Crew Requirements: Russia vs the Rest
 

Here's some interesting tidbits on the GlobalSecurity pages. :hmm:

British Asute Crew complement: 110 crewmembers
US LA class Crew complement: 116 crewmembers
US VA class Crew complement: 113 crewmembers
Russian Akula Class Crew complement: 63 crewmembers :doh:
Russian Sierra Class Crew complement : 61 crewmembers :88)

How are the Russian's getting away with almost half the crew complement of their western counterparts? The short answer that most will given is "because their systems are less complicated and require lesse maintenance".... but almost *half* the crew complement? That can't explain the total crew requirement differences... :hmm:

And on that note... does anyone have any specifics on the actual manning requirements per department of a western submarine are. The breakdown of each department, for example...
the engine systems require x number of crew
the galley staff requires x number of crew
torpedo room requires x number of crew.

Would be nice to know and understand. Just why *do* these subs require 113 as opposed to 95 or whatever crew number....:ping:

I believe most countries go to sea with two complete crews, however, the Russians for budgetary reasons only go to sea with redundancy at certain positions.

That's the way I have always interpreted that information anyways...

American submarine crews have the same basic organization as most other US ships (ie 4 departments: Weapons, Engineering, Operations/Navigation, and Supply), but because of the unique environment we are in the way we organize our daily routine and duties is wildly different.

Aside from those departments, there are essentially three watch sections while underway. Almost everyone on board stands a watch. For example, a sonar broadband operator stands watch for 6 hours and then has 12 hours off to do system maintenance, study, clean and sleep while the other two sections are on watch. Regular maintenance work is assigned over and above that watch; a watchstander's job is to monitor systems and ensure the safety of the ship, not to fix equipment.

Some senior watchstations (DOOW, COW, Sonar Sup) go 4 or even 6 section instead of 3, but they are the exception. Also, the galley staff maintains a completely different schedule of 12 hour days (12 on, 12 off).

I don't know how other countries do things.

I can't speak for other boats, but our manning requirement is a function of the number of watchstanders required in each section multiplied by three, or the number of people required to maintain the rquipment, whichever is greater.

Forward watches on my 688i while on mission (I can't speak for all the nuc watches, it's been a few years):

Officer of the Deck
Junior Officer of the Deck
Junior Officer of the Watch
Diving Officer of the Watch
Chief of the Watch
Quartermaster
Radioman of the Watch
Sonar Supervisor and at least 4 other sonarmen
2 Fire Control Technitians of the Watch (basically TMA/weapons operator)
2 plotting assistants who assist the JOOD and FTOW in tracking contacts (usually nucs, not always stationed)
Torpedoman Room Watch
Auxilliary Electritian forward
Auxilliaryman of the Watch
Machinery Room Watch
at least 3, sometimes as many as 5 helmsmen/planesmen/messengers (they rotate)

The engineering guys back aft have several watches in addition to that. There are 4 watchstanders in Maneuvering alone. Add the Supply and Executive department guys who don't stand watch and you end up with a sizeable crew requirement. Somehow it never seems like enough people though.

I know Russian boats are more dependent on officers so there are fewer enlisted undergoing qualifications.

Also the Russians are very advanced when it comes to automation aboard their ships. The SSG version of the Amur (Proj 950) requires only 18 officers and men.

Re: Crew Requirements: Russia vs the Rest
 

One thing is that since the Alfa class the Russian boats have also relied more on automation than Western equivilents. The downside to that is that there are fewer people available for things such as damage control.

In general, it seems like the Russian military favors automation over manpower, while in the west it seems to be the opposite. Another good example, is how many of their tank guns reloaded automatically, while in the west there was crewmember devoted to loading.

Ok, so what are a few examples of things done automatically on a Russian submarine that are done manually on a Western submarine? :hmm:

Torpedo loading to some extent.

russian subs have more automation than the west in some area's as formentioned torpedo room's have around 10 people.

In the british navy you will have crew responcible for say the shaft another set responcible for the turbine another set for the reactor and so on so forth, in russian navy one man can do the job of around 30 people in the west.

Russian navy have always gone to sea with not that many crew even in the rich days of cold war, a russian sub typicaly carried only 80 crew, even the boomers have less than america or britian.

A submarine like the 688's have around what 120 crew (havnt looked it up), yet the counterpart has 62 (have heard akulas can go to sea with only 48)

There is advantages and disadvantages to having less crew, one advantage less to pay the crew longer the sub can stay out.

Disadvantage not amny for damage control, and a fatigued crew and no replacements should a few fall ill.

Ive always viewed that british and american submarines go to sea with too many crew on board and when things do go wrong its alot more familys to deal with.

Thresher 129 men Scorpion 99 men if it were two counters that sunk in a russian sub it wouldnt even come to the total it does with these two tragerdys.

Thanks that some good info.... so one can assume that since western subs are averaging around 100-120 people that their watches usually compromise of 35 or so persons at station at any time... that doesn't really seem like much when you think about it that way.... each crew member averaging about 42 hours per week on station with some extra duties added as well. Guess the alternative would be 12 hrs on and 12 hrs off, meaning 84 hours on station per week for months at a time :doh: , which is enough to drive even the most motivated sailor to fatigue after a couple of weeks.... probably not a good thing :hmm:.

On a side note... which are the most "maintenance intensive" systems of a sub? I'm guessing the reactor is pretty handsoff unless at port.... :hmm: ... sonar maintence would probably be pretty rigorous right? to ensure sensors are always calibrated?

So torpedo and engine control is more automated... :hmm: . Does the same "Three watch" schedule that Henson mentioned apply to the Russian navy as well? Sounds like malfunctions and breakdowns on the Russian subs are more likely to wait until next port to fix, rather than fixing while on station.

When the royal navy trains its crews they train them in one area, as a specialisation.

In the russian navy your trained throughout so you are not only efficent in repairing one station but 3 or 4, i know guys who work primarily on the reactor but can repair sonar or radar, and they do make repairs at sea but they do like to return home and let the techs take over.

IIRC the original plans for the Alfa called for it to have even less crew and be nearly entirely automated.
Needless to say the technology for that wasn't around at the time.
Then the designer got a free holiday in Siberia courtesy of the Soviet government :roll:

But Kursk:118 lost.?!...(if im not mistaking)

And yes, most of the countries wich follow the russian military doctrine perfers automation over man,look just at the tanks for example:M1A1,M1A2,Leopard A2,A3,Challenger.....All of thme has crew of 4...but all russian tanks since T-60 has crew of 3(loader is swaped for semi computerised loading device)

Back to the subs there is a bunch of systems that u can automate:Torpedo loading,reactor operations,diesel and batery maintenance....BUT i will citate 1 thing i read in book "Tank comanders 1916-1995"....It is nice to have complete 3 tank crews with only 9 man but automatic loader cant stand on watch,treat wounds ,do maintanance and make coffe....So i think this is the cruicial thing:If all goes as planned u want automatic ...If soething is wrong and automatic fails u r screwd in that case u need real man to help u! :up:

Kursk lost 118, if you want me to post the entire crew compliment list i can do, but the reason was because she was on a major exercise, and also carry a fair few civilians.

Oscar class submarines go to sea with the average crew of 107 some even less down to 98 but they can hold a maximum of 130 people comftably.

The premise of having so many people on board the sub was this: What if something goes wrong? Its nice to have someone watch your back when things go in the crapper.

If I remember correctly the Seawolf has a semi automated torpedo loading system. I know the 688 I was on did not. However, unless you are loading/shifting weapons, there is normally only one TM on watch in the torpedo room anyway.

Automate the engineering operations?? Hopefully that will NEVER happen when I am alive. There are too many variables in operations and what ifs. We were trained to think on our feet and respond to what the readings said but to also ANALYZE those readings and apply human common sense to them. A computer may be able to run them, but to operate them safely will require a human being to look at the numbers and make sure that everything makes sense. I can think of a dozen or 2 things that would look find to a computer but to a human operator, they would make you start looking at things.

Things that I can see being automated? These would be for normal watchstanding, not battlestations or other non-routine evolutions.

1) Helm and trim control.. One person to make sure that the computer is keeping you in the box and the boat properly trimmed. That would cut 3 people off the watchlist every turn of the watch.

2) Logtaking in BOTH ends of the boat. This is one function I understand the VA class is doing now. There are watchstanders reviewing these logs to make sure everything is ok, but they don't have to take 100+ readings every hour. Unless you have done it, you don't know how tedious this is, taking readings every hour, and in some cases as often as every 15 minutes. Then you have to go back and review these logs looking for abnormal trends and such. Makes a six hour watch soooooo long.

Thanks Bubblehead, that's some good info as well. :up: