Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russian ALFA Class interceptor submarine

hisutton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: Russian ALFA Class interceptor submarine

#11

Post by jacquesm »

jobu wrote: post #8
Shivetya wrote: post #4

Zolotaya Rybka was a name these got to be known by as it was an example of what went wrong in Soviet ship building. Basically the story as I understand it is that they ordered ships based on capability and not their cost which led to an exaggerated military budget versus GDP. Combined with Oscar and Typhoon ships they simply ran themselves out of money. however they were the pride of a Soviet navy that knew they coul…

> Zolotaya Rybka Hadn't heard that phrase before. This appears to be a decent explanation: https://russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/zolotaya-rybka/ "If you’re too greedy, you’ll lose everything."

'Zolotaya' -> made of gold or golden, 'Rybka' -> fish.

The Polish currency is named 'złoty', which also has its roots in gold.

Re: Russian ALFA Class interceptor submarine

#12

Post by acidburnNSA »

dragonwriter wrote: post #10
acidburnNSA wrote: post #7

These were among the only Lead-bismith cooled nuclear reactors ever operated. Sodium-potassium eutectic or pure sodium coolant is a better heat transfer fluid but in a water environment it's just a little crazy due to sodium-water chemistry. The US Navy tried sodium coolant in the USS Seawolf [1] and it was smaller, quieter, and more powerful, but they had problems with the steam generators. Not an unsolvable problem…

> The success of the water cooled competitor eventually led to the predominance of water cooled reactors in the commercial fleet. By commercial you mean operational (as in non-experimental Navy vessels.) There's precious few commercial nuclear vessels in history (four, each from a different country and I don't think they were ever operational all at the same time), so talking about the dominance of a particular nucle…

I meant to refer to the commercial fleet of commercial nuclear power plants making electricity on land, almost all of which have designs directly descended from naval designs. I guess "fleet" isn't a great word to use in the context of naval vessels. Whoops!

Re: Russian ALFA Class interceptor submarine

#13

Post by theoh »

hangonhn wrote: post #9

This is tangentially related: I came across this Reddit post a while back that I found very insightful. In the area of submarine design, the Soviets/Russians are actually much more innovative than Americans. They seem much more willing to try new ideas whereas Americans stuck to a more conservative try and true design. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bzekv/what_...

That is an interesting post. it relates to the KISS philosophy, which apparently originated in the US military (at least, that name for it).

Also the reformers of the 70s and 80s, the group around John Boyd, Pierre Sprey etc., really pushed for simpler equipment, in opposition to high-tech complexity. It's a recurring theme, and it's definitely a kind of conservatism since it always keeps a (more or less) skilled man in the loop. In a way it creates the conditions for human excellence in the old sense, which automation does away with.

This 2010 book on cultural differences in military innovation may also be relevant:

The Culture of Military Innovation The Impact of Cultural Factors on the Revolution in Military Affairs in Russia, the US, and Israel. DIMA ADAMSKY

https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=18104

Re: Russian ALFA Class interceptor submarine

#16

Post by dnhz »

jabl wrote: post #14

Nitpick: they certainly weren't 400 meters long as claimed in the article. Wikipedia claims 81.4m which seems more reasonable. Edit: doh, 400m depth, not size of the boat.

> At 41 knots and 400 meters the ALFA Class pushed the boundaries of both speed and operating depth.

400 m is a claim on operating depth, not length.

Re: Russian ALFA Class interceptor submarine

#20

Post by knute »

mrbill wrote: post #15
jabl wrote: post #14

Nitpick: they certainly weren't 400 meters long as claimed in the article. Wikipedia claims 81.4m which seems more reasonable. Edit: doh, 400m depth, not size of the boat.

I thought perhaps 400m was their max depth but Wikipedia says 350.

"Max depth" is kind of a nebulous concept though. There's the "test depth" which is as deep as they're willing to test the submarine. There's the maximum operational depth, which is some lesser depth that keeps a safety margin over the test depth. Then there's the "crush depth", which is the depth at which the submarine will actually fail, and is hopefully substantially deeper than the test depth.
Post reply on HN