/k/,
i come to you with a question that i hope you enthusiasts/experts will be able to answer:
What are the reasons/parameters, for the Navies around the world to define the operating depth of their submarines?
Why are there submarines that only dive to about 200 meters like in WW2 and others that go much deeper like 600 or even more meters?
I know the deterministic fact is the construction/design - but whats the reason for the decision to build it for an operating depth of XXX meters?
Anything strategical? Is it only about shekels?
No idea for me.. Maybe you know something..
>>29461913
You shouldn't trust any publically listed depth capabilities for any active class of sub. Test and absolute depth capabilities are highly guarded secrets.
>>29462082
sure they are. but what are the intentions of the estimated depth?
as seen in the picture for example the diesel powered very cheap subs are not going to dive very long and very deep. i kind of understand that those are designed for this usual depth then.
but whats about the different depths of the nuclear powered subs?
why do they differ? why is sub A designed to operate in a depth of 400m, while sub B is designed to operate in a depth of 600m ?
>>29461913
>What are the reasons/parameters, for the Navies around the world to define the operating depth of their submarines?
Physics - Every submarine (as in each specific submarine not class) will have a different operating maximum and theoretical maximum.
This is dependant on the welds and history of that specific sub. A first in class sub for the US and UK will always have a hamstrung operating and not to exceed depth. this is because the first in class goes through more vigirous sea trials. Much like aircraft, subs will fatigue over time, exposing them to high pressure will weaken the hull.
You probably wont find any Subs operating deeper than 100m for prolonged periods. NATO subs will have an operational limit of around 600. And all modern subs will have a crush depth in the region of 1000m.
>Why are there submarines that only dive to about 200 meters like in WW2 and others that go much deeper like 600 or even more meters?
Quality of construction / materials.
>but whats about the different depths of the nuclear powered subs?
>why do they differ? why is sub A designed to operate in a depth of 400m, while sub B is designed to operate in a depth of 600m ?
Depth is a secondary consideration and tends to be a consequence of the rest of the design - like agility for a bomber.
Depth wont hide you, its more important to make your submarine quiet and fast.
>>29462243
thx for the very interesting info so far.
>Depth is a secondary consideration and tends to be a consequence of the rest of the design - like agility for a bomber.
>Depth wont hide you, its more important to make your submarine quiet and fast.
what is the advantage of diving/operating deeper then?
i mean there has to be an advantage because im pretty sure its much more expensive to build a sub thats able to operate in a depth of around 600m than less..
>>29462302
A strong hull will allow you to to break through ice and survive near misses. The useful consequence of this is the ability to go deep.
The main advantage of having a deep diving depth is having room to manurer. In an ASW hunt in the open ocean you will probably have 30+ mins between contacts.
being able to drastically change your bearing, position and depth between contacts makes it far harder for your enemy to get an accurate firing solution.
Once a weapon is fired at you, travelling at full speed away from the threat and diving as fast as possible is the best way to move to defend yourself. The deeper you can dive the more distance you put between you and the threat.
>>29462243
>>29462405
thanks lads.
/k/ did not let me down.
>>29462428
NP
I don't mind answering more, I'm bored. If you're lucky i'll get too drunk to care about opsec.
>>29462137
My guess would be it has to do with the operational scope of the sub. I am not an expert but a sub with only 400 meters may have a specific mission type it caters to, while a deep sub has its own set of parameters to fulfill.
>shekels
I doubt its that, if you need something to perform a certain type of mission then you just buy it, though you get the cheapest one, or if youre not NATO, US, or other big mil you may have things based on price, but the US, lol they just print money whether the hardware works or not haha
>>29462495
The US can print as much money as it likes. it wont make titanium appear within in its boarders. That's why the CIA had to set up companies as a front to buy titanium from the USSR.
During the cold war the west cold only dream of building an all titanium submarine like the alfa. We were stupidly lucky that the Russians pissed it all away by putting to experimental reactors inside them - the liquid metal reactors were noisy as fuck.
>>29462438
are you an operator of a submarine anywhere or are you an engineer building them?
>>29462405
What about acoustic wave propagation?
>>29462438
I am never too drunk to report OPSEC violations Alton.
Monitoring like a dick-gazer on drug-test day. Watch yourself fool.
>>29462616
>"Ramona" Yang from the People's Liberation Army Navy
Another thing. Heat engine torpedoes lose range with depth (more energy to expel gases under pressure) so deep diving submarine has better chances to outrun torpedo. Especially short ranged lightweight torpedos from helicopters.
>>29462585
I was RN.
I served on two T boats and got rejected for an A boat, so I left rather than service on a V boat.
>>29462599
What about it ?
Sound doesn't travel in straight lines and is bouncy as fuck, who knew.
>>29462616
There is really very little i'd be able to tell you desu, i just feel like talking to people. Most of the time you have no idea where you are or what depth your at.
you can be having a laugh with your friends in some off time and all of a sudden the sub is told to STFU for an hour - then everything is back to normal, you have no idea why.
>>29462819
i forgot a photo.
>>29462850
damn i could not stay in one of those things for longer than a week, I would go crazy
>>29463244
If you don't mind practical jokes, physical violence and sharing films / music like its the 90's then it pretty neat.
You'd be amazed at how good the cooks are that bringing variety to each day. But you'll put on a shit load of weight and 30 second showers are a bastard.
fucking submarines dude them shits is crazy
>>29462438
How come everytime a sub goes under they try to be as quiet as possible?
I know that sonar can hear sounds from the sub, but is it really so good that you can find a dead quiet sub just cause someone coughed or talked in a normal voice?
>>29464665
Shut up Rosie
Reminder that American submarines are inferior to Russian ones.
>>29464713
>How come everytime a sub goes under they try to be as quiet as possible?
Sorry I went to bed.
noise is only regulated in certain situations on a nuclear submarine. The main threat on a nuclear sub is from machine noise - water filtration, cooking, reactor plant noise etc. Some of these noises can be stopped (at least temporarily) some cant be stopped at all. All of these sounds are louder than your voice so keeping quiet wont hide you.
For a diesel sub that can shut almost everything down,so not speaking becomes far more important because your opponent can get far closer to you.
On the subject of noise, there are few things more unpleasant in a submarine than hearing a commercial ship or warship sailing above you. It starts as distant propeller noise and gets louder and louder, and your mind is telling you that SURELY it cant get any closer or louder. This can go on for a few minutes at a time.
The English channel and Mediterranean are very bad for a submariners nerves.
>>29465079
Not even close to being true.
The closest the Russians came was with Akula, which was a massive leap forward. Thats mainly because of US traitors leaking plans and technologies to the USSR. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker)
Even then Akula was still inferior to Trafalgar and on par with the first generation of Los Angeles class.
>>29462082
And whenever I say that because this is true for most military capabilities all /k/ threads can amount to are role play, everyone gets mad at me for being captain buzzkill.
>>29461913
"Max depth" is typically where you have no reason to go beyond during peacetime because going further can cause undue stress on the hull (remember these things are meant to last 30+ years). It's the same reason why it's frowned upon for pilots to be pulling max Gs during training exercises. Crush depth is closer to actual maximum depth that a sub can realistically go.
How come whenever I say submarines are probably already obsolete because of secret military tech everyone gets mad? I'm assuming the military wouldn't want America to know that billions of dollars of taxpayer investment is useless?
>>29466514
Russian subs forced western nations to develop faster torpedoes and no western nation puts escape pods on their submarines. Strange how everyone on /k/ knocks Russian subs for being dangerous, but western nations don't even bother with it. I'm guessing they just tell submariners that if anything goes wrong you'll die.
>>29466585
>How come whenever I say submarines are probably already obsolete because of secret military tech everyone gets mad?
1. Who are you replying to ? where did you say that and where did someone reply?
2. They probably don't like you because you're talking about something that by its very nature - you have no idea about. And you're talking about it in such a way as to try and make yourself seem like you have some knowledge that you do not actually posses.
>Russian subs forced western nations to develop faster torpedoes and no western nation puts escape pods on their submarines.
1. How are these two things related in your mind and why are they in the same sentence?
2. Asides from the Alfa being a gimmick submarine, seeing one nation react to another capabilities does not really prove anything.
3. Western subs forced Russia to try and build quieter submarines with better sensors. While they have made progress they are not close to being on par.
>Strange how everyone on /k/ knocks Russian subs for being dangerous, but western nations don't even bother with it.
1. who are your replying to, you're inventing someone to argue with again.
2. "western subs don't bother with it" Dont bother with what ? safety or sinking ?
3. Escape pods on submarines are redundant for several reasons. Firstly is the inability to fit the whole crew. Second is the inability to access the pod either because of the speed with which flooding / fire restricts access or kills you. Third if the submarine is shallow escape hatches and ascent training allow you to escape. If the submarine is deep the best chance of survival is to stay with the submarine and use the onboard survival tools and dispatch the SUBSUNK message. Finally, the west (and the US is excluded from this for a change) has drastically better submarine rescue equipment and personnel. Had the UK's submarine rescue teams been allowed access to Kursk as soon as they arrived then the trapped crew would of survived
>>29466806
I never said that in this thread, I almost always say that in naval threads when submarines are mentioned.
While it's true I'm vain and act kinda cocky on the internet, as you said by its very nature I can't know about it, but simple pattern analysis points to that technology existing already or very soon.
>>29466806
Oh and to answer the rest of your post...
I have communication difficulties. I'm basically retarded. I didn't clearly word anything. I'm also tired!
>>29466889
Well done for being honest, good to see :)
>>29466806
>us doesnt have good sub rescue equipment
did tom clancy lie to me? Does US not have world class DSRVs?
>>29466915
The US doesn't really contribute anything more than money to NATO submarine rescue.
The NATO submarine rescue system is run by the UK, Norway at to a lesser extent France. The UK and Norway use their experience and technologies from north sea oil rigs and are very good at what they do.
They have two systems that can be deployed by air to anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Submarine_Rescue_System
>>29466585
>Strange how everyone on /k/ knocks Russian subs for being dangerous
Probably because the Russian Navy's sub fleet has over three times as many accidents as every NATO sub fleet... combined.
>>29466967
Does the US not have its own rescue system? Considering the US nuke fleet is bigger than every other NATO fleet combined i find it hard to believe they wouldnt have some kind of system
>>29466986
For a country that lost 25% of its population and had its entire farming and production industries destroyed only a few decades prior, what they achieved is still very impressive and respectable.
>>29467010
nope, they retired their two DSRV's in 2000 and 2008.
The current system is adequate for peacetime as it is very expensive to run and hard to maintain skills. bare in mind that this system is primarily for all of NATO and then available to help any submarine in the world. As i mentioned earlier they were on site and ready to assist Kursk but were denied access until it was too late.
>>29467010
I'd be surprised if they didn't, kinda like I'd be surprised if they don't have a battle plan for invading Antarctica. With all the money and time dumped into military projects you can usually safely assume they have a contingency for everything.
I wonder if the plans for what they would do in the event of an alien invasion will be released lol
>>29467038
Red Herring.
Try harder next time, vatnik.
>>29467057
Maybe they don't have any plans.
>>29467072
False equivalency.
It is reasonable to say that their capabilities were respectable and impressive under the extreme circumstances.
>>29467091
You'd have a point if it didn't happen 20+ years after the fact. Try harder next time.
>>29467085
Not any serious ones, of course.
But if a national defense think tank was created to ascertain and catalogue EVERY possible threat to national security, eventually they would get there.
>>29467109
Twenty years is barely one generation.
What they achieved is still impressive and respectable.
I remember hearing that pretty much every Russian schoolkid was taught rocket science, was that bullshit too?
>>29461913
Is that image to scale?
>>29467166
no.
>>29467161
>can't make a decent sub until 2010
>why everyone pick on russia for horrible crew fatality rates and awful seamanship?
>poor russia, always being picked on by evil west
Honestly I'm surprised you went straight into Stage 4. It normally takes much longer.
>>29466986
Well, they had also three times so many submarines.
>>29467161
>russian rocket science
you mean impulse laws in physics?
so does everyone else.
but wait!!! it must be something super special snowflake schooling because russians do it!!!
>>29467181
The thing is, if I accept the thing that's making me depressed, I'll admit that their subs were still inferior...
>>29466552
No, most military capabilities are pretty simple and publically known.
>>29467238
Quite the opposite.
With car companies pushing e-cars. There is quite a lot of money involved to improve battery technolgy.
Makes one wonder how larger diesel-electric submarines can go. Souryuu-class is already at 4k tonnage and the new German Type 216 submarine will be in the same class.
>>29467242
For the most part, he's right.
I'm just such a sperg about knowing the actual limitations of things that not knowing a subs true max depth fucks with me.
>>29467242
Try being more wrong next time.
>>29465079
Can confirm, we don't even have half the subs we publicly claim. The money was spent on turning Russians gay.
Why are Russian submarines generally rounder/fatter looking than US ones?
>>29467951
Because you father likes them fat and round.
>>29462243
does the typhoon have windows?
i've always wondered that, some russian subs look like they have honest to god windows
>>29466514
Pft, calling spies like him traitor but not these left wing politicians who enabled him?
>>29467951
American subs of the period look quite plump too.
>>29468007
I think there is a watch compartment that gets flooded when submerged so the windows are never pressurized like the hull.
>>29467951
Double hulled construction
Why don't they have windows? Lots of coolstuffthose nice servvise men ould be looking at off duty.
>>29468589
Windows aren't as strong as steel and limit the depth a sub can go
>>29468589
Subs spend most of their time below the depths at which light can penetrate.
>>29468007
Correct. Its cold and windy where the typhoons were based, having an enclosed bridge helped the typhoons coming into/out of port. Area behind the windows is flooded and not pressurized when underwater
>>29467951
They aren't really, there's alfa and akula but everything else looks pretty standard.
>>29465079
Because they were designed to break through everything.
Fast, great maximum depth, double hulls
The nightmare for every ship in charge of ASW.
>>29469893
>>29468387
You realise pretty much every sub post WW2 has a double hull ?
>>29461913
Good question, OP
As the lead designer of submarines for Haliburton & Co, I'm fully qualified to answer this question.
We try to always keep two main goals in mind when producing our line of fine submersibles:
"Not getting crushed by the weight of tons of cold, dark water."
and
"Being able to resurface again."
Everything beyond that is just evil, corporate profit.
Why doesn't the US build really big subs? like 50,000+ tons?
>>29470382
They dont.
>>29461913
>op pic claims; huge metal tube moving 35 knots under water
>no way
>google fastest sub
>k-222
>top speed 44,7 knots
>erection
I fucking need a Pressurized water reactor
>Mfw the cranks didn't bother to make fresh coffee and kept the same fucking pot on for 20 hours
>I drink it anyway
Anything to get through another Periscope Depth brief.
>>29470992
what are you talking about ?
>>29472901
I think it's a movie reference.
I feel like he's being facetious and actually trying to say that most people here seem to get their submarine knowledge from pop culture.
Honestly, in my limited knowledge of how the world works a lot of government jobs involve crushing boredom. Ian Fleming wrote the James Bond books to liven up his life. So fiction is still within the realm of possibility and can be quite close to reputable sources.
>>29472901
naval coffee at sea is notorious for leaving pots uncleaned for long periods of time.
