LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #11: Nuke Speeds
 

The relative speeds of the playable nukes is beginning to bug me.

I'm fairly certain than the Akula is indeed faster than the 688i, so I'm thinking of reverting the speeds back to something more resembling what they were in SC.

What do you think of this scheme?

688i 33kts
AkulaI/II 35kts
SW 38kts (same as it is now in the mod)

Cheers,
David

I agree with you on the akula II issue.
Its a more modern sub than the 688(i) and this should reflect at least in top speed.
If its possibile I would go like this : top speed akula I < top speed 688(i) < top speed akula II.

688/688i - 32kts
Akula -35kts
Seawolf - 37kts

guys, when not being chased by a torpedo, how fast do you actually go? Is it even worth it?

Its about realism. :p
I can't stand that in the game the russians subs are inferior even to the 688(i).
Its okay for sonar equipment because we know that american subs were really superior to russian ones in this sector.
But as far as top speed is concerned well no.
The akula II was designed after the 688(i) and is improved over the american sub.
Some sources (Cold War Submarines written by Polmar) even have charts that show that modern akula II class submarines were at least as quiet as the 688i and I don't think this is modelled in the game (vanilla or lwami mod).

As the russians can't match the american technology, specially on sonar, they allways built submarines faster, stronger, and capable of going deeper than their american counterparts.

2 more knots on some situations are VITAL. :yep:

I'ld like to see some actual sources and/or technical discussion supporting those proposed speeds.

All the sources I've read suggest that the Akula's speed currently is the one that's over estimated. A 35 knots top speed for the Akula are usually amongst the high end of speed estimates that I've come across with the low end estimates at 28 knots submerged. Also considering the fact that its displacement is estimated in the 10kton to 12kton range and its hydrodynamic shaping deviates more from the ideal with an oval rather than spherical cross section and its placement of its sail structure in closer proximetry to the aft tapering of the hull (increasing the drag effect of the sail for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion).

Overall I think 35 knots for the Akula is actually a bit generous, but anyhow there's no real point of fiddling speeds that are purely guestimates with other speeds that are also purely guestimates, might as well leave as is unless their's some unusually convincing source that supporting something else. However, if a speed is to be toned down seems like the Akula's top speed would be the more logical choice to modify.

Well no, I don't find it right to have the Akula to be inferior in every sense to the 688(i) when its clear the the sub was on a technological level between the 688i and the seawolf.
The akula is not the equivalent of the 688i as it is not the equivalent of the seawolf but is a way in between. And this is not considered in the game.

As far as proofs go : give a proof that the seawolf top speed is 37 knots, or that its sonar capabilities are those described in the database ? :roll:

I hate seeing as there is always a prejudice of the russian war machine, as everything they did was in every way inferior to western technology.
Well guess what ?
It isn't like that.
Did you know that the russians had devised a rocket engine in the late 1960's that would be unmatched in its performace for ever 30 years with respect to any kind of rocket engine the west had engineered. ?
Tough to believe eh ? Yeah, american aerospace engineers had the same nightmare, but in the end they recognised the russian superiority insofar as to use the russian project underlicense for american rockets (to send satellites into space).

And your basing this on what?
And note the Akula is not "inferior in every sense" to the 688i. It has more firepower, better weapons with a ton more variety to choose from, deeper diving depth, and the AkulaII is thought to be quieter (at least at slow speeds) Making the Akula faster to the 688i would actually make the Akula superior to the 688i at every level except sonar. What are you talking about...

exactly:yep:...give "proof" that the Akula's speed is faster or the LA's speed is slower:roll: . On a side note, who asked for *proof*? No one. Supporting reasoning and evidence are another thing from "proof".


Some things the russians built better, some things the americans built better.

Well lets put it this way, everything concerning submarine specs is classified.
Give me an example of declassified document describing submarine sonar, speed etc.. performance.

Short of having hard facts, we should concentrate on the relative performance between the different units in the game.
Now given that the seawolf is the latest and most costly submarine ever to be designed we can "assume" that its sonar performance will be better than the akula II and 688i.
I said better but we don't know how "much" better it is. No one knows outside of submariners etc.... and they surely aren't giving the information out.
So its all speculation, for american and soviets subs.

Some books give rough estimates for top speed of the different subs, but as always its just a guess.
No hard fact. So either we go with route that the "american" technology is always superior to soviet technology and we make the units reflect this in all aspects or we take a more gradual approach consisting of published info and we recognise that soviet technology wasn't always inferior to american technology and take that into account in the game.

Try reading "Cold War Submarines" just to see how much the american establishment underestimated soviet naval technology.
True the soviets were playing catch up on the sonar level, but they had devised other methods for tracking american submarines which arent' even modelled in the game.
Methods which the americans didn't even considered researching during the cold war.

As to the weapons issue, its not my fault that americans only rely on torpedos as the weapon of choice for submarines.
Is that a good thing or bad thing ? It has nothing to do with technology.
Guess that the soviets are just more fancy when it comes to weapons design.

Put here real proofs about that and in 5 minutes a group of strange men with dark suit and dark glasses will knock your door and... :down: hehehe

First, the speed different we're talking here is 2 knots, nothing excesive.

I don't think the Akula design is so bad as you say. Is similar to Victor and Alfa designs, so, if a design remains for those amount of years would be for a reason... :hmm:
And the Soviets first and Russians now are very good on that things. Take a look at their Migs29 and SU27... they have better aerodynamic than the western fighters.
Yes I know water is not air, I study marine science so I know a little about that.

The propulsion is also important, not only the shape.

And the most data of Russian ships and subs is from the western intelligence so... what they do? the listen as close as they can the Russian maneouvers, but, who can be sure if that submarine is going at the top speed or could still accelerate a bit more?
Figure that still is unknown the max speed and diving depth of the Alfa... and in this case the differences are great: 35 or 45 nkots? 400m or 900m?

What are the current maximum speeds?

TG

Honestly, no reason to change it. No expert on hydrodynamic here, but both have about a 5HP/ton power/weight ratio (assuming 9500t and 47000HP for the Akula), so their speeds should be broadly comparable. Two knots more or less in one direction is just un-necessary.

If you want to improve the Akula, give us sensitivity or washout speed improvement. The game interface does a good enough job of modeling Russian sonar inferiority that you don't need a Nrd differential anyway... if it really is a SSAZ on the real Russian subs, whoever chose to keep it that way should be shot :nope:

Or change the SS-N-27's airdropped torp back up to 55.

Or reduce the 688I's diving depth to 300m, since some sources suggest its dive depth is reduced to cram in the speed and reactor. With the Advanced Torp Mod, it has the effect of not allowing it to use depth to slow the approaching torp - in torp evasion, relative speed is important.

Speeds? Sorry, can't tell you.

The reason russian submarines were faster has to do with reactor designs (water vice metal coolant). The american designs focused more on reliability, safety, and control while the russians focused on greater volume of more powerful steam. It was a different philosophy. I do not know if the russians ever switched to a water-cooled design. If they did I imagine their limitations would closely match an I-boat's. Even 688's of the same class will have different speeds though, due to 'dirty' hulls and different screws.

688's can go pretty fast. Seawolf can go ungodly fast. Akula? I have no idea.

The real question is how fast can certain platforms operate with good sonar performance and effecive quieting? Seawolf wins that war handily.

688I: 32 kts (turn down)
Akula I: 32-33 knots (leave it)
Akula II: 35 knots (leave it)

It's not about improving, it's about realism...

Did you know, that in late 80's and early 90's Russians themselves estimated that their best sonars has 3 to 10 times shorter det ranges than US sonars ? Yes, subs were very quiet, but sonars were much worse... time has passed but how much this gap have closed ? With western technology still improving all the time ? So, having 30% det range penalty is just fantastic thing to have in DW :p in russian subs which are (with exeption of SW) faster, deeper diving, and have better (with exeption of ADCAP) and more universal armament ?

And this would be justified by what ? Do you expect very small and not most modern russian electric torpedo that is used in SS-N-27 system to have speed of 55kts ??

This is much better proposition. 688 diving depth is often stated as 300m (984ft) with 450m (1476) crush.

But I'm afraid we can't simply put correct values into database (even that they would be only little less than now from 492m --> 450m). Because if we put correct crush depth into DB, then not much changes - just like now every 688 in game would be runing 10m above crush depth... in game you are sure that nothing wrong will happen. In real life I suppose no one sane captain would dive even CLOSE to his boat's crush depth even if running for life... at this depth sub is supposed to collapse, so even 10% less would be very, very dangerous, probably more dangerous than torpedo that is chasing him. I don't think (personally) that anyone would exceed 400m in RL with 300m test and 450m crush depths - even in worst situation .

But we can't also set 300m into db as crush depth - in RL subs can go deeper if needed, just not all the way to crush depth. Maybe we should assume some % of crush depth that in RL would be maximum used, and set it in DB - for 688i it would I think be not less than 350 (1150ft) but not more than 400m (1312ft). And rework all sub's depths with this scheme.

Currently crush depths are:

492m for 688s (1614ft)
656m for Seawolf (2150ft)
569m for Akulas (1866ft)

When a weapon is in the water, and you are the target, all bets are off. You use every bit of the performance envelope that you have. Redline a reactor plant for the extra knot or 2?? Take her deeper cause there is a layer 200 feet deeper but not quite at crush that MIGHT save your butt?? Oh yeah, count on it. You would 'break the rules' on the performance envelope if you have to in order to stay alive and come back to kill the OTHER guy.

We used to have discissions about it all the time in the division and with other divisions on the boat. Little "What if's" in the corners of the boat while tossing cards around. We even joked about it. It ended with 'the shipyard can fix it if we are still around to get it there.'

Added:

One thing here that probably irks us real bubbleheads is that there are operating limits and absolute limits on submarines. The game deals in absolutes while we think in terms of the operational limits that were imposed on us. You have a safe range of speed and depth that work inside of. Outside of this range you are getting into dangerous areas. Too fast and too deep mean you hit your crush depth before you can recover from flooding etc etc. Crush depth is an UNKNOWN thing till you find it the hard way.

I think the game does a good job in balancing the the various classes but what needs to be done is something on the same order. I realize that is can not be done my a mod probably. What you do is make variable ABSOLUTE limits and impose operational limits. That way a player has an envelope to play in but then makes a choice to operate outside those limits and risk breaking things or crush.

Put down that a 688i has a safe operating max depth of 800 feet (otherwise known as test depth). Crush depth is something deeper than 1200 feet but put a variable on it. It might actually be 1141 for that ship. Maybe the welders had a good day and on another ship of the same class crush depth is 1487 feet. Make it random each time you dive for each ship. That way you can not guess how deep you can REALLY go.

Why did I bring this up?? With all the discussions of changing speed someone asked what does a knot or 2 matter? It can literally be the difference between life and death. Remember back when I started posting I said something about how FAST a bell is answered. That normally the throttleman will NOT cavitate unless ordered but when told to GO, he answered it quickly and without hesitation. When torpedo's are in the water speed IS life. You will get told to stand on the power and the boat will speed up REALLY quickly. Speed gets you out of the detection cone of the weapon. Speed gets you clear of the datum and tosses his solution out the window. Speed makes the boat more manuverable. Speed is more imporant than depth in a lot of ways when weapons are in the water.

I'm wondering how they figured out (even guestimated) the washout speed. I suppose you can guestimate sensitivity by looking at the array size and making some estimates as to the influence of processing power, but washout speed - beyond the general assumption the US would have a higher one?

I read something similar, except it was 1/3rd as sensitive, which roughly collaborates with what L/W seems to be shooting (2Nrd difference = 4dB, = 2.5 times difference), but that correlates with a lot less than 3 times, depending on conditions. 10 times might hold true at higher speeds or in wierd hydroacoustic conditions - hard to see it in normality.

And I entirely agree with this general concept, except:
1) Does the mentioned difference (from the sources) take account the Display Influence?
2) "-8" (or =TB-16, 2Nrd less sensitive vs new TB-23) is more than fair for the Improved Akulas, which are rough contemporaries of the 688I and in accordance to the 1/3rd as sensitive guide. But not the Akula-IIs, which are roughly contemporary with SW. Assuming this +2Nrd sonar lag holds, the Pelamida II should have a sensitivity of closer to -10 to compare with the SW's -12 (or was it -14?) - take the higher washout of US arrays into account as well...

OK, maybe not 55, but 50. This is like 10+-year old tech (French NTL-90 came in about '92), so even assuming the usual 10-year gap it is not unreasonable to assume the Russians would have gotten around to it in their newest ASW weapons. Besides, some sources suggest making a 50-knot small torp is not impossible for the Russians.

Since MaxDepth in DW = Max 100% Safe Depth, I suggest initial calibration can be set for Never Exceed Depth (in the Ak, it is 1804 feet according to GlobalSecurity, which is similar to what's there now).

Fine calibration between that and crush (estimated at about 1970-2160 feet) to aim for a 50% chance, with the condition that Never Exceed Depth should be perfectly safe.

For those without Never Exceed Listed, I suggest starting out halfway and then calibrating within the gap between test (300m for LA) and crush (450m) so that at the real crush, we get roughly a 50% chance of death as possible.

GD, yes this is modelled in LWAMI. The Akula II's are more quiet than the LAi's up to about 6-7 kts. At higher speeds, the Akula II's are known to be louder than the LAi's because the active noise cancellation systems used on the AKII's are ineffective above low speeds.

I like the figures Amizaur listed.

Cheers,
David

PS Keep in mind, if you are worried about play balance, you have to keep in mind that this is in the context of LWAMI4, in which the torpedoes are by far going to be the biggest balancing factor. Interestingly, the strength of the ADCAP over the UGST (the gap between the torpedoes is much wider in LWAMI4) will help the 688i considerably, while the overall changes to the torpedoes such as "basic" torpedo physics and wirelength limits will help tone down the power of the SeaWolf. All in all, I think the game will be even more balanced once these changes are all implimented.

PPS And for the record, this should be LWAMI Poll #12. :-P

In terms of depth, the way the game works now is that it chooses at random an actual crush depth that is somewhere below the given crush depth. Every little bit you go below increases the risk of implosion.