What was the alfa really like?

[Kapitan]

okies il find it tomorrow its 2319 here and im off to my bed night

[PeriscopeDepth]

I noticed it has tons of pictures. I have one like that about the F-15E. It's not too good for information, but has some really good pictures.

[Kapitan]

my photo album ?

[Takeda Shingen]

Yep, it seems that the publication is a 'special' of Typhoon, a Russian naval and weapons magazine: http://www.armybook.com/show.html?code=0304006

Hardly considered hard research, but I'll have to wait and see.

[Kapitan]

its quite light about 40 odd pages but its real difficault to get a book dedicated to one type of vessel its normaly russian navy destroyers submarines ectra

[mike_espo]

maybe someday, we'll get the alfa in DW....... :hmm:

maybe the patch first

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

i have sources claiming that the al'fa dives to 500 meters others 800 some even as deep as 3000 meters

Kapitan, if your sources have so great dispersion (from 500 to 3000m) and no single value repeated many times

(edit: few posts later I see there is value of 750m mentioned many times, but what is the real source of that value ? maybe it's one and the same source value cited in different books ? for example, for WWII tank armour and armour penetration data you can find some values that are cited in several very highly credited books, but when you dig deeper you can find that all that books in fact cite ONE AND THE SAME value which is simply WRONG, someone long ago made error measuring thickness or misleaded a digit, and this one "root" wrong SOURCE with measuring/digits order error was used in an old book on which almost all others books were based... and so it goes throught the years... So, the question is not how many sources (books) we have, but how many real independent SOURCES of this information/number were.
In case of WW2 armour - question is not in how many books the number is cited, but how many independent people personally MEASURED this armour and published their OWN data. )

then it seems that their credibility is very low... If you have some people and everybody says other value, then everyone expet one simply... disinforms you (to not say - lay). People like to "colour" their stories, like to say exciting infos... If there is so many versions, then many people lays, and if some of them lays then you can't be sure that ANY of those values is actually true :-(

Don't know the autors of the book mentioned in first post, if they are naval specialists or novelists... if the latter, then maybe they just collected wrong info or missed the recent infos and cited old cold-war knowledge.
The great depth of Alfa was believed by western inteligence in cold-war era, don't know if this belief was result of own technical analyses, soviet propaganda or disinformation, or maybe by analogy or mistaken with titanium Mike. Also the words of submariner... well, I don't know him, as I said people like to "coluor" their stories, or sometimes believe that even now they should not give exact data and continue strategy of disinformation. It turned out many times with other first-hand war stories - that the first-hand info given was just not true... The Alfa didn't had to dive deep to lost the follower - all it had to do would be speed up to 42kts - there were no sub that could follow :-). And that capitan says that it was not only very fast, and diving to 3000ft, but also doing this VERY QUIETLY.
I don't believe that with 60's technology it was possible to have 40+kts and 3000ft diving sub, and now I am to believe that it was great not in 2 but in 3 areas - speed, diving and quietness ? All 3 in one sub ?

From what I remember from my read, the use of titanium was because the mass of steel hull + needed reactor, turbines and transmission was just too great. And this makes sense. Papa class was very fast (the official speed record was beaten by Papa class, not Alfa as Kapitan wrote) but not deep diving. Mike was very deep diving but not exeptionaly fast. Maybe from technical point of view you can't have both in one hull ? (at least with 60-70's technology, maybe today with composities) To pack reactor, turbines and transmission powerfull enaugh to achieve speed of 33-35kts with 688 class, constructors had to... make it's hull thinner and reduce it's diving depth. They simply can't fit within mass limit with usually used steel hull's thickness. If they used titanium, they would probably succeed and 688 would be diving like Thresher or even Seawolf. But still not to 3000ft.
If it was possible to reach both over 40kts and over 2000ft in one hull then why the later expensive titanium Sierra can't do that ? Both "record" classes, Mike and Papa were build with titanium, and both did only records in one category. Mike dived to over 3000ft but it's speed was 31kts. Papa holds speed record of 44.7kts, but had operational depth of 400m and max 550m (what would be that "max" value - safe excursion depth or crush depth ?)
It just makes sense now, when we know that it couldn't do both things, because it would be too heavy. For years constructors all over the world wondered how was it done, and now we know that it wasn't. It was fast but not deep diving. This info is from Russian source I think, I read this few years ago on great Russian webpage with tons of info about Russian submarines. Can't read Russian very well, so used english translation by Babelfish or similar translator. I'll try to find this adress.

That would be here I think: http://www.submarina.ru/sub.php?705

Cheers!

P.S. Maybe there is one more possible explanation - the titanium is more "elastic" than steel, so is it possible that operational or safe depth is much lower than crush depth, the hull would withstand much more than operational depth but with unacceptable hull deformations ? Then accidentally sub could have been much deeper than those 350-400m, but not operationally ? (and - again - if you can run at 42kts, do you really need to dive to 3000ft ? in 60-70s you can outrun any torpedo, wouldn't it be better to spend residue mass for example on more weapons on board than on super-strong hull ? ).

[Kapitan]

i still say its capible of 700 meters as many sources do suggest that both russian and western which makes it kinda un bias
as for speed id say still 45 knots because the fact the al'fa is enterd in the record books at that speed how ever it could be possible the papa is faster

dont need to dive deep and go fast at same time only need one save on other or it be too expencive as the russians found with sierra which dives to 800 meters and speeds of 35 knots

if you can out dive you enamy and any torpedo in the world why go fast ? if you can out run any torpedo why go deep ? i think this is a mix of both in the al'fa 700meters 42-45 knots which makes it more realistic

[LuftWolf]

Based solely on the conversation in this thread, and borrowing Amizaur's logic for use on what I know about technology from that period, I'd say the Alfa made 42 kts @ 400m test, with limited sonar capability that was further reduced by interference from its own noise (this I've heard elsewhere), specifically along the low narrow bands used to detect submarines at any distance. The liquid metal reactor was unreliable and particularly noisy, especially in combination with the titanium hull (this I've heard elsewhere).

I'd imagine the American submariniers could track Alfas for days without being detected and then engage them in excercises when they were ready to break contact, or slip away.

Kapitain, perhaps the reason the Americans weren't subtle about engaging the Alfa's was because they wouldn't have been heard otherwise? :hmm:

[SquidB]

I think that 400m test depth is far too shallow.

Even the most conservative estimates put it at around 600-700m.

[LuftWolf]

And the US government thought the Russians had a multiplicative missile advantage in terms of ICBM's during the cold war. We know now that we had far more missiles at any time than they ever did. I don't put much stock in "old truths" from the Cold War.

[SquidB]

And the US government thought the Russians had a multiplicative missile advantage in terms of ICBM's during the cold war. We know now that we had far more missiles at any time than they ever did. I don't put much stock in "old truths" from the Cold War.

Yep and look how they got it wrong, now in the light of recent knowledge we know that the "Missile Gap" was a falacy.

Now orginally it was thought that the alfa's hull allowed it to dive deep. Then the director of central intelligence stated in 1983 that it didnt.

Next in 2003 after the cold war has died down and many things have been declassified we have a first hand report from a actual alfa captain saying his boat routinely went to 1000m.

I guess as more time goes on and more info is realeased many "hard facts" will be turned around.

[Kapitan]

Next in 2003 after the cold war has died down and many things have been declassified we have a first hand report from a actual alfa captain saying his boat routinely went to 1000m.

first of all which captain was this what was his rank ?

since the al'fa is still largely classified even today i think it be very stupid to openly state classified information because al'fa had two types of hull hang on a sec !

the last two al'fa units were not constructed of titanium they were constructed of steel il find the source in a little while but they russians cuold not afford to maintain titanium huls so instead of canceling they converted two boats to steel and thus causes the confusion between 400 meters and 700 meters

possibly the titanium hulled boats could dive to 700 meters in fact more than likely and the reason for the 400 meters is the 1995 tests with a steel hulled al'fa only logical explination with radical depth space

[SquidB]

first of all which captain was this what was his rank ?

Well it was Captain First Rank Boris Kolyada.

As I have mentioned from the very begining of the threadc

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

possibly the titanium hulled boats could dive to 700 meters in fact more than likely and the reason for the 400 meters is the 1995 tests with a steel hulled al'fa only logical explination with radical depth space

Not at all. There's alway been a wide range of answers concerning military capabilities for a single platform.