NavList:

   

Reply

Fred,

> I started this speculating that Soviets used dipmeters
> more than other navies because they operated more in Arctic waters

Yes.

> I mentioned the Transit system, but we established it was not
> operational prior to 1964,

And Transit was unlikely to be relied on by the Russians in the case of
a nuclear war:-)
It seems that the Russians did not have their own sat system till 1980-s.

> My understanding is that inertial nav on subs had much
> less drift than on surface ships or planes because subs are not exposed
> to waves or turbulence.

This is likely. Still, position given by an interial system deteriorates
with time. I don't now the exact numbers, and it is possible that they are
hard to find.

> although the Google book I quoted may have more details.

I'll look in it.

> My understanding of cel nav from periscopes is that it is
> difficult and imprecise.

Certainly difficult. And the horizon is obscured by the waves.


> Another alternative might be mapping of
> underwater features such as mountains,

I don't take this seriously:-)

> as well as triangulation from
> sonar beacons.

Permanently installed somewhere?
Or dropped from surface ships?
Detection of these beacons would be much easier for the enemy than
detection of submarines...

> But I still think inertial nav may have
> been the main

To verify this, we need some data on how the accuracy of an inertial
system deteriorates with time.

My guess would be that it cannot give you accurate position (say, 1 mile)
for more than few days. But this is just a guess.

Alex.

   

Reply