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-...ke-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.
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/why-...ke-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.
once known as El Goobero
