4 ms·
The USSR was the only country to build submarines with titanium hulls, a practice which ended with the Cold War.
by _djo_ 11y ago
The USSR was the only country to build submarines with titanium hulls, a practice which ended with the Cold War.
- dogma1138 11y agoAnd only one class the Alfa fast attack submarine the titanium hull was used more to reduce weight (Half the displacement of a comparable Los Angeles class US attack submarine) to allow it to be the fastest submarine ever constructed (double the reported speed of US attack submarines and most likely at least 25% faster than their actual speed) rather than because titanium is non-magnetic. All Alfa subs were decommissioned in 1990 and sold as scrap.
- simonh 11y agoIt was also used in the K-278 nuclear attack subs, but only in the inner hull so wouldn't have had so much effect on reducing magnetic signature. It seems I was somewhat miss-informed. Thanks for helping clear that up.
- dogma1138 11y agoThe K-278 was part of project 685/705 of which 2 subs were made the K-222 (PAPA) and K-278 (MIKE) both were prototypes PAPA used a full titanium hull and resulted in the Alfa class subs and the K-278/MIKE was lost with all hands with it being the only sub of it's class.
- _djo_ 11y agoIt was also used on the Sierra class (Project 945) of which at least two have been refurbished and remain in service.
- elbrownos 11y agoTitanium allows an increase in dive depth but has no effect on speed.
- brandmeyer 11y agoThe ship's total mass must be close to the mass of the water it displaces. Less mass spent on the hull means more mass spent on the reactor and steam plant.
- dogma1138 11y agoThe displacement is based on the volume of the sub not the mass. Basically the Alfa was a small and light sub with probably the "biggest" reactor in terms of power output for it's size. What you got is a sub with half the displacement of an LA class submarine with a reactor with equal power output which meant that you could strap on some really powerful engines. So half the displacement with about the same power capabilities means pretty much that you can double your speed.
- brandmeyer 11y agomass = volume * density. Water has a (nearly) fixed density. So for any given displacement, less mass allocated to the hull means more mass allocated elsewhere.
- dogma1138 11y agoYes but the mass doesn't effect the volume of water displaced if you put in a hollow 10 cubic meter steel cube into water or a solid 10 cubic meter steel cube they'll both still displace the same amount of water which is 10 cubic meters. BTW the density of the sub is also for the most part pretty much equal to the density of water. The only times where it's going to be either greater or lesser than water is when it's doing a static dive or fast ascent. When the sub does it's initial dive and takes on water into it's buoyancy tanks it becomes about the average density of salt sea water once that is achieved it can use it's diving planes (foreplanes) to adjust it's depth.
- mentat 11y agohttps://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Crown/CrownIntro.html https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Crown/CrownIntr... was useful for me in correcting some myths about mass and density I'd learned.
- noir_lord 11y agoYep, the Alfa was a strange design, Titanium hull, reduced to way below safe minimum shielding to save the weight, noisy as hell (like insanely noisy). Basically designed as the submarine equivalent of an interceptor, get somewhere fast and open fire. IIRC the top speed of the alfa was above the speed of the NATO torpedoes in use at the time.
- ethbro 11y agoReported top speed. And it was seen as shocking enough to spur the investment into new torpedo technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine#Impact Like most fears over high-performance Soviet hardware though, the threat turned out to be overblown compared to the actual numbers build / operational state.
- simonh 11y agoInteresting. I knew the US used it in airframes and assumed they just used it a lot less in submarines but you appear to be right, thanks.
- dogma1138 11y agoThe CIA had to setup shell companies to buy titanium for the A-12/SR-71, making submarines out of Titanium didn't made sense for the US as it would be a waste of a "strategic material". The soviets also had to use titanium in many applications that would require high end steel as they both had plenty of it (almost half the world supply at the time) and their steel industry was decades behind the west and they just could not make the required quality of steel alloys. The soviets ended up using titanium as a replacement and became quite good at creating titanium alloys and working with titanium in general the US would most likely not be able to produce a hull out of titanium (at that time) without investing way too much effort into building that expertise which would be pointless given the titanium resources they had and their ability to make steels which were as good or better for most applications. The soviets had to resort into using titanium for every thing from infantry armor plating to razor blades.
- joeguilmette 11y agoThere are places in Crimea where the streetlights are made from titanium.
- Pamar 11y agoWhat I find particularly amusing is that Marvel Comics in 1965 introduced a Soviet enemy of Iron Man: Titanium Man (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_Man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_Man) ... Funny how they were "accurate" in mimicking the preference for using Titanium vs.Steel in the USA/USSR arms race.
- logfromblammo 11y agoI wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets experimented with basalt fiber composite hulls at some point. I think they used it in some ballistic missile cowlings, anyway. Basalt fiber is similar to e-glass fiber, but has greater stiffness. I'm guessing they made a few small fiber-wound spheres and did a crush depth test on them, but the results discouraged further experimentation.