Soviet subs tactics

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by denis_469

You not right. Depth limit was 700 meters or 2297 feet. Maximal speed was 41 knots. And subs was silence like Kilo submarine. What you write about noisy was special. In few orders submarine must very nisy so covert other submarines go. After receive order submarine 705 project go in depth few then 100 meters an start flank speed. Start very noisy and US SOSUS system can not detect other submarines with less noisy. But in normal Alfa subs was silence like Kilo class so use electric motors.


So it is submarines now so depth diving is secret.



Papa depth was 400 meters or 1312 feet.

The 900m limit on the Alfa is varied many sources say 700m some say 900m some say 800m what is know is that they have been tracked and recorded at speeds of 42 knots by not only by the USN but also the RN and French navies, it was also confirmed by SOSUS in the 70's, as for thier loudness alot of western submariners and SOSUS operators will tell you they were very loud and it is a known fact revealed by Dr John Craven that an alfa coming off the North Cape at high speed was picked up at a SOSUS listening station in Bermuda.

The point with the Papa was to re enforce the notion that they have built multiple classes of titanium hulled submarines.

The Sierra class is very well known and documented to have the ability to dive to around 850 meters a lot of the depths were worked out by calculation (in the Project 705 case) but others like the Sierra the west have recorded their diving capabilities, the Sierra information that is current lists this not just in western sources but also Russian sources the Sierra is extremely well built.

[denis_469]

The Bandit - you not true. In this year (2017) first commander first submarine project 671RT (Victor II NATO) say, that him submarine have range detection in US Ohio submarine more then 100 cables (more than 10 miles). And US submarine use masking device like surface cargo ship in this range.
But really situation is secret and I himself know what write submarine commanders in Internet.

[denis_469]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

The 900m limit on the Alfa is varied many sources say 700m some say 900m some say 800m what is know is that they have been tracked and recorded at speeds of 42 knots by not only by the USN but also the RN and French navies, it was also confirmed by SOSUS in the 70's, as for thier loudness alot of western submariners and SOSUS operators will tell you they were very loud and it is a known fact revealed by Dr John Craven that an alfa coming off the North Cape at high speed was picked up at a SOSUS listening station in Bermuda.

The point with the Papa was to re enforce the notion that they have built multiple classes of titanium hulled submarines.

The Sierra class is very well known and documented to have the ability to dive to around 850 meters a lot of the depths were worked out by calculation (in the Project 705 case) but others like the Sierra the west have recorded their diving capabilities, the Sierra information that is current lists this not just in western sources but also Russian sources the Sierra is extremely well built.

About Alfa you need understand that 700 meters is safe depth, but 900 meters is crush depth. About speed - all may be. During WWII one German submarine type VIIC write, that in Gibraltar transfer was speed 11 knots. So may be and 42 knots.

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

How strong is that hull? why not ask the 1992 crew of the K-276 Kastroma, while submerged the Kastroma collided with the Los Angeles class submarine USS Baton Rouge SSN 689 the damage to the Baton rouge was deemed so severe the vessel was deemed uneconomical to repair and scrapped, the Kastroma suffered Minor damage to her sail and now wears a kill star.

To be fair, the Sierra took its damage in the sail, which is outside the pressure hull. Sails are also reinforced for ice penetration. Also, titanium has about the same strength as steel; its advantage is its lower density, so for the same weight you can get twice the thickness of hull, for example.

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Before you say it the USN has the seawolf class SSN yes i know it can dive to over 600 meters, however she isn't made of titanium she is made of HY130 steel unlike the 688's, Virginia' Trafalgar Swifsures and Astutes which are made of HY80 steel.

I thought the Virginia was made of HY80 as well, but I've seen that the Seawolves are made of HY100 and the Virginias of HY120 (for any who don't know, this means yield strength of 120,000 psi).
http://www.aticourses.com/blog/index...-shark-at-sea/

In all this discussion of American vs Russian submarines, it seems like the Russian submarines were much more of science projects. As in, the Americans found a design they liked and kept making subs like that while the Russians kept experimenting. Whether this is because they couldn't make up their minds on a sub design or wanted to keep improving/exploring is something I can't comment on.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by The Bandit

From what I've read the Baton Rogue incident is often overblown in terms of the damage that the boat actually suffered. She wasn't immediately decommissioned and if any repairs were deferred it was just as likely due to the peace dividend as much as anything else. Two other early 688s were decommed at the same time as Baton Rogue (Omaha and Cinncinati), they hadn't been involved in collisions, its just that they were considered surplus and the Navy had decided not to spend the $$ to refuel them.

From what I recall, the collision between USS ?Grayling or Greenling? and an Echo II was quite a bit worse (the US captain feared that the Soviets sunk) but both boats survived and were put back in service.

For all the flak they get about being second rate, even without taking titanium into account, as far as metallurgy goes the Soviets were ahead pretty much from the time the Foxtrot hit the water, with the Victor class being built out of steel that exceeds HY100 (Seawolf was HY100 by the way, not HY130 which is what the CONFORM design from the 70s was supposed to be made from) and this was in the late 60s! Their double-hull designs were typically stronger, with more reserve buoyancy and greater resistance to damage (most designs could survive the loss of one full compartment and associated ballast tanks) so they did have a lot going for them.

While the argument has been made that the Soviet boats are quieter than given credit for (so maybe they weren't as far behind in this area as often said) I don't think any argument can be made for how much they lagged behind in the electronics department and I do agree with the notion that for probably the entire Cold War the Americans had the upper hand (better electronics / sonar and superior silencing techniques) but the "inferior" Soviet foe was not to be taken lightly.

The other thing that I will say, which is kind of ironic when you compare the backgrounds of the respective countries, looking at what they had to work with, I think the Russians were more creative with their submarine designs, mainly because they had to be. They were aware of their weaknesses / disadvantages and tried to work around them as best they could, coming up with many innovative designs in the process.

USS Greyling collided with the Delta IV class submarine K407 under the command of Captain 1st Rank Sergey Bulgarkov

USS Tautog Collided with the Echo II class submarine K108 in the 1970's the K108 under the command of Captain Boris Bogdasaryan spoke of the incident in the 90's and it featured in Blind mans Bluff, the Tautog sail was left with a permanent 2 degree angle.

The Alfa sail design was a mistake the designer didn't mean to blend it as such but it worked very well, what is more these submarines were highly automated as a lot are in the Russian fleet, the Akula only has around 50-60 crew where as the 688 has between 115-130

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by denis_469

About Alfa you need understand that 700 meters is safe depth, but 900 meters is crush depth. About speed - all may be. During WWII one German submarine type VIIC write, that in Gibraltar transfer was speed 11 knots. So may be and 42 knots.

Indeed crush depth for these boats was deep but we do know not only did they retire early most in the early 80's they also had some issues with hull cracking which was published by the Russians in 1995.

[denis_469]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Indeed crush depth for these boats was deep but we do know not only did they retire early most in the early 80's they also had some issues with hull cracking which was published by the Russians in 1995.

Hull cracking was say that scrapped submarine. Say, that submarine have cracking hulls and delete this submarine.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

To be fair, the Sierra took its damage in the sail, which is outside the pressure hull. Sails are also reinforced for ice penetration. Also, titanium has about the same strength as steel; its advantage is its lower density, so for the same weight you can get twice the thickness of hull, for example.



I thought the Virginia was made of HY80 as well, but I've seen that the Seawolves are made of HY100 and the Virginias of HY120 (for any who don't know, this means yield strength of 120,000 psi).
http://www.aticourses.com/blog/index...-shark-at-sea/

In all this discussion of American vs Russian submarines, it seems like the Russian submarines were much more of science projects. As in, the Americans found a design they liked and kept making subs like that while the Russians kept experimenting. Whether this is because they couldn't make up their minds on a sub design or wanted to keep improving/exploring is something I can't comment on.

In fairness yes the Kastroma took a light hit but if you look at the damage to the San fransisco it makes you wonder just how much damage did baton rouge suffer?

I am aware of the HY ratings i did read the Virginia is built along similar lines to the Astute in terms of steel used and pre fabrication methods following on from the Seawolf.

I gathered from many sources that the reason for seawolfs expense wasn't all down to the kit inside it was the hull and many sources pointed to HY130 being used but HY100 is still expensive, as for the Virginias using HY120 this could mean a deeper diving submarine?

[denis_469]

Kapitan - US Virginia have HY-80 steel:
"Depth: 800+ feet (operational)
approx. 1200 feet (safe depth)
approx. 1800 feet (crash depth)"

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by denis_469

Hull cracking was say that scrapped submarine. Say, that submarine have cracking hulls and delete this submarine.

Hull cracking has been found not just in Russian boats but also British ones, so its not new.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by denis_469

Kapitan - US Virginia have HY-80 steel:
"Depth: 800+ feet (operational)
approx. 1200 feet (safe depth)
approx. 1800 feet (crash depth)"

Which ties in with the costing figures for each boat yet the price of steel has decreased,

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by denis_469

Kapitan - US Virginia have HY-80 steel:
"Depth: 800+ feet (operational)
approx. 1200 feet (safe depth)
approx. 1800 feet (crash depth)"

HY-80 has not been used in a long time.. 774 class does not use HY-80.

[denis_469]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

HY-80 has not been used in a long time.. 774 class does not use HY-80.

I write data for "SSN-787". May be other steel use, but diving depth this.

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

In fairness yes the Kastroma took a light hit but if you look at the damage to the San fransisco it makes you wonder just how much damage did baton rouge suffer?

The San Francisco damage was immense. That, too, was also outside of the pressure hull, though. Or, at least a bulk of it was. The sonar dome is outside the pressure hull. "Small scrapes", as Wikipedia describes it, on the pressure hull could be much deadlier (or more crippling) to an LA than the front-end collision on the San Francisco.

Originally Posted by Kapitan

I am aware of the HY ratings i did read the Virginia is built along similar lines to the Astute in terms of steel used and pre fabrication methods following on from the Seawolf.

I gathered from many sources that the reason for seawolfs expense wasn't all down to the kit inside it was the hull and many sources pointed to HY130 being used but HY100 is still expensive, as for the Virginias using HY120 this could mean a deeper diving submarine?

Well, the Seawolf also has a significantly larger beam. The circumference of the Seawolf hull is nearly 40% longer than for the Virginia and the Seawolf isn't too much shorter, so the Seawolf has more steel. (A rough calculation gives approximately 10% more steel assuming constant hull thickness between Seawolf and Virginia. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption if the Seawolf can dive deeper than the Virginia, though).

For a crude example, if the Virginia hull thickness is the same as the LA, that would mean a greater diving depth. If they wanted the same diving depth as HY80 on the LA, however, they could use a thinner wall made of HY120. However, the Virginia weighs a lot more so I'm not sure about the thinner part. It's probably a combination of slightly thinner but still a somewhat greater diving depth.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

The San Francisco damage was immense. That, too, was also outside of the pressure hull, though. Or, at least a bulk of it was. The sonar dome is outside the pressure hull. "Small scrapes", as Wikipedia describes it, on the pressure hull could be much deadlier (or more crippling) to an LA than the front-end collision on the San Francisco.



Well, the Seawolf also has a significantly larger beam. The circumference of the Seawolf hull is nearly 40% longer than for the Virginia and the Seawolf isn't too much shorter, so the Seawolf has more steel. (A rough calculation gives approximately 10% more steel assuming constant hull thickness between Seawolf and Virginia. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption if the Seawolf can dive deeper than the Virginia, though).

For a crude example, if the Virginia hull thickness is the same as the LA, that would mean a greater diving depth. If they wanted the same diving depth as HY80 on the LA, however, they could use a thinner wall made of HY120. However, the Virginia weighs a lot more so I'm not sure about the thinner part. It's probably a combination of slightly thinner but still a somewhat greater diving depth.

I did see pictures of the San Francisco its bow was eventually cut off and replaced with an older laid up 688 that's what i heard not sure on the truth of it, but yes the damage was immense to say the least only pictures i've ever seen with that much damage came from the Kursk in 2000

As for the HY ratings i understand the pressure ratings but in terms of thickness relation to strength thats where i get lost, given the state of technology today i would assume that HY 120 steel is some what cheaper today than back in the 70's and 80's when the 688's were coming online, i do know the hull cost for seawolf was extremely expensive again that was a cost forecast taken from 1997 so again thats taken from the time.