Giant Russian Typhoon Class subs
Discussion
https://m.imgur.com/r/WarshipPorn/xi3P3
Absolute nuts. Same displacement as the Bismarck. Even had sauna and 'swimming' pools on them. But seriously the scale is staggering
Absolute nuts. Same displacement as the Bismarck. Even had sauna and 'swimming' pools on them. But seriously the scale is staggering
Fascinating! The amount of work in those subs, wow, and all before CAD become commonplace, meaning vast, complex 3d structures could be accurately drawn etc. I suspect a lot of those subs was made up as the build went along. IE the basic shapes and layout of the pressure hull(s) was drawn, but i bet lots of services and fittings just got nailed in where they landed......
Krikkit said:
I'd imagine being labour-rich they had huge design offices creating thousands and thousands of pages of drawings for every nut and bolt. Wether it was put together like that or not is another matter!
I've seen a lot of that info before, but it's a great post to tie it all together.
The problem is getting all those separate pieces of paper to join up! (which is the real power of 3d CAD) and that's before you have to translate the design into real metal, often about 5" thick looking at some of those pics or the top deck and sail construction. I've seen a lot of that info before, but it's a great post to tie it all together.
I was interested to see the integrated escape pods too, something not seen on our subs.
Didn't these have some crazy molten metal based cooling system for the reactors that had to be kept hot with an on shore steam plant when they were docked. Think they lost a couple of them when the steam plants failed and the whole lot set solid, writing the whole vessel off. Insane engineering.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
It was the Alfa class attack sub that had the liquid sodium coolant system.
Says it was lead-cooled reactor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarineI take interest in Nuclear Engineering, but honestly wasn't aware of lead-cooled reactors, I would have assumed what you said.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to waste the rest of the evening researching lead-cooled fast reactors on the internet.
Edited by Brother D on Friday 16th June 21:32
I understand there are a few books written about the role of RN Subs in the Cold War, but any written from the Soviet point of view?.
Also, excuse the slightly daft question from a non military person, but were these Typhoon class (and others) very easy to detect by our tech at the time?.
Also, excuse the slightly daft question from a non military person, but were these Typhoon class (and others) very easy to detect by our tech at the time?.
I often marvel at the technology that currently comes out, then read a post like this and realise the engineering skills that were in place a long time ago. As mentioned this must all have been done by countless men and women on drawing boards with amazing precision then turned into metal be equally gifted individuals.
Imagine what could be achieved if each side had been working together!
When you look back at the moon landings/concorde etc the post war period engineering moved at an amazing pace where a calculator was high tech!
Imagine what could be achieved if each side had been working together!
When you look back at the moon landings/concorde etc the post war period engineering moved at an amazing pace where a calculator was high tech!
stevesingo said:
Project started in 1972.
TK-208 laid down in 1976 and in service by 1982.
10 years from start to operational boat, and only 6yrs in construction, commissioning and trials.
Please don't ask how that compares to Astute class or how that might compare to Dreadnought class.
It was in service in 1982, but not with operational missiles.TK-208 laid down in 1976 and in service by 1982.
10 years from start to operational boat, and only 6yrs in construction, commissioning and trials.
Please don't ask how that compares to Astute class or how that might compare to Dreadnought class.
And to be fair, it's a very simple boat compared to any modern one, where the electronics systems integration is what makes for a long project (that and a continuously changing set of specifications..)
Have we got any naval architects on PH? I have a sub question!
How is buoyancy controlled in practice? If you have the ballast tanks inside the pressure hull then you need to pump against external water pressure to loose weight, but you don't need to have tanks that can withstand full diving depth pressure (unless you blow the tanks with air pressure of course, in which case you do) But if you have the ballast tanks external to the pressure hull, those tanks can remain at local ambient pressure (at whatever depth) so the tank structure can be much less massive, but you need to continuously add air as you descend to avoid the tank self filling, leading to a positive gain to diving force, which would be bad! Of course you can trim to always maintain a small net positive buoyancy, and use dynamic loads (dive planes etc) when moving, but that then rules out zero speed operations?
How is buoyancy controlled in practice? If you have the ballast tanks inside the pressure hull then you need to pump against external water pressure to loose weight, but you don't need to have tanks that can withstand full diving depth pressure (unless you blow the tanks with air pressure of course, in which case you do) But if you have the ballast tanks external to the pressure hull, those tanks can remain at local ambient pressure (at whatever depth) so the tank structure can be much less massive, but you need to continuously add air as you descend to avoid the tank self filling, leading to a positive gain to diving force, which would be bad! Of course you can trim to always maintain a small net positive buoyancy, and use dynamic loads (dive planes etc) when moving, but that then rules out zero speed operations?
I doubt you will get anyone involved to answer, if they value their job, despite there being lots of open source info.
Space is of a premium inside of the pressure hull.
http://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/infograph...
Space is of a premium inside of the pressure hull.
http://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/infograph...
Max_Torque said:
Have we got any naval architects on PH? I have a sub question!
How is buoyancy controlled in practice? If you have the ballast tanks inside the pressure hull then you need to pump against external water pressure to loose weight, but you don't need to have tanks that can withstand full diving depth pressure (unless you blow the tanks with air pressure of course, in which case you do) But if you have the ballast tanks external to the pressure hull, those tanks can remain at local ambient pressure (at whatever depth) so the tank structure can be much less massive, but you need to continuously add air as you descend to avoid the tank self filling, leading to a positive gain to diving force, which would be bad! Of course you can trim to always maintain a small net positive buoyancy, and use dynamic loads (dive planes etc) when moving, but that then rules out zero speed operations?
Try hereHow is buoyancy controlled in practice? If you have the ballast tanks inside the pressure hull then you need to pump against external water pressure to loose weight, but you don't need to have tanks that can withstand full diving depth pressure (unless you blow the tanks with air pressure of course, in which case you do) But if you have the ballast tanks external to the pressure hull, those tanks can remain at local ambient pressure (at whatever depth) so the tank structure can be much less massive, but you need to continuously add air as you descend to avoid the tank self filling, leading to a positive gain to diving force, which would be bad! Of course you can trim to always maintain a small net positive buoyancy, and use dynamic loads (dive planes etc) when moving, but that then rules out zero speed operations?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines...
For a more comprehensive answer you could try this book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Concepts-Submarine-Design...
There is nothing sensitive about the basic operating principles.
MBBlat said:
There is nothing sensitive about the basic operating principles.
There isn't, but anyone who worked on recent or current UK designed submarines would be unlikely to divulge anything as their current/future employment depends on security clearance. The vetting agency would have to assume that anyone discussing any element of work for which a the vetting agency have cleared them to do are a risk.Max_Torque said:
Krikkit said:
I'd imagine being labour-rich they had huge design offices creating thousands and thousands of pages of drawings for every nut and bolt. Wether it was put together like that or not is another matter!
I've seen a lot of that info before, but it's a great post to tie it all together.
The problem is getting all those separate pieces of paper to join up! (which is the real power of 3d CAD) I've seen a lot of that info before, but it's a great post to tie it all together.
People bang about CAD today, but the problem is now that too many people nowadays that are 'managing' the jobs have no hands on experience of how it all works, and have the press-a-button mentality that the computer is intelligent rather than the person using it as a tool, plus now one man is probably doing that 10 would have done in the drawing board days......
For all the positives of CAD, there are also negatives.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff