GollevainenI think there is something of a perception gap here that this last posting really brings into sharp relief.
The colour coding on the pipes is a representative observation. At the most basic level a well-designed boat is one optimised for its crew to be able to fight and keep operational under the worst emergency conditions. What the poster is describing is a boat where the designers have had either inadequate experience to make a proper job of it or have just lashed something together on the cheap. Either of those possibilities arrive at a finished unit liable to have many more issues in the snag list than just the pipes.
The extreme analogy would be those early Chinese 053T’s supplied to the Thai Navy. Poor design consideration, through relative inexperience, allegedly saw poor watertight integrity provision, poor access to key cable runs in some areas and insufficient shielding in others etc. The ships were ‘bad’ from the finalised specification because inadequate care and attention had been given in basic design areas. Just to appease the flag wavers the same could be said for the RN’s batch1/2 T42’s which, done ‘on the cheap’, had a litany of key design flaws, some actually able to (and did in action) negate the vessels combat capability under certain conditions, because the design had been flawed from the start.
I’m not interposing myself on the debate regarding the viability of assessing the new Russian SSN from a few modest-res images on the net, but, on the issue mentioned with unit quality being defined very early in the vessels conception I fully agree.
My point has been only regarding the colour codes. I cannot say anything about the actual construction of the pipes and cables, of how they are positioned inside the boats becouse I’ve never been working in any submarines and only once visitied one. My point has been that the lack of colourcoding is not neccerically as big deal as being made by gf0012-aust. Judging something being inferior or dangerous just of the lack of the colorcoding is bit moot when you really should be focusing on completely different aspects like the construction and layouts of the pipelines which determines the actual safety and operationality in emergy/failure situations.
Gollevainenits also about cutting down the reaction time for recovery crews, fire crews etc who may need to redirect piping as part of fire management. eg the ends of the lines in different runs should be the same for that fluid line but different to the others. (ie so that you don’t mix and match by accident in an emergency). There has been instances of people mistaking pressure lines for firefighting lines and causing catastrophic failure in handling.
colour coding lines post installation misses the point of the design and development, build and even training intent. you just can’t walk through the sub and start painting all the hydraulic lines green , flammable lines red and water lines purple. apart from the fact that there are literally kilometres of piping involved, you just can’t easily access them all
the fact that this small example appears to have been trivialised and dismissed in importance, and fundamentally but apparently misunderstood as part of the critical engineering mindset, and/or part of the demonstration of a quality build (basic SHAR) makes me a little concerned that the debate is more about national pride than actually understanding what the examples have been given.
identified lines may seem trivial but when a sub is underwater and has been compromised to the point of impending hull integrity failure (and underwater fires will rapidly take hold in mess than 30seconds) makes ease of identification and fire management, or hull management high on the list of basic engineering quality control. People don’t care as much on a fishing boat as you can always jump overboard, you sure as hell lose that option on a sub.
as an example, you may have over a dozen piples “bundled” through a 200mm conduit, they will have pressure valves, taps, joins redirectors etc as they traverse various compartments – if you can’t shut them off electronically and remotely, some poor sap has to get in there, find the right pipe and go to plan B, ie manual intervention. that recovery option might just be the poor sap of a sailor who is that compartment – its not always going to be the fire team, first qualified respondents etc….
Its basic safety. I am kind of struggling to see why this isn’t understood. human factors engineering is about building systems around the way that people biologically/culturally interact with them – so as to minimise response times. that extrends from common combat room philosophies to cable interconnect types, to colour coding fluid lines. etc….
This is seriously basic stuff and I am kind of concerned that people seeking to defend the lack of it (and I assume that they have some fundamental appreciation) don’t see it as an example of poor engineering philosophies.
Not every submariner can do every other persons job and thats why for basic things you establish common baselines to facilitate the need for anyone being chucked into this kind of recovery role so that you cut down the time to save the sub.
if a fire takes hold and you haven’t been able to secure it or contain it then start praying. rapid identification of lines in compartments is also about anyone being able to rapidly “plan b” kill them if the electronically managed solutions fail (which is invariably what happens in sub fires)
Having pipes colorcoded is sort of “nice to have”. I’m not saying it wont increase the safety or make any differences in emergy situations. My point is that if you lack colorcoding, it doesen’t make your boat/plant or other system haradious beyond no return. When you know what you are doing you can operate without them.
So I guess what I try to say here is that Russian/soviet submarines most likely doesen’t explode in the oceans becouse the pipes are all the same colour as long as the crew knows their boat. More important issue should be the actual construction of the pipes and instruments attached to them. My own experience with russian/soviet weaponry during my army time was that despite the stuff looked hiddeous and piece of junk, it actually worked with their own harsh simplicity often alot better than the fancy high-tech western equipmentry.
GollevainenNot that i’ve ever worked inside any submarine or so or if its anyway comparble but I work with district heating networks and heating/powerplants which features alot of pipelines often in very mazed and cramped enviroments. In case of emergy you are required to know what is what, which pipes are for steam, condensate, natural gas, hot water and so on and to know what you need to do and what effects what on the process. Ofcourse we are not on deep oceans but mistakes in our field may resutl equally leathall consequenses if you don’t know what you are doing in the time of emergy.
Now we do not colourcode our pipes. Its generally aknowlidged that if you work with such enviroment and are expected to operate/use the system, you need to know how the process works and what pipe is what. We call it professionalism. Like I said, I never worked in any subs (only visited one pr. 651 class) but I would expect that agross the globe those who work on subs should be proffesionals and should know what they are doing..
….then again there are nations which needs to put warningcodes to coffeecups that hot coffee might cause injuries when poured over oneself:rolleyes:
GollevainenSoviets didn’t choose to go for missiles becouse they tought that carriers weren’t up for the task. The reasons why soviet navy was what it was was much more complicated matter than that.
But I’m not that much interested on figuring out how well the existing or “almoust” existing carrier airgroups would have performed, but more of what sort of carriergroup would you need in order to get it done. I know it may sound difficoult, I tough myself that its just easy to ask others obinions but my lack of good means to express my toughts in english have failed me.
But lets do it this way: You are now in the powers of some nation X’s strategical planning and you have all the resourses needed. You have been given a task: counter USN carrier force. You have 9 carriers of various size in your possesion and 4 new supercarriers on build ready to replace older vessels. USN has introduced Aegis and has quite effective layered airdefence umbrella over its carriers. How would proceed? What sort of airgroup would you come up with to counter the new defence meassures of USN? Scrapping the carrier fleet isen’t an option due their enormous symbolic and prestige status for your country.
(don’t fix on exisiting aircrafts, just the concepts)
GollevainenThe Russians dont count in this as antiship was never a design function of their airwing – the antiship firepower was the ships P-700 battery and the area surveillance was supposed to be space-based from the Legenda platform. So carrier-on-carrier, in terms of airgroup composition, doesnt work between Kuznetsov and a US CV. As others have said anticarrier the Soviets intended to do with submarines.
Indeed not in real life, but thus I’m asking the question. What if soviets would have gone to the carrierrace and had sizeble carrier force. What sort of aircrafts/airgroup would they had to counter USN carriers? Or would the late cold war era carrier battlegroups defensive meassures be so good that attacking carriers with carriers would not be vital option anymore?
GollevainenI’m mostly after what sort of airgroup would modern carriers have if they are facing another similar strenght carrierfleet. To easen the hypotetism, lets pretend that its the late cold war era USN carrier fleet you are facing. What sort of aircrafts would you get onboard and how would you use them? This said I’m expecting that the carrier fleets main role would be fighting against the other carrier fleet, pretty much in the same ways as nations build up dreadnoughts to counter other nations dreadnoughts.
Gollevaineni for once welcome our new mechanical overlords
Gollevaineni for once welcome our new mechanical overlords
Gollevainenthat was awsome find, many thanks:D Now we westeners can propably relate better how russians feel when presented as the “crooks” in our flicks… :rolleyes:
the Il-38 as USN “Orion” was great, never thougth soviet side would do such things in their own productions.
GollevainenWhats the point of arguing, it is Pantsir’s radars and optronics in the same chest that Palma and Kortik has including the AO-18 guns.
GollevainenNATO begun to assign their code-names according to the real ship names sometimes around the 70’s, thus Kirov, Slava, Udaloy and Sovremennyy class all have their NATO names corresponding to real names from the ships.
GollevainenAmphibious ship having the largest SSM ever fielded as a “self-defence” battery…
…:rolleyes:
Gollevainenits called shipbucket, That drawing (looking from the names of the orginal artist) is done propably by MS Paint and some drawing skills…
Gollevainen🙁
Gollevainen🙁
Sign In
