> all the way down to 700 meters.
700m! That's wild, I mean nuclear submarine crush depths are at like 400-500m? I get that it's not like you can compare a hard steel tube with a human body but regardless, it's wild.
> all the way down to 700 meters.
700m! That's wild, I mean nuclear submarine crush depths are at like 400-500m? I get that it's not like you can compare a hard steel tube with a human body but regardless, it's wild.
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.
Recent US submarines all have test depths described by as being in excess of the same few hundred meters. In all likelihood that is a throwaway value. It seems unlikely that they produced generations of submarines that were less capable than their older ones.
> 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).
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.
There 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
>It seems unlikely that they produced generations of submarines that were less capable than their older ones.
i wouldn't be sure. There seems to be no military advantage to deeper so why spend the money. A sub needs to hide, but it can't do any other job when too deep. sinking ships can only be done when near the surface. If the sub can get under a couple thermo layers that is good enough, any deeper is more a party trick than useful.
i'm not in the navy but that is how I read the unclassified information I have access to.
> sinking ships can only be done when near the surface.
Isn't this itself a huge assumption?
Sinking ships via upward facing torpedoes would be a huge tactical advantage at first glance. Less time to detection and deploy countermeasures or evasive maneuvers.
Perhaps, I am wrong in assuming they cannot be fired below a certain depth?
just watched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-mzZXwCn68&t=2s
while these torpedoes are going in the other direction seems like the technology for surviving, functioning and navigating depths definitely exist.