Soviet subs tactics - Page 7

LeopardDriver · 07-18-17, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Heh, missed this thread. My 50 cents would be that it appears that our estimed US comrades do not understand the logic of the Soviet submarine development.

Not only is the effect of spy rings over estimated, the driving requirements behind the developments are poorly understood, for example why and when did Soviets switch to rafting? Why Alfas were small, fast SSNs? Why didn't Soviets deploy more weapons on SSBNs? etc.

So what are your answers to the questions raised?

ikalugin · 07-18-17, 02:42 PM

I do not wish to spoil all the fun

Kapitan · 07-18-17, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I do not wish to spoil all the fun

As far as im led to believe Alfa was meant to be a sort of interceptor submarine here is a boat with a huge power out put from a powerful reactor in a small light wieght hull with minimal crew the idea being they would dart out of port and chase down any enemy submarines.

But please do answer the questions you raise leads to endless possibilities

JhonSilver · 07-18-17, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

US comrades do not understand the logic of the Soviet submarine development.

There is no logic here. It's Russians. They are all crazy.

For example - soviet subs in the game several times make suicide dive when running from me.

---------
Atrina - is no group action. Subs spread over Atlantic with absolut different goal.

-----
sorry bad english

ikalugin · 07-18-17, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan

As far as im led to believe Alfa was meant to be a sort of interceptor submarine here is a boat with a huge power out put from a powerful reactor in a small light wieght hull with minimal crew the idea being they would dart out of port and chase down any enemy submarines.

But please do answer the questions you raise leads to endless possibilities

In case of Alfa, it is basically a product of MIC inertia.

The original concept indeed was to create an interceptor submarine with minimal displacement (titanium hull, automation) and maximum speed (high energy density) as a part of the system (with fixed sensors, ships and C3ISR submarines) to combat then short ranged SLBM platforms. As such stealth was not the chief concern, speed (both in transit and in combat), manueverability were.

However due to the growth of the SLBM range the original requirement for Alfa dissappeared, the C3ISR submarine project, after several iterations made birth.... to Akula class (Akula class was originally developed as a subset of that project, the project itself was never completed into metal but desighn elements went into Akula and 4th gen desighns ie Yasen).

TigerDude · 07-18-17, 05:02 PM

Wow. I'll go back to the beginning.

Russian doctrine of active use was to go active at detection of US sub because the assumption was that the US sub already had them. Getting a quick range is not a bad thing at that point. Randomly going active in the middle of the ocean? Probably not. There was a case of a Russian sub tracking one of our ssbn's for an extended time using active, and there were countermeasure methods put in place to prevent it in the future.

US doctrine was the first sub to go active was the first sub to die. It's a laser beam to your location.

US sub battle was assumed to be either very close combat where you find an enemy ship close aboard or a long range approach where they find you only when you shoot. I highly doubt that Russian doctrine was anything close to it. Go active, match bearing rate if you have one, shoot.

On the titanium thing, a significant part of this is that titanium has a finite fatigue life. With steel, you can design so that you can stress it infinitely and it never fails. Titanium does not have this point, so each stress of the hull lessens its life. US subsafe procedures are to go to test depth basically every time out. Those titanium subs wouldn't last doing that. Same principle applies to soviet titanium fighters. There are many on the market at the airframe hour limit for the fatigue reason.

ikalugin · 07-18-17, 06:17 PM

Peacetime/wartime difference.

Ie when was the first time Soviet crews were authorised to use self propelled imitators? How did it affect NATO ASW efforts?

The thing is, US never had a need to develop titanium hull construction, because requirements to dive extra deep (~1000m+ dive depth in case of Mike and various special purpose hulls) or to cut down on displacement (Alfas, Sierras, Kedr-T) were not there, nor was there MIC inertia to warrant further titanium manufacture (Kedr-T, to lesser extend Sierras).

Overall titanium's problem is not fatigue but it's price and how hard it is to use (machining, welding, etc).

Capt Jack Harkness · 07-18-17, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerDude

On the titanium thing, a significant part of this is that titanium has a finite fatigue life. With steel, you can design so that you can stress it infinitely and it never fails. Titanium does not have this point, so each stress of the hull lessens its life. US subsafe procedures are to go to test depth basically every time out. Those titanium subs wouldn't last doing that. Same principle applies to soviet titanium fighters. There are many on the market at the airframe hour limit for the fatigue reason.

I thought it was aluminum that has a finite fatigue life... Our fighter planes have a flight hour limit because a lot of the load is carried by aluminum (thus the reason why peace time G limits are lower than war time). Also, titanium is routinely used as a lighter alternative to steel for connecting rods in high performance cars and motorcycles that need to last the life of the vehicle whereas aluminum is unheard of outside drag racing (where short part lifespans are expected).

But getting back on topic...

TigerDude · 07-19-17, 12:47 AM

You are right, Jack. Not sure why I had that in my mind.

Bad gouge.

Shadriss · 07-19-17, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt Jack Harkness

I thought it was aluminum that has a finite fatigue life... Our fighter planes have a flight hour limit because a lot of the load is carried by aluminum (thus the reason why peace time G limits are lower than war time). Also, titanium is routinely used as a lighter alternative to steel for connecting rods in high performance cars and motorcycles that need to last the life of the vehicle whereas aluminum is unheard of outside drag racing (where short part lifespans are expected).

But getting back on topic...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerDude

You are right, Jack. Not sure why I had that in my mind.

Bad gouge.

Not entirely, Tiger... you were close. It's not fatigue life - it's how titanium reacts to the compression forced on it by sea pressure as an over-time situation. IE, over time when at depth, the deeper it goes the more fragile it becomes, hence the reason the ALFA kept having to reduce it's operating depths.

At least, assuming I've been given good gouge myself.

ikalugin · 07-19-17, 03:17 PM

Alfas were never deep divers to begin with.

Now the special purpose hulls (ie Paltus) are an another story.

Delgard · 07-20-17, 12:47 AM

I understood 0nly one Paltus (Northern Fleet)

???

ikalugin · 07-20-17, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgard

I understood 0nly one Paltus (Northern Fleet)

???

We operate several titanium special purpose submarines. Paltus was used as an example, some open sources state 4 in service.

The running joke is that if this keeps up GUGI would have more assets than the Navy.

banryu79 · 05-12-20, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ollie1983

This Russian fanboy stance doesn't wash.

The Alfa class were very noisy. The fact they could dive deep and had a high top speed, yeah and? You don't think NATO could build a submarine out of titanium if they wanted to?

Actually they couldn't.

Iteresting lecture here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...r-mystery.html

(Sorry, I know I'm replying to a very old post, but the link contains very interesting info about the weldings of titanium and a fascinating story about it).

shipkiller1 · 05-12-20, 06:24 AM

The reason we (the West) never built one it not because we couldn't, it was because there was no reason to, tactically, and because we did not have access to enough titanium.

As I have said here before, having the ability to dive deep is of very limited value. Generally, based on 90% of the water in the world you are going to evade an incoming weapon shallow.

Being able to go really fast has some uses, mainly for weapon evasion, but due to the Alpha's radiated noise levels at anything above 10kts, it just makes it easier to track.

Back in the last 80's, the US Navy put a five bladed screw on the USS Groton. She did 41kts, but was noisy as hell.

07-18-17, 02:42 PM	#92
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	I do not wish to spoil all the fun __________________ Grumpy as always.

07-18-17, 06:17 PM	#97
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Peacetime/wartime difference. Ie when was the first time Soviet crews were authorised to use self propelled imitators? How did it affect NATO ASW efforts? The thing is, US never had a need to develop titanium hull construction, because requirements to dive extra deep (~1000m+ dive depth in case of Mike and various special purpose hulls) or to cut down on displacement (Alfas, Sierras, Kedr-T) were not there, nor was there MIC inertia to warrant further titanium manufacture (Kedr-T, to lesser extend Sierras). Overall titanium's problem is not fatigue but it's price and how hard it is to use (machining, welding, etc). __________________ Grumpy as always. Last edited by ikalugin; 07-18-17 at 06:30 PM.

07-19-17, 03:17 PM	#101
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Alfas were never deep divers to begin with. Now the special purpose hulls (ie Paltus) are an another story. __________________ Grumpy as always.

07-18-17, 05:02 PM	#96
TigerDude Swabbie Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 14 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Wow. I'll go back to the beginning. Russian doctrine of active use was to go active at detection of US sub because the assumption was that the US sub already had them. Getting a quick range is not a bad thing at that point. Randomly going active in the middle of the ocean? Probably not. There was a case of a Russian sub tracking one of our ssbn's for an extended time using active, and there were countermeasure methods put in place to prevent it in the future. US doctrine was the first sub to go active was the first sub to die. It's a laser beam to your location. US sub battle was assumed to be either very close combat where you find an enemy ship close aboard or a long range approach where they find you only when you shoot. I highly doubt that Russian doctrine was anything close to it. Go active, match bearing rate if you have one, shoot. On the titanium thing, a significant part of this is that titanium has a finite fatigue life. With steel, you can design so that you can stress it infinitely and it never fails. Titanium does not have this point, so each stress of the hull lessens its life. US subsafe procedures are to go to test depth basically every time out. Those titanium subs wouldn't last doing that. Same principle applies to soviet titanium fighters. There are many on the market at the airframe hour limit for the fatigue reason.

07-19-17, 12:47 AM	#99
TigerDude Swabbie Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 14 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	You are right, Jack. Not sure why I had that in my mind. Bad gouge.

07-20-17, 12:47 AM	#102
Delgard Skipper Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: AZ & DC Posts: 487 Downloads: 48 Uploads: 0	I understood 0nly one Paltus (Northern Fleet) ???

05-12-20, 06:24 AM	#105
shipkiller1 Electrician's Mate Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 136 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	The reason we (the West) never built one it not because we couldn't, it was because there was no reason to, tactically, and because we did not have access to enough titanium. As I have said here before, having the ability to dive deep is of very limited value. Generally, based on 90% of the water in the world you are going to evade an incoming weapon shallow. Being able to go really fast has some uses, mainly for weapon evasion, but due to the Alpha's radiated noise levels at anything above 10kts, it just makes it easier to track. Back in the last 80's, the US Navy put a five bladed screw on the USS Groton. She did 41kts, but was noisy as hell.