+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: General and Breaking News Events (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Forum: War, Peace or Inbetween (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+--- Thread: News Article; Why US Didn't Build Titanium Subs (Like Russia) (/showthread.php?tid=3119)
News Article; Why US Didn't Build Titanium Subs (Like Russia) - sailorsam - 10-20-2025
Submarine hulls made of titanium can go deeper than standard steel hulls. The Soviet Union built a series with titanium hulls but the USA did not. Why?
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/why-the-u-s-navy-wont-ever-build-deep-diving-titanium-nuclear-submarines-like-russia/
Titanium brings real virtues—strength, corrosion resistance, low magnetism—but it also demands a bespoke fabrication ecosystem that chokes output and complicates repair. Steel, by contrast, supports acoustic superiority at tactically useful speeds, locks in commonality with allies, and enables rapid battle-damage recovery.
You cannot conjure up electron-beam welding cathedral-halls and titanium-purity workflows on a forward base after a near miss.
the gist is that the US went with steel as easier to work with and interchangeable with allies. titanium work requires very special environments; fixing damage would have required taking the sub to one of a handful of facilities.
considering the track record of Soviet / Russian manufacturing, I wonder how fragile those titanium subs would have been in combat.
and of course the Titanium was much costlier than steel.
RE: News Article; Why US Didn't Build Titanium Subs (Like Russia) - 727Sky - 10-21-2025
Supply might also have something to do with it. The titanium used to build the SR-71 came from Russia which I assume really pissed the soviets off when they figured that out !
