Talk:Sōryū-class submarine

Unreasonable AIP range

The page says "AIP endurance (est.): 6100 nautical miles (11297.2 km; 7060.75 miles) at 6.5 knots (12 km/h; 7.48 mp/h)[2]" But that's WAY beyond anything any other AIP sub can do, and the citation gated and cannot be read by some people (including me). I don't believe this, and given the vandalism mentioned below ... Kitplane01 (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I just added the same dubious figure of 11,300km, and now I've just read your comments and agree the figure is way beyond normal AIP ranges. I got my figure from Global Security, but can anyone 'source the source'? I'd be happy to remove my own edit....

A reliable figure for the Soryu's various ranges under different operational conditions would greatly improve the page. Scsor (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily true. You guy's cant assume anything based solely upon what other subs are capable of. For one thing, the Soryu is more than twice the tonnage/displacement of most smaller diesel-electric subs using AIP technologies. This is relevant. It is in fact possible that the increase in tonnage allows for a much larger fuel and oxidizer load, which is the basis for most AIP technologies. Or alternatively, the 6100 NM figure is related to the usage of the snorkel. There's several ways this would function. A.) It travels entirely by snorkel for 6100 nm, or B.) It uses AIP for whatever it's maximum endurance is by AIP alone, and then rises to higher depth, to raise the snorkel and replenish it's oxygen and thus "recharge" it's AIP system with fresh oxidizer. This is of course conjecture, but I believe I have made an excellent case against the removal of the figure for the time being. After all, if you don't have any better information, why remove it entirely? i support the edit that leaves that figure on the page for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.212 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

crush depth

I'm not very familiar with the imperial measurements, but "Test depth: 900’ inch crush" appears to be off by an order of magnitude. Such subs usually dive to 200-300 metres. Lastdingo (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, in fact, the imperial Japanese navy has not published max dive depth. It's just a mischief. Once, I removed it. However, it has been repeatedly reverted by Korean.[1][2].--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be unusual, yes. But not impossible. Several classes of Russian submarines have come close to that figure. The Alfa class had a test depth of 700 to 750 m. The Mike Class had a test depth of 1,250 m. So while it's unlikely that a diesel-electric submarine would be designed in such a manner, when most nuclear submarines are only designed for 400 to 600 m test, tops; it's certainly not impossible. Thus the question becomes...where is the source for this figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.212 (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The source/citation for the "depth" of the sub references an article talking about the type 89 torpedo, not the submarine itself. Its currently listed as 900m, which is obviously incorrect. As Lastdingo put it probably an order of magnitude off the mark, and should be removed. Removal would make it consistent with the Oyashio class page, which is typical of newer submarines that do not have publicly published figures. 2600:8805:1500:2021:7CF1:E7E4:D62E:EDE8 (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Exports

Article states possible replacement for the RAN Collins class,this is not going to happen, Soryu Class will be too old by then, the the follow on class for the Soryu may be of interest to the RAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.31.46 (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sōryū-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110605230332/http://www.khi.co.jp/ba/2010data/ba_c3100325_1.html to http://www.khi.co.jp/ba/2010data/ba_c3100325_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)