
The World's Largest Submarine: The Soviet Union's Pr. 941 Typhoon SSBN (2014) - eps
http://imgur.com/a/xi3P3
======
jdonaldson
It's interesting that part of the rationale for building huge submarines is
that the Soviets couldn't afford American-style aircraft carriers. Then they
proceeded to bankrupt themselves making huge submarines.

~~~
vkou
An aircraft carrier is expensive because it requires an entire fleet to
support it. The carrier isn't the expensive part - the dozen screening vessels
that protect it are.

That fleet can be taken out with a single tactical nuclear weapon.

A nuclear submarine can operate on its own, and carries more firepower (If we
count by number of capitalists/communists/unaligned people it can kill) than
an entire carrier group.

An aircraft carrier is useful for force projection on the other side of the
world, if you are trying to bomb some stone-age savages, or to carry out some
gunboat diplomacy to an uppity developing nation. It can't surprise-surface 30
miles off the coast of New York, and launch three dozen half-megaton nuclear
weapons at six different metro areas in the span of forty minutes.

The Soviet Union was much more concerned about it's security than it was about
power projection. It didn't need carrier groups - it needed a way to guarantee
it's safety from nuclear attack, by holding the threat of initially Cuba, and
later, it's submarines over the head of the US.

The former USSR's, and today's Russia's foreign policy become a lot clearer
when you understand their primary goal - security of the homeland from attack.
The country was absolutely traumatized by the Great War, the Russian Civil
War, and the Great Patriotic War. All Soviet, and now Russian military
planning focuses on preventing such disasters.

The US's primary goal, in contrast, is not homeland security (it is a
secondary goal). The US's primary goal is making sure the world's oceans
remain open to marine trade. That is why the USSR didn't invest in aircraft
carriers, but the US did.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
> than it was about power projection

That part came from people singing "The Internationale" all over the world,
but it started to come apart in the 1960s, and by the 1980s it had
disintegrated, and so did the Soviet Union.

Ah, well, interesting times.

~~~
Aperocky
It's just an industrial revolution too early and did not manage to avoid an
imbred political class.

The AI and (insert unknown political change) might enabled a very different
version of Internationale, that might arise in our lifetime.

------
dredmorbius
Reddit discussion FWIW:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/2dchpf/everyth...](https://old.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/2dchpf/everything_you_ever_wanted_to_know_and_more_about/)
(2014).

------
MisterTea
The power numbers are a bit confusing. It is stated that the sub is powered by
two 380MW nuclear reactors. It almost doesn't make sense that a submarine can
output as much power as a large power station. Though, the reactors power
appears to be thermal and not electrical.

At 746 watts to a horsepower 760MW is pretty much 1,000,000 horsepower. But
the stated shaft horsepower (shp) driving the props is given at 80,000 shp
which is a 1/10th the output of each reactor. Granted there are losses and the
rest of the ship needs power but not 90%.

~~~
johnm1019
Reactors are often quoted in MW-thermal vs. MWe (electric). They also mention
there are 2 steam turbines. Here's my analysis. 2x 380MWt. They have two for
redundancy. Then 1x 380MWt, assume 33% conversion efficiency => 125MWe. 80k
SHP implies after losses, guess 85% conversion efficiency, 80k/0.85 HP to MWe
~= 70MWe. Which leaves 55MWe left over. That's still a lot of power, but it
puts this closer to realistic I think.

------
sailfast
What a wonderful historical piece that deals with both the engineering and
geopolitical implications of a historic vessel. Glad I saw this, despite it
being five years down the road.

------
dfsegoat
A separate detailed analysis of the 941 boats by, H.I. Sutton - his "Covert
Shores" blog and publications are my favorite Naval tech OSINT and historical
data sources:

[http://www.hisutton.com/The%20REAL%20Red%20October%20-%20Typ...](http://www.hisutton.com/The%20REAL%20Red%20October%20-%20Typhoon%20SSBN.html)

.. I really enjoy his material for the original artwork and diagrams.

------
gwbennett
The article is very good. Having been a nuke on both US fast attack and
ballistic missile subs, I would say any assessment of current US or Russian
sub capabilities listed in these comments are not accurate unless that person
is currently in the sub service. If they are, they are not going to say
anything, anyway. i.e. The Silent Service.

------
davidw
When I was in Portland a few weeks ago, my kids and I went on the submarine
tour at OMSI. Fascinating look at something you normally only see in movies. I
would highly recommend it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Blueback_(SS-581)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Blueback_\(SS-581\))

~~~
Freak_NL
As long as we're on the topic of submarines you can enter; anyone looking to
visit a Soviet/Russian submarine can do so in Germany. The Tango-class
submarine B-515 (now known as U-434, launched in 1976) can be visited year-
round in Hamburg:

[https://www.u-434.de](https://www.u-434.de)

I can recommend the guided tour. At 200cm standing room was limited for me,
but the sub is quite accessible as long as you're not overweight.

------
B1FF_PSUVM
One thing leads to another, and one ends up listening to the Hunt for Red
October movie theme ...

Basil Poledouris - Hymn to Red October:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRG1UixHvos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRG1UixHvos)

~~~
basementcat
Had this playing in the car the first time I drove to Montana.

~~~
sxates
I would would have liked to see Montana...

