Vepr157 wrote:
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.