Calling all "41 for Freedom" SSBN fans

[Vepr157]

I too have been puzzled about these shark fins, and I have not been able to get a good answer as to what they are, even after asking some sailors who were on these boats in the early '60s.

When I first saw them, I had the same thought as you: PUFFS. But there are a few problems with that:

1. PUFFS needs long baselines (~100 feet) to operate, whereas these fins are closely clustered together.

2. They don't fit any of the PUFFS models: BQG-1 (original Thresher and Tullibee systems) had four arrays, BQG-2 (later Thresher, Barb, Blueback, and Sturgeon systems) had three arrays to port and three to starboard, and BQG-4 (GUPPY and later Tullibee systems) had three arrays. The number and arrangement of the fins on the 598 SSBNs is quite different to all of these.

3. They appear to be too thin to fit the PUFFS hydrophones. Even the domes of the Tullibee's BQG-1 system are thicker.

4. None of the BuShips documents I have lists PUFFS as installed or planned equipment for 598-class SSBNs.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Ethan Allens got BQG-1 for a short period of time (see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/com ... ass_ssbns/)

My only guess is that the fins somehow were related to tests of the Polaris missile.

Jacob

[sejohnso]

Been reading through this string for several weeks. Thanks for all the great commentary! I just received a MikroMir model of USS Lafayette. Plan to build SSBN-631 (U. S. Grant) with little kit modification. Going to put the boat on a display stand with Dolphins and Nuclear Submarine Deterrent Patrol badge of a buddy of mine.

I'd say my skill level is about 'intermediate' as a model builder of a dozen or so aircraft. This is only my 2nd boat (other was a 1/350 Kriegsmarine Type VII-C). I've been looking over the MikroMir upper/lower hull, done some pre-assembly sanding...but, wow, hull halves are warped, with gaps, do not line up well fore/aft nor port/stbd, and no guide pegs/features.

My usual technique for aircraft fuselage halves is to use a slow-drying glue (the goopy kind), line a bead all the way around one half, fuss with lining up the 2 halves as best I can, then clamp with clothes pins and/or rubber bands.

But I think this MikroMir model might do better with a 'hold parts together and then apply thin liquid (Tamiya) cement to seam' technique. I'm just not familiar with welding large parts using that method. Can any of you amazing modelers point me to a link or video of how to do that? Or...maybe someone with experience can offer suggestions?

Just want this boat to be a worthy display for the dolphins and patrol badge my buddy earned.

Thanks in advance.

[CC Clarke]

I too have been puzzled about these shark fins, and I have not been able to get a good answer as to what they are, even after asking some sailors who were on these boats in the early '60s.

When I first saw them, I had the same thought as you: PUFFS. But there are a few problems with that:

1. PUFFS needs long baselines (~100 feet) to operate, whereas these fins are closely clustered together.

2. They don't fit any of the PUFFS models: BQG-1 (original Thresher and Tullibee systems) had four arrays, BQG-2 (later Thresher, Barb, Blueback, and Sturgeon systems) had three arrays to port and three to starboard, and BQG-4 (GUPPY and later Tullibee systems) had three arrays. The number and arrangement of the fins on the 598 SSBNs is quite different to all of these.

3. They appear to be too thin to fit the PUFFS hydrophones. Even the domes of the Tullibee's BQG-1 system are thicker.

4. None of the BuShips documents I have lists PUFFS as installed or planned equipment for 598-class SSBNs.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Ethan Allens got BQG-1 for a short period of time (see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/com ... ass_ssbns/)

My only guess is that the fins somehow were related to tests of the Polaris missile.

Jacob

Jacob - I read the link where you were part of the discussion. To fill in some blanks:

ACINT: Acoustic Intelligence (There is no such thing as a WLR-9 ACINT.) ACINT is a specialty taught to sonarmen, briefly in A-School and later in a more specialized course required for Sonar Supervisors. (It's a tough course.) NISC (Naval Intelligence Support Center) has a cadre of very highly-trained ACINT specialists who are sent out on SSN SPECOPS to advise the captain and sonar gang.

Acoustic Intercept History: DUUG-1, WLR-9, WLR-12, WLR-17. The much more capable Active Emission Detection/Acoustic Intercept systems: WLR-9-17 (built by Norden) used three inboard units. A Control Display in sonar, a remote display on the conn, and a Receiver/Processor in the Sonar Equipment Space. Three hydrophone: A large dome covered the Low Freq on the bow, and a pair of smaller, high frequency hydrophones were located on the top of the sail and keel. It was an outstanding system still in use today.

GNATS: Was not a jammer. (That would give you away; there are much better methods available.) If I remember correctly, the acronym stood for General Noise and Tonal System. It was a capsule-shaped transducer mounted about four feet off the deck near the back of the turtleback and was programmed to mimic the acoustic signature of any boat needed for training other boats. It could generate broadband acoustic noise which would allow a general classification for another passive sonar doing the tracking, or tonals, (discrete narrowband noise to mimic specific machinery sounds.) We had it mounted on the Theodore Roosevelt during her final days in Pearl before heading off to the West coast for decommissioning. While in Pearl, we were a "Vessel of Opportunity" for everything from playing target for wargames to SSN workup training before deploying for SPECOPs. GNATS could be installed rapidly, with the foundation work and cable routing to the nearest hull penetrator taking a couple of days. The control unit was mounted in the Aux Machinery Space and strapped to the deck.

[Fivi_1241]

Hello everyone!

I have a chance to buy Revell's 1/200 Andrew Jackson for just a couple of EUR, and I can't find any detailed information on the kit's overall accuracy - many old comments on the Internet redirect to nonexistent pages, so I don't know what to think about this one

Of course I won't bother about the interior, but I wonder if its overall shape and major details are acceptable.

[Vepr157]

Ken Hart's take on that model is probably the best I've seen:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

But he had to do extensive modifications to it. It looks pretty good to my eye (although the towed array tube isn't quite right), but it's hard to say how dimensionally accurate it just from those photos. At that point, you might as well just scratch build the entire thing really. Or better yet, 3D print it.

Jacob

[CC Clarke]

A little Boomer porn for your enjoyment: https://sassik.livejournal.com/386387.html

CC

[AKeyman657]

was on the Key 657 70,71 gold crew. never saw or heard of towed array on any boomer. we had a floating wire for communications but that's it We hide, not look for anything.

[Vepr157]

was on the Key 657 70,71 gold crew. never saw or heard of towed array on any boomer. we had a floating wire for communications but that's it We hide, not look for anything.

That's because you were on the Key before she got a towed array. I have a Piping TAB from the Key dated October 1980 that shows the BQR-15 towed array (although it was likely installed ca. 1975). And you gotta look out for things to hide from

Jacob

[Tom Dougherty]

The towed arrays were retrofitted onto the first SSBNs during overhaul periods. From what I could find, it was installed well after the early 1970�s.

The towed array was streamed from the starboard stern plane. In this photo from the 1980�s of Henry Clay in drydock, you can see the deploy tube as well as the array conduit along the hull. The array reel was up in the turtleback on the starboard side. A bump out in the turtleback was the only visible sign of the reel.

Here�s the Clay photo: http://navsource.org/archives/08/616/0862514.jpg

Here�s examples of the extension bump and the array conduit on a couple of SSBNs:
You can see the deploy tube near the stern, as well as the reel extension http://navsource.org/archives/08/616/0861800.jpg
The reel storage extension and array conduit can just be made out
http://navsource.org/archives/08/658/0865509.jpg
Good shot of the reel storage extension on the starboard side of the turtleback. Just aft of the missile tubes:
http://navsource.org/archives/08/616/0862207.jpg

[Tom Dougherty]

I post this here only because it is a minor but very annoying issue with almost all submarine kits. Almost all kits come with decals that include hull numbers, and sometimes specific submarine names and DSRV docking markings for hatches. The fact is that these markings are all, at least in the case of US submarines (SSNs and SSBNs) removed after sea trials. Numbers and other identifiers are eliminated once accepted by the Navy and during the operational life of the submarine.

What are still visible are draft markings, particularly on rudders and the hull. And almost none of the kits provide these permanent markings in their decal sets. Given a choice, I would much rather have items such as accurate draft markings and abbreviations such as �PROJ� for projections like stern planes, etc. These markings are maintained through the life of the submarine.

Many kits also ignore the sacrificial zincs at the stern, but those I can easily fashion. Accurate decals are another item all together. This would be a great opportunity for aftermarket decal companies and the artwork is very straightforward and applicable to a number of kits. One sheet could cover SSNs and SSBNs.

And no, I don�t feel like making my own. I would need a new printer that prints white numbers and letters.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Tom, you are right, I noticed it too.

For the resin kits of Dutch submarines Zwaardvis and Walrus (Naval Models) for which I made the masters several years ago I took care to create the depth markings as decals, both in white (early) and red (late/current). So it is possible, for sure.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

For the USN however, these are not usable, as these are calibrated in decimetres (yeah, metric measures!), so for the USN (and also RN) we need other sets calibrated in feet.

One particular problem is, that due to the cylindrical shape of the hull, the scales are not linear on a decal, but need to be adapted for that shape. The good news however is: all USN subs apart from the Ohios have the same hull diameter of 33 feet, which makes one set valid for in fact all these types, with small adaptations for the boomers. For the Ohios a separate set will be necessary.

As for now, I never studied the USN markings in detail, so if you happen to have information on that (dimensions of the markings, typeface, possible abbreviations other than PROJ) it would be greatly helpful to create an accurate set.

[Tom Dougherty]

Hi Maarten,
US submarines draft markings are six inches high, and spaced 1 foot apart. There are no other marker lines accompanying them as there are on other nations. The numbers are measured from the keel and yes, the circumference of the hull needs to be taken into account for accurate spacing. Every 10 feet are marked with a full 2 digit number, as is the highest number. Otherwise, the numbers are single numbers of feet between the 2 digit ten foot marks. I have included some photos as examples.

The dry dock photo shows that the numbers are not extended all the way to the keel. In the case of the Sturgeon and Los Angeles classes, the rudder numbers were sometimes only on the leading edge of the rudder; sometimes on the sides. I have seen photos of Virginia class with number on either side of the rudder or on the leading edge as well.

The Ohio class, being much larger in diameter, would indeed require different sets.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Hi Tom,

I will look into it and try to come up with a design. Please have some patience, I won't do that overnight as I have other obligations to attend to!

As for the printing, I used to do that myself on an OKI printer (ALPS is similar), but since I ran out of ribbons and worse: the printer driver could not be updated any further, I have reverted to a commercial printer in the Netherlands, delivering nice white prints at an affordable price.

[Tom Dougherty]

Thanks, Maarten! No rush, I appreciate that we all have other obligations and work in life. What we discuss here is a hobby.

This issue just has been a topic on my mind for some time. Every time I open a submarine kit, for the most part I see a lot of decals I won't use, and the vital set of draft markings are missing. That and the fact that some submarine kits lack the ballast tank flood grates on the bottom of the hull are my two minor but annoying perennial irritants. No ballast tank flood openings, no submergence. No submergence, no submarine.

If I can help you further with details, please let me know.

Thanks again!!

Tom

[Navy2000]

In response to what someone said about the draft marks. They said that the numbers are 6 inches tall and one foot apart. In fact the numbers shows 6 inches of height and the space from the top of one number to the bottom of the next number shows 6 inches as well. So from the bottom of one number to the bottom of the number above it shows 1 foot. Now you have to take into consideration that the hull is round therefore the numbers actually get taller along with the space in between them. SO the numbers will look stretch out the future you move away from the center of the hull. In the photo below of a Los Angeles class sub you will notice that the lowest number is smaller in height than the number at the top.

Duane

[Tom Dougherty]

Thanks for that information and clarification. I was unclear when I originally wrote it, but the intent was the same. 6 inch high numbers with the bottoms one foot apart. Since the numbers demarcated feet and are six inches in height (nominally), then corresponding parts (i.e.bottoms) would be one foot apart

As for the �stretching� necessary to compensate for the hull diameter dimension, that was mentioned above by Maarten as well. It would be extreme at the upper part of the hull, as in your photo. In 1/350 scale, personally I am not sure how much I would worry about that. Right now, very few kits come with any draft markings at all, so even a quasi-accurate set with the correct numbers would be welcome. Although I like details, not at the rivet counter stage myself.

Again, I do appreciate your comments and insights!

Tom

[Peter O]

I posted this on the CASL Dock and Harbor Equipment forum several days ago, but nobody has replied. Perhaps some 41 for Freedom enthusiast can help.

I have the Takom 1/350 kit of the floating drydock ABSD-1. ASBD-7 was rebuilt into AFDB-7 to service Polaris/Poseidon subs at Holy Loch. The kit has plain dock walls with nothing outboard of the walls, but at Holy Loch the dock has an added framework and widened decks on top of the walls. This Navsource photo shows them:



Are there any plans that show the added framework and decks?

Thanks!

Peter

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

...Are there any plans that show the added framework and decks?

Thanks! Peter

Hi Peter,

Interesting idea you have for building this! Unfortunately I don't have any plans that might help. First please note that this Submarine dock was built of only four sections/pontoons, not the entire set of ten of the Takom kit. Reference: https://www.aboutsubs.com/los-alamos.htm

However, I believe the single picture you show already reveals a lot of measurements, that can be related to the dock itself. As you already have the kit, you can easily measure the length and the height of the dock sidewalls (four sections). Now onto analyzing the photo:

Let's see: there are twelve Y-shaped vertical beams, evenly spaced. So the distance between these is 1/12 of the length of the dock wall. Right?
Then there are two horizontal girders, evenly spaced along the height of the dock wall, so the height divided in three. Okay?
Looking at the end field, these horizontal girders seem to run diagonally to the end of the dock wall. I would assume 45degrees. That would mean that the width of the top deck is equal to the distance between the Y-beams. Are you still with me? This will give you already a very close set of measurements of the contraption.

Now it will come to the detailing, but that will be on a lower order of magnitude, as you already have the overall pattern. I see someone els tried to build it in the past, I think that with the help of the Takom kit you can do much better.
https://bob.plord.net/Ships/Period4/Uni ... lamos.html

I hope this helps you forward -- unless someone else turns up with an official plan set!

[Peter O]

Thanks, Maarten! Your analysis is spot-on. I've already figured out the basic layout of the framework, but I was hoping for some plans I could scale to 1/350 and lay the parts on. Even with just the four sections, that's an intimidating amount of Evergreen shapes to precisely cut and keep track of.

It would also be good to get a close-up photo of one section, or just one Y beam configuration, to see what dimensions and sections the various girders had. But like the whole layout, an eyeball guess will be close enough for gov't work.

I've also noticed that the new configuration omits some details that are present in the kit, most notably the AA gun mounted on each wall section. There are also small cabins that overhang the tops of the walls, which had to be removed to widen the deck. I don't plan to go overboard for absolute accuracy and detail; adding the outer framework and wider deck will create the effect of the new dock.

As an aside, I've since discovered that the original ABSD-4 and later had the exterior framework from the beginning. Navsource shows the dock as an ABSD-4 Class dock, and I found a wartime photo of ABSD-4 with the framework.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Yes, I understand your considerations very well, I would have the same.

However, that overhead picture from the first reference I called will provide you with a wealth of clues, what to model or wat to neglect. Those two large beam cranes already will be a huge challenge to build, they might even require some specially designed PE.