
Russian ALFA Class interceptor submarine - dyyni
http://www.hisutton.com/Alfa_Class_Submarine.html
======
rdtsc
It was an experimental design and as the article says, it was very expensive.
Titanium was not just expensive, but it was hard to use. Welding had to be
done in an inert gas chamber.

Imagine building an inert gas chamber for a submarine.

More info about it here [https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-alfa-class-
was-the...](https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-alfa-class-was-the-
terrifying-hot-rod-sub-of-th-1637540064)

I think that's a better overall article than the original link.

New reactor design was experimental as well. Lead bismuth mixed had to be kept
120'C or higher. But it was much easier to increase it power momentarily, say
if they wanted to chase someone.

There is also a youtube video about it among others:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ34mE-
aCdY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ34mE-aCdY) (in Russian though)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO6FZ_ztzKM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO6FZ_ztzKM)

In one of the videos they mentioned when they did sea trials, the speed got so
high it stripped the paint off. It was also fun to show off their new toy to
the Americans.

~~~
ben7799
They don't have to weld in an inert gas chamber.

Titanium welding is typically done by purging the air around the weld and/or
pumping the inert gas into the parts being welded assuming they're tubes,
etc.. A bunch of the gasses involved are heavier than air and that property
can be used to come up with clever solutions.

Maybe the Russians built a giant chamber but that seems like a very non-
russian solution considering their great awareness of KISS. More likely they
found a way to seal an area around the weld and weld in sections that allowed
them to pump inert gas into small areas near the welding equipment.

~~~
rdtsc
Ah ok. They were showing people putting on what looked like moon suits and
going into a chamber. I imagine that's for smaller scale welds. But I imagine
pumping argon under pressure to displace oxygen in some areas would work as
well. Then ventilate properly as it would settle and well ... suffocate
people.

------
hangonhn
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_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bzekv/what_were_the_primary_differences_between_soviet/)

~~~
MichaelMoser123
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_subma...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines)
the list of sunken Soviet submarines is much longer than the list of sunken US
submarines, how is that explained?

~~~
freeone3000
They're more innovative. Move fast and break things, right?

~~~
gandhium
"Move fast and break things" doesn't sound right, when "things" are your own
citizens.

But it's only my opinion, probably.

~~~
lostlogin
That’s exactly the way it’s been done over Russian history. Except for the
long periods of moving slow and killing citizens.

------
acidburnNSA
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 but definitely a challenge. The success
of the water cooled competitor eventually led to the predominance of water
cooled reactors in the commercial fleet.

Passively safe Lead-cooled commercial reactors are still thought about today.
Challenges include high pumping power required due to high density, erosion
issues at high coolant velocity, and corrosion issues without very stringent
oxygen control.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_\(SSN-575\))

~~~
jabl
I wonder if we'll see non-pwr naval reactors anytime soon. A high temp reactor
would allow using a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle which would take up much
less space.

On another note, what would happen if a MSR powered ship would sink and the
fuel salt would come into contact with sea water? Would the salts dissolve
into the water? Much as I like MSR's as a concept, if so this would make them
a quite bad idea on a ship...

~~~
leeter
Not in the US Navy. Part of the reason the US Navy standardized on PWR is that
while it's not the most efficient it is something you can restart at depth if
necessary. The lesson of how much that matters was driven home by the loss of
the USS Thresher.

~~~
acidburnNSA
It should be technically feasible to restart a liquid-metal cooled reactor at
depth just as easily as a PWR, especially a Na- or NaK-cooled one. Certainly
keeping the coolant liquid after shutdown can be a challenge but as long as
the plant has operated for a while there should be significant decay heat to
keep it warm, and trace heating in the pipes could be powered by auxiliary
power if necessary.

------
apendleton
In case people miss it, there's a link to a fascinating CIA case study:
[https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intellig...](https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol52no3/unravelling-a-cold-
war-mystery.html) that describes how the CIA reached consensus about the Alfa
being made of titanium.

------
Shivetya
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 could not afford
the carriers and support ships the US had but were convinced when push came to
shove the submarines would be more than up to the task.

~~~
jobu
> _Zolotaya Rybka_

Hadn't heard that phrase before. This appears to be a decent explanation:

[https://russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/zolotaya-
rybka/](https://russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/zolotaya-rybka/)

 _" If you’re too greedy, you’ll lose everything."_

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

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

~~~
sorokod
'Rybka' is the diminutive of fish - 'Ryba'

~~~
jacquesm
To nie ja, to rybka!

------
kakwa_
The Alpha is truly impressive for its time. Fast, very advanced, and also its
lines are kind of neat, beautiful curves that spell speed.

Also, if you want another design that was quite impressive for its time:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_submarine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_submarine)

(we are lucky that these didn't go into service 2 years earlier).

------
ams6110
It has an escape capsule. According to the article, only the Russians had that
feature in their subs. I wonder why?

~~~
stevenwoo
Here's a tiny bit of explanation second hand from USN about why the USN does
not use them - too much chance for things to go wrong, although that's not
surprisng they would say that considering that's what the Soviets said
happened on the sunken submarine being discussed.
[https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/04/world/rescue-capsule-
save...](https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/04/world/rescue-capsule-saved-
only-1-on-sinking-soviet-submarine.html)

~~~
GCU-Empiricist
On the flip side between where you can get out in a survival suit, where
rescue submarines can get to, and places where the people tank will go crunch
before you hit the bottom, pretty much everything is covered for USN
submarines; it's a very safety conscious community.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Escape_Immersion_Equ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Escape_Immersion_Equipment)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Submarine_Rescue_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Submarine_Rescue_System)

------
dsfyu404ed
I've seen glaciers load faster than that website. I'm really impressed that
it's hanging on and not just erroring out.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Running under Python no less.

~~~
willvarfar
I happen to know how it's set up :)

It's a pelican static site but in git; then there is a tiny Python webserver
that 'publishes' the bare git repo, not unlike a custom github pages.

And it's running on an absolute-cheapest VPS with no RAM or CPU to speak of.

The good thing about the host though is they limit bandwidth rather than total
bytes, so sure it slows down - it's really being hammered right now! - but it
won't die with a nasty message when it hits some total-bytes-per-month limit.

------
mikl
Cue the “Hunt for Red October” soundtrack. Pure geeky engineering porn.

~~~
amaks
BTW, the real "Red October" is a Typhoon class sub:
[http://www.hisutton.com/The%20REAL%20Red%20October%20-%20Typ...](http://www.hisutton.com/The%20REAL%20Red%20October%20-%20Typhoon%20SSBN.html)

~~~
Lionsion
I think the opponent Russian sub was an Alfa, though. That's the one that's
sunk at the end of the movie.

~~~
jabl
Yes, that's correct. (And the US subs are 688 class.)

~~~
zentiggr
Fun fact - as I was reading Red October, I got a job as an electronics
apprentice/tech at the yard in Portsmouth NH, and the first boat I stepped
onto was the Dallas. Was a cool moment.

------
jabl
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.

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

~~~
knute
"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.

~~~
srean
.. and along those lines cannot recommend
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Boot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Boot)
enough

~~~
hermitdev
Been a while since I've watched "Das Boot", but IIRC, there's a scene in the
movie where, initially on the surface, they have a taught string strung across
the sub. Then, as they dive, deeper and deeper, the taught string relaxes
giving a rather frightening visual insight into how much the hull of the boat
is compressing.

