Which torpedo is better: 53-65K or 53-65M?

[Gorshkov]

I know these data but they are not quite clear to me. If 53-65M version had had only 3 km longer range at practically identical speed what would have been purpose to introduce both 53-65 versions simultaneously? Moreover there are also data about 70 kts top speed for 53-65M. On the other hand 53-65M fuel mixture is very dangerous in handling on subs.

So there had to be some important reason to introduce both torpedoes! Maybe better performance for less safety and vice-versa...

[TLAM Strike]

Redundancy. It was common in the Russian/Soviet navy to have a backup program incase one didn't perform as the designers said it would. Thats why the Russians have so many diffrent classes of ship.

For example the Slava class cruisers were a backup incase the Kirov didn't prove practical. The Slava was a conventional (for the Russians) design while the Kirov was more cutting edge. Or the Sierra and Akula, the Akula was a consertive backup when it became obvous that the Seirra was going to cost way too much.

BTW I've seen a 67 knot max speed for the 53-65K.

[Kapitan]

As TLAM said redundancy is everything if you notice in the submarines you have oth the echo and julliette class the julliette is the backup of the top of the range echo its a fail safe methord.

You will find this in everything the russians have, torpedos planes submarines ship ect, but depending on the type of combat you are in the situation your in then chose the weapon most practicle.

[Gorshkov]

No guys! You have made too much mess here:

1. Slava was not any Kirov's back-up but simply less expensive cruiser type. It should be obvious for two times smaller warship. Both types were to be produced in the same time as new well balanced cruiser fleet.

2. Very interesting situation also emerged with new Soviet destroyers in those days. Soviets introduced two pararell designs: Sovremenny and Udaloy not due to "redundancy" but because there was not possible to meet all requirements in one unversal hull under 10000 tons displacement. Therefore 956 is primarly anti-ship platform and 1155 is first and foremost ASW one.

3. SSG Julliet can't be treated as SSGN Echo-II back-up. Note Julliet was a diesel sub and thus it was no match for nuclear Echo-II in any respect. Echo-IIs were to hunt US carriers on open ocean and Julliet was in fact coastal defense platform.

4. As for too many submarine types I advice you to take into account one basic fact that in the Soviet Union four construction bureaus and shipyards built nuclear subs for Red Navy simultaneously as opposed to one or two in US. Partially that is why more models were designed all the time.

5. If your data about 65K model top speed are correct I can't see any reason to use 65M torp because both versions would share identical performance but 65M is far less safe design.


Overally plenty of similar weapons and warship types in USSR was caused by many factors. Not only mythical "redundancy".

[GrayOwl]

Simultaneously, in a Soviet NAVY on arms consist 32 such as various types torpedos. It in the period 80-90 years.

It is the official data.

The development of new arms was encouraged with the premiums of government.
The new type weapon made as "hot-dogs" and received for it the big money premiums and awards.

Gold Time!

But now situation such:
America has the military budget of 594 billion dollars
Russia - has the military budget of 34 billions.
Have felt a difference? :p

[Gorshkov]

Originally Posted by GrayOwl

Simultaneously, in a Soviet NAVY on arms consist 32 such as various types torpedos. It in the period 80-90 years.

It is the official data.

As for almost century long period it is not so many models especially providing for torpedo types introduced before and during World War II.

Originally Posted by GrayOwl

The development of new arms was encouraged with the premiums of government.
The new type weapon made as "hot-dogs" and received for it the big money premiums and awards.

Gold Time!

Do not forget Soviet economy was controlled one. Thus no battles for premiums and awards were possible as not compliant with Five Years Armament Plans and prosecuted by KGB/NKVD. In fact under Stalin many talented Soviet constuctors like Tupolev created their projects doing bird. So he wasn't in position to wage battles with NKVD for awards maybe except a little better slop. :p
No confidence tricks around Supreme Soviet or Politburo made by various arms concerns like those around US Congress, buddy!
What really occurred was derailing one design bureau's project by another. For example Tupolev and Raduga DBs lobby monopolized air-launched anti-ship missiles development and finally AS-4 missile remained the sole vital ALCM for 30 years.

Originally Posted by GrayOwl

But now situation such:
America has the military budget of 594 billion dollars
Russia - has the military budget of 34 billions.
Have felt a difference? :p

Note Russia is not USSR. I did not talk about present Russia which is now in process of complete disarmament by the way...

[GrayOwl]

Really only Ukraine and Belorussia was in the Soviet union the manufacturer of the weapon.
Other republics (Mid Asia and Pribaltika) had no and also now have no any technologies for manufacture of the weapon.
Besides the military budget was formed in Moscow, he was common, instead of in union republics.
Concerning the premiums - is wrong buddy!
Existed Lenin's the premium, Stalin's premium, and State premium.

At first scietist put in prison, then let out and gave development of the weapon.
Then - or again put in prison or gave the premium!
( Besides - all this was till 1953 yet has died Stalin. After that nobody put in prison.

For example - Igor Kurchatov. Has made first soviet a nuclear bomb and has received the premium. Or Mikchail Lisichko - main designer of torpedos such as "APR" types.

About these premiums never wrote in the newspapers are there were confidential rewardings.
And the names of these scientists were too confidential - nobody knew of their surnames.