SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   passive detection range comparison between LWAMI and SC (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=143805)

goldorak 11-07-08 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBot
Yes, this made the Alfas (just as the Papa, Mike and the Sierra Class) immune to MAD detection from aircraft. And I guess also against magnetic proxy fuzes on torpedos.


A real pity this feature is not modelled in the "unspeakable mod". :cry:

Kazuaki Shimazaki II 11-07-08 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castout
And why did the Russians never put their titanium hulled submarine into full fledge production ? instead their backbone attack SSN were the Victors and now the Akula(Bars) class which is steeled hulled. I guess that tells us something....something prevented the Russians from putting its titanium hulled sub into full production imo.

Mostly cost. For the Alfas, they were also let down by their primitive surroundings - their bismuth-cooled plants might have been a cooler idea if their base infrastructure had a more reliable electrical supply.

Another factor is that they resolved the problems of using High-Yield steels. The yield ratings of the pressure hull steel on the Akula is roughly equivalent to HY-140 (100kg/mm^2 - do the conversion to pounds per square inch). This at a time when American (688s) were using HY-80 and they were thinking of HY-100 for Seawolf. With that steel, 600m class test depths (similar to Sierra, though one step short of Mike) became feasible at a reasonable mass penalty ... the Soviet's next decision is obvious...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBot
Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
(the assumed) capablites of the Alfa.

Just a little interesting sidenote. It seems those assumtions where not that far off after all. I just read Rising Tide, where a former Alfa skipper talks about diving the boat to 3000ft.

The whole Alfa diving depth thing is pretty funny. Apparently Based on observations, the Americans (NATO?) assigned a high depth rating for the Alfa. Then the Cold War ended and the Russian sources came out which suggested a much lower depth, such as a "working" depth of 320-350m and a "maximum" depth of 400 or so (AFAIK, nobody said "crush"). The Americans believed them over their observations and all the sources are re-written, and now we have testimony again :)

I think the real problem is what Stuart Slade once uttered in his article about Alfas (it was in Warships1.com, but some time ago the entire site became unavailable even in the Wayback Machine and so it is now lost unless someone stashed a copy). IIRC, he mentions about how of loss of control at high (Alfa) speeds will cause a submarine to plunge very far below its depth, and this requires a high margin of safety. This will provide a reason for the Russians to write a very conservative working and maximum depth, while leaving the Russian Captains the margin (since the hull strength is there) to dive deep at their own risk (which is minimal if they aren't travelling at high speed at the same time).

Frame57 11-07-08 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Quote:

Originally Posted by Frame57
I respectfully disagree on this point. Commodore Ward my ex CO spoke of this on occaison. Russian Subs were designed to go deeper to flee the MK-48. The threshold of a conventional torp is affected by water pressure. But a nuclear warhead it actually aids its intention and design. It dramatically increases water pressure. The goal is to implode the enemy with pressure produced by shock waves. Not to incinerate them.

I just used that whole "Matchstick" thing as an example on how people think about nuclear weapons. I didn't mean to imply a SUBROC was ment to incinerate its target (at least when used against subs)

Well I think your CO got it backwards. Russian subs have always been designed to go deep, along with speed its the edge they have always had over our subs. The November had a 100 meter depth advantage over its American counterparts and the Russians have only gained on us in that area. The MK-48 was what was redesigned to compete with (the assumed) capablites of the Alfa. Of course the SUBROC predates the MK-48 so if Russian subs were being designed to defeat the current us ASW weapons of their era they were being designed to defeat the SUBROC and ASTOR both nuclear weapons, since the MK-37 could (unless fired from very close range or in the baffles) be simply out run.

I'm not totaly sure but it seems logical that increased water presure would have a negitive effect on the yeld of a nuclear weapon, simply from the explosive (kenetic) force having to push though more matter. Or maybe I'm thinking of thermal energy having to fight though pressure while kenetic energy would be aided by it. Do we have any phisics students out there? :hmm:

The skip may have been referring to the MK-37. We had 48's then and the ADCAP was in developement, basically to go deeper to get the deeper diving boats. But I can tell you that a permit class boat could go about 300 to 400 feet deeper that the Novembers. I believe the Skipjack class was about on even keel with the test depth of the Novemebers.

Castout 11-07-08 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak
Quote:

Originally Posted by MBot
Yes, this made the Alfas (just as the Papa, Mike and the Sierra Class) immune to MAD detection from aircraft. And I guess also against magnetic proxy fuzes on torpedos.

A real pity this feature is not modelled in the "unspeakable mod". :cry:

Goldorak it is very possible to make a sub in DW undetectable by MAD sensor.

SandyCaesar 11-07-08 07:17 PM

Well, given that Wiki isn't a dedicated naval source, I'm not that certain about how much to trust it on this matter.

But apparently, just because the Alfa has a titanium hull doesn't mean it's MAD-proof, it gives it a reduced signature.

Quoting from the Wikipedia MAD page:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia MAD page
Function

There is some misunderstanding of the mechanism of detection of submarines in water using the MAD boom system. Magnetic moment displacement is ostensibly the main disturbance, yet submarines are detectable even when oriented parallel to the earth's magnetic field, despite construction with non-ferromagnetic hulls. For example, the Soviet-Russian Alfa class submarine, whose hull is constructed out of titanium to give dramatic submerged performance and protection from detection by MAD sensors, is still detectable.
The Alfa's detectability has led some analysts to deduce that the MAD's name is an intentional deception, so effective that the Soviet Union decided to construct the Alfa and even consider building the Typhoon class submarine SSBN out of titanium at one point. Since titanium structures are detectable, MAD sensors do not directly detect deviations in the earth's magnetic field. Instead, they may be described as long-range electric and electromagnetic field detector arrays of great sensitivity.
An electric field is set up in conductors experiencing a variation in physical environmental conditions, providing that they are contiguous and possess sufficient mass. Particularly in submarine hulls, there is a measurable temperature difference between the bottom and top of the hull producing a related salinity difference, as salinity is affected by temperature of water. The difference in salinity creates an electric potential across the hull. An electric current then flows through the hull, between the laminae of seawater separated by depth and temperature.[citation needed]
The resulting dynamic electric field produces an electromagnetic field of its own, and thus even a titanium hull will be detectable on a MAD scope, as will a surface ship for the same reason.


MBot 11-10-08 09:02 AM

Does any of the sonar gurus feels able to valuate the ability of some russian subs to dive into the deep sound channel? And does it still make a difference today with most subs having a towed array that can be droped this deep?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.