecule has two hydrogen atoms. If you are still confused, look up neutron shielding. If you still think I'm lying, that's really a problem on your end.
@@scottcole7282 you are incorrect, sir. Diesel fuel make a great neutron shield. It's the same reason that they use plastics. Source: I'm a submarine yeoman.
@@sixft7in i wonder why they didn't just use water in the first place? i'm sure that they probably needed more water than diesel for the same amount of shielding, but surrounding a nuclear reactor with flammable fuels sounds like a good way to make an admittedly very unlikely but extremely dangerous situation into an even worse one, because last i checked, jet fuel doesnt mix well with super hot steam and/or nuclear fuel rods. maybe it saved some weight? or gave them extra tanks to store jet fuel in? idk just seems like a strange choice.
You should ask some plankowners from the Skipjack (585) class. They were commissioned with 5 bladed screw. VERY FAST helmsman/stern planes had to pay attention
Wow. No diesel backup. Even aircraft carriers that have two reactors have diesel generators. Most notably for emergency core cooling should there be a primary rupture.
Scram, shut the ones, initial fill and chemically poison the reactor - it's the only way to be sure. Alternately, open the RPCC to set battleshort then shim for Jesus.
I believe you´ve made a mistake in NATO reporting name of P-70 Amethyst. Correct NATO reporting name is SS-N-7 Starbright. SS-N-9 Siren was a follow-up design, launched from Charlie-II class subs.
Quick suggestion. Try using a high-pass filter at about 140 Hz on your voice track...you're slightly popping your "p"s from time to time. Great episode!
The twin drive-shafts and counter acting propellers acting in the hi speeds with that tail design would have ripped the center frame apart as they were just adding to the centrifugal and natural forces of energy, by its design; they were working against each other with the size of their paddles. it would have ripped that tail apart. the size of the shaft and blades, if modified, would not have changed it's residual affects. like ripping a double stick popsicle. the power-cell itself would have drove those propellers so hard, the blades would have bent over like heated spoons because of the force of water against the flat surface. adding to the decreased performance of the propellers, adding to the imbalance of the shafts, etc. etc. the gears and bearings would have driven the guides right out of her.
Pipe in a Pipe makes no sense for a Nuclear Rx. Never heard of a single Rx that did not employ Steam Generators (SG). A steam generator has 4 main taps 2, for the primary (in and out) and 2 for the secondary, (feed water in and main steam out). If they used "Pipe in Pipe" they would hundreds of additional possible primary leak points. Also how would you control feed water level in hundreds of individual linear boilers? The whole idea makes no sense at all. Ex Navy Nuke Machinist Mate and Commercial Nuke QC inspector.
The problem with a noisy boat is your detection capability suffers significantly. Then there is the speed aspect diminishing your hearing capacity even more.
How are things over there, Captain Turkey? I still miss your old Cold Waters gameplay videos prior to creating the new Only Subs channel. After watching several Soviet/Russian sub videos, a thought came into my mind. Perhaps the single biggest headache for anyone aspiring to own nuke-powered subs is the disposal of decommissioned boats which means the actual cost of the life cycle of a nuke boat is much higher than its listed price. Furthermore, there is an overall decline in the world's fertility rates, meaning worsening labor shortage might get in the way even if a country sets aside a budget large enough to scrap its decommissioned nuke boats, thus making the scrapping process to drag on for even longer. This slow process is most clearly seen from today's Russian ship and scrapyards, but I would not be surprised if Western powers ends up experiencing something the Russians are already familiar with.
She did not need stealth. She could just run away. I imagine at 100% she coul do 47 knots sustained. With 110% emergency flank, perhaps she could break 50 knots. Thats underwater equivalent of Mach 2.5-2.8.
@@SovietWarryor That is true. But unless she could dive below 3000 feet, US torps of the time could get her, becouse they would be launched from multiple vectors. Real world anti submarine warfare is not sub vs. sub. Its sub and plane and helicopter and surface vs. threat submarine. Papa, Mike, Alfa is why US developed MK.48 torpedo that could swim faster then Russian subs, and dive just as deep. When huge double hull Russian boats acame about, Typhhon, Delta III/IV, Oscars, and Akulas us updated MK48 to MK48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability) giving the torpedo speed above 50 knots (unclassified, real speed who knows but it was deemed enpugh). US also field MK54 lightweight torpedo dropable from helicopter (SH-60 Seahawk LAMPS) , P-3 Orion (replaced by P-8), S-3 Viking. Americans always respected, not neccessarily feared, but respected Russian submarine force. Deep diving ability only counts if the sea bottom is well below the test depth of the boat.
Were the reactors geared cross-shaft, or were they straight drives? I’d assume each reactor could run both shafts, but those designers from the 50’s and 60’s made some . . . interesting choices from time-to-time.
hydro-forming titanium ain't everyone's cup of tea . . . you need very special tooling when working with marine grade titanium . . . revised template structures for build reference, modified scaffolding & a whole lot of other things . . . but most importantly you need the know how, what to do & how . . . the 10 year build timeline with current technology can be done in less than 3 years . . .
It was an advanced idea, but the Soviet technology just wasn't up to the task of long-term reliability of these types of subs. If I remember, the ultra-fast Afla class subs weren't paragons of reliability, either.
@@jhdsfalsjhdfjashdkhvjfldld8301 Alfas come off as a naval interceptor vessel. Not really useful for anyone but say china and their niche south-sea Geo-political situation which is more of a close quarters knife fight in a broom closet.
Wrong! The problem with steam in a primary loop is steam has a lower heat transfer coefficient. The Rx will maintain the same heat transfer rate too cool itself. This being true cause centerline fuel temperature to skyrocket and due to delta temperature to maintain the rate, eventually going beyond fuel melting temperature... ie meltdown.
Hey im confused on how a lighter vessel is faster when its neutrally boyant. I can see it faster to get to speed but don't get it changing top speed significantly. Can u explain?
I'd have loved to see the USN build their own version of the Papa. With the whole one-upping each other thing going on I'm a just little surprised they didn't. Though proposals were probably drawn up.
We didn't want Greenpeace demanding we give the whales hearing protection from all the cavitation noise those spinning props would create. Deaf whales bad. Quiet submarines good If the Papa hadn't been a one off we probably would have had to develop technology to defeat high speed underwater threats. That and the titanium gap already mentioned would have been tough.
Several years ago, I was able to obtain samples of two Lead-Bismuth alloys from Russia. The quality was very good and both alloys melted in boiling water. Interesting stuff.
Alfa could achieve a burst speed of 43-45 knots and 41-42 knots for longer ranges. Papa set an unofficial speed record of 44.85 knots in 1971. What differs between the two is the sheer size. The Alfa has a displacement of 3200 tons and the Papa 7100 tons.
Why build only one? For Soviets, taking a decade to build a single unit, is not sustainable. Its like developing and bying a one-off hyper-exotic car. Dev costs, operating costs, training costs, and maintenance costs for a fleet of few expensive boat class is not Soviet.
@@mikecyanide7492 hahaha no. Not at all. It's just that some other RU-vidrs have manned up and apologized for being bamboozled. This guy should have some integrity and admit he was fooled too. Unless he's just all about the money. Which at this point he hasn't proved that incorrect.
@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 sounds like a cop out. Don't make excuses. Hopefully he will show some integrity. We shall see. I don't care about any of your opinions. Just mine. So go f*** yourself
