Posted on 01/23/2010 12:27:35 PM PST by myknowledge
I'm sure you have heard of the United States Navy's proud and elite submarine service, comprising high-tech nuclear subs such as the LA, Seawolf and Virginia class SSNs, Ohio class boomers and SSGNs, and historically, Sturgeon class SSNs and George Washington class boomers.
But they have one thing in common: They are single-hulled subs. Subs with only one hull.
In stark contrast, the Russian Navy has fielded to this day, double-hulled submarines, such as the Akula class SSN and Typhoon class SSBN, the largest in the world, along with the latest Borei class SSBN and soon-to-be-completed Graney class SSN.
So here's my question: Why doesn't the United States Navy's submarine fleet ever have double-hulled subs?
Well dip me in ****. I stand corrected.
The US has designs that provide more protection than a double hull, such as internal compartmentalization. The double hull significantly increases size and weight. Imagine driving a car with a second larger body and an air space in between the bodies.
Oh. I didn't realize that yourknowledge was so deep ...
Larger size and weight is not a major concern for the Russian sub builders, because they believe a larger sub is more survivable.
For example, the Oscar II class SSGN (nuclear cruise missile submarine). Its heavy displacement and double hull enables her to take three direct torpedo hits to sink.
The outer hull acts as an armored shell, much like a turtle shell for a turtle.
wow, that’s high tech! the Amish will be jealous... if they ever see it.
One man lost. We build 'em good here.
.jpg)
Why doesn’t the Navy have supercaving torpedos?
I love all of these Navy threads. Brings me back, ya know?
You mean the 200 knot Skhvals?
I wonder what happened to the sub commander and how quickly he was ‘retired’.
Now lets all sing “barnacle bill the sailor”
From what I have observed from living in Russia and an ex-soviet republic, it is obvious the Russians did not get really excited about calculating “strength of materials”. Probably because one never knew if the material produced was going to be consistent in specs. So the mentality was just to throw more material at the project and hope for the best.
I am surprised they didn’t build subs with 3 hulls.
Don’t remember. I’m sure he went away quietly despite the chart problems. The mountain wasn’t on it, as I recall.
Ans; BECAUSE the right torpedo will kill you just as dead.. and 2 hulled is way more expensive.. heavy.. requiring much more power to power them.. which makes more noise.. with more possible cavitation(noise).. making them glorified ANCHORS.. in a shooting war..
**Better; unmanned armed unwater vehicles like the predator except under water.. controlled by an attack sub.. or surface craft.. or BOTH...
the Russians claim that the “double hull enables her to take three direct torpedo hits to sink”
Has the US Navy ever tested that theory?
I remember in the 80’s the Brits sent an Argentine warship (a cruiser, fromerly CL-46) to the bottom with a pair of WWII vintage torpedos.
or German Barakuda
...or is it just too unrealistic?
Awww, geeeze! That’s a poor little Zaparozhets!
I defer to the experts here and only seek knowledge, but is has been my understanding that single hull or double didn’t matter, because direct hits aren’t necessary to sink subs; that only an explosion proximal to the screw(s) would unseat the seals causing catastrophic flooding.
Or a hairline crack at depth would cause immediate implosion of that section of the hull.
The General Belgrano was a cruiser, not a cruise missile submarine. The hulls of surface vessels and subs are different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.