Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Burning sub

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Burning sub
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:23 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by Fireflair   » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:32 am

Fireflair
Captain of the List

Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:23 pm

Well it's a less than enlightening article. Submariners live with the fear of a few things every day. Not coming back to the surface actually ranks below concerns of a fire. Fire, flooding, loss of control leading to not surfacing were my concerns in order.

The US Navy had a bad fire in their last diesel sub, the battery compartment fire on the Dolphin eventually lead to it being gutted and removed from service. I remember watching her burn. Nasty business.
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:35 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Seems that auxilary power bank on ultra-depth submarine "Losharik" caught fire during testing. The quick action of crew members saved the sub and civilian experts onboard, but fourteen brave men died because of toxic fumes (they evacuated others from the affectes section and closed the hatches, sealing themselbes inside - so in case they wouldn't be able to stop the fire, the sub would still survive). They managed to stop the fire, but at the cost of their lives.

Rest in peace, heroes.

P.S. The AC-12 "Losharik" (nicknamed after the character of old cartoon) is innovative experimental ultra-depth nuclear sub. Her pressurized hull constructed as a string of interconnected metal spheres with very high pressure resistance. She is able to dive more than 5000 meters deep, several times more than any other nuclear sub in the world. Her general function is a testbed for a new design (she is not armed), deep-water researches (both military and civilians), and special operations on the extreme depth.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:11 am

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Dilandu wrote:Seems that auxilary power bank on ultra-depth submarine "Losharik" caught fire during testing. The quick action of crew members saved the sub and civilian experts onboard, but fourteen brave men died because of toxic fumes (they evacuated others from the affectes section and closed the hatches, sealing themselbes inside - so in case they wouldn't be able to stop the fire, the sub would still survive). They managed to stop the fire, but at the cost of their lives.

Rest in peace, heroes.

P.S. The AC-12 "Losharik" (nicknamed after the character of old cartoon) is innovative experimental ultra-depth nuclear sub. Her pressurized hull constructed as a string of interconnected metal spheres with very high pressure resistance. She is able to dive more than 5000 meters deep, several times more than any other nuclear sub in the world. Her general function is a testbed for a new design (she is not armed), deep-water researches (both military and civilians), and special operations on the extreme depth.



Titanium or steel?
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:26 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
Titanium or steel?


Titanium alloys.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:28 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Very interesting design of the sub. As mentioned by the mainstream media without comprehension, a sphere can withstand more pressure than a cylinder of the same diameter and wall thickness. Submarine diving depth is utterly dependant on the strength to weight ratio of the pressure hull. One trick to increase diving depth is to have voids in the hull filled with air cannisters for boyency. Tanks filled with low density liquid such as gasoline have been used.

My condolences to the crew and their families.

The US and Russia are competitors and sometimes adversaries, but hopefully no longer enemies.
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by Fireflair   » Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:26 am

Fireflair
Captain of the List

Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:23 pm

It's worth noting that the bathyscape Trieste, made it to 10,916 meters (35,813 feet) below sea level in the deepest point in the ocean, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench with two people onboard.

The Russian designed Komsomolets was a nuclear powered submarine specially designed to make trips as far down as 1300 meters (4265 feet) below sea level and had a titanium hull. The difficulty with titanium, as opposed to metals like HY-100 or HY-80 which US subs use, is that high depth trips build up stress in the hull, reducing the submarine's ability to dive deep over time.

The first time they could go to 1300m, the second time 1290, third time 1250, etc. Not the actual numbers but you understand the results.

More importantly, for military submarine uses, there's no real reason to go down that deep. Submarines don't spend a lot of time 1300m down. There's nothing to see or do in that range. Not even for special forces. Subs want to be coastal to spy, which means generally shallow, less than 100m. They hunt other subs which obviously work in the same depth ranges they do, so going deep isn't helpful. They hunt surface ships, again shallow. Or they fire weapons inland, which is also a shallow water activity.
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:51 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Fireflair wrote:It's worth noting that the bathyscape Trieste, made it to 10,916 meters (35,813 feet) below sea level in the deepest point in the ocean, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench with two people onboard.


But it was a bathyscape. Small, very slow, with very limited ability to operate autonomously.

The "Losharik" is a full-scale submarine. She is reasonably fast, could operate for a long time underwater, could carry a lot of payloads.

More importantly, for military submarine uses, there's no real reason to go down that deep. Submarines don't spend a lot of time 1300m down. There's nothing to see or do in that range. Not even for special forces. Subs want to be coastal to spy, which means generally shallow, less than 100m. They hunt other subs which obviously work in the same depth ranges they do, so going deep isn't helpful. They hunt surface ships, again shallow. Or they fire weapons inland, which is also a shallow water activity.


First of all, the ability to went deeper for submarines is the ability to avoid being detected and/or attacked. Sub that could go 5000 meters deep in ocean is basically safe from any possible anti-submarine means. No current weapon could hit her as deep, and most of scanners wouldn't be able to see her at this depth.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:07 am

TFLYTSNBN
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:58 am

Fireflair wrote:It's worth noting that the bathyscape Trieste, made it to 10,916 meters (35,813 feet) below sea level in the deepest point in the ocean, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench with two people onboard.

The Russian designed Komsomolets was a nuclear powered submarine specially designed to make trips as far down as 1300 meters (4265 feet) below sea level and had a titanium hull. The difficulty with titanium, as opposed to metals like HY-100 or HY-80 which US subs use, is that high depth trips build up stress in the hull, reducing the submarine's ability to dive deep over time.

The first time they could go to 1300m, the second time 1290, third time 1250, etc. Not the actual numbers but you understand the results.

More importantly, for military submarine uses, there's no real reason to go down that deep. Submarines don't spend a lot of time 1300m down. There's nothing to see or do in that range. Not even for special forces. Subs want to be coastal to spy, which means generally shallow, less than 100m. They hunt other subs which obviously work in the same depth ranges they do, so going deep isn't helpful. They hunt surface ships, again shallow. Or they fire weapons inland, which is also a shallow water activity.



Ballistic Missile Submarines exist to do nothing except remain undetected. They tend to hang out, deep in remote oceans. Designers are more willing to sacrifice the mass of propulsion machinery for a stronger Hull to enable deeper diving depth.
Top
Re: Burning sub
Post by Fireflair   » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:12 am

Fireflair
Captain of the List

Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:23 pm

No, ballistic subs do not spend their time in the depths, even if they could hang out at 5000m they wouldn't. I was assigned to them, I know exactly where they spend time and it's not at depth.

As I pointed out previously, going deep doesn't do you any good. You can't get to land, or sneak up on land without hitting the continental shelf, which puts you back to shallow waters again.

Other countries don't spend their time and energy trying to hunt down subs in the wide ocean. If Russia, or China, or whomever, wants to have their subs puttering around at 5000m in the middle of the Atlantic, more power to them. There's nothing there and they're no danger to us. Certainly not to our subs.

There are a number of reasons the USN has opted out of titanium hills which would have allowed for deeper dives than HY-80 or HY-100 do. Foremost is that it's not useful to warfare in most any format to be able to dive that deep.
Top

Return to Politics