Best Designed Ship of WWII

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

HI all,

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this?

That is correct.

The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s).

The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery...


Leo "Apollo11"

Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)]

Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed).

If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush.

The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

HI all,



That is correct.

The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s).

The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery...


Leo "Apollo11"

Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)]

Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed).

If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush.

The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage.

Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps?

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Dixie




Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this?

i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find...

i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know.

I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters.

As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?"

I read of two exercises recently when entire task forces were "sunk" by subs that were never detected. On both occasions the sub in question was a Type 212, one German and one South African...

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers



Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)]

Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed).

If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush.

The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage.

Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps?

Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs?

Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps?

Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs?

Sirens are veiling as Carl is being taken away... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps?

Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs?

Sirens are veiling as Carl is being taken away... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

Cheeky! [:'(]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie



Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs?

Sirens are veiling as Carl is being taken away... [8D]

Cheeky! [:'(]

[:'(]

[:D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve



Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed).

If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush.

The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage.

Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps?

Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs?

Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it...

Apparently the Alfas were so noisy at high speed they could be heard for literally 1000's of miles on the SOSUS underseas monitoring system... iirc, they picked up an ALFA around Iceland from Bermuda...

High speed is all well and good until someone coordinates an attack with torps dropped in front and behind you - which helos could pull off (Alfa still couldn't outrun them...)

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: castor troy




Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps?

Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs?

Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it...

Apparently the Alfas were so noisy at high speed they could be heard for literally 1000's of miles on the SOSUS underseas monitoring system... iirc, they picked up an ALFA around Iceland from Bermuda...

High speed is all well and good until someone coordinates an attack with torps dropped in front and behind you - which helos could pull off (Alfa still couldn't outrun them...)

I never said it was a good idea, but it did cause a lot of problems for Western Naval planners. It was a blind alley development wise. Do any of our sub brethren have any info on the latest SSNs? How good are the Russian Akulas?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie



Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs?

Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it...

Apparently the Alfas were so noisy at high speed they could be heard for literally 1000's of miles on the SOSUS underseas monitoring system... iirc, they picked up an ALFA around Iceland from Bermuda...

High speed is all well and good until someone coordinates an attack with torps dropped in front and behind you - which helos could pull off (Alfa still couldn't outrun them...)

I never said it was a good idea, but it did cause a lot of problems for Western Naval planners. It was a blind alley development wise. Do any of our sub brethren have any info on the latest SSNs? How good are the Russian Akulas?

From what i've read, the Russian Akulas are really good... but i am not in the ASW loop.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Do any of our sub brethren have any info on the latest SSNs? How good are the Russian Akulas?

"mikemike" knows a lot of stuff!


Leo "Apollo11"

[rtrapasso]

BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however:

There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(]

Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow".

For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house.

By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however:

There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(]

Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow".

For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house.

By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik.

Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however:

There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(]

Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow".

For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house.

By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik.

Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however:

There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(]

Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow".

For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house.

By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik.

Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D]

You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(]

We do - one (albait very small and without batteries)... [:D]

BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(]


Leo "Apollo11"

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D]

You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(]

We do - one (albait very small and without batteries)... [:D]

BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(]


Leo "Apollo11"

^

thought we Austrian were doing that... [;)]

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie



You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(]

We do - one (albait very small and without batteries)... [:D]

BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(]


Leo "Apollo11"

^

thought we Austrian were doing that... [;)]

Yes,inventor of torpedo Ivan Vukic-Lupis was an Austrian[:D]
And yes,he lived in Austrian town Rijeka[:D]

P.S. In Rijeka there is still factory called "Torpedo" which manufacturing ship engines.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(]

thought we Austrian were doing that... [;)]

Pardon - we were all "Austro Hungarians"! [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

[:D]This is the third (or was it fourth) completely different account i've read of the attack... the other ones were either during the war, or shortly after however.

It's mainly from Admiral Sandy Woodward: "One Hundred Days" HarperCollins 1992, with some info from Martin Middlebrook: "Task Force: The Falklands War, 1982 (Revised Edition)", Penguin Books, 1987.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

[:D]This is the third (or was it fourth) completely different account i've read of the attack... the other ones were either during the war, or shortly after however.

It's mainly from Admiral Sandy Woodward: "One Hundred Days" HarperCollins 1992, with some info from Martin Middlebrook: "Task Force: The Falklands War, 1982 (Revised Edition)", Penguin Books, 1987.

i'll put them on my "Wish List" with Amazon... [8D]