Max depth of L.A. Class?

[Lanzfeld]

Are you guys showing 984 feet?

Seems pretty shallow doesn't it?

[ultradave]

Max depths are classified so I would imagine that the ones in the game are educated guesses.

[Dysta]

Usually the operational max depth is a half of the Test Depth, with 10m less for insurance.

Like the Heroine-class (#9) for example, the test depth is 500m, in-game max depth is 240m, so it's a half of test minus 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroine-class_submarine

In contradictory, the reported Test Depth for LA is 240m, 60m less than in-game LA's 300m Max. It's because of the strict classification of nuclear-powered subs, and we know a well-proved nuclear subs should have at least 300m Max.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angel ... _submarine

[Primarchx]

As I recall there are only a couple of subs with deeper diving depths than the LA in the DB3k.

[Nangleator]

Surely the Alpha... Unless Tom Clancy has led me astray.

[Primarchx]

In DB3k you have ...

SSN 637: 400m
SSN 688: -450m
SSN 21: -450m
SSBN 726: -300m
SSN 774: -450m

Russian
Victor III: -400m
Akula I: -450m
Oscar II: -450m

Soviet
Alpha: -400m

[per Baloogan's DB3k]

[Gunner98]

Surely the Alpha

Clancy wouldn't lead you astray would he! [:D]

Interesting historical article from the CIA. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... stery.html

A 350M diving depth and 42 Knot speed. But 4-5 times the cost and a reactor melt down... trade-offs

Also there were 6 ALFA's build vs the 62 LA Class which is a comparative point in itself.

B

[StellarRat]

900 feet seems plenty deep for military use. You have to remember that you can't even use your own weapons past a certain depth or hear much for that matter.

[ultradave]

Keep in mind that operating at test depth or very close to it is very dangerous in a tactical environment. A fairly small problem (or damage) and you could find yourself diving below test depth (like damage to planes while at depth and speed - it wouldn't take more than seconds to dive below test depth if you were just above it.)

In operations you'd want some safety margin.

So except for hiding you're probably not going to be cruising right near test depth. The advantage going to the boats with deeper test depth, since obviously they have a deeper margin depth.

The Navy's official data released for all these classes is 800 ft + and 25 kts+

[CCIP-subsim]

Ultimately, this part of the DB has to be "plausible guesstimates" that stack reasonably against each other - and there's no other way around it, because there's no credible source to cite that would give a better number.

Well, I mean, one could have a source, but if you cite it - you and/or your source are very likely going for a long trip to the brig...[:-]

[lamboman43]

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim

Well, I mean, one could have a source, but if you cite it - you and/or your source are very likely going for a long trip to the brig...[:-]

Or disappear without a trace

[mikmykWS]

The newest db has it set to -300 meters due to some data posted in the db string at some point. This was due to a request made in prior to the last update or so where a user posted a credible open source.

Thanks

Mike

[Dysta]

So the 240m test depth for LA isn't correct. I always know it should be deeper than that, but it is so classified and at the same time we only rely to rumors and fiction stories from celebrities. Heck, even if you try to ask, they will accuse you as a spy:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-deepe ... the-oceans

[CassioM]

Once at an event in the port of Santos, a brazilian skipper told me that his boat, a tiny Tupi-class submarine, can dive more than 300 meters. I do not doubt that. I presume a bigger Los Angeles-class boat can reach twice that mark, something like 500 meters, I imagine... The expensive Seawolf can do more and the newest budget restraint Virginia-class boat (including modern russian subs) can stay between the older classes, I suppose...

[ultradave]

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim

Ultimately, this part of the DB has to be "plausible guesstimates" that stack reasonably against each other - and there's no other way around it, because there's no credible source to cite that would give a better number.

Well, I mean, one could have a source, but if you cite it - you and/or your source are very likely going for a long trip to the brig...[:-]

This is exactly it. More likely the source.

"Can't discuss it" should be the answer you'll get. I read that link about being accused of being spies. Those responders were a little over the top.

[FTBSS]

As a prior instructor at US Submarine school I can say that the values in this thread and in game are conservative the official depth off all US submarines is in "excess" of 400 feet. There were some issues with the 688 that reduced its designed test depth ( I think this is the credible source referred to earlier in this thread)

[Lanzfeld]

Well I think that the type 7's in World War II could almost get down to 900 feet. So you would think the modern day LA class could go much deeper but I understand the restriction in the game. I did just play a scenario where I had a Soviet sub (I think Mike class) go down to 2200+ feet!

[CCIP-subsim]

Well, you have to be careful about absolute maximums reached in extreme cases vs. operational maximums. In all my reading about WWII U-boats, I've never seen anything about them going deeper than 180-200m (so around 600ft, which was twice their rated depth as it is) as a matter of operational procedure - they only went below as a matter of desperation, or in most cases involuntarily. The actual deepest dive recorded by a crewed WWII-era submarine was by a Balao-class, USS Chopper, (part of) which reached 1,011ft in a diving accident - but I don't think that's something anyone on board would voluntarily repeat!

Because it's a computer game, taking edge cases to set limits is not a good idea, because players would likely abuse these, sometimes unknowingly. Because of the extreme wear that would result, it's unlikely any of these units would actually choose to go to those kinds of limits under operational conditions. It's like with planes - the MiG-25 set a speed record of mach 3.2, but only after being stripped of virtually all equipment, getting structural reinforcement, and still having its engine life reduced to something like 20 hours as a result - so in actual operations, they rarely go above mach 2. Same for subs.

Then there's the purely mechanical side - I don't think in CMANO it makes a major difference how deep you are once you're below the layer. IIRC it does not model the deep sound channel (except with SOSUS sensors, which sort of "fudge" the mechanics to give a plausible representation), so once you're down there, it wouldn't make a huge amount of difference from a game perspective whether you're at 300m or 400m, etc.

[CCIP-subsim]

(by the way, disclaimer - I have no authoritative source nor have ever touched a nuclear sub, but based on various accounts and reading I've done, I personally believe that the actual LA's operational limit is somewhere between 1500-2000ft. Grain of salt and all [;)] )

[ultradave]

ORIGINAL: CCIPsubsim

... Because of the extreme wear that would result, it's unlikely any of these units would actually choose to go to those kinds of limits under operational conditions. It's like with planes - the MiG-25 set a speed record of mach 3.2, but only after being stripped of virtually all equipment, getting structural reinforcement, and still having its engine life reduced to something like 20 hours as a result - so in actual operations, they rarely go above mach 2. Same for subs.

Well, I don't know about the Russians but we design ours for a certain number of cycles, so there is no real concern with going that deep (except not to make a daily habit of it ) Extreme wear overstates it quite a bit. My previous comment about the risks of actually operating so close to a limit like that and the effect of some kind of malfunction or damage I think will have more to do with it.

CassioM posted about depth and the size of submarines. Size is not really the driver. The NR-1 was a very small nuclear submarine that could dive very deep (compared to attack subs, not compared to research submersibles though). It was small and relatively inexpensive. Sizes of hull frames and hull thickness for a given diameter hull will have more to do with it. So you could design a very large sub with a thinner hull and lighter weight or wider frame spacing that would be a shallow diver.

SEAWOLF was unGodly expensive, but the design orders from the Navy were along the lines of "build us the baddest attack submarine you can design and let us know how much it costs" The design was at the height of the Cold War. Cost was somewhat secondary to performance. VIRGINIA's design started after the fall of the USSR, with different mission parameters and a request to keep cost down, while cramming as much performance into it as possible. Seemed like there were about a hundred different concept iterations. Except for VIRGINIA which was about 3 months late ( on a schedule laid out 10 years before), every one has been delivered under budget and ahead of schedule, and that schedule has dropped from 84 months to 66 months (and beating the 66), with constant emphasis at cost reduction. That's why I laughed at Pres. Trump's declaration he wasn't going to pay that much for submarines. They were too expensive and he'd get the cost down. But the schedule is already 18 months shorter (which == -$), and over $400 million has been taken off the cost.