Russia floats out Arktika icebreaker, set to be world’s largest

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

 

Quote

 

Russia floats out Arktika icebreaker, set to be world’s largest

 

 

Nuclear icebreaker Arktika has been floated out in Russia’s St. Petersburg. The vessel is expected to become the world’s largest in its class when finished.

 

Arktika is the lead ship of the Project 22220 series scheduled to replace nuclear ships of the previous generation. They are going to be not just bigger, but more powerful. Thanks to variable draft, these ships will be capable of sailing open seas and operate in shallow waters of Arctic rivers’ debouchments.

 

Started in November 2013, the project’s estimated worth is 122 billion rubles (about $2 billion). All three ships of the series will be commissioned by Rosatomflot, an integral part of Russia’s Rosatom nuclear energy monopoly.

 

The nuclear-powered giant will be capable of breaking ice fields up to 3 meters thick, making way for LNG carriers delivering Russian gas to Asian customers.

 

The ship was floated off without the deck housing, because the vessel’s “heart,” the double nuclear reactor delivering 60 MWe of power, could not be mounted inside the hull while the ship was on the stocks. The icebreaker will be complete by December 2017.

 

Arktika’s length is 173.3 meters, its beam is 34 meters, and its draft is variable – 8.55/10.5 meters.

 

Her maximum speed is 22 knots, and maximum draft is 33,540 tons. The ship will have endurance of six full months having 75 crewmembers onboard. The icebreaker carries a helicopter for ice reconnaissance and communication purposes.

 

The Baltic Shipyard will be building all three icebreakers of the series, including Siberia (laid down May 26, 2015) and Urals (to be laid down this autumn).

 

Arktika has become the third icebreaker floated out by Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation this (USC) year.

 

On January 3, Arctech Helsinki Shipyard (100 percent USC ownership) rolled out the covered berth diesel-electric icebreaker Polaris (Project Aker ARC 130), commissioned by Finland’s Transport Agency.

 

Last Friday, the Admiralty Shipyards in St Petersburg floated out the new generation diesel-electric icebreaker Ilya Muromets (Project 21180), commissioned by Russia’s Defense Ministry.

 

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

That is one huge ship.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Nice ship, she will be as tough as the rest of the fleet. This one will be beating Canada's MV-Nanavik, an arctic breaker and nickel carrier, which is longer at 188.8 meters, but 30, 000 tons, 3,000 tons lighter than Arktika.

 

MV Nunavik

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/01/31/a-drone-boost-for-a-canadian-arctic-icebreaker-and-cargo-ship.html

 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Nunavik is an icebreaking bulk carrier, powered by a single seven-cylinder MAN 7S70ME-C low-speed two-stroke crosshead diesel engine which produces 22,100 kW .

 

Arktika is a nuclear-powered icebreaker, equipped with two RITM-200 nuclear reactors, with a thermal capacity of 175 MW each and the propulsion power of 60MW.

 

They are just in different leagues imho   and Arktika is set to de-throne 50 Years of Victory actually.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

There are many designs of ice breakers, but at the end of the day, breaking ice is the required function, and displacement does this. Horsepower enables this to be done much faster, but the ice thickness is done with displacement. Less horsepower can be used with hull design and viscous assist system, as well as the deflection of broken ice. This is the tortoise and the hare analogy. High horsepower breakers get the job done much faster, but in the case of the MV-Nunavik, it takes a heck of a lot longer but can crush ice to the depth that  a 30,000 ton displacement can achieve.

 

Large nuclear powered, single function breakers are by far, the fastest, but only break what there displacement allows. Looks can be deceiving.

 

We can agree to disagree, but the Arktika will be the largest and probably faster than "50 Let", but in displacement, until this is in operation, the MV-Nunavik has the larger displacement.  

[flyingskippy]

Russia's fleet of ice breakers dominates that of the Coast Guard and Navy.  CG is down to two operational that uses cannibalized parts from a non operational third. Congress can't agree to fund a new fleet. Sad cause the Artic is going to see a big economic  boom. With the ice melting it opens up shipping routes and access to huge natural resources. 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Russia does have a formidable breaker fleet, but we get by with non nuclear, and ours are slow as molasses, but get the job done with displacement.

Our Polar 8 project got cancelled, and now we are going for a fleet of smaller ones. 

 

If we get in a bind, we'll have to call for help now as the MV-Nanavik is a commercial breaker/hauler. 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

20 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

There are many designs of ice breakers, but at the end of the day, breaking ice is the required function, 

Exactly. So Nunavik can break the ice 1.5 m thick vs 4+ m of the Arktika-class icebreaker  

 

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

3 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

Exactly. So Nunavik can break the ice 1.5 m thick vs 4+ m of the Arktika-class icebreaker  

 

 

As per it's intended safety margin ( it is also a carrier ), but if they put the 30,000 tons on the ice, it breaks what 30,000 tons of any breaker breaks.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Quote

and displacement does this.

 

It's more complicated than that, but it's pure physics. First, you need to generate a force in order for the displacement to occur (the thicker the ice, the greater the force required). Incidentally, the faster you go, the more force you generate and are able to break through a thicker ice. A nuclear reactor enables an icebreaker to break through a thicker ice while going at a higher speed.

 

And... 

 

Quote

Arktika also has an Air Bubbling System (ABS) which delivers 24 m3/s of steam from jets 9 m (29.5 ft) below the surface to further aid in the breakup of ice.

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Just now, Mirumir said:

 

It's more complicated than that, but it's pure physics. First, you need to generate a force in order for the displacement to occur (the thicker the ice, the greater the force required). Incidentally, the faster you go, the more force you generate and are able to break through a thicker ice. A nuclear reactor enables an icebreaker to break through a thicker ice while going at a higher speed.

 

And... 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I do know the physics involved. More horsepower allows a sustained push ON to the ice, and continuous, where as lower horsepower units have to use a run up with mass, much more wear and tear...end of the day...displacement breaks ice. The bubblers reduce friction allowing less horsepower/inertia to get on the ice.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Just now, Draggendrop said:

Yes, I do know the physics involved. More horsepower allows a sustained push ON to the ice, and continuous, where as lower horsepower units have to use a run up with mass, much more wear and tear...end of the day...displacement breaks ice. The bubblers reduce friction allowing less horsepower/inertia to get on the ice.

Yes, so the added bonus of having a nuclear reactor is that you need to spend less energy if you want to turn water into steam since water is already used in the cooling process of the reactors  

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Don't get me wrong, the Russian fleet are the leaders, bar none.  Here we are just going over semantics, ours is a dual purpose out of necessity, not a pure breaker....let a Canadian have some fun eh!   

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

1 minute ago, Draggendrop said:

Don't get me wrong, the Russian fleet are the leaders, bar none.  Here we are just going over semantics, ours is a dual purpose out of necessity, not a pure breaker....let a Canadian have some fun eh!   

Don't get me wrong either

 

And have you heard about the floating nuclear power plant?  

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Just now, Mirumir said:

Don't get me wrong either

 

And have you heard about the floating nuclear power plant?  

Yes I have and that was neat...so many uses for large sources of emergency power, in a mobile platform.