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?
If I’m not mistaken, Russian Boomers have a twin pressure hull, that is, side by side as opposed to one inside the other. It’s wider, but still basically a single pressure vessel. Off to do a little research; I’ll be back with a mea culpa if necessary.
With the development of hull insulation technology for the Borei class SSBN, cavitation and other machinery / hull noise will be nullified, making the sub a hard target to detect on sonar.
If the torpedo hits the propeller the sub will sink no matter how many hulls.
These vessels often had to be towed to their patrol lanes, their engines were so unreliable!!. We were vastly superior to them TWENTY YEARS AGO. Re-read my post, then try reading our book for comparisons. There are none.
That did the Kursk a lot of good, didn't it?
Silence - With the latest noise nullifying technology available, double-hulled subs can emit less noise.
Number of hulls is meaningless in noise suppression. U.S. and British subs are the quietest nuclear subs ever built and they're single hull.
Strength and increased crush depth - With a double-hulled sub built of HY-100+ grade steel-alloy and/or titanium, it can withstand tremendous pressure at depths greater than 500 meters (1640 feet), in some cases up to 1200 meters (4000 feet).
And the advantage of that is what? At that depth they cannot fire torpedoes or missiles.
Buoyancy - A double hulled sub floats on the surface like a cruise ship, whereas a single-hulled sub waddles around like flotsam.
Subs are designed to operate under water. The only time you will see them on the surface is coming into and out of port, so the ability to float high and dry like a cruise ship is worthless.
The U.S. Navy has been operating nuclear submarines for over 50 years. Give them a little credit for knowing what they're doing.
Wow. No wonder a Russian submariner would prefer to operate an LA class sub rather than a decrepit Alfa or Mike class boat any day.
You are aware that novels are, by definition, fiction aren't you? If you want to read about the real thing dig up a copy of "Blind Man's Bluff" by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew. Then you can see what U.S. subs crews really did with their second class boats.
That did the Kursk a lot of good, didn't it?
You could be right on that statement. The explosion of a Shkval torpedo happened in the sub's torpedo room.
Strength and increased crush depth - With a double-hulled sub built of HY-100+ grade steel-alloy and/or titanium, it can withstand tremendous pressure at depths greater than 500 meters (1640 feet), in some cases up to 1200 meters (4000 feet).
And the advantage of that is what? At that depth they cannot fire torpedoes or missiles.
Is it because the extreme water pressure would cause premature detonations of the torpedoes / missiles?
Not detonation. The extreme water pressure would pop the torpedo tube hatches and because of the amount of air pressure that would be required to launch the torpedo at that depth. As for missiles, launch them at 4000 feet and they would be crushed to about the size of a coffee can by the water pressure within seconds after they left the launcher.
Maybe Electric Boat is aware that both the seven Alpha class and one Mike class boats were all dismal failures?
Submarine warfare depends on stealth and the ability to detect your opponent at long range. Being able to travel at 40 or 50 or 60 knots is worthless for a submarine. The faster you go the more noise you put out which not only enables your opponent to detect you but also degrades your own sonar and limits your ability to detect your opponent. That's one reason why other countries have not repeated Soviet mistakes.
“Survivability - Multiple direct torpedo hits... a required to sink it.”
I think the answer to your question might be something along the lines of the old joke, “... in the Navy we don’t piss on our hands.”
Early Skhvals had a range of about 2000 yards. Even later models have a range of only 7500 yards. The U.S Mk-48 has a stated range of 46,000 yards. Which one would you prefer to be shooting at your opponent?
I think the confusion is that the Russians make subs with two pressure hulls, AND an outer hull. We make ours with one pressure hull and one outer hull.
There is some confusion about terminology here. U.S. submarines do not have two hulls around the entire boat, ie there are not two hulls that have to be breached to let the seawater in. There is an outer hull at the fore and aft that contains the ballast tanks.
As for why we build them without two hulls there are many reasons.
1) Cost. Subs cost a billion each. If you raise the cost 50% you are sacrificing quantity for quality. Remember, less than half your fleet is at sea at any time. Less subs availible means less missions can be completed. I went through this nightmare in the early 90’s. Less boats and twice as many missions. Not fun.
2) Maintenance. Two hulls means significantly more complex maintenance, thus more money and less sea time. The more time a boat is at sea the more maintenance you have to do in port. We normally worked 100+ hours a week in port. You got the most sleep on patrol, not at home. More maintenance and quality of life drops even more.
3) Consistency. We build one design repeatedly over and over. The USSR built a new class of subs every time someone had a new idea. They has two or three boats per class in many cases. This is a huge advantage for us in training and logistics. Rusian boats required custom parts for each boat. I could have started up the engineroom of any 688 in the fleet. I could have started up any 637 or Ohio class with a little training. Russians? Not so lucky. They used diesels, pressurized water reactors, liquid metal reactors, sodium cooled reactors, etc.
4) Materials. The USSR controlled 90% of the world’s titanium supply. They built titanium hulls that allowed them to go much deeper. But they were expensive and brittle. Not a good combination. The Seawolf has a titanium alloy hull. Electric boat welded the first Seawolf hull together with the wrong welding rods. Couple hundred million down the drain.
Conclusion: The advantages of double hulls do not outweigh the disadvantages.
Remember how the Soviets “beat” us in space with one man, then two? When we beat them with Apollo, they tried to put up a “three man capsule” by (I kid you not) bolting a wooden chair in between their two seats in the two-man capsule!!
I thought there were two Mikes? One caught fire off South America and the other sank under mysterious circumstances (possible collision)?
Wow. You must have caught me with my pants down at my ankles with all these facts.
A far cry from my illusionist hype about building subs like underwater battleships and speedy dragsters.
The real problem is that in all likelyhood, nobody here who could answer your question is allowed to.
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.