PDA

View Full Version : What was the alfa really like?


SquidB
08-24-05, 12:10 PM
Hi,

Im reading Rising Tide by Dr Gary E. Weir and Walter J. Boyne. It details russian sub ops throughout the cold war.

Anyway heres the thing, I always thought that the akula, dispite its titanniam hull didnt have the massive dive depth it was credited for. Also it was a noisy sod.

Now check this out.

"Occasionally Kolyada would discover a Los Angeles class boat on his tail. They usaually made no secret about their approach, falling in behind him to see how Kolyada would evade. After a short joust, which would frequently bring both submarines disturbingly close to each other, Kolyada would accelerate and go deep. His titanium submarine , capable of diving to 3,000 feet, could ultimatly go where only American sonar or SOSUS could follow. If he slowed to a patrol-quiet six knots or less at great depth, finding him could well prove impossible"

Now the authors seem to have done their research and the book is a recent one (2003)

So is it time we re-evaluated the Alfa?

Amizaur
08-24-05, 01:29 PM
From what I know - in the 80s it was known that Alfa is very fast (42kts) and build with titanium, so everybody assumed that titanium hull means very deep diving sub (like the Mike class). And this belief had it's impact on both western weapons design (increased depth for ADCAP and fast deep diving Mk50) and novels written in this time and early 90s.
Now when the secrecy is lower and it's known much more about details of cold-war designed weapons (and about m most new designs too) it was revealed that titanium was used for mass saving, not deep diving, and Alfa was very fast but not especially deep-divin (IIRC 300m operational depth). It was supposed to evade enemy subs and weapons by speed alone.
The ultimate deep diving design was the Mike class (Konsomolec), which was lost in an accident and no more were build. IIRC again, it's (Mike)design had influence on later Sierra boats with not 3000ft but still quite good dive depth. And the more conventional Akula class is quite deep-diving too, again no 1000m but about 600 is better than most western designs. I had info about 520m operational depth for Akula, but Kapitan says he knows for sure that it can go to over 600m.
And one more thing - the Akula is build not with titanium, but with conventional high-strength steel :-). This means MUCH lower cost and was the reason (among with fact that it had very similar capabilites that expensive titanium hull Sierra) that it was chosen to be primary Russian hunter-killer submarine.

SquidB
08-24-05, 02:05 PM
Yeh thats what i thought, however here we have evidence from a primary source, that the alfa could indeed go to 3000 feet.

So is the above book wrong? Is the russian captian who they interviewed for the story telling us porkies? Or is this new info that the could indeed go as deep as originally thought.?

:hmm:

Bellman
08-24-05, 02:13 PM
;) Should we not naturaly expect some muddying of pools in this area ?

Who really has THE truth ?

SquidB
08-24-05, 02:24 PM
Think your right bellman, Thing is im more inclined to belive a russian source on what the Alfa could do rather than a Nato intelligence prospective. After all, correct me if im wrong but havent the alfas be retired now? (Kapitan?).

Kapitan
08-24-05, 02:25 PM
as it goes alfa can go to 45 knots as stated in the guiness book of records if you care to look

she could dive to 900 meters but only if totaly needed other than that they ussualy didnt go past 500 meters

as reliability goes these subs were some of the worst many sufferd reactor damage called golden fish by the crew

all were laid up by 1980's only one K123 saw service into 1995 and was retired

SquidB
08-24-05, 02:32 PM
So for the record then, 900m = approx 3000ft. If that was their crush depth then the surely could hang around at say 800m without any ill effects?

I understand the reators were awful (liquid metal cooled?) and this plus the massive cost of producing them lead to the early retirement of the class..

As for the speed i never doubted that, just had always read the depth at what these things were supposed to operate at was a myth created on the whole by Clancey and bad intelligence.

Now it seems that they were right all along....or am i missing something?

Kapitan
08-24-05, 02:39 PM
yep sure was right intel doesnt allways stand up

fas.org and other sites dont always give the right info

PeriscopeDepth
08-24-05, 03:04 PM
What's your source Kapitain?

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:07 PM
The OK-550/BM-40A (types 705/705K) reactor was a liquid metal reactor that suffered from the same problem that all reactors of this type have. That is, the metal cools at the far end of the loop, restricting and eventually eliminating flow of coolant.

Also, the small crew requirements created shortages in repair and maintainance abilities, and required the boats to operate with a level of automation that too far beyond the Soviet technologic capablities of the time.

With a test depth listed at only 400 meters (appox. 1300 ft.), the Alfa could, in fact, not operate at the 600-900 meters that was estimated by the US and British intelligence agencies.

EDIT: Source is Cold War Submarines, The Design and Construction of US and Soviet Submarines by Norman Polmar and K. J. Moore, 2004. Pgs 140-146.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:09 PM
collectivity on all sources based on factual information which does include fas.org and other such sites

also included are people who have served on them yes all two of them :D (i only kno two people who have worked on the al'fa class)

after i collect all the information i asses each individualy under non bias conditions and work out an average

i have sources claiming that the al'fa dives to 500 meters others 800 some even as deep as 3000 meters

its exactly what im doing with my kursk project only the kursk project "big red" is going to take alot longer so far i have spent 4 and a half years on it and im not even half way done

SquidB
08-24-05, 03:10 PM
With a test depth listed at only 400 meters (appox. 1300 ft.), the Alfa could, in fact, not operate at the 600-900 meters that was estimated by the US and British intelligence agencies._________________

Lol the plot thickens, So then whats the russian sub commander on about? Or is this just misinformation?

Whats your souce Takeda? Can anyone back up Kapitian or the book?

Edit..ah didnt see your edit you must of done it as i was writing this.

I also have "cold war submarines" and that it mentioned the vastly shallower depth was no surprise. Strange two well researched books both by american authors should get it wrong (well ones worng at least right?)

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:13 PM
EDIT: Source is Cold War Submarines, The Design and Construction of US and Soviet Submarines by Norman Polmar and K. J. Moore, 2004. Pgs 140-146.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:14 PM
british america french even german all said same

in the early 80's a 688 trailed a al'fa only to loose her due to the fact she out dived and out ran the trailing sub

according to the records

now the 688 dives to 1600 feet yet the al'fa out dived it indicating a depth below 1600 feet which is below 400 meters

NATO has also demed the al'fa vertualy indistructable by lightwieght torpedos but can be destroyed by an ADCAP or tigerfish

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:16 PM
according to a book dedicated to the project 705 and 705k it differs very much it is written in russian so not many will understand but it outlines every part of the al'fa class if i can get to it il post more

PeriscopeDepth
08-24-05, 03:18 PM
british america french even german all said same

in the early 80's a 688 trailed a al'fa only to loose her due to the fact she out dived and out ran the trailing sub

according to the records

now the 688 dives to 1600 feet yet the al'fa out dived it indicating a depth below 1600 feet which is below 400 meters

NATO has also demed the al'fa vertualy indistructable by lightwieght torpedos but can be destroyed by an ADCAP or tigerfish

How does a submarine loose contact by being outdived? And don't say it went through some sound layer. If the 688 was outran by the Alfa the Alfa would have been making a ton of noise.

I personally tend not to believe Russian sources. They have a tendency to exaggerate.

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:20 PM
I also have "cold war submarines" and that it mentioned the vastly shallower depth was no surprise. Strange two well researched books both by american authors should get it wrong (well ones worng at least right?)

The truth, most likely, lies somewhere in between. For every expert stating one 'fact', there is another expert trumping the opposite.

In any case, one could agree that while innovative and initially intimidating, the Alfa was not the most practical of designs.

PeriscopeDepth
08-24-05, 03:22 PM
The truth, most likely, lies somewhere in between. For every expert stating one 'fact', there is another expert trumping the opposite.



Agreed.

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:22 PM
I personally tend not to believe Russian sources. They have a tendency to exaggerate.

Come on. The Soviet Union was a common man's paradise.

SquidB
08-24-05, 03:22 PM
I just consulted "submarines of the cold war" it cites the source of the alfa reduced depth as

"The A-class SSN is the worlds deepest diving (with a estimated and probably deepest diving depth of 640 meters") source: Director of Central Intelligence, Soviet Naval Strategy and Programs Through the 1990's (NIE 11-15-82D, March 1983), pg 25

Seems an old source...

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:22 PM
no they dive down deep go fast for a long time try 12 maybe even 14 hours then run slow turn around do some monovers and head back on course

the sound layer or thermocline wont make much diffrence and the 688 could pick the al'fa up real easy its a noisey bugger the objective for the soviets attack subs were to out run american subs so they could keep out of firing range hence the fact of the high speed research

and the bloke who writ the book if im correct is brtish and its only written in russian unless it one of my other three books i go see

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:26 PM
no they dive down deep go fast for a long time try 12 maybe even 14 hours then run slow turn around do some monovers and head back on course

the sound layer or thermocline wont make much diffrence and the 688 could pick the al'fa up real easy its a noisey bugger the objective for the soviets attack subs were to out run american subs so they could keep out of firing range hence the fact of the high speed research

and the bloke who writ the book if im correct is brtish and its only written in russian unless it one of my other three books i go see

Where exactly are you getting this from?

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:27 PM
the last time i reviewd any source on the al'fa was when i was playing SC since then little if no work i have done has been on this boat i have been to occupied with the kursk project and other things

i beg of you to give me a few days then i review my sources and statements and i shall come to some conclusion

my estimate is about 700 meters max depth however in my last project on al'fa it was 900 meters but now many more items declassified it makes my work easier i shall review al'fa and november submarine in full as soon as i can

i beg of your patcience

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:29 PM
most stuff comes from forign places including america and britain russia also

i have read about thermoclines and what they can do to hide mask or distort sound

norman polmar is a good guy when it comes to pulling strings with other high ranking officals however some of his sources are not quite what i expect i live up to his reputation but some of his sources are out dated and much more info is now widely avalible in moscow and places like that

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:31 PM
russians use what known to many as SOP standard oparating proceadure as its soviet times the soviet high officals dictate what monovers can or canot be done this is hy the crazy ivan exists no submarineer in theier right mind would want to collide with another sub but its protocall for the russians so its just there

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:33 PM
most stuff comes from forign places including america and britain russia also

i have read about thermoclines and what they can do to hide mask or distort sound

norman polmar is a good guy when it comes to pulling strings with other high ranking officals however some of his sources are not quite what i expect i live up to his reputation but some of his sources are out dated and much more info is now widely avalible in moscow and places like that

Great, so you don't like Mr. Polmar. Whatever. Name your sources.

PeriscopeDepth
08-24-05, 03:33 PM
most stuff comes from forign places including america and britain russia also

i have read about thermoclines and what they can do to hide mask or distort sound

norman polmar is a good guy when it comes to pulling strings with other high ranking officals however some of his sources are not quite what i expect i live up to his reputation but some of his sources are out dated and much more info is now widely avalible in moscow and places like that

You make it sound like you lunch with Polmar every month. Somehow I think I'd give more creedence to Polmar's research than Kapitain's, no offence.

SquidB
08-24-05, 03:37 PM
In order to add fuel to this thread, heres another quote from Rising Tide.

Decades later, in his study in St. Petersburg with a professionally rendered model of his alfa in hand, Kolyada mentioned that as a comander of one of these vessels he could dive very quietly to nearly 3000 feet and accelerate from 6 to 42 knots in two minutes.

and

In an alfa Kolyada and his shipmates could move faster, dive deeper, and do it more silently than almost any other submarine on the planet.

He seems pretty sure now doesnt he?

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:42 PM
as it goes i do like mr polmars research and in fact id like to chat with him and norman friedman about these issues

i have never met mr polmar that is what i wish to do if i may soon

if you prefer norman polmar then you gotta be with me as i credit most of what he does and play along side him most of my sources are also based on sources he uses not only that many sources include the internet many many many many books and diagrammes of the boats and of course talking to people whom have served on them

i have also been to rubin design beureau and looked for myself the unclassified designes (not much to look at realy) but when norman polmar began researching the al'fa it was still heavily classified yet when i started alot was known purely for the fact that the al'fas had been out of service for 15 years and now mostly declassified

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:44 PM
Hmm. Without having read the book, and being unaware of the author(s)' credentials it is hard to comment. I am overdue in the purchase of additional research material, and I think I may pick up this book in the near future.

Not trying to throw a blanket on the discussion. I just have nothing further of substance to counter the claim (as of now, that is). He does seem certian, but all authors seem so.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 03:46 PM
worlds deepest diving millatery submarine project 685 mike or plavnik class SSN she has recorded a depth of 1020 meters and speeds of 35 knots

the worlds fastest millatery submarine according to the guiness world records is the al'fa class which currently holds the speed record for 45 knots

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 03:47 PM
Your source is the Guiness Book of World Records? Good Lord, I've had enough of this conversation.

Enjoy.

SquidB
08-24-05, 03:53 PM
Hmm. Without having read the book, and being unaware of the author(s)' credentials it is hard to comment. I am overdue in the purchase of additional research material, and I think I may pick up this book in the near future.

Not trying to throw a blanket on the discussion. I just have nothing further of substance to counter the claim (as of now, that is). He does seem certian, but all authors seem so.

Yep i agree, I must admit im playing devils advocate here. However if I had to put money or a beer on it Id belive the deep diving alfa.

Get the book, its one of the best ive read, easlily as good as blind mans bluff. Its nice to get another perspective on it all. The authors seem to have done their research well enough and it seems that the majority of their info is based on direct interviews with the captians in question.

As for bias, plenty of the captains slate the down right leathality of other russian designs and cite poor quality control as a albatros around the russian sub surface fleet.

TLAM Strike
08-24-05, 04:17 PM
worlds deepest diving millatery submarine project 685 mike or plavnik class SSN she has recorded a depth of 1020 meters and speeds of 35 knots The USS Dolphin AGSS-555 has a test depth of 920 Meters so its possible they have or could break that record but since the ship is still in service and takes part in secretive research its real max depth is still classified.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 04:29 PM
my source is no way the guiness world records however it is a good read

many reputable online sites suggest this:

FAS (federation of american scientists) states "diving depth 2,000 feet max safe however goes on to say crush depth up to 3,900meters"

arms control fails to give a diving depth
bellona in english also fails to give diving depth

harpoonhq "700 meters"

bellona in russian states "750 meters"

global security follows suite with the same stats as FAS.org

ship.bsu (russian site) states "750 meters"

submarines of the world "400 meters" however does not clarify as a certainty so that is void

project 705K russian states "750 meters"

atomic submarines of the USSR and russia (in russian) states "700 meters"

from these sources all of which reputable and known by nearly every one here i can only but conclude that the al'fas diving depth worked by average is between 700 meters and 750 meters

however it does vary and more research will be done to narrow it down to a more confident figure

my conclusion is this :

i personaly belive al'fa is only capible of 700 meters how ever i have heard some sources claim 900 and some deeper (some russian some american and some british)

my own though is that al'fa is capible of 700 meters and a speed of 45 knots she is noisey small and antiquated and would probly have trouble intercepting todays submarines however her speed and great depth could render some submarines a non firing solution which means cant get a fix quick enough and thus cant fire

Kapitan
08-24-05, 04:30 PM
could well be TLAM 1020 meters isnt ffar off for them but this is a full scale millatery submarine not a research vessel many people say if it cant sink a ship it cant be millatery but im open

TLAM Strike
08-24-05, 04:36 PM
could well be TLAM 1020 meters isnt ffar off for them but this is a full scale millatery submarine not a research vessel many people say if it cant sink a ship it cant be millatery but im open She does have a single torpedo tube, so she could sink one ship... maybe two or three if their skipper is good like me. :yep:

my own though is that al'fa is capible of 700 meters and a speed of 45 knots she is noisey small and antiquated and would probly have trouble intercepting todays submarines however her speed and great depth could render some submarines a non firing solution which means cant get a fix quick enough and thus cant fire However the Alfa is an anti-ship platform, if the subs can't kill it the aircraft will. MPAs and Helos can keep up and drop a box of fish on it when it comes shallow to fire torpedoes (At 700 meters I bet it takes a lot of compressed air to fire).

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 04:37 PM
Now we're getting somewhere.

I am a doctoral candidate (Musicology) which makes me somewhat of a 'professional researcher' (I scour sources and compile information 15 hours a week). This, therefore, makes me somewhat authoritative when I state that in my experience, one printed (book, archive, etc) source is worth ten electronic (internet) sources. Any idot with a computer can post information on the web. This does not make it true.

So, I ask what are your printed sources?

Kapitan
08-24-05, 04:45 PM
sitting in a big red file that is about 700 pages long thats where and also other printed books as you suggest i have enough books to fill a libray (saracstic remark) i have about 60 diffrent books on ships and subs alone some written by just random people some by norman polmar or norman friedman igor kurdin and other people

my files contain at least 300,000 pages all together and thats just on submarines in the russian navy now in me saying that i dont realy go for surface info i excel in subs not ships thats why most of my info on the russian ships is so out

yet i excel at submarines cause submarine have been my life i was bought up learning and listing about them and now my room is jam packed with books files picture print outs kind of gives me the edge when it comes to printed files

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 04:52 PM
Come on. Stop snowballing and name them. I would like to evaluate them for myself.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 04:56 PM
huh name of what ? ive listed names FAS bellona global security russian worrior

if you mean in my printed files your going to have a very very very very long wait i have so many that asking for it in 5 mins is not at all possible however i could give you book names and authors easily

files that i mainly use are taken from the internet and evaluated i lengthen everything and then crop it ie find 5 sources write a review and stuff also then quote everything and then finaly squeese the vital stuff out if thats what your looking for the only way i can do that is if i buy a scanner and that wont be for a while either

i could pass you some info i have on cd rom which may be of use to you however you might want to pm me your email then i can pass you freely

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 04:59 PM
I am not asking you for all of your materials, just the ones with information pertaining to the discussion at hand. It should take significantly less than 5 minutes to give me 3 titles with authors so I can go to Amazon and order them for myself.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 05:10 PM
http://www.armybook.com/summary.html?code=0304006j83

direct link to one of my books i have (it is in russian)

http://www.myarmoury.com/books/item.php?ASIN=1574885944

i also have this one again a direct link however i have lent this one to a friend in spain

nuclear submarines of the soviet and russian navy by captain berezhonoy (1940-2000)

and the above book dont hhave an isbn number but its avalible on the web

PeriscopeDepth
08-24-05, 05:14 PM
Guess I should've taken Russian.

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 05:14 PM
Thank you. I am in the process of ordering the book from the first link.

The book in the second link is the very one that I have been quoting in this discussion.

I need two more. You don't have to get back to me right now, just look through your things.

EDIT: Don't worry, PD. My Russian is reasonable, and my cousin has a master's degree in it. We'll see what it says.

EDIT 2: Initially, it looks like an eastern PR release (like Popular Mechanics special features in the US), but I will reserve judgement until I have read it.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 05:20 PM
okies il find it tomorrow its 2319 here and im off to my bed night

PeriscopeDepth
08-24-05, 05:23 PM
I noticed it has tons of pictures. I have one like that about the F-15E. It's not too good for information, but has some really good pictures.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 05:28 PM
my photo album ?

Takeda Shingen
08-24-05, 05:28 PM
Yep, it seems that the publication is a 'special' of Typhoon, a Russian naval and weapons magazine: http://www.armybook.com/show.html?code=0304006

Hardly considered hard research, but I'll have to wait and see.

Kapitan
08-24-05, 05:33 PM
its quite light about 40 odd pages but its real difficault to get a book dedicated to one type of vessel its normaly russian navy destroyers submarines ectra

mike_espo
08-24-05, 08:12 PM
maybe someday, we'll get the alfa in DW....... :hmm: :o

maybe the patch first :up: :arrgh!:

Amizaur
08-24-05, 08:34 PM
i have sources claiming that the al'fa dives to 500 meters others 800 some even as deep as 3000 meters


Kapitan, if your sources have so great dispersion (from 500 to 3000m) and no single value repeated many times

(edit: few posts later I see there is value of 750m mentioned many times, but what is the real source of that value ? maybe it's one and the same source value cited in different books ? for example, for WWII tank armour and armour penetration data you can find some values that are cited in several very highly credited books, but when you dig deeper you can find that all that books in fact cite ONE AND THE SAME value which is simply WRONG, someone long ago made error measuring thickness or misleaded a digit, and this one "root" wrong SOURCE with measuring/digits order error was used in an old book on which almost all others books were based... and so it goes throught the years... So, the question is not how many sources (books) we have, but how many real independent SOURCES of this information/number were.
In case of WW2 armour - question is not in how many books the number is cited, but how many independent people personally MEASURED this armour and published their OWN data. )

then it seems that their credibility is very low... If you have some people and everybody says other value, then everyone expet one simply... disinforms you (to not say - lay). People like to "colour" their stories, like to say exciting infos... If there is so many versions, then many people lays, and if some of them lays then you can't be sure that ANY of those values is actually true :-(

Don't know the autors of the book mentioned in first post, if they are naval specialists or novelists... if the latter, then maybe they just collected wrong info or missed the recent infos and cited old cold-war knowledge.
The great depth of Alfa was believed by western inteligence in cold-war era, don't know if this belief was result of own technical analyses, soviet propaganda or disinformation, or maybe by analogy or mistaken with titanium Mike. Also the words of submariner... well, I don't know him, as I said people like to "coluor" their stories, or sometimes believe that even now they should not give exact data and continue strategy of disinformation. It turned out many times with other first-hand war stories - that the first-hand info given was just not true... The Alfa didn't had to dive deep to lost the follower - all it had to do would be speed up to 42kts - there were no sub that could follow :-). And that capitan says that it was not only very fast, and diving to 3000ft, but also doing this VERY QUIETLY.
I don't believe that with 60's technology it was possible to have 40+kts and 3000ft diving sub, and now I am to believe that it was great not in 2 but in 3 areas - speed, diving and quietness ? All 3 in one sub ?

From what I remember from my read, the use of titanium was because the mass of steel hull + needed reactor, turbines and transmission was just too great. And this makes sense. Papa class was very fast (the official speed record was beaten by Papa class, not Alfa as Kapitan wrote) but not deep diving. Mike was very deep diving but not exeptionaly fast. Maybe from technical point of view you can't have both in one hull ? (at least with 60-70's technology, maybe today with composities) To pack reactor, turbines and transmission powerfull enaugh to achieve speed of 33-35kts with 688 class, constructors had to... make it's hull thinner and reduce it's diving depth. They simply can't fit within mass limit with usually used steel hull's thickness. If they used titanium, they would probably succeed and 688 would be diving like Thresher or even Seawolf. But still not to 3000ft.
If it was possible to reach both over 40kts and over 2000ft in one hull then why the later expensive titanium Sierra can't do that ? Both "record" classes, Mike and Papa were build with titanium, and both did only records in one category. Mike dived to over 3000ft but it's speed was 31kts. Papa holds speed record of 44.7kts, but had operational depth of 400m and max 550m (what would be that "max" value - safe excursion depth or crush depth ?)
It just makes sense now, when we know that it couldn't do both things, because it would be too heavy. For years constructors all over the world wondered how was it done, and now we know that it wasn't. It was fast but not deep diving. This info is from Russian source I think, I read this few years ago on great Russian webpage with tons of info about Russian submarines. Can't read Russian very well, so used english translation by Babelfish or similar translator. I'll try to find this adress.

That would be here I think: http://www.submarina.ru/sub.php?705

Cheers!

P.S. Maybe there is one more possible explanation - the titanium is more "elastic" than steel, so is it possible that operational or safe depth is much lower than crush depth, the hull would withstand much more than operational depth but with unacceptable hull deformations ? Then accidentally sub could have been much deeper than those 350-400m, but not operationally ? (and - again - if you can run at 42kts, do you really need to dive to 3000ft ? in 60-70s you can outrun any torpedo, wouldn't it be better to spend residue mass for example on more weapons on board than on super-strong hull ? ).

Kapitan
08-25-05, 01:24 AM
i still say its capible of 700 meters as many sources do suggest that both russian and western which makes it kinda un bias
as for speed id say still 45 knots because the fact the al'fa is enterd in the record books at that speed how ever it could be possible the papa is faster

dont need to dive deep and go fast at same time only need one save on other or it be too expencive as the russians found with sierra which dives to 800 meters and speeds of 35 knots

if you can out dive you enamy and any torpedo in the world why go fast ? if you can out run any torpedo why go deep ? i think this is a mix of both in the al'fa 700meters 42-45 knots which makes it more realistic

LuftWolf
08-25-05, 03:32 AM
Based solely on the conversation in this thread, and borrowing Amizaur's logic for use on what I know about technology from that period, I'd say the Alfa made 42 kts @ 400m test, with limited sonar capability that was further reduced by interference from its own noise (this I've heard elsewhere), specifically along the low narrow bands used to detect submarines at any distance. The liquid metal reactor was unreliable and particularly noisy, especially in combination with the titanium hull (this I've heard elsewhere).

I'd imagine the American submariniers could track Alfas for days without being detected and then engage them in excercises when they were ready to break contact, or slip away.

Kapitain, perhaps the reason the Americans weren't subtle about engaging the Alfa's was because they wouldn't have been heard otherwise? :hmm: :-j

SquidB
08-25-05, 06:35 AM
I think that 400m test depth is far too shallow.

Even the most conservative estimates put it at around 600-700m.

LuftWolf
08-25-05, 12:12 PM
And the US government thought the Russians had a multiplicative missile advantage in terms of ICBM's during the cold war. We know now that we had far more missiles at any time than they ever did. I don't put much stock in "old truths" from the Cold War. :know:

SquidB
08-25-05, 12:58 PM
And the US government thought the Russians had a multiplicative missile advantage in terms of ICBM's during the cold war. We know now that we had far more missiles at any time than they ever did. I don't put much stock in "old truths" from the Cold War.

Yep and look how they got it wrong, now in the light of recent knowledge we know that the "Missile Gap" was a falacy.

Now orginally it was thought that the alfa's hull allowed it to dive deep. Then the director of central intelligence stated in 1983 that it didnt.

Next in 2003 after the cold war has died down and many things have been declassified we have a first hand report from a actual alfa captain saying his boat routinely went to 1000m.

I guess as more time goes on and more info is realeased many "hard facts" will be turned around.

Kapitan
08-25-05, 01:10 PM
Next in 2003 after the cold war has died down and many things have been declassified we have a first hand report from a actual alfa captain saying his boat routinely went to 1000m.

first of all which captain was this what was his rank ?

since the al'fa is still largely classified even today i think it be very stupid to openly state classified information because al'fa had two types of hull hang on a sec !

the last two al'fa units were not constructed of titanium they were constructed of steel il find the source in a little while but they russians cuold not afford to maintain titanium huls so instead of canceling they converted two boats to steel and thus causes the confusion between 400 meters and 700 meters

possibly the titanium hulled boats could dive to 700 meters in fact more than likely and the reason for the 400 meters is the 1995 tests with a steel hulled al'fa only logical explination with radical depth space

SquidB
08-25-05, 01:17 PM
first of all which captain was this what was his rank ?

Well it was Captain First Rank Boris Kolyada.

As I have mentioned from the very begining of the threadc ;)

PeriscopeDepth
08-25-05, 01:18 PM
possibly the titanium hulled boats could dive to 700 meters in fact more than likely and the reason for the 400 meters is the 1995 tests with a steel hulled al'fa only logical explination with radical depth space

Not at all. There's alway been a wide range of answers concerning military capabilities for a single platform.

Kapitan
08-25-05, 01:38 PM
yes that is true i have seen on one occasion a link stating a 688 can dive to 760 meters but its crush is about 1600 or 1800 feet i not know much about the 688 or many american ships or subs all i know is they are very good and i take my hat off to them especialy the people who designed the arliegh burkes they are great ships :up:

JamesT73J
08-25-05, 05:02 PM
This reminds of all the AIM-120 arguments on flightsim boards. It'll go on, and on, and on, and on....

"The Amraam has been proven to take down aircraft from 90 miles away, underwater, and through hills"

"The Amraam has been known to travel as far as three miles"

Or words to that effect.




:-j

Kapitan
08-25-05, 05:56 PM
al'fa amraam hmmm ????

SquidB
08-25-05, 06:29 PM
This reminds of all the AIM-120 arguments on flightsim boards. It'll go on, and on, and on, and on....

Heh, yep its true most sim forum have these kind of discussions.

I think it stems from an intrest in the subject matter, also that most people dont confine themselves to just playing a game and do some reading around the subject.

This can only be a good thing, to me its all good fun, getting to chew the fat about what subs can and cant do is one of the reasons i like this forum.

as long as it doesnt descend into a " i say this so i must be right" argument it can be entertaining.

so whats your view? ;)

Kapitan
08-25-05, 07:48 PM
is this about al'fa or about amraam ?

John Channing
08-25-05, 07:52 PM
Yes.

JCC

Kapitan
08-25-05, 07:54 PM
yes about alfa or yes about amram or yes bannanas are yellow ?

TLAM Strike
08-25-05, 09:21 PM
... yes bannanas are yellow ? Well they are green at one point... :roll: :lol:

Kapitan
08-26-05, 01:48 AM
yes with purple sheep eating the green bananas and blue carrots

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/Other%20Random%20Stuff/lammasfinal2.gif


and just so to clarify yes the purple sheep is real

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/Other%20Random%20Stuff/Aug0562.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/Other%20Random%20Stuff/Aug0561.jpg

Soulchaser
08-26-05, 03:05 AM
... yes bannanas are yellow ? Well they are green at one point... :roll: :lol:
also they get BLACK at a later point :88)

Kapitan
08-26-05, 06:46 AM
yeah thats true lol

Takeda Shingen
08-28-05, 07:15 AM
Okay, Kapitan. It has been a few days, and thus far, you have only given me an issue of a Russian version of Popular Mechanics. With 60+ printed resources at your disposal, it should not take this long to give me two more sources.

Or, perhaps you are ready to concede that no such library exists and most of your sources are, as they say in the gaming industry, 'vaporware'.

Kapitan
08-28-05, 07:47 AM
no its not that if you read through the forum i have been busy "entertaining" books as follows

submarines of the world robert jackson this only gives a little info but is useful cause the info it does give is quite detailed

already given you the atomic submarines one and the project 705K one

Multi-purpose Submarines and Special-purpose Submarines in russian

another one nuclear submarines of the soviet and russian navy

Takeda Shingen
08-28-05, 08:00 AM
Fantastic. Give me authors on the last three you mentioned, and I will leave you alone. I just wish you weren't so evasive about this.

For the record, the 705/K publication you showed me is a magazine, not a book. There is a big difference in credibility.

Kapitan
08-28-05, 08:06 AM
ok well il get to it after dinner its not that im evasive its just that im very busy i havent even had time today to go to the loo

Takeda Shingen
08-28-05, 08:12 AM
I'm beginning to suspect that these publications do not have authors.

Kapitan
08-28-05, 08:28 AM
Multi-purpose Submarines and Special-purpose Submarines is written by the same person as the project 705K book is

and i found a linky to it :) http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?OTH-221

Russian Submarines book this is a good one too i have only read this one i had to give it back after wards as it didnt belong to me but also planning to buy it

heres the link where you can buy it http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?OTH-157

Kapitan
08-28-05, 08:31 AM
found another book i want and i mean i want this one take a look tak this has got to be the best one yet i want it badly

http://www.armybook.com/summary.html?code=0102002i31


it is a must have

Takeda Shingen
08-28-05, 08:32 AM
Whew. That was needlessly complicated. Nonetheless, I thank you Kapitan.

PS Once again, the 705/K publication is a magazine, not a book. Big difference.

Kapitan
08-28-05, 08:33 AM
mine is a sort of hard back bit flimsy but a hard back hmmm o well i cant realy tell the diffrence i just read them

Zarlock
08-28-05, 09:51 AM
Short summary on submarine's diving depths (unless WWII era or shortly afterwards):
Nobody here knows.
And if someone does, he's not allowed to say.

Such information is among the few things still kept closely guarded, and not even revealed to most crew members of these subs.

Regards,

Robert

Kapitan
08-28-05, 09:58 AM
since the fall of the USSR dimensions and ship specs have been revealed and are publicly avalible the only ones that arnt are the new build subs such as the borey and lada

the americans 688 and 688I are sort of avalible the ones who have kept thje best seacrets are the british

Zarlock
08-28-05, 10:03 AM
since the fall of the USSR dimensions and ship specs have been revealed and are publicly avalible the only ones that arnt are the new build subs such as the borey and lada

the americans 688 and 688I are sort of avalible the ones who have kept thje best seacrets are the british
Yes, data is available.

Just don't believe it is complete, the truth or even only indicating the truth.

Regards,

Robert

Kapitan
08-28-05, 10:05 AM
no but we can guess 90% of it when the americans say +25 knots or faster thats normaly mean about 31 knots so we can guess and bring it to a conclusion there

Zarlock
08-28-05, 11:19 AM
no but we can guess 90% of it when the americans say +25 knots or faster thats normaly mean about 31 knots so we can guess and bring it to a conclusion there
Uh, that conclusion doesn't sound very convincing...

Regards,

Robert

Kapitan
08-28-05, 11:23 AM
i was talking about the new subs like virginia we can only guess her true preformance stats ie im guessing they are a little bit better than the 688's

but as to al'fa and many other russian submarine there are many resorces where i can draw my conclusion as i posted earlier at least four of the sources claimed 750 meters or 700 meters thus emplying that the al'fa can dive between these depths

the older submarine november echo yankee al'fa whiskey ect ect are not as heavily classified as say the new borey or lada and thus those subs info are much more avalible

Zarlock
08-28-05, 01:07 PM
i was talking about the new subs like virginia we can only guess her true preformance stats ie im guessing they are a little bit better than the 688's

but as to al'fa and many other russian submarine there are many resorces where i can draw my conclusion as i posted earlier at least four of the sources claimed 750 meters or 700 meters thus emplying that the al'fa can dive between these depths

the older submarine november echo yankee al'fa whiskey ect ect are not as heavily classified as say the new borey or lada and thus those subs info are much more avalible
The problem with these sources is just that: they CLAIM.
Submarines in pretty much every country, and most certainly countries like Russia, China and all NATO states, are kept under pretty close wraps. Usually, only a handful of selected people knows the true statistics, and that does not include everyone on board, or working on these subs.

Also usually, "placeholder" figures are actually released by these countries, or "leaked" to the public, but these don't even have to be correct relative to each other.

If the U.S. Navy says a Seawolf can reach 25 knots+ while a Los Angeles class can only reach 20 knots+, that is merely a political game - if you get congress to pay these increasingly expensive toys, you better say they are better than the old ones in every regard.

To sum it up, all performance figures of almost all submarines past WWII should be taken with a big dose of salt, and are almost exclusively guesswork or placeholder figures.

Regards,

Robert

Kapitan
08-28-05, 01:23 PM
alot of figures have been releaced but subs built normaly beofre 1975 would be not classified alfa was built in 1969 so it should be unclassified normaly subsmarines stay classified for 30 years unless some are in active service still

30 years on the scorpion disaster was released 30 years on project jennifer was totaly confirmed 30 years on thresher disaster de classified so im guessing after 30 years there is no reason to keep it all clasified

alfa is over 30 years old and is declassified so is the older subs like yankee echo ect ect how do these people guess and get the same numbers over and over again

Zarlock
08-28-05, 02:04 PM
alot of figures have been releaced but subs built normaly beofre 1975 would be not classified alfa was built in 1969 so it should be unclassified normaly subsmarines stay classified for 30 years unless some are in active service still

Even from subs which are 30 years+ old and out of service you can judge design themes and issues, something countries having used these subs and using their successors wish to avoid.

alfa is over 30 years old and is declassified so is the older subs like yankee echo ect ect how do these people guess and get the same numbers over and over again
Copying from each other, or simply coming to the same conclusions from the available data like hull form, or estimated data, like hull material and strength as well as power plants.
The latter is indeed educated guessing, but is not the same as knowing true facts, and occasionally may vastly differ from these.

Regards,

Robert

Amizaur
08-28-05, 02:24 PM
Or maybe something like that... source that I gave you (that web page in Russian) claims that operational/max depth of Alfa is 350/400m.
From other sources we know that safety factor used by constructors of submarines is 1.5 in US, 1.75 in Russian designs, and as much as 2.0 in German subs.
400m * 1.75 of safety ratio gives 700m. So maybe 700m was the crush depth of Alfa ? Is that possible explanation, Kapitan ? Or you are sure that the 700-750m were for operational or max value, not crush ?

Similar calculation would indicate that 675m diving depth you cited for Akula subs multipled by safety factor of 1.75 would give over 1000m crush depth, don't you think it's too much ? That 675m depth was operational, max diving or maybe crush ? But again I think only insane captain could dive to his boat's crush depth or even to 90% of it...
Do you know what is design safety factor of Russian built submarines ? Maybe you know another value ?
And the last thing, are you still sure that Alfa is the sub that keeps world speed record ? :-) Not the Papa class with 44.7kts ?

Kapitan
08-28-05, 02:27 PM
i shall re look on the al'fa but when i said about the akula it was definatly crush depth akula is good but not that good so yeah 675 is crush depth sometimes i do say max depth it means the same to me

Caseck
08-28-05, 05:15 PM
Just to throw fuel on the fire here, I'd like to take this in a completely different direction.

Instead of debating sources, ALL OF WHICH are questionable... None of you argue that ANY of these sources are foolproof, so why spend time debating it? We're only arguing from ignorance, because WE DON'T KNOW which are correct!

Why not instead, based on the tonnage of the ships involved, determine how thick the pressure hulls are, and then based on simple physics, and the metals involved, determine the depth at which said metals of given thickness would bend to a given tolerance?

This seems more logical than spending all this time debating over the whole CLOUD of questionable sources, and would give a one-size fits all solution to this problem.

Kapitan
08-28-05, 05:18 PM
fas (federation of american scientists) global security and many of these sources do that for us

Zarlock
08-29-05, 09:40 AM
Why not instead, based on the tonnage of the ships involved, determine how thick the pressure hulls are, and then based on simple physics, and the metals involved, determine the depth at which said metals of given thickness would bend to a given tolerance?

As Kapitain said, FAS.org and others are mostly doing exactly that.
They too, though, have the problem, that their calculations are based on estimates (you would be hard-pressed to tell the exact specific weight of the specific alloy a certain submarine hull is made of, not to mention all the stuff within that hull).
It all ends in much educated guessing, and little factual knowledge.

Regards,

Robert