Re: Type 212 to hunt a carrier...

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <XnsA16B8C8BBB90...@nieveler.org>,
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
>
> http://www.presseportal.de/meldung/2411174
>
> U32 (Type 212A) is sailing towards the US to take part in "WESTLANT
> DEPLOYMENT" - part of this exercise will be a US carrier task force
> trying to hunt the submarine, while the sub tries to sink the carrier.
>
> Any bets on wether we'll get to see nice periscope shots? ;-)

Speaking of periscope shots....I was in San Diego last week to
visit maritime museums. The San Diego Maritime museum now has
a Russian Foxtrot DE boat (B-39) and the Dolphin (AGS-555).

On the B-39, there is a periscope photo on the wall showing a
fairly close-up shot of the USS Midway. It looks like
the shot was taken from about the same distance as the
sub is from the Midway museum--about 1/2 mile.

The Dolphin was interesting to me as I once helped design
and build a water clarity sensor that was used aboard the
boat during experiments with laser communications. The
control room has a depth gauge with the faceplate removed
to protect the 'classified' nature the the operational
depth range. OTOH, the external sea pressure gauges are
intact and go from 0 to 3000PSI. A bit of math tells
you that's equivalent to about 6000 feet of salt water.
Interestingly, the HP air banks only go up to 6000PSI.

If the outside pressure is 3000PSI and your air is at
6000PSI, you don't blow a lot of water out of the
ballast tanks in an emergency! (You can only displace water
equivalent to the volume of the HP air tanks.)

I also visited the Midway---which is run by an organization
separate from the San Diego Maritime Museum. It's a great
way to spend a day. It has a lot of interesting planes aboard
and miles of compartments and passageways to roam.

One of the Midway docents said that the ship is a top tourist
draw for the city--but he wasn't sure how they ranked compared
to the world-famous San Diego Zoo. He did say that lots of
visitors and good management have resulted in yearly operating
surpluses. That's apparently rare amongst museum ships.

Mark Borgerson

[Derek Lyons]

Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:

>If the outside pressure is 3000PSI and your air is at
>6000PSI, you don't blow a lot of water out of the
>ballast tanks in an emergency! (You can only displace water
>equivalent to the volume of the HP air tanks.)

You don't need to blow the tanks dry... you only need to blow enough
to get you moving in the right direction.

We had the theoretical capability to blow our tanks dry all the way
down to test depth... But procedure was to blow only enough to ensure
positive buoyancy and to vent if we were rising too fast or were
unable to control our angle with the planes. (Emptying the banks had
various operational consequences - acceptable in extremis, but the
procedures were designed to avoid stumbling into those consequences.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <5127b92f....@news.supernews.com>, fair...@gmail.com
says...

>
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >If the outside pressure is 3000PSI and your air is at
> >6000PSI, you don't blow a lot of water out of the
> >ballast tanks in an emergency! (You can only displace water
> >equivalent to the volume of the HP air tanks.)
>
> You don't need to blow the tanks dry... you only need to blow enough
> to get you moving in the right direction.
>
> We had the theoretical capability to blow our tanks dry all the way
> down to test depth... But procedure was to blow only enough to ensure
> positive buoyancy and to vent if we were rising too fast or were
> unable to control our angle with the planes. (Emptying the banks had
> various operational consequences - acceptable in extremis, but the
> procedures were designed to avoid stumbling into those consequences.)
>

OTOH, at or near that critical depth, if you can only displace
as much water as the volume of your HP air bank, you're in
deep trouble when interior flooding approaches the volume
of the HP air tanks. The question then is how much volume
the designers want to allocate to the HP air banks. I suspect
that,in most subs, the volume of the HP air banks is only
a small fraction of the internal volume. The Dolphin is
probably exceptional in the ability to dive to a point
where outside pressure is half the pressure in the HP
tanks. For most boats I would guess that the HP air
is pressurized to 5 or 6 times the outside pressure
at normal test depth. (HP air at 6000, PSI, outside
pressure at 1000PSI--equivalent to about 2000 feet
depth.)

Mark Borgerson

[Dennis]

Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> http://www.presseportal.de/meldung/2411174
>
> U32 (Type 212A) is sailing towards the US to take part in "WESTLANT
> DEPLOYMENT" - part of this exercise will be a US carrier task force
> trying to hunt the submarine, while the sub tries to sink the carrier.
>
> Any bets on wether we'll get to see nice periscope shots? ;-)

I'm betting on U32 - though with an escorting US SSN, and good USN surface
ASW, I'm not making the odds too high.

Dennis

[Arved Sandstrom]

Whether this particular sub in a single exercise manages to make some
simulated attacks that are graded as successful is not quite as
interesting as all the raw data that comes out of it. After all, from a
statistical standpoint any given attack approach might fail, but if it
looks like a healthy percentage stand to succeed...

AHS

[Vaughn]

On 2/20/2013 4:32 AM, Dennis wrote:
>> Any bets on wether we'll get to see nice periscope shots?;-)
> I'm betting on U32 - though with an escorting US SSN, and good USN surface
> ASW, I'm not making the odds too high.

Even with AIP, the submerged conventional submarine has limited
underwater speed and range. They can be very small and very quiet, so I
would expect them to be deadly anywhere they can lay in wait for their
prey, or anywhere their prey must loiter in one area, but not so
effective against a maneuvering target in open water. "Laying in wait"
can only be a limited tactic because there is lots of ocean and a very
limited number of submarines.

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <kg2mf2$mto$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, vaugh...@gmail.com
says...

One of the problems the US faces is that there is not "lots of ocean"
in the Persian Gulf or within carrier aircraft range of the
straits of Taiwan. An adversary's first strike will probably
have very good data on the position, course, and speed of the
CVBG. I don't think the US will be willing to shoot down
satellites and patrol aircraft as a preemptive measure.

Mark Borgerson

[Derek Lyons]

Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:

>In article <5127b92f....@news.supernews.com>, fair...@gmail.com
>says...
>>
>> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If the outside pressure is 3000PSI and your air is at
>> >6000PSI, you don't blow a lot of water out of the
>> >ballast tanks in an emergency! (You can only displace water
>> >equivalent to the volume of the HP air tanks.)
>>
>> You don't need to blow the tanks dry... you only need to blow enough
>> to get you moving in the right direction.
>>
>> We had the theoretical capability to blow our tanks dry all the way
>> down to test depth... But procedure was to blow only enough to ensure
>> positive buoyancy and to vent if we were rising too fast or were
>> unable to control our angle with the planes. (Emptying the banks had
>> various operational consequences - acceptable in extremis, but the
>> procedures were designed to avoid stumbling into those consequences.)
>>
>OTOH, at or near that critical depth, if you can only displace
>as much water as the volume of your HP air bank,

True from a purely mathematical point of view. Operationally, as you
point out below, test depth is set at some fraction of HP air bank
pressure.

>you're in deep trouble when interior flooding approaches the volume
>of the HP air tanks. The question then is how much volume the
>designers want to allocate to the HP air banks. I suspect that,in
>most subs, the volume of the HP air banks is only a small fraction
>of the internal volume.

True.., but there are other considerations.

HP air banks can be, and are, generally put in places not useful for
much else or where they won't interfere significantly with other
installations. (I.E. frame bays and ballast tanks.) Also, flooding
can kill by other mechanisms than overcoming ballast capability...
Thresher was likely disabled by no more than a few tons or tens of
tons of water. A boat can also be killed if there is sufficient water
at the ends to overcome the boats ability to control pitch (either via
the control surfaces or the trim system), and that amount is generally
far less than the total ballast capability.

Which is why we generally stay well above test depth if there's no
pressing need to go down there, and why we're always prepared at a
moments notice to get shallow by any means necessary. (Getting
shallow reduces the flooding rate.) There's also other lines of
defense (three systems of pumps in US boats, able to operate all the
way down to test depth, as well as the ability to pressurise the
compartment being flooded). HP and Emergency blow are just part of an
integrated strategy...

Submarine design is generally done on a very pragmatic basic - "look,
we've done all we can but there are edges and corners we can't
cover... if you can't deal, unvolunteer". There's a reason why
submariners are considered brave, and utterly lunatic.

>The Dolphin is probably exceptional in the ability to dive to a point
>where outside pressure is half the pressure in the HP tanks. For most
>boats I would guess that the HP air is pressurized to 5 or 6 times the
>outside pressure at normal test depth. (HP air at 6000, PSI, outside
>pressure at 1000PSI--equivalent to about 2000 feet depth.)

Correct in principle, though obviously (as often is the case in this
group) more details are not available.

[Vaughn]

On 2/20/2013 12:20 PM, Derek Lyons wrote:
> There's a reason why
> submariners are considered brave, and utterly lunatic.

I never considered myself to be either particularly brave or a loon.
(Of course, if I were really a lunatic, how would I know?)

In the 1970's, my submarine seemed very safe and comfortable compared to
what other folks in the military were facing. No bullets, no pungi
sticks, no hot & damp tents... Since then, submarines have only gotten
safer (Russia excepted).

Vaughn

[Derek Lyons]

The crews of George Washington, Thomas Edison, Swordfish, Nathanael
Greene, Bonefish, Grayling, Norfolk, Drum, Sand Lance, Greeneville,
Dolphin, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, San Juan, Kentucky,
Philadelpia, Newport News, and Hanford (at a minimum) might disagree
with you.

These are all boats that have suffered significant incidents, I.E.
losses, collisions, fires, or flooding since the 1970's.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Dear Vaughn,

I'm not American, but I prefer avoiding suggesting or implying that late
1960s/early 1970s USN was a safe heaven for people wanting to dodge 'Nam...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Vaughn]

On 2/20/2013 5:25 PM, Derek Lyons wrote:
> The crews of George Washington, Thomas Edison, Swordfish, Nathanael
> Greene, Bonefish, Grayling, Norfolk, Drum, Sand Lance, Greeneville,
> Dolphin, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, San Juan, Kentucky,
> Philadelpia, Newport News, and Hanford (at a minimum) might disagree
> with you.
>
> These are all boats that have suffered significant incidents, I.E.
> losses, collisions, fires, or flooding since the 1970's.

You didn't mention the Scorpion (1960's actually), that went down with
a shipmate of mine just as I was reporting for my first cruise. So yes,
I know very well what can happen in a submarine.

Still, I was comparing my years of sub duty to what was happening to my
contemporaries in the Viet jungles. Frankly, there IS no comparison.
Somewhere there is a list of the KIA's from just my own high school. I
would be surprised if any of them were Navy.

No, I don't feel especially brave just because I used to live in a
submarine. YMMV

[Vaughn]

On 2/20/2013 6:06 PM, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> I'm not American, but I prefer avoiding suggesting or implying that late
> 1960s/early 1970s USN was a safe heaven for people wanting to dodge 'Nam...

I implied no such thing. Vietman took a terrible toll of my
contemporaries. Fortunately for me, my military service didn't take me
there.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 20/02/2013 15:26, Vaughn ha scritto:

> Even with AIP, the submerged conventional submarine has limited
> underwater speed and range. They can be very small and very quiet, so I
> would expect them to be deadly anywhere they can lay in wait for their
> prey, or anywhere their prey must loiter in one area, but not so
> effective against a maneuvering target in open water. "Laying in wait"
> can only be a limited tactic because there is lots of ocean and a very
> limited number of submarines.

this makes sense for Italian Navy, but that the best AIP design came
from the country most versed (and with the largest wartime experience..)
in usage of non-nuclear boats should raise some questions.

oh, and directly from the horse's mouth:

> http://www.marina.difesa.it/Conosciamoci/Notizie/Pagine/20130213_todaro.aspx

quick translation, 160 days of overseas deployment, 120 days on sea, 40
in port for one of the Italian 212s....

[dott.Piergiorgio]

if you have Iran in mind, I guess that isn't needed to evoke the dark
ghost of the infamous "robocruiser".. all Iran needs is a decent coastal
radar net (I think that USS Arizona and USS Maine (1896) are still in
service, protecting USN CVBGs in the Persian Gulf....)

[Derek Lyons]

Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/20/2013 5:25 PM, Derek Lyons wrote:
>> The crews of George Washington, Thomas Edison, Swordfish, Nathanael
>> Greene, Bonefish, Grayling, Norfolk, Drum, Sand Lance, Greeneville,
>> Dolphin, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, San Juan, Kentucky,
>> Philadelpia, Newport News, and Hanford (at a minimum) might disagree
>> with you.
>>
>> These are all boats that have suffered significant incidents, I.E.
>> losses, collisions, fires, or flooding since the 1970's.
>
>You didn't mention the Scorpion (1960's actually), that went down with
>a shipmate of mine just as I was reporting for my first cruise. So yes,
>I know very well what can happen in a submarine.
>
>Still, I was comparing my years of sub duty to what was happening to my
>contemporaries in the Viet jungles. Frankly, there IS no comparison.

You claimed that "subs were safe when you were on them in the 70's and
have only gotten safer since" (and snipped that part from your
reply). So, not mentioning Scorpion makes sense.

>Somewhere there is a list of the KIA's from just my own high school. I
>would be surprised if any of them were Navy.

I wouldn't be completely surprised. Between the SEALs, combat medics,
pilots and aircrew (both combat and rescue), and the 'brown water'
navy of the Mekong Delta.... 1,631 sailors died in Vietnam. Two of
them, a chaplain and a corpsman, were posthumously awarded the Medal
of Honor - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/awd/us-indiv/moh-10.htm.

[Vaughn]

On 2/21/2013 11:40 AM, Derek Lyons wrote:
> You claimed that "subs were safe when you were on them in the 70's and
> have only gotten safer since"

When you put words in quotes, please make sure that they aren't words
that you made up yourself!

My actual quote is: "In the 1970's, my submarine seemed very safe and

comfortable compared to what other folks in the military were facing.
No bullets, no pungi sticks, no hot & damp tents... Since then,
submarines have only gotten safer (Russia excepted).

What part of "compared to what other folks in the military were facing.
No bullets, no pungi sticks, no hot & damp tents..." do you have
trouble understanding?

As for them getting safer, the USN has done much work on sub safety
since my day. In fact, SUBSAFE started just about the time I left the
Navy.

Vaughn

[Derek Lyons]

Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/21/2013 11:40 AM, Derek Lyons wrote:
>> You claimed that "subs were safe when you were on them in the 70's and
>> have only gotten safer since"
>
>When you put words in quotes, please make sure that they aren't words
>that you made up yourself!
>
>My actual quote is: "In the 1970's, my submarine seemed very safe and
>comfortable compared to what other folks in the military were facing.
>No bullets, no pungi sticks, no hot & damp tents... Since then,
>submarines have only gotten safer (Russia excepted).
>
>What part of "compared to what other folks in the military were facing.
> No bullets, no pungi sticks, no hot & damp tents..." do you have
>trouble understanding?

Are you really so ignorant of the English language as to not realize
which sentence I was replying to? Was the fact that I didn't mention
Vietnam or make any comparisons to Vietnam and limited my roll call to
the 70's and later not sufficient clue that I wasn't talking about
Vietnam?

>As for them getting safer, the USN has done much work on sub safety
>since my day. In fact, SUBSAFE started just about the time I left the
>Navy.

Refer to the list I provided before. In the past forty years we've
had three constructive losses (Bonefish, Nat Greene, Dolphin, though
you might count Edison as well) as well as at least one that should
have been (San Francisco). We've had a raftload of collisions, fires,
floodings, injuries, deaths, and two raftloads of near misses and
diving catches...

[Vaughn]

On 2/21/2013 5:06 PM, Derek Lyons wrote:
> Are you really so ignorant of the English language as to not realize
> which sentence I was replying to?

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know what quotation marks mean?

Bye

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you really so ignorant of the English language as to not realize
>> which sentence I was replying to? Was the fact that I didn't mention
>> Vietnam or make any comparisons to Vietnam and limited my roll call
>> to the 70's and later not sufficient clue that I wasn't talking about
>> Vietnam?
>>
>
>>

>> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
>> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
>>
>

> And still failing miserably.

And still miserably, responding to nine year old posts.

cheers...Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Poor Skipshite is confused. The post wasn't nine years old. The
> resolution was (and he's still failing at it).

Understood and you're still responding to a nine year old resolution and
(you're still failing because of it).

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

> He's the one who points it out, not me. I'm just pointing out that in
> all those years what he's managed qualifies as "epic fail".

Derek, was joking with his choice of sig., you however, Freak, are a joke.

> But you go ahead and natter on, Skipshite. I'm sure it makes you feel
> all warm and fuzzy...

And you keep right on commenting on 9 year old sigs., Freak, it obviously
makes _you_ feel all warm and fuzzy...

cheers....Jeff

[Jim H.]

And yet another actual naval thread goes to hell in a handbasket as the kiddies start trading 'you suck' insults. Geez! Get over it!

[David E. Powell]

On Monday, February 18, 2013 7:50:17 AM UTC-5, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> http://www.presseportal.de/meldung/2411174
>
>
>
> U32 (Type 212A) is sailing towards the US to take part in "WESTLANT
>
> DEPLOYMENT" - part of this exercise will be a US carrier task force
>
> trying to hunt the submarine, while the sub tries to sink the carrier.
>
>
>

> Any bets on wether we'll get to see nice periscope shots? ;-)

Someone might but not sure if I will!

> --
>
> Juergen Nieveler

[Dennis]

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

>> One of the problems the US faces is that there is not "lots of ocean"
>> in the Persian Gulf or within carrier aircraft range of the
>> straits of Taiwan. An adversary's first strike will probably
>> have very good data on the position, course, and speed of the
>> CVBG. I don't think the US will be willing to shoot down
>> satellites and patrol aircraft as a preemptive measure.
>
> if you have Iran in mind, I guess that isn't needed to evoke the dark
> ghost of the infamous "robocruiser".. all Iran needs is a decent
> coastal radar net (I think that USS Arizona and USS Maine (1896) are
> still in service, protecting USN CVBGs in the Persian Gulf....)

??? What do you mean with USS Arizona lost at Pearl Harbor, and USS Maine
(1896) lost in Havana Bay? Do you mean that their ghosts still watch over
UV CVBGs in the Persian Gulf, in rather the way that the Divine watches
over fools, drunks, and the USA?

Dennis

[dott.Piergiorgio]

for obvious reasons I don't have much spare time, but I reckon the
misunderstanding; what I mean is that the fear of "awakening the giant
with a terrible resolve" is what hold Iran in doing a surprise attack on
US CVBG inside the Persian Gulf.