Sub Crush Depth ?
John Gorman
crush depth of subs. Like a good salt, I replied "It depends".
Now I'll ask . Who know's ? I'm sure it's classified, but any ranges or
guesses? I told him the actual depth depends on a number of factors, but
they are built to withstand greater than the published depth. The movie had
one sunk at 1700'. I thought that was low and said it's probably more like
2500". I also thought boomers might have a greater depth than LA class.
So.....? Thanks
Charles Crowder
John Gorman <johng...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:Czem2.422$gv2.1...@brnws01.ne.mediaone.net...
Scorpion was 2000'. The book "US Submarines since 1945" indicates that the
Soviet Alpha has a possible crush depth of 2300'.
Guy Derdall
never exceed was 1400'
1,150' normal max
crush on Scorpion was about 1300' IIRC'
700" normal max.
LA normal max 800+
--
Guy Derdall
*******************************************************
Battleships Carriers And All Other Warships
http://www.warships1.com
"The Anchor Page For The World's Warships"
*******************************************************
Charles Crowder wrote in message <77c3tm$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Steve Morris
John Gorman wrote in message ...
>While watching a movie the other day, (Sub Down) my son asked me the real
>crush depth of subs. Like a good salt, I replied "It depends".
>Now I'll ask . Who know's ? I'm sure it's classified, but any ranges or
>guesses? I told him the actual depth depends on a number of factors, but
>they are built to withstand greater than the published depth. The movie had
>one sunk at 1700'. I thought that was low and said it's probably more like
>2500". I also thought boomers might have a greater depth than LA class.
>So.....? Thanks
Nearly all crush depths on modern subs are classified. All various reference
sources can do is to take a "best guess" or offer the most likely estimates.
As for boomers having a greater crush depth than say a fast attack, I don't
know for sure. However, I would guess that it was in fact the other way
around. If you look at the deepest diving research vessels they are always
very small. The larger the boat, the larger the surface area and therefore
the thicker the steel required - I would surmise at least.
As previously mentioned crush depth esitmates vary greatly (even for the
same boat). For instance, in one reference source I have, it suggests that
the 688 class (HY-80 steel hull) has a maximum safe diving depth of 1500
feet. The same source esitmates the the Soviet Alfa class with its small
size and titanium hull can operate at up to 900 Metres (2952 feet).
In Tom Clancy's latest book which tours the USS Miami (SSN 755). There is a
mention made of the L.A's (certainly at the design stage) being only to
attain a safe max depth of 950 feet.
So, as you can see, we may never really know.
Regards
Steve Morris
Sam Fairall-Lee
Steve Morris wrote in message <77cmj2$3gk$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
[snip]
>As previously mentioned crush depth esitmates vary greatly (even for the
>same boat).
Crush depth estimates for 688's that I've heard: 1500ft, 1000ft, 900ft, and
whatever the USN has on it's web site (700ft?).
When I visited an Oberon a couple of years ago, I heard a couple of sailors
in the engineering compartment respond to a visitor's question on the boat's
max. speed/depth by stating that max. speed was 14kts. and max. depth was
400 ft.. When I told them that just a few minutes before another crewman had
said that he couldn't give out that information they shrugged, giggled a bit
and said something like, "we just tell them a number and they're happy and
off they go."
>L.A's (certainly at the design stage) being only to
>attain a safe max depth of 950 feet.
I remember reading that the 688's were built with the intention to sacrifice
depth for speed, in order to keep up with CVBGs.
>
>So, as you can see, we may never really know.
>
>Regards
>
>Steve Morris
Sam.
Steve Morris
Sam Fairall-Lee wrote in message <77cp1e$qsq$1...@merki.connect.com.au>...
>
>Steve Morris wrote in message <77cmj2$3gk$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
>
>[snip]
,,>
>>,,,,,,,,,,,,,, As previously mentioned crush depth esitmates vary greatly
(even for the
>kkk>same boat).
>
>Crush depth estimates for 688's that I've heard: 1500ft, 1000ft, 900ft, and
>whatever the USN has on it's web site (700ft?).
It's funny really, We - the tax ayers don't even know (with any real degree
of accuracy) what our boats are capable of and yet I bet the Russians do!
I personally feel that around the 1500 feet marker is about right for
688's.ccvbcvbbcfbbffbbfbbbffffbffeeebb33bb33x
>When I visited an Oberon a couple of years ago, I heard a couple of sailors
>in the engineering compartment respond to a visitor's question on the
boat's
>max. speed/depth by stating that max. speed was 14kts. and max. depth was
>400 ft.. When I told them that just a few minutes before another crewman
had
>said that he couldn't give out that information they shrugged, giggled a
bit
>and said something like, "we just tell them a number and they're happy and
>off they go."
Hmmmm .. the Oberon is a diesel-electric boat if I remember correctly. I am
a little suprised that diving depths etc are still a secret on such an old
non-nuclear boat.
It could be that all submariners are briefed on answering such questions any
way they like, just so long as it isn't accurate.
How did you get a tour of the Oberon BTW ??
>>L.A's (certainly at the design stage) being only to
>>attain a safe max depth of 950 feet.
>
>I remember reading that the 688's were built with the intention to
sacrifice
>depth for speed, in order to keep up with CVBGs.
That's right! that's what I read.
If/when such info become de-classified in the future, it will be interesting
to see just how far wrong our guesses were.
Regards
Steve
LETH'R
to "four digits" in depth.
--
Reply to <pcosenza*at*gpu.com> Put a "@" where it belongs.
"I miss her sometimes"
"The other day, I ran into my ex...
Then I backed up and ran into her again....
I miss her sometimes!"
Steve Morris wrote in message <77cvf5$kv8$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
Steve Atkatz
with the keyboard & wrote:
>I have been told by friends that were bubbleheads, that they regularly went
>to "four digits" in depth.
>
Whatever, as long as they were there to talk about it. The important
thing is:
NDives=NSurfaces.
A to Z
***************************************
Age and Treachery will always prevail
Over Youth and Vigor. DBF!!!
Michael C. Ulrich
operating and crush depths are classified. Any good submariner will tell
you "in excess of 400 feet".
The navy may have updated that canned response (it's been 4 years since
I got out).
Actual operating, test and crush depths are classified for obvious
security reasons although one could reasonably assume that operating
depths are at least half of crush depths, considering Rickover's design
specs to maintain considerable saftey margins in all aspects of modern
naval nuclear submarines.
All depths mentioned within the thread are approximating OPERATING depth
which is considerably different from test and crush depths. It seems
like confusion is setting in between the different depths.
Another factor to consider when approximating the operating, test and
crush depth of an individual submarine depends on its history of
maintenance, equipment problems and preventive maintenance histories
(among other factors). As a general rule, submarines of a certain class
have similar operating, test and crush depths. This changes depending on
a specific submarines history.
As a general rule:
Operating depth: maximum depth a submarine is allowed to safely operate
during a patrol.
Test depth: the depth taken to test subsafe joints and fittings to
ensure hull and system integrity. (greater than operating depth, less
than crush depth)
crush depth: exactly what it says. The depth where the submarine is
ESTIMATED to fail and collapse. Not a good idea to check and see if the
design engineers were close when they designed the submarine.
Hope this helps.
MM1(SS), USS Greenling (SSN 614), USS Lewis and Clark (SSBN 644), USS
Henry Clay (SSBN 625)
--
Michael C. Ulrich
michael....@usa.net
ICQ: 13075210
The only stupid question is the one never asked.
If you learn something everyday, then it's been a good day.
Freedom is our greatest national resource. Protect it!!
James Tuttle
> If you look at the deepest diving research vessels they are always
> very small. The larger the boat, the larger the surface area and
> therefore the thicker the steel required - I would surmise at least.
Well, sort of. Think of two submersible spheres -- a big one and a
small one. True, the big one has more surface area, but the important
point IMO is that the small one has greater curvature, and that means
greater strength for the same thickness of steel. Conversely, the skin
of the bigger sphere is more flat, and therefore more subject to shear
stresses.
I think of an old Roman arch -- the one with a keystone at the top
center. It's a very strong structure, but strength decreases with
increased size. At least that's the way it seems to me.
Paul J. Adam
<Stephen...@btinternet.com> writes
>As for boomers having a greater crush depth than say a fast attack, I don't
>know for sure. However, I would guess that it was in fact the other way
>very small. The larger the boat, the larger the surface area and therefore
>the thicker the steel required - I would surmise at least.
Hoop stress in a thin shell increases proportional to diameter: double
the diameter, and for a given pressure difference the shell must be
twice as thick to keep the stress constant.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Ctrot
haft ta kill ya".
Ctrot
George Gschwind
16th., 1999 Norfork Navy Base . Ceremony seating 11 a.m.
Still I say, we when below 400 ft. It's still the Silent Service!
Last tour she came back from ops. Nov. 17th 1999 with no break downs.
Ran 80% of time at sea. Rest of time, liberty. She was the only one in
her class. But one of the best! That's what I'm told! Served aboard Nar
for part of time pre- commissioning crewman, fast cruises, sea trials.
Commissioning July 12th. 1969 , etc. See search on submarines at
infoseek or excite.
A plankowner!
John Gorman
isn't it ? Although I have been out of the service for many years, I also
have worked with people at General Dynamics. I thought about asking but
like one of the replies said I expected the exact same reponse. "I could
tell ya, but then I'd hafta kill ya". Thanks again. Great site.
John Gorman wrote in message ...
Joe Chevere
>
> I keep looking for a former submariner to say, " I could tell ya, but then I'd
> haft ta kill ya".
O.k., I could tell ya, but then I'd haft ta kill ya! :)
Joe (SS)
USN (RET)
Sam Fairall-Lee
>>
>>Steve Morris wrote in message <77cmj2$3gk$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
Hi Steve,
>It's funny really, We - the tax ayers don't even know (with any real degree
>of accuracy) what our boats are capable of and yet I bet the Russians do!
Perhaps someone should ask a member of the Russian Navy (if there are any
left:-))
>Hmmmm .. the Oberon is a diesel-electric boat if I remember correctly. I am
>a little suprised that diving depths etc are still a secret on such an old
>non-nuclear boat.
The RAN still has two in service, they were scheduled to be decommed
1998/1999 but at least one will be held onto due to the problems with the
Collins class boats.
>How did you get a tour of the Oberon BTW ??
The RAN opened up its Sydney sub base (HMAS PLATYPUS) a couple of years back
and gave tours over the remaining two Oberons. It was billed as the "last
opportunity" to see them, but, as I said before, we may still have them a
couple of years from now.
>If/when such info become de-classified in the future, it will be
interesting
>to see just how far wrong our guesses were.
Have the USN de-classified crush depths of older nuclear boats?
BIW, in "Crimson Tide", the hull crush depth of an Ohio was 1850ft. (if
that's what the movie said, it _must_be true). [heavy sarcasm]
>Regards
>
>Steve
Sam.
Ottis
and even the site's neighbors, are kept in the dark about it.
Steve Morris wrote in message <77cvf5$kv8$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
Mark Borgerson
>
> While watching a movie the other day, (Sub Down) my son asked me the real
> Now I'll ask . Who know's ? I'm sure it's classified, but any ranges or
> guesses? I told him the actual depth depends on a number of factors, but
> they are built to withstand greater than the published depth. The movie had
> one sunk at 1700'. I thought that was low and said it's probably more like
> 2500". I also thought boomers might have a greater depth than LA class.
> So.....? Thanks
Here's an excerpt from a message I posted following a tour of the BlueBack
(SS581) in Portland Oregon:
1. After all my speculation on diving depths in previous posts, I've come
to the conclusion that the Blueback (and probably other boats before the
688 class) didn't dive deeper than 1000 feet. This conclusion is based on
the fact that the depth gauge had only 3 digits (999 feet max). In addition
a smaller gauge labeled "Sea Water Pressure" in the group of gauges
to the port side of the periscopes had a 500 PSI max reading. (500 PSI
is roughly equivalent to 1100 feet depth).
So if you ever get a chance to tour a a boat, look for a gauge other than
the depth gauge and do a little math. Or count the digits on the depth
gauge (I doubt they would need a full four digits--9999 feet!).
Mark Borgerson
BlackBeard
>
>Here's an excerpt from a message I posted following a tour of the BlueBack
>(SS581) in Portland Oregon:
>
> 1. After all my speculation on diving depths in previous posts, I've come
>to the conclusion that the Blueback (and probably other boats before the
>688 class) didn't dive deeper than 1000 feet. This conclusion is based on
>the fact that the depth gauge had only 3 digits (999 feet max). In addition
>a smaller gauge labeled "Sea Water Pressure" in the group of gauges
>to the port side of the periscopes had a 500 PSI max reading. (500 PSI
>is roughly equivalent to 1100 feet depth).
>
But your conclusions were incorrect as far as "and probably other boats
before the 688 class". One for certain, and probably two other classes
previous to the LA class boats could out-dive her.
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
""Bless those who serve beneath the deep, Through lonely hours their vigil keep, May peace their mission ever be, Protect each one we ask of thee.
Bless those at home who wait and pray, For their return by night or day."
-Rev. Gale Williamson
ran...@ix.netcom.com
(BlackBeard) wrote:
>But your conclusions were incorrect as far as "and probably other boats
>before the 688 class". One for certain, and probably two other classes
>previous to the LA class boats could out-dive her.
Sure BB, every sub class prior to the 688's showed that they could
outdive the class. One long final trip to the bottom. What 688 ever
did that? :)
To simplify (for submariners), the deepest diving submarine is the one
whose remains lay on the deepest seafloor. This brings up the old
Coast Guard saying, "you gotta go out but nobody guaranteed a return
trip." Of course, like 99% of my posts, this does not advance the
debate one jot.
<g>
random
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
<ott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, they also got tours for SubBase Bangor. Of course the Chinese
(mainland) got a tour of the torpedo facilities at Keyport (pre Tiniman
Square)
--
Ralph Lindberg personal email n7...@callsign.net
RV and Camping FAQ http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber/RV
If Windows is the answer I would really like to know what the question is
Bert Taddei
ran...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Sure BB, every sub class prior to the 688's showed that they could
> outdive the class. One long final trip to the bottom. What 688 ever
> did that? :)
>
>
> <g>
>
> random
I do not think any boomers or 637's or for that mater 578's (skate) went
down.
B Taddei STSCS(SS) (RET)
Steve Morris
Sorry for the delay in repluing, got tied down at work.
Sam Fairall-Lee wrote in message <77e8ml$86s$1...@merki.connect.com.au>...
>Have the USN de-classified crush depths of older nuclear boats?
To my knowledge, no. But then again, I'm not really up-to-speed on the
latest info.
>BIW, in "Crimson Tide", the hull crush depth of an Ohio was 1850ft. (if
>that's what the movie said, it _must_be true). [heavy sarcasm]
I would suspect the the hull crush depth of a big boomer like the Ohio's
wouldn't be much more than that - if any. My reasoning for this is due to
the Ohio's large size.
If it was any deeper than 1850ft, then I'd say it would have to be not much
more than 2000ft.
Just a guess mind you.
Regards
Steve
Lurker Below
<Stephen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Sam Fairall-Lee wrote in message <77e8ml$86s$1...@merki.connect.com.au>...
>>Have the USN de-classified crush depths of older nuclear boats?
>To my knowledge, no. But then again, I'm not really up-to-speed on the
>latest info.
>>BIW, in "Crimson Tide", the hull crush depth of an Ohio was 1850ft. (if
>>that's what the movie said, it _must_be true). [heavy sarcasm]
>I would suspect the the hull crush depth of a big boomer like the Ohio's
>wouldn't be much more than that - if any. My reasoning for this is due to
>the Ohio's large size.
Heh, heh, heh.
No. That is not the reason.
Think about it. Jumbo eggs don't crush any easier than small eggs.
>If it was any deeper than 1850ft, then I'd say it would have to be not much
>more than 2000ft.
FWIW, I don't even remember the 'crush depth' of an Ohio. We always
talked in terms of 'test depth' (which is well above 'crush depth').
>Just a guess mind you.
--
"If I told you, I'd have to kill you first..."
Legendary Retort of Sailors To Requests For
'Sensitive' Information
Paul J. Adam
<lur...@below.com> writes
>Think about it. Jumbo eggs don't crush any easier than small eggs.
My mechanics texts say hoop stress in a thin cylindrical shell subject
to a pressure differential (like a submarine hull) is proportional to
diameter - bigger hull, higher stress, for a given depth.
OTOH I've zero data about hull thickness and material for (for example)
an Ohio vs. a Los Angeles.
>FWIW, I don't even remember the 'crush depth' of an Ohio. We always
>talked in terms of 'test depth' (which is well above 'crush depth').
Crush depth is a naval architect's guesstimate, test depth is what he
gets paid to deliver. I know which I'd trust more :)
David E. Powell
>
>Sam Fairall-Lee wrote in message <77cp1e$qsq$1...@merki.connect.com.au>...
>>
>>>,,,,,,,,,,,,,, As previously mentioned crush depth esitmates vary greatly
>(even for the
>>kkk>same boat).
>>
>>Crush depth estimates for 688's that I've heard: 1500ft, 1000ft, 900ft,
and
>>whatever the USN has on it's web site (700ft?).
>
>of accuracy) what our boats are capable of and yet I bet the Russians do!
>
>688's.ccvbcvbbcfbbffbbfbbbffffbffeeebb33bb33x
Oberon stuff sadly snipped...
>>>L.A's (certainly at the design stage) being only to
>>>attain a safe max depth of 950 feet.
>>
>>I remember reading that the 688's were built with the intention to
>sacrifice
>>depth for speed, in order to keep up with CVBGs.
Great Scot, man! Ya meanin' to tell me the bleedin' things do 60 knots?
;+)
David Powell
Lurker Below
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <369e1b2...@news.inlink.com>, Lurker Below
><lur...@below.com> writes
>>Think about it. Jumbo eggs don't crush any easier than small eggs.
>My mechanics texts say hoop stress in a thin cylindrical shell subject
>to a pressure differential (like a submarine hull) is proportional to
>diameter - bigger hull, higher stress, for a given depth.
>OTOH I've zero data about hull thickness and material for (for example)
>an Ohio vs. a Los Angeles.
Don't you think they'd brace them better and perhaps use better
material (Ohio's didn't use HY-80, they used better).
Again, the Ohio test depth is dependent on a different factor all
together than the one you mention.
>>FWIW, I don't even remember the 'crush depth' of an Ohio. We always
>>talked in terms of 'test depth' (which is well above 'crush depth').
>Crush depth is a naval architect's guesstimate, test depth is what he
>gets paid to deliver. I know which I'd trust more :)
Since I had to ride around in one, you know which one _I_ trust :)
Ken Young
> I think of an old Roman arch -- the one with a keystone at the top
> center. It's a very strong structure, but strength decreases with
> increased size. At least that's the way it seems to me.
That is a different situation. With an arch the weight produces a sideways
force on the abutments. The magnitude of the force depends on the size of
the bridge and the radius of curvature. Elliptical arched bridges span a
greater gap but produce a bigger sideways force for the same masonry weight.
The following is from an article on boilers and the metal would be under
tension but the situation would be similar/ A 12 ft diameter boiler would
require 1.5 inch plates to contain 120 lbs while a 12 inch tube would only
need 0.25 inch walls to take 150 lbs. In compression a sub gets some benefit
from the internal frames.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
ran...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>
>I do not think any boomers or 637's or for that mater 578's (skate) went
>down.
Drat, a pointed barb misses the mark and proves untrue.
random
Jari Aromaa
Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In article <369e1b2...@news.inlink.com>, Lurker Below
> <lur...@below.com> writes
> >Think about it. Jumbo eggs don't crush any easier than small eggs.
>
> My mechanics texts say hoop stress in a thin cylindrical shell subject
> to a pressure differential (like a submarine hull) is proportional to
> diameter - bigger hull, higher stress, for a given depth.
>
SNIP
My late grandfather served in the Finnish submarines from 1930´s to 1950´s.
In his little black notebook I found the following (translation is mine):
"Maximum depth calculated from the Laubeuf equation d = 0.03 * (P * L *
D)^0.5, where d is pressure hull plate thickness [mm], P is water pressure
[kg/cm2], L is frame distance of pressure hull [cm] and D is diameter of
pressure hull [cm].
Remember that this refers to 1920´s or 1930´s materials and constructions.
Jari Aromaa
Visit my website: Finnish Navy in World War II
http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Marine/Navygallery.htm
kmsimmons
>(snip)
>
> Visit my website: Finnish Navy in World War II
> http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Marine/Navygallery.htm
I just looked at this site and it is fascinating and well done.
Definitely worth a visit.
Mike
Michael C. Ulrich
Mark Borgerson
<<good stuff snipped>>
> crush depth: exactly what it says. The depth where the submarine is
> ESTIMATED to fail and collapse. Not a good idea to check and see if the
> design engineers were close when they designed the submarine.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> MM1(SS), USS Greenling (SSN 614), USS Lewis and Clark (SSBN 644), USS
> Henry Clay (SSBN 625)
>
If it were't for those nasty reactors, it might be worthwhile to
take a decommissioned boat out to some deep water, seal all
the watertight doors and open the ballast vents. With a little
instrumentation you would get a good read on crush depth. I've
read (most often in fiction books, though) that the fUSSR has
been disposing of old boat in deep water without bothering to
remove the reactors. Perhaps they have a better estimate of
crush depth than the US Navy!
Michael's points about large variations due to life history are
pertinent, though--as are comments in some of the threads about
the work habits of the shipyard people.
Mark Borgerson
Paul Donnelly
<snip>
>Heh, heh, heh.
>
>No. That is not the reason.
>
>Think about it. Jumbo eggs don't crush any easier than small eggs.
That's coz jumbo eggs have thicker shells :-)
--
Paul
James Tuttle
>
> James Tuttle wrote:
> >
> > I think of an old Roman arch -- the one with a keystone at the top
> > center. It's a very strong structure, but strength decreases with
> > increased size. At least that's the way it seems to me.
>
> That is a different situation. With an arch the weight produces a
> sideways force on the abutments. The magnitude of the force depends on
> the size of the bridge and the radius of curvature.
Yes, but that's not what I was thinking of. Instead, I was thinking of
shear failure at the keystone. Other things being equal, the magnitude
of the force required to produce shear failure is a reciprocal function
of the radius of curvature.
Graham Watson
Steve Morris wrote in message <77cvf5$kv8$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
<snip>
>Hmmmm .. the Oberon is a diesel-electric boat if I remember correctly. I am
>a little suprised that diving depths etc are still a secret on such an old
>non-nuclear boat.
>
<Snip>
Why should the diving depth of a non nuclear boat be any less classified
than the depth of a nuclear submarine?, And if you have a class of
submarines still in service you will want to keep it's depth classified.
A diesel boat may not achieve the same depth as a nuclear boat (Though some
boats may have comparable depths), but generally it is facing a different
opponent than the nuclear boats are, and should have a maximum depth
suitable to enable it to operate in its intended environment against its
intended foe.
Graham Watson
There are only two types of Ships
Submarines and Targets
Per Nordenberg
Graham Watson skrev i meddelandet
<77neh0$mie$1...@bomb.dynamite.com.au>...
The Swedish underwater rescue vehicle (URF:
http://www.mil.se/FM/marinen/10/13/13h_eng.html ) is designed to be
able to rescue the whole crew in one attempt from a Sw sub down to the
greatest depth of the Baltic, which is 459 m. Isn't it reasonable then
to assume that the crush depth of Sw subs (at least the later A17 and
A19 classes) is significant greater than this? Otherwise there would
be no need for URF to be able to rescue at this depth, would it? That
is of course if it wasn't designed from the start to rescue foreign
sub crews as well. I believe there is an agreement with the Danish
navy on this (don't know about the Norwegian navy though).
Per Nordenberg
Lurker Below
<battl...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Crush on an Alfa was 1700' when they actually made it out of port
>never exceed was 1400'
>1,150' normal max
>crush on Scorpion was about 1300' IIRC'
>700" normal max.
>LA normal max 800+
LOL!!!!!
That's _way_ off base if you mean 'test depth' by normal max. And
crush depths have to be way off too.
A test depth of 1400' on an Alfa makes no sense.
Interim Books
(BlackBeard) wrote:
>But your conclusions were incorrect as far as "and probably other boats
>before the 688 class". One for certain, and probably two other classes
>previous to the LA class boats could out-dive her.
>
>BlackBeard
All 41 for Freedom classes (598, 608, 616, 627, 640) could outdive the
LA's. AFAIK. (I know a 640 can, and on a good day they can out fight
'em too!)
I believe both Permit's and Sturgeon's can also outdive a LA, unsure
about Skipjacks or prior.
It must be realized that the LA's gave up a *lot* to for silence and
speed.
Derek L.
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98377
11am - 5pm (PST) | Monday - Sat, other hours by whim or appt.
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343
Home Page http://www.hurricane.net/~fairwater/
eBay Page http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/interim_books/
Interim Books also sponsors the USS Henry L. Stimson
web page at: http://www.hurricane.net/~elde/655.html
Sandy Wills
Maximum safe operating depth of a modern submarine has (almost) NOTHING
to do with hull strength.
Modern boats have hull thicknesses in excess of an inch (Read that the
same way you read "deeper than 400 feet"), and are made of very tough
alloys. When I was stationed on a 688, I once spent a couple of minutes
figuring out the depth needed to reach yield strength on a typical hull
segment, and came up with an absurd number like "the pressure you would
get at 42 miles down". The hull is made very strong for several
reasons, and of course one of them is to resist sea pressure, but THAT
IS NOT THE LIMITING FACTOR IN OPERATING DEPTH.
Assume a steam plant, a normal heat engine. Assume a Reactor generating
the heat, a condenser dissipating it, and a turbine getting useful work
from the delta-T. How does that condenser reject waste heat to the
sea? By means of thousands of tiny tubes, of course - made as thin as
possible to maximize the heat-transfer rate from the condensing steam
outside the tubes to the seawater inside the tubes.
How thin are these tubes? Well, your car's radiator is thinner, but not
by much. After all, if the metal is too thick, then heat won't transfer
across it fast enough to get a useful engine.
So. You have a bunch of thin tubes with a collective surface area in
the tens of thousands of square feet. The whole thing is vibrating,
since it's mounted to a machinery complex. This adds ulcers about
fatigue failure. Don't forget that the seawater flowing through the
tubes is one of the most active and corrosive chemical mixes known to
man. Keep in mind that the simple act of flowing through the tubes
gives you erosion problems.
And of course my example is just one particular use for seawater inside
the hull.
It's not the water you keep safely OUTSIDE the hull that you worry
about. It's all the water you have to bring in, past that hull, that
you have to worry about, because it's at the same pressure as that water
that you made your wonderful strong hull to resist.
The Thresher died because a lot of things went wrong in a particularly
ugly chain of events, but that chain started with a small leak in an
internal cooling system. The entire crew was long dead by the time the
hull finally failed.
--
"Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted."
Lurker Below
Books) wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:41:35 -0800, nos...@yadda.yadda.yadda
>(BlackBeard) wrote:
>>But your conclusions were incorrect as far as "and probably other boats
>>before the 688 class". One for certain, and probably two other classes
>>previous to the LA class boats could out-dive her.
>All 41 for Freedom classes (598, 608, 616, 627, 640) could outdive the
>LA's. AFAIK. (I know a 640 can,
The only sub test depths I know are for 688 and 726 class boats and I
find it hard to believe that a 640 boomer has a test depth greater
than an LA class.
>and on a good day they can out fight 'em too!)
LOL!
>I believe both Permit's and Sturgeon's can also outdive a LA, unsure
>about Skipjacks or prior.
>It must be realized that the LA's gave up a *lot* to for silence and
>speed.
I just don't see what the modifications for silence did to test depth.
Rubber mounting the boat and getting improved pumps, generators,
turbines, reduction gears, etc has very little to do with test depth.
--
"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's
safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government
contract."
- Alan Shepherd
Paul J. Adam
<wil...@mediaone.net> writes
>It's been a week or so now, and no one has yet pointed out:
>
>Maximum safe operating depth of a modern submarine has (almost) NOTHING
>to do with hull strength.
<snip Sandy's explanation>
(Slaps forehead) D'oh! I should have figured that out for myself.
Especially after Lurker dropped a few hints.
Interim Books
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:31:02 GMT, fair...@hurricane.net (Interim
>Books) wrote:
>
>>All 41 for Freedom classes (598, 608, 616, 627, 640) could outdive the
>>LA's. AFAIK. (I know a 640 can,
>
>The only sub test depths I know are for 688 and 726 class boats and I
>find it hard to believe that a 640 boomer has a test depth greater
>than an LA class.
>
Sure does... The only boomer an LA can outdive is a 726. (And that
not by much...)
>>and on a good day they can out fight 'em too!)
>
>LOL!
>
Strange but true!
>>I believe both Permit's and Sturgeon's can also outdive a LA, unsure
>>about Skipjacks or prior.
>
>>It must be realized that the LA's gave up a *lot* to for silence and
>>speed.
>
>I just don't see what the modifications for silence did to test depth.
>Rubber mounting the boat and getting improved pumps, generators,
>turbines, reduction gears, etc has very little to do with test depth.
>
It's a matter of weight (displacement). Super silent gear takes up
more room, thus requiring more hull weight for a given crush depth.
The hull had to be thinned to save displacement overall. (Patrick
Tyler's 'Running Critical' gives a good account of this. Friedman's
'US Subs since 1945' refers to it obliquely.) Ditto for the oversive
reactor and the large amount of room consumed by the sonar
installation.
Interim Books
wrote:
>It's been a week or so now, and no one has yet pointed out:
>
>Maximum safe operating depth of a modern submarine has (almost) NOTHING
>to do with hull strength.
>
>Modern boats have hull thicknesses in excess of an inch (Read that the
>same way you read "deeper than 400 feet"), and are made of very tough
>alloys. When I was stationed on a 688, I once spent a couple of minutes
>figuring out the depth needed to reach yield strength on a typical hull
>segment, and came up with an absurd number like "the pressure you would
>get at 42 miles down". The hull is made very strong for several
>reasons, and of course one of them is to resist sea pressure, but THAT
>IS NOT THE LIMITING FACTOR IN OPERATING DEPTH.
>
This is patently absurd. HY-80 able to stand down to 42 miles? Then
why pray tell do the truly deep divers (Alvin, Trieste) require hulls
of several inches (6+) thickness for a crush depth of considerably
less?
D. Scott Ferrin
Books) wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:57:16 GMT, Sandy Wills <wil...@mediaone.net>
>wrote:
>
>>It's been a week or so now, and no one has yet pointed out:
>>
>>Maximum safe operating depth of a modern submarine has (almost) NOTHING
>>to do with hull strength.
>>
>>Modern boats have hull thicknesses in excess of an inch (Read that the
>>same way you read "deeper than 400 feet"), and are made of very tough
>>alloys. When I was stationed on a 688, I once spent a couple of minutes
>>figuring out the depth needed to reach yield strength on a typical hull
>>segment, and came up with an absurd number like "the pressure you would
>>get at 42 miles down". The hull is made very strong for several
>>reasons, and of course one of them is to resist sea pressure, but THAT
>>IS NOT THE LIMITING FACTOR IN OPERATING DEPTH.
>>
>
>This is patently absurd. HY-80 able to stand down to 42 miles? Then
>why pray tell do the truly deep divers (Alvin, Trieste) require hulls
>of several inches (6+) thickness for a crush depth of considerably
>less?
Not to mention the fact that from a mechanical standpoint a small
volume (Trieste) will have much higher crush resistance than the
larger LA for a given hull thickness.
Sandy Wills
> >segment, and came up with an absurd number like "the pressure you would
> >get at 42 miles down". The hull is made very strong for several
> >reasons, and of course one of them is to resist sea pressure, but THAT
> >IS NOT THE LIMITING FACTOR IN OPERATING DEPTH.
>
> This is patently absurd. HY-80 able to stand down to 42 miles? Then
> why pray tell do the truly deep divers (Alvin, Trieste) require hulls
> of several inches (6+) thickness for a crush depth of considerably
> less?
<<Deep breath>>
Gee, it's good to know you read the whole post! I occasionally get
chided for using imprecise terminology, and my retort is always "Well, I
want the non-techs to understand it, so I use non-tech language" Of
course, it doesn't make much difference WHAT language is used, if you
don't bother to read it, does it?
I went into some (not much, I grant) detail to give a particular example
of why the HULL is not the problem. It is always the hull PENETRATIONS
for propulsion, access hatches, external controls, etc, etc, etc that
give way first.
Okay, then, YOU tell ME what smoothly increasing force will be needed to
make a piece of HY-80 yield (read "fail") given: sea temperature of your
choice, thickness of a 688 hull (you clearly know this), supported by
non-yielding (for our purposes, it is) parallel beams stationed at the
distance that a 688 has frame members. Yeah, I know, the distance
varies in different places. Pick one. I trust you. To keep the math
simple, assume an endless length (or make it circular for realism, if
you really like math).
No, really. Do it. I'll wait. You will come up with a force vector
with some big number. Divide by units until you get a pressure. Divide
THAT by the standard rate of pressure increase for seawater. That will
give you a distance.
As I said, it's an absurdly high number. It's NOT the hull we worry
about. It's the hull FITTINGS, the hull PENETRATIONS, and the INTERNAL
SEAWATER SYSTEMS we worry about. Just like Alvin, Trieste, and the rest
of those guys.
And just like I said in the rest of that post.
On the other hand, you just figured out the AVERAGE yield depth, or the
depth at which the AVERAGE hull section will fail, which as I hope you
will agree, is pretty meaningless. There will be, somewhere, a flaw
that yields at a much lower stress level. Divide by 10. Oh, hell,
there are going to be people on that thing. Divide by 10 again, as a
safety measure.
Of course, once you have a high stress on a structural member, any
transient (read "some otherwise minor piece of the ship just failed")
will set up shock waves that may, momentarily, pass the yield strength
of that welding flaw in segment 23 that was oriented the wrong way to be
seen in the X-rays. And, as everyone knows, once you crack the eggshell
it collapses pretty quickly. So, we don't ever go anywhere close to
where a minor component's failure can cascade into a major failure.
Lurker Below
Books) wrote:
>This is patently absurd. HY-80 able to stand down to 42 miles?
YM HY-100?
726s are made of HY-100 and AFAIK, so are 688s.
--
"Expedients are for the hour; principles for the ages."
- Henry Ward Beecher
Lurker Below
Books) wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:34:23 GMT, lur...@below.com (Lurker Below)
>wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:31:02 GMT, fair...@hurricane.net (Interim
>>Books) wrote:
>>>All 41 for Freedom classes (598, 608, 616, 627, 640) could outdive the
>>>LA's. AFAIK. (I know a 640 can,
>>The only sub test depths I know are for 688 and 726 class boats and I
>>find it hard to believe that a 640 boomer has a test depth greater
>>than an LA class.
>Sure does... The only boomer an LA can outdive is a 726. (And that
>not by much...)
Again, I know the test depths of both LAs and Ohios and if you think
the difference is 'not much' then we are speaking different languages
altogether.
>>>and on a good day they can out fight 'em too!)
>>LOL!
>Strange but true!
You just go right on believing that. I might believe an Ohio could
hand somebody their heads on a good day, but only because you can't
fight what you can't find.
>>>I believe both Permit's and Sturgeon's can also outdive a LA, unsure
>>>about Skipjacks or prior.
>>>It must be realized that the LA's gave up a *lot* to for silence and
>>>speed.
>>I just don't see what the modifications for silence did to test depth.
>>Rubber mounting the boat and getting improved pumps, generators,
>>turbines, reduction gears, etc has very little to do with test depth.
>It's a matter of weight (displacement). Super silent gear takes up
>more room, thus requiring more hull weight for a given crush depth.
>The hull had to be thinned to save displacement overall. (Patrick
>Tyler's 'Running Critical' gives a good account of this. Friedman's
>'US Subs since 1945' refers to it obliquely.) Ditto for the oversive
>reactor and the large amount of room consumed by the sonar
>installation.
And as Sandy and I have been trying to get across, test depth has
little to nothing to do with the _hull_. It has to do with hull
penetrations. I happen to know the _specific_ reason an Ohio's TD is
different from an LA's TD and it ain't ship's beam or hull thickness.
--
"Just think of it as evolution in action."
Tony Rand in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's
'Oath of Fealty'
Interim Books
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:28:34 GMT, fair...@hurricane.net (Interim
>Books) wrote:
>
>>This is patently absurd. HY-80 able to stand down to 42 miles?
>
>YM HY-100?
>
>726s are made of HY-100 and AFAIK, so are 688s.
>--
Nope... 726's are HY-80, as are 688's (the early ones at least.)
I don't know about the SSN-21 or NSSN/Centurion.
Interim Books
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:56:49 GMT, fair...@hurricane.net (Interim
>Books) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:34:23 GMT, lur...@below.com (Lurker Below)
>>wrote:
>
>>>On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:31:02 GMT, fair...@hurricane.net (Interim
>>>Books) wrote:
>
>>>>All 41 for Freedom classes (598, 608, 616, 627, 640) could outdive the
>>>>LA's. AFAIK. (I know a 640 can,
>
>>>>and on a good day they can out fight 'em too!)
>
>>>LOL!
>
>>Strange but true!
>
>You just go right on believing that. I might believe an Ohio could
>hand somebody their heads on a good day, but only because you can't
>fight what you can't find.
>
Sorry Lurker, I say that a 640 'On A Good Day' can outfight a 688,
because I've been there, done that. (They had an off day, we had a
good one. Happens. But I sure as heck wouldn't want to *depend* on
it!)
Paul J. Adam
<lur...@below.com> writes
>I happen to know the _specific_ reason an Ohio's TD is
>different from an LA's TD and it ain't ship's beam or hull thickness.
Anything as obvious as the pressure limit on the missile hatches?
Lurker Below
Books) wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 05:14:38 GMT, lur...@below.com (Lurker Below)
>wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:28:34 GMT, fair...@hurricane.net (Interim
>>Books) wrote:
>>>This is patently absurd. HY-80 able to stand down to 42 miles?
>>YM HY-100?
>>726s are made of HY-100 and AFAIK, so are 688s.
>Nope... 726's are HY-80, as are 688's (the early ones at least.)
Sorry, that was a qual question on the 727. Ohios are made of HY-100.
Consider yourself on the dink list.
You might consider just _who_ you are talking to when you make rash
and bold statements. Some of us _served_ on 726 class boomers.
>I don't know about the SSN-21 or NSSN/Centurion.
HTH
HAND
--
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
- Alexis de Toucqueville
Lurker Below
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36a5151...@news.inlink.com>, Lurker Below
><lur...@below.com> writes
>>I happen to know the _specific_ reason an Ohio's TD is
>>different from an LA's TD and it ain't ship's beam or hull thickness.
>Anything as obvious as the pressure limit on the missile hatches?
_As_ obvious, but not that specifically. Think of why you never have
hull cuts on a Trident...
--
"When I hold you in my arms, And I feel my finger on your trigger,
I know no one can do me no harm, because happiness is a warm gun,
Yes it is."
John Lennon and Paul McCartney
pss...@my-dejanews.com
lur...@below.com (Lurker Below) wrote:
>
> >Nope... 726's are HY-80, as are 688's (the early ones at least.)
>
> Sorry, that was a qual question on the 727. Ohios are made of HY-100.
> Consider yourself on the dink list.
>
> You might consider just _who_ you are talking to when you make rash
> and bold statements. Some of us _served_ on 726 class boomers.
>
> >I don't know about the SSN-21 or NSSN/Centurion.
>
I don't have the defintive answer, but I thought some of the problem with the
early work on the Seawolf (SSN-21) was finding welders who could work with the
HY-100 steel. I always thought the Seawolf class was the first US sub class to
be built with a hull of HY-100.
John's Axiom:
When your opponents down and out. Kick him!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
>
> Sorry, that was a qual question on the 727. Ohios are made of HY-100.
> Consider yourself on the dink list.
>
> You might consider just _who_ you are talking to when you make rash
> and bold statements. Some of us _served_ on 726 class boomers.
eh, the guy you are arguing with also served on Boomers (hi Derek)
--
Ralph Lindberg personal email n7...@callsign.net
RV and Camping FAQ http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber/RV
If Windows is the answer I would really like to know what the question is
Interim Books
(Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie) wrote:
>In article <36a9de70...@news.inlink.com>, lur...@below.com (Lurker
>Below) wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, that was a qual question on the 727. Ohios are made of HY-100.
>> Consider yourself on the dink list.
>>
>> You might consider just _who_ you are talking to when you make rash
>> and bold statements. Some of us _served_ on 726 class boomers.
>
> eh, the guy you are arguing with also served on Boomers (hi Derek)
>
Hi Ralph.... Ya, so I did, and so I've stated in the group... Lurker
seems to have not noticed. (He also seems to have not noticed that
726's are made of HY-80, not HY-100. The Seawolf (SSN-21) was the
first HY-100 boat. (Tho NR-1 was HY-100 I believe...)
Lurker, qual questions and 'tribal knowledge' are not evidence.
Derek
Lurker Below
Books) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:49:22 -0800, rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com
>(Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie) wrote:
>>In article <36a9de70...@news.inlink.com>, lur...@below.com (Lurker
>>Below) wrote:
>>> Sorry, that was a qual question on the 727. Ohios are made of HY-100.
>>> Consider yourself on the dink list.
>>> You might consider just _who_ you are talking to when you make rash
>>> and bold statements. Some of us _served_ on 726 class boomers.
>> eh, the guy you are arguing with also served on Boomers (hi Derek)
Unless he served on an Ohio, who cares?
>Hi Ralph.... Ya, so I did, and so I've stated in the group... Lurker
>seems to have not noticed.
All I've noticed is that you claim to have served on a 640 class
boomer. This is relevant to 726 class boomers in what fashion exactly?
>(He also seems to have not noticed that
>726's are made of HY-80, not HY-100. The Seawolf (SSN-21) was the
>first HY-100 boat. (Tho NR-1 was HY-100 I believe...)
And your evidence is...?
>Lurker, qual questions and 'tribal knowledge' are not evidence.
You have shown us nothing better yourself. All you have given us is
'Derek says so' and that doesn't fly.
Look, I was the first RO to report to the Blue Crew of the Michigan
who was not a plankowner. _Every_ person who said anything to me about
what the hull was made of after I reported said it was HY-100. Until
_you_ come up with better proof than 'Derek says so', I'll continue to
believe the guys who were there when it was built. Conversely, if you
can show some proof, I'll believe they were blowing smoke up my ass.
Don't moan about my sins when you are committing the same sin at the
very same moment.
--
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four,
calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."
- Abraham Lincoln
Interim Books
wrote:
><Ralph>
>>> eh, the guy you are arguing with also served on Boomers (hi Derek)
><Lurker>
>Unless he served on an Ohio, who cares?
>
Um.. Lurker, I taught at TTF, and was an MK98 trained FTB. I was
around the Trident program in one form or another the bulk of my naval
career. I've studied submarine design, construction, history, etc for
nearly 20 years. As a bookstore owner I increasingly specialize in
submarine books.
><Lurker>
>Look, I was the first RO to report to the Blue Crew of the Michigan
>who was not a plankowner. _Every_ person who said anything to me about
>what the hull was made of after I reported said it was HY-100.
Curious that a friend of mine who was aboard at the same time, (Matt
Henson*, arrived 1 week after commisioning), who was also a RO
explicitly denies any such rumor.
<*name used with permission>
><Lurker>
>Until _you_ come up with better proof than 'Derek says so', I'll continue to
>believe the guys who were there when it was built. Conversely, if you
>can show some proof, I'll believe they were blowing smoke up my ass.
In addition... No published source states that the Tridents were
manufactured of HY-100. Numerous public sources state that the SSN-21
was the first use of HY-100. None of my numerous friends and
aquaintances who served onboard Tridents, or worked onboard them at
TRF or PSNS have heard of any Trident being built of HY-100.
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao954.htm is a GAO office document that
specifically refers to the Seawolf as being the first boat made of
HY-100. Friedman (U.S. Nuclear Submarines Since 1945) makes the same
point, as does Jane's and Combat Fleets of the World.
><Lurker>
>Don't moan about my sins when you are committing the same sin at the
>very same moment.
No Lurker, I am not. I'm speaking from research and experience.
Derek L.
Lurker Below
Books) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:30:25 GMT, lur...@below.com (Lurker Below)
>wrote:
>><Ralph>
>>>> eh, the guy you are arguing with also served on Boomers (hi Derek)
>>Unless he served on an Ohio, who cares?
>Um.. Lurker, I taught at TTF, and was an MK98 trained FTB. I was
>around the Trident program in one form or another the bulk of my naval
>career. I've studied submarine design, construction, history, etc for
>nearly 20 years. As a bookstore owner I increasingly specialize in
>submarine books.
None of which gives 'Ralph's' argument any validity. You may have
knowledge _of_ 726 class boats, but unless the boomer you served on
_was_ an Ohio, the mere fact that you served on a boomer adds nothing
to your knowledge base.
>>Look, I was the first RO to report to the Blue Crew of the Michigan
>>who was not a plankowner. _Every_ person who said anything to me about
>>what the hull was made of after I reported said it was HY-100.
>Curious that a friend of mine who was aboard at the same time, (Matt
>Henson*, arrived 1 week after commisioning),
Not true for the Michigan. _I_ was the first RO to arrive after
commissioning.
>who was also a RO explicitly denies any such rumor.
><*name used with permission>
How is Matt? Does he still live in Suquamish? Has he kept track of his
good friend Chief Prokop? Does he still have nightmares about the COB
waking people up for field day with his inimitable "Wakey! Wakey!"?
IIRC, he did a pretty good imitation of that particular COB. Does he
still suck on his pipe? Tell him I said hello (see if he can put a
name on me).
Matt arrived on the Michigan l-o-o-o-n-g after commissioning. Most of
the plankowners were long gone by the time Matt got there. I don't
remember where Matt came from, perhaps he arrived 1 week after
commissioning on some other boat, the Ohio or Florida perhaps, but it
wasn't the Michigan.
>>Until _you_ come up with better proof than 'Derek says so', I'll continue to
>>believe the guys who were there when it was built. Conversely, if you
>>can show some proof, I'll believe they were blowing smoke up my ass.
>In addition... No published source states that the Tridents were
>manufactured of HY-100. Numerous public sources state that the SSN-21
>was the first use of HY-100. None of my numerous friends and
>aquaintances who served onboard Tridents, or worked onboard them at
>TRF or PSNS have heard of any Trident being built of HY-100.
>http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao954.htm is a GAO office document that
>specifically refers to the Seawolf as being the first boat made of
>HY-100. Friedman (U.S. Nuclear Submarines Since 1945) makes the same
>point, as does Jane's and Combat Fleets of the World.
Ah! Finally a verifiable cite.
Your cited source states "HY-100, a high-yield steel used to construct
the SSN-21's pressure hull, allows the submarine to achieve deeper
diving depths. Prior to the Seawolf program, a U.S. submarine's
pressure hull was constructed using _primarily_ HY-80 strength steel."
(emphasis added by me).
From this, I infer that some parts of previous classes were, in fact,
constructed of HY-100 and this caused some minor confusion amongst
certain plankowners which was imparted to me. A less charitable (to
them) interpretation is that they were, in fact, blowing smoke.
>>Don't moan about my sins when you are committing the same sin at the
>>very same moment.
>No Lurker, I am not. I'm speaking from research and experience.
No. You were making claims with no cited sources and expecting people
to believe you simply because you said so. Not until this particular
post did you establish any bone fides as to what your qualifications
were to comment at all and not until this particular post did you cite
independent sources.
--
""Individual rights" -- what are those supposed to be?"
-Loren Petrich in <petrichE...@netcom.com>
Paul J. Adam
<lur...@below.com> writes
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:19:53 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Anything as obvious as the pressure limit on the missile hatches?
>
>_As_ obvious, but not that specifically. Think of why you never have
>hull cuts on a Trident...
The missile tubes and their interface to the hull? Holes in the hull,
gaps in the framing, lots of awkwardly-angled welds?
(yes, this one's bugging me :) )
Lurker Below
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36aadf83...@news.inlink.com>, Lurker Below
><lur...@below.com> writes
>>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:19:53 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Anything as obvious as the pressure limit on the missile hatches?
>>_As_ obvious, but not that specifically. Think of why you never have
>>hull cuts on a Trident...
>The missile tubes and their interface to the hull? Holes in the hull,
>gaps in the framing, lots of awkwardly-angled welds?
>(yes, this one's bugging me :) )
The Logistics and Escape Trunks. On a 726, they are removable modules
with lots of extra piping. The whole thing pulls out allowing for even
large pieces of equipment to be replaced on a regular basis with the
removed part undergoing refurbishment at TRF.
--
"He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine!"
Jonathon Edwards
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
Below) wrote:
>
> How is Matt?
fine
> Does he still live in Suquamish?
yup, same house
>Has he kept track of his
> good friend Chief Prokop? Does he still have nightmares about the COB
> waking people up for field day with his inimitable "Wakey! Wakey!"?
> IIRC, he did a pretty good imitation of that particular COB.
still does (been woke up by Mat's wakey wakey myself)
> Does he
> still suck on his pipe?
Yup, more then ever
>
> Your cited source states "HY-100, a high-yield steel used to construct
> the SSN-21's pressure hull, allows the submarine to achieve deeper
> diving depths. Prior to the Seawolf program, a U.S. submarine's
> pressure hull was constructed using _primarily_ HY-80 strength steel."
> (emphasis added by me).
>
> From this, I infer that some parts of previous classes were, in fact,
> constructed of HY-100 and this caused some minor confusion amongst
> certain plankowners which was imparted to me. A less charitable (to
> them) interpretation is that they were, in fact, blowing smoke.
Memory serves that the only use of HY-100 before the SN-21 was the NR-1.
I also recall reading about some tests, but don't recall the details, too
long ago, too many programs, reports, etc, etc, etc in between.
Derek I recall Mat was on another boat before, it might even have been
the Ohio, but I don't recall right now (I recall that Bernie was plank on
two, the Ohio and either the Florida or Scoop or???, don't recall any
more)
Paul J. Adam
<lur...@below.com> writes
>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:07:16 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>_As_ obvious, but not that specifically. Think of why you never have
>>>hull cuts on a Trident...
>
>>The missile tubes and their interface to the hull? Holes in the hull,
>>gaps in the framing, lots of awkwardly-angled welds?
>
>>(yes, this one's bugging me :) )
>
>The Logistics and Escape Trunks.
Okay, obvious to someone who has access to the drawings :) Makes sensem
though, trade off some diving depth for ease of maintenance and refit.
>On a 726, they are removable modules
>with lots of extra piping. The whole thing pulls out allowing for even
>large pieces of equipment to be replaced on a regular basis with the
>removed part undergoing refurbishment at TRF.
That's a very good idea. Something similar was being suggested for the
Astutes, back when I was peripherally involved with the design (it was
still the Batch 2 Trafalgar then), I didn't know it had been implemented
in the Ohios.
Sandy Wills
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie wrote:
> Derek I recall Mat was on another boat before, it might even have been
> the Ohio, but I don't recall right now (I recall that Bernie was plank on
> two, the Ohio and either the Florida or Scoop or???, don't recall any
> more)
Bernie who??? Bernie Strub? We were roommates in Orlando, West Milton,
and Groton.
He was the wierdo I played frisbee with in the Ohio's engineroom. That
was before they installed all the %*((&^^& lockers, of course.
Lurker Below
(Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie) wrote:
>In article <36a6314...@news.inlink.com>, lur...@below.com (Lurker
>Below) wrote:
>> How is Matt?
> fine
Ah. Good.
>> Does he still live in Suquamish?
> yup, same house
Too bad. Stuck out on the res. At least _he_ had mail delivery, IIRC.
>>Has he kept track of his
>> good friend Chief Prokop? Does he still have nightmares about the COB
>> waking people up for field day with his inimitable "Wakey! Wakey!"?
>> IIRC, he did a pretty good imitation of that particular COB.
> still does (been woke up by Mat's wakey wakey myself)
LOL!
>> Does he still suck on his pipe?
> Yup, more then ever
If he figures out who I am, tell him I still smoke cigars (although I
do it now for the pure enjoyment as opposed to trying to chase the ENG
out of the Engine Room).
>> Your cited source states "HY-100, a high-yield steel used to construct
>> the SSN-21's pressure hull, allows the submarine to achieve deeper
>> diving depths. Prior to the Seawolf program, a U.S. submarine's
>> pressure hull was constructed using _primarily_ HY-80 strength steel."
>> (emphasis added by me).
>> From this, I infer that some parts of previous classes were, in fact,
>> constructed of HY-100 and this caused some minor confusion amongst
>> certain plankowners which was imparted to me. A less charitable (to
>> them) interpretation is that they were, in fact, blowing smoke.
> Memory serves that the only use of HY-100 before the SN-21 was the NR-1.
>I also recall reading about some tests, but don't recall the details, too
>long ago, too many programs, reports, etc, etc, etc in between.
Then they were probably blowing smoke. <sigh> :(
There goes all my trust in humanity...
> Derek I recall Mat was on another boat before, it might even have been
>the Ohio, but I don't recall right now (I recall that Bernie was plank on
>two, the Ohio and either the Florida or Scoop or???, don't recall any
>more)
The more I think about it, the more I seem to recall that Matt came
from the Florida (of course, it's been over 10 years since I got out).
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
> Post a personal message on a newsgroup, expect others to butt in.....
>
> Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie wrote:
> > Derek I recall Mat was on another boat before, it might even have been
> > the Ohio, but I don't recall right now (I recall that Bernie was plank on
> > two, the Ohio and either the Florida or Scoop or???, don't recall any
> > more)
>
> Bernie who??? Bernie Strub? We were roommates in Orlando, West Milton,
> and Groton.
Yup, the very same.. drop me a note and I'll send you his email address
and let the two of you get caught up (Actually three, he married Deb after
she and Shawn divorced, that was what, 15 years ago)
> He was the wierdo I played frisbee with in the Ohio's engineroom. That
> was before they installed all the %*((&^^& lockers, of course.
Sounds like him, he works for PSNS now and is waiting to help turn the
Ohio into razor blades (at least the local paper says the Navy will be)
Interim Books
>
> Derek I recall Mat was on another boat before, it might even have been
>the Ohio, but I don't recall right now (I recall that Bernie was plank on
>two, the Ohio and either the Florida or Scoop or???, don't recall any
>more)
>
Ralph;
Matt was on a 598 (Patrick Henry?) Then must have been Florida, then
Michigan.
Derek
Interim Books
wrote:
>Post a personal message on a newsgroup, expect others to butt in.....
<G>
>
>Bernie who??? Bernie Strub? We were roommates in Orlando, West Milton,
>and Groton.
>
>He was the wierdo I played frisbee with in the Ohio's engineroom. That
>was before they installed all the %*((&^^& lockers, of course.
>
One and the same I suspect.... And playing Frisbee in an engineroom
certainly *sounds* like something Bernie would do!
Derek L.
Interim Books
wrote:
>
>The more I think about it, the more I seem to recall that Matt came
>from the Florida (of course, it's been over 10 years since I got out).
>
That must be true... Because he was on 727 when I met him in, 1987 or
thereabouts, and he got out a couple of years later.... (When I asked
him about Michigan yesterday, he was between meetings and very
busy...)
Derek
FRANK VAN HASTE
Interim Books wrote in message <36a60545...@hurricane.ispnews.com>...
>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:49:22 -0800, rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com
>(Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie) wrote:
>
>
>726's are made of HY-80, not HY-100. The Seawolf (SSN-21) was the
>
No. NR-1's hull material is HY-80. Hellacious beefy framing. About the time
of NR-2 program, the structural gnomes were playing with HY-130. Never got
very good at welding the stuff. The program was transformed into NHTV and (I
believe) would have been HY-100 had it been built. Various test items were
completed in both materials.
Frank
John L. Kelleher
:> >segment, and came up with an absurd number like "the pressure you would
:> >get at 42 miles down". The hull is made very strong for several
Then later wrote:
: There will be, somewhere, a flaw
: that yields at a much lower stress level. Divide by 10. Oh, hell,
: there are going to be people on that thing. Divide by 10 again, as a
: safety measure.
Gee - these figures could almost be workable.
Initial Calculation (admittedly absurd): 42.0 miles
Secondary Calculation (flaw divide by 10): 4.20 miles
Final Calculation (safety measure): 0.42 miles
0.42 miles = 2217' - 2250' (depends on statute or nautical miles down)
Now how about some stats on the SR-71 for fun?
John
Guy Ames Stitt
of like listening to a long joke. You can't wait to get to the
punchline, but it never seems to come....
I just assumed that becuase the Steinke hoods ( for personal submarine
escape) were only good to 400 feet that that was the "safe operating
depth".
Geez, I better do more reading.
Guy
Lurker Below wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 04:09:47 -0600, "Guy Derdall"
> <battl...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Crush on an Alfa was 1700' when they actually made it out of port
> >never exceed was 1400'
> >1,150' normal max
> >crush on Scorpion was about 1300' IIRC'
> >700" normal max.
> >LA normal max 800+
>
> LOL!!!!!
>
> That's _way_ off base if you mean 'test depth' by normal max. And
> crush depths have to be way off too.
>
> A test depth of 1400' on an Alfa makes no sense.
> --
>
> "If I told you, I'd have to kill you first..."
> Legendary Retort of Sailors To Requests For
> 'Sensitive' Information
John Adams
> While watching a movie the other day, (Sub Down) my son asked me the real
> crush depth of subs. Like a good salt, I replied "It depends".
> Now I'll ask . Who know's ? I'm sure it's classified, but any ranges or
> guesses? I told him the actual depth depends on a number of factors, but
> they are built to withstand greater than the published depth. The movie had
> one sunk at 1700'. I thought that was low and said it's probably more like
> 2500". I also thought boomers might have a greater depth than LA class.
> So.....? Thanks
No professional I ever met in the Navy ever used the purported term, "crush depth"; to me, it is a meaningless expression. In the Navy, we talked about TEST DEPTH and DESIGN DEPTH. DESIGN DEPTH is a figure the designers believe in their professional engineering opinions they have designed the boat to withstand. TEST DEPTH is a lesser depth which for safety's sake the NAVY has decided as a matter of policy they will not push the boat beyond for any normal purposes. The ultimate depth to which the submarine might go before you would get an implosion and major hull rupture for any given submarine is unknown until you actually push one all the way to such a structural and materials failure, and so without such destructive testing you'll never know (at least, at traditional levels of technology). Moreover, a submarine can still be lost without implosion simply by gathering enough leaks or big enough leaks at myriad joints and pressure hull penetrations to flood the boat without anything being "crushed". This whole issue of operating depth is really more sophisticated than the simple thinking typical to "gamers."
Moreover, which submarine are you talking about? Your question, as phrased, is like asking, how fast can an airplane go? Obviously, it depends on whether you are talking about a Piper Cub or an SR-71, the X-15 or a Cessna 152. Submarine diving depths have run the gamut from probably something less than 100 feet to over seven miles deep depending on the craft.
My advice is to attempt to sensitize your kid to these ideas (or find some engineer experienced with actual submarine operations) to do this, and in the meantime rely on published figures for various types for your non-professional, idly-speculative needs (often no harder to locate than Wikipedia, and remembering at all times that those figures might easily be less than completely accurate, for security reasons), bearing in mind the considerations I have already set out for you.
Dean Markley
Dean
Keith Willshaw
> No professional I ever met in the Navy ever used the purported term, "crush depth"; to me, it is a meaningless expression. In the Navy, we talked about TEST DEPTH and DESIGN DEPTH. DESIGN DEPTH is a figure the designers believe in their professional engineering opinions they have designed the boat to withstand. TEST DEPTH is a lesser depth which for safety's sake the NAVY has decided as a matter of policy they will not push the boat beyond for any normal purposes. The ultimate depth to which the submarine might go before you would get an implosion and major hull rupture for any given submarine is unknown until you actually push one all the way to such a structural and materials failure, and so without such destructive testing you'll never know (at least, at traditional levels of technology). Moreover, a submarine can still be lost without implosion simply by gathering enough leaks or big enough leaks at myriad joints and pressure hull penetrations to flood the boat without anything being "crushed". This whole issue of operating depth is really more sophisticated than the simple thinking typical to "gamers."
>
> Moreover, which submarine are you talking about? Your question, as phrased, is like asking, how fast can an airplane
Trafalgar Class boat but I signed the Official Secrets and naval
security takes this kind of thing rather seriously.
Byker
On 17/11/2020 11:10, John Adams wrote:
>
> No professional I ever met in the Navy ever used the purported term,
> "crush depth"; to me, it is a meaningless expression. In the Navy, we
> talked about TEST DEPTH
was lost. All the newspapers and magazines were saying that the sub's last
transmission was garbled, with only the words "test depth" understandable...