I'm surprised about the relative space. I once toured a Los Angeles-class sub (sorry, no photos) and I never felt I had enough headroom. Seeing all that open space in "workout area" and the "lounge area" and a lot of headroom was very strange.
The Russian nuclear submarines are just crazy big compared to the American ones (or anything made by anyone else for that matter)
Typhoon class has a displacement of 48000 tons.
Los Angeles class has displacement of 6927 tons. Typhoon class is a bit under 7 times bigger. Even the largest American sub (Ohio class) is still less then half the size of a Typhoon (the largest submarines ever built) at 18750 tons
edit: As a side not Russians have mainly moved away from the old Typhoon and replaced it with Borei class which is half the size (24000 tons). Only 1 Typhoon class sub is still in active service.
The Japanese I-400-class submarines/submersible aircraft carriers, which I believe are still the largest diesel submarines built, were under 7000 tons.
Typhoon was made from two two parallel full length pressure hulls and three smaller pressure hulls (and missiles tubes ) between them inside one outer hull.
Attack submarines are much smaller than missile subs. I don't understand exactly why this is and what the trade offs are here - manoeuvrability, cost? They seem to need approximately the same size crew of 100-150.
The closer comparison would be to the US Ohio-class missile sub, which is 3x the size of the LA class with the same complement.
> Attack submarines are much smaller than missile subs. I don't understand exactly why this is
SLBM are big, a Trident II is 13.6m long and 2.11m wide[0] and Ohios need to fit them straight up plus the hull, so we're talking 14m moulded depth or so (excluding the sail), and a pretty similar beam, at which point… you just have a big sub, because it can't exactly be a ball: you need to fit 12 Tridents in a row, plus the reactor, engine, crew compartments, passages for the crew to move around, torpedo tubes, and enough stores to last for literally months.
Attack subs can have vertically mounted cruise missiles but those are puny compared to an SLBM, a Tomahawk is 6.25m long with booster[1]: an Ohio-class carries 24 Tridents in SSBN configuration, if converted to SSGN it carries 154 tomahawks.
Los Angeles carries 37, Seawolf carries 50 (and on both this competes with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, on an Ohio you get 24 tridents or 154 tomahawks plus a dozen torpedoes or anti-ship missiles).
[0] and Typhoon's SLBMs were even larger at 16.1m by 2.4
You need a certain diameter of the pressure hull in order to accommodate the length of the missiles and their launch tubes. Also a factor - the range of the missile. Want a longer range? You'll need more fuel and the missile gets longer. Which means you need a bigger sub.
> Attack submarines are much smaller than missile subs. I don't understand exactly why this is
Because a missile sub is, loosely, an attack sub with an ICBM base strapped to it. (Yes, technically SLBMs aren't ICBMs, but late Cold War SLBMs had ranges greater than the upper end for IRBMs, and so would be ICBMs if land based.)
> and what the trade offs are here - manoeuvrability, cost?
The boomer trades off maneuverability for the ability to destroy a moderate-size country with nuclear hellfire from thousands of miles away.
Your comparing a fast attack sub to a ballistic missile sub. The Typhoon is nearly twice as large. Compare instead an Alfa or Akula class Russian fast attack.
Los Angeles-class are fast attack boats, they are much smaller than boomers, which is what the Typhoon class is (they carry nuclear warheads). But Typhoon class is even larger than the American boomers (Ohio class - and the soon to be Columbia class).
doikor|5 years ago
Typhoon class has a displacement of 48000 tons.
Los Angeles class has displacement of 6927 tons. Typhoon class is a bit under 7 times bigger. Even the largest American sub (Ohio class) is still less then half the size of a Typhoon (the largest submarines ever built) at 18750 tons
edit: As a side not Russians have mainly moved away from the old Typhoon and replaced it with Borei class which is half the size (24000 tons). Only 1 Typhoon class sub is still in active service.
Hamuko|5 years ago
That's quite massive.
The Japanese I-400-class submarines/submersible aircraft carriers, which I believe are still the largest diesel submarines built, were under 7000 tons.
nabla9|5 years ago
It was like 3 submarines joined together. http://www.skitzone.com/2010/photos-of-russian-typhoon-class...
hartator|5 years ago
dmurray|5 years ago
The closer comparison would be to the US Ohio-class missile sub, which is 3x the size of the LA class with the same complement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine
masklinn|5 years ago
SLBM are big, a Trident II is 13.6m long and 2.11m wide[0] and Ohios need to fit them straight up plus the hull, so we're talking 14m moulded depth or so (excluding the sail), and a pretty similar beam, at which point… you just have a big sub, because it can't exactly be a ball: you need to fit 12 Tridents in a row, plus the reactor, engine, crew compartments, passages for the crew to move around, torpedo tubes, and enough stores to last for literally months.
Attack subs can have vertically mounted cruise missiles but those are puny compared to an SLBM, a Tomahawk is 6.25m long with booster[1]: an Ohio-class carries 24 Tridents in SSBN configuration, if converted to SSGN it carries 154 tomahawks.
Los Angeles carries 37, Seawolf carries 50 (and on both this competes with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, on an Ohio you get 24 tridents or 154 tomahawks plus a dozen torpedoes or anti-ship missiles).
[0] and Typhoon's SLBMs were even larger at 16.1m by 2.4
[1] and 0.5m wide
chiph|5 years ago
brandmeyer|5 years ago
Payload. One type carries a couple dozen medium-range ballistic missiles, and the other doesn't.
dragonwriter|5 years ago
Because a missile sub is, loosely, an attack sub with an ICBM base strapped to it. (Yes, technically SLBMs aren't ICBMs, but late Cold War SLBMs had ranges greater than the upper end for IRBMs, and so would be ICBMs if land based.)
> and what the trade offs are here - manoeuvrability, cost?
The boomer trades off maneuverability for the ability to destroy a moderate-size country with nuclear hellfire from thousands of miles away.
wazoox|5 years ago
crazydoggers|5 years ago
astura|5 years ago