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?
Survivability - Multiple direct torpedo hits, depending on the sub's size, are required to sink it.
Silence - With the latest noise nullifying technology available, double-hulled subs can emit less noise.
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).
Buoyancy - A double hulled sub floats on the surface like a cruise ship, whereas a single-hulled sub waddles around like flotsam.
That's just what I think about the advantages of double-hulled subs.
I wonder when the U.S. Navy's submarine service would be able to field one?
If you know what I'm sayin'
I’m sure there must be some good reason. I mean our engineers are the best.
Our submarines do use 2 hulls
I don’t have the answer as to why the US doesn’t build double-hulled subs.
But, it’s not what’s on the outside that makes American subs great, it’s what’s on the inside.
In a shooting war, I’d take a well-trained American crew in a single-hulled American-built sub over a double-hulled Ruski any day.
Oh, that’s right, I already did that.
SSBN 658 (Blue) ‘69-’72
we call the inner pressure hull the “people tank”
>”I can’t really argue against the technical merits here. But there is tremendous irony in making the case that the US submarine fleet ought to be more like the Russian submarine fleet.”
That would be my thought, too.
We probably don’t build them double hulled because we don’t HAVE to build them double hulled.
You mean having both nuke and D-E subs or plainly double-hulled ones?
Not one U.S. built sub is double-hulled.
If the Russians could build Typhoons, certainly they could build more mammoth-sized ones as well.
I meant double-hulled subs designed along the lines of the Akula, Typhoon and the latest Borei class.
So, do you think that the US Defense industry doesn’t know how to build a double-hull submarine?
Do you think that the US Defense industry could build one, but is unaware of the merits of a double-hull sub and so they don’t?
Do you think that the government is too cheap to pay for a 2nd hull?
Do you think that published information on critical US military technology provides definitive information?
An American sub ran into an underground mountain and survived. It’s hull was torn open. How do you think it survived?
Ivan can keep his boats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_hull
Funny that the US has not lost a sub since the 1960s. Must be doing something right.
But I'm not saying all Russian engineering bad.
All of them. Trust me I used to ride them.
But go here.
Maybe Electric Boat has an answer for you.
Very easy answer to your question......
The Russians expect their subs to be located and shot at......often.
US Navy Subs...you don’t know they are in the neighbrohood until its too late.
I'll say it.
The inner pressure hull (that I was unaware of, in the LA class SSN) near the bow failed to rupture.
I have three novels at home about both U.S. and Russian subs, and in Typhoon, the author states that the LA class SSN has one hull, that if cracked, the sub would flood and sink.
In Danger's Hour, a fictional LA class SSN, the USS Tulsa, is sunk to the bottom of the Norwegian Sea (the surviving crew are rescued) by being rammed from behind by a double-hulled Akula II class SSN, Gepard.
Typically, the U.S. has not doubled hulled anything because it is cheaper not to IF you can achieve the same results (which we can). The Ohio, with a single hull, was far stealthier than anything the Russians had---by orders of magnitude. So it didn't have to be more "survivable" to a torpedo attack, because trust me, if a torpedo gets anywhere near a sub hull (double, triple, or otherwise) you're in for a real bad day. As to faster? I've never heard this. It adds weight, so how can it be faster?
Virtually every Soviet "advantage" from their "miracle" fleet was phony. Yes, they could dive a little deeper, and the Alpha could go extremely fast . . . but Alphas had to be towed to their patrol lanes and we called them "hand grenades," as you pulled the pin and they had a limited time at that speed, then would blow up. The Soviets typically paid sailors "childlessness" pay because they didn't have sufficient radiation protection.
They used titanium because they had lots of it and it was cheap for them. But our steel was nearly as good as their titanium, and our workforce and engineers vastly superior.
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.