Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Henson
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.
|
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
, 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?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kapitan
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.
|
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.