4 ms·
> The published data for military submarines is the nominal test depth, not the actual design limit. The operational depth may be much deeper but that will be c
by myrmidon 1y ago
> The published data for military submarines is the nominal test depth, not the actual design limit. The operational depth may be much deeper but that will be classified.
We know the actual collapse depth for an older sub: 730m for the USS Thresher (test depth: 400m), in 1963.
Test depths of current generation subs are ~20% higher; pushing them to 700m or so might be plausible, but not much more. Radical hidden capabilities would either require substantial advances in material science or drastically different hull thickness, neither of which is really feasible to hide from adversaries anyway, especially considering how little utility you get from hiding this (compared to e.g. exact capabilities of anti-air interceptors or radar characteristics for bombers/fighters).
- LargoLasskhyfv 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Losharik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Losharik says test depht of 2,000–2,500 meters (6,600–8,200 ft), allegedly happened in 2012 somewhere in the Arctic Ocean.
- actinium226 1y agoThere are of course vessels that have gone deeper and are specially designed for it, but it struck me that the depth specified was close to that of 'standard' subs that are not specially designed for very deep operations
- LargoLasskhyfv 1y agoYah. I picked that one because its size and build is more like that of a common sub, not like the small, hyperspecialized things going down to the Mariana Trench, or something like that.