A few days ago, we published an article concerning the information, widely relayed by the Western press, about the sinking of the brand new Chinese nuclear attack submarine, identified as the Zhou class.
In this article, we pointed out the various inconsistencies surrounding these statements, and therefore invite our readers to take them with great reservations. We now know more, not about this supposed shipwreck, which is still unclear, but about this new class of nuclear submarines, baptized Zhou class by the Western classification.
And as we anticipated, this information contradicts many elements of the version initially released about this affair by the Wall Street Journal, citing sources at the Pentagon who wished to remain anonymous.
In this section:
Media frenzy over sinking of China's new nuclear-powered Zhou-class submarine at dock
A quick reminder of the facts. On September 26, the Wall Street Journal published an article announcing that the brand new class of Chinese nuclear attack submarines, dubbed the Zhou class by Western nomenclature, had sunk at dock on the Yangtze River.
According to the article, this was a major setback for the Chinese Navy, which would see its industrial procedures, its training efforts, and therefore its ambitions, called into question by this major incident. The WSJ relied on revelations from sources within the Pentagon, but who wished to remain anonymous.
The information, and its conclusions, quickly made the rounds of the planet and the media, which took up both fully, without the slightest reservation. However, as explored in our article the following day, September 27, many of these assertions were either questionable or insufficiently documented to be taken without reservation.
Thus, the photos first showed a new model of submarine at the dock, then barges surrounding this space, interpreted as a mission to refloat the ship that had been shipwrecked at the dock, came from the Wuchang shipyard, on the Yangtze. Although it does build conventionally powered submarines, notably the Type 039A Yuan class of the Chinese Navy, and their export version intended, in particular, for Pakistan, this shipyard has never participated in the design of nuclear-powered submarines.
Furthermore, the extrapolated dimensions of the shots, concerning This new submarine equipped with a St. Andrew's cross, which has also been identified for several months, did not match those of the Chinese SSN (nuclear attack submarine).
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
Christmas promotion : 15% discount on Premium and Classic subscriptions annual with the code MetaXmas2024, from 11/12 to 27/12 only.
Classes available every day from Nine AM to Twelve midday.
If I understand correctly, this is not a "boiler room" i.e. a steam generator supplying a turbo generator or a turbine. If I understand correctly, this is a hot water heating battery, probably under pressure, to heat the Stirling gas.
The power will not be much different from the classic Stirling (gas flight and temperature) but with immense endurance
Is this complexity (before and after in particular) justified? What about the volume and mass (movement of tubes or plates, fuel, secondary circuit and thick forged enclosure a priori?
I have questions and I have no answers.
Theoretically, this seems to be a valid idea. Now, let's see in practice. That said, the progress made in mini-reactors seems to go rather in the accreditation of the model.
It is an attractive concept indeed because we are dealing with a water heater with a very compact core and without high pressure (a few bars)
Operating at constant speed, a Stirling can recharge the batteries continuously without time limit.
That said, if we look at the Fr Calogéno project from SMR for urban heating, there is an underground swimming pool and a lot of concrete around it. It is integrated into the upstream and downstream fuel cycles.
Finally, a Stirling engine, whatever the external energy source, has a very low power/volume ratio (basic thermodynamics) and once the batteries are used/discharged, that is what will remain as power sooner or later.
Somewhere between an SNA and a diesel/Li SM is the game worth the candle?
This is a question we don't know the answer to.