Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeaQueen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kurushio
Though as Bubblehead Nuke said, if there is a danger there could be pollution if the sub is torn apart in an explosion...do they design torps so it doesn't destroy the sub but just damages it enough to make it sink?
|
It's actually unclear exactly how much you really need to sink a submarine. If you just rattle it enough so that a the right pipe breaks at the right depth, you won't even have to pierce the hull. By the same token, submarines are typically quite hardened, intended to withstand nearby nuclear explosions. Exactly how the likelihood of the weak components and the strong components failing catastrophically plays out isn't exactly clear. |
There was a 688 that was intentionally depth charged with explosive devices at various ranges and with various amounts of explosives in order to test this very point. It was called 'Shock Testing'. Granted, this was done at periscope depth (they used the scope as a reference point on when to detonate the explosives at the proper time and range). From what was heard about it, there were some rather large explosive packages used.
From what I understand there was some REALLY impressive film footage from inside the sub as things moved and such. Scuttlebutt has it that one of the test runs removed the upper hatch of the weapon shipping hatch. At that point they said enough was enough.
How big were the charges and how. close to the hull were they? I can not say.
This link:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPA...y-21/i1308.htm
Talks about using 1000 lb charges to test the Seawolf class in shock testing.