The Ship Model Forum

Build Log for USS STODDARD (DD-566)
Configuration - post 1968 LBNSD Overhaul
Scale: 1/144
Kit: Revell (Germany) USS FLETCHER (DD-445) No. 05091-0389 (2005) � Bashed
Various 3D Parts: Model Monkey, diStefano (Shapeways), & others
PE : Eduard (Big Ed) & Kit Supplied
Decals: Stan Cedarleaf
Screws: Keith Bender
Scratch built: 01 Level, 01 Level Deckhouses, 3�/50 Gun Tubs, 3�/50 magazine and Mk. 63 GFCS enclosures, etc. Mk. 56 GFCS platform and foundation, Main Tripod Mast, RADARS, and all electronics, instrumentation, etc.

Background:
I served in STODDARD from June 1966-April 1968 and went on one wartime cruise (WestPac 67-68) aboard her for which we were awarded (in addition to the normal USN/RVN trinkets) the Navy Unit Commendation. I�ve been a member of the Stoddard Alumni Association for many years and have always wanted to build an accurate model of the ship as she appeared when I served aboard. So, having been able to find one of these larger kits at a very reasonable price, I�ve decide to go ahead and begin work on this project.

In preparation for this build, I have had personal contact with Rick E. Davis, a fellow modeler and researcher. Rick, in addition to his many photographs, has provided me with quite a bit of valuable information re. the post-WWII FLETCHER class modifications which was performed on many of the 175 class destroyers built during WWII. STODDARD was decommissioned finally in 1969 but served as an electronic R/C test ship in the 1970s and 1980s to prove out the Block 1 Phalanx Gun System then being developed by Raytheon Corp. She survived these tests and was finally sunk during a USN SEAL team SINKEX operation in 1999.

Prior to my professional retirement in April 2019, I began drawing up the necessary CAD drawings that would be required to build an accurate model of STODDDARD as she was configured during the time I served aboard her. Having licensed CAD software at home, I have continued refining and finishing these drawings at my own leisure. I exclusively use Bentley MicroStation CAD software for my drawings. Currently, I am using MicroStation Power Draft 2D CAD software.

Before leaving my job in April 2019, I was able to assemble the basic hull of the kit and begin to plan out the various hull openings/modifications needed to make this model accurate as to the bottom of hull details (intakes/discharges/etc.) which are not usually molded into the normal model kit hull.

I would also note that another modeler, Guillermo Martino Baz (Willie), from Vigo, Spain � (a forum participant), is also building this kit into a sister ship � ex USS McGOWEN (DD-784) which served as Spanish Navy Destroyer D25 Jorge Juan. Willie has his build log also in the Works in Progress sub-forum. We correspond with each other and his modeling expertise is welcomed by me because he is extremely precise in his approach to building his model as accurate as possible.

Hull:
For the most part, the kit hull will be used �out of box� as there were very little, if any, changes made to the hull during the lifespan of the FLETCHER class ships, with the exception of the SONAR domes that were modernized and replaced in the 1950s. As mentioned before, I will also add the various hull openings and intakes/discharges as shown on U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships Drawing 683714, DD568 Docking Plan (USS WREN) � 10/1952, Charleston Naval Shipyard. This is a typical FLETCHER class docking plan showing all underside openings, etc. on the ship�s hull. Once the underside penetrations & intakes are completed, I will prepare the various parts for adding shafts, screws, rudders, etc. The screws will be provided by another forum member, Keith Bender � his screws, IMHO, are simply the best available and most accurate. Once the hull has been primed & painted, custom decals for the ship name & hull numbers will be added and the hull turned upright on a construction stand and work on the main deck will begin.

In order to �keep up with the Jones� (referring to Willie�s build of Jorge Juan), I will also be attempting to �oil can� the hull; in effect, giving the hull a treatment to show the effects of years at sea as most FLETCHER Class destroyers that survived into the late �60s. �Oil Canning� is the concave effect the water pressure against these thin-hulled ships exerted and somewhat distorted the steel hull plating between the frames of the ship�s hull. We had the same effect on USS NEW JERSEY�s hull but mainly around the stern of the ship and not on the sides or flat planes of the hull.

09/02/20 - Now that my workshop is fairly complete I will be able to begin the STODDARD build in earnest. Tonight I built a wooden jig to hold the hull upside down while I make the necessary penetrations & openings for intakes, discharges, and SONAR dome, etc. 09/03/20 - This evening I measured the 2 salt water condenser intakes, located them, and cut out the basic openings. Note: The original list of vendor/providers may be updated from time to time if 3D parts become available before I build my own scratch made parts where necessary.

EDIT - Added correct Revell kit (FLETCHER) and modified Guillermo Baz model description.

Hank:

Glad to see the shipyard in commission! who knows what adventures will be encountered in her construction and what unsolvable problems will be solved.

Onward! Cheers: Tom

Thanks Tom!
This will be another long term project - no way around that! Once I'm able to use the shop during daylight hours then things will get going on a steady basis. Today I took inventory of available Evergreen tubing (none!) and will probably be out working again this evening after supper.

Hank

Hank: What sizes Evergreen tube do you need? I have some left over in a couple of sizes.

Hope that you get the AC going again!

The Watts, DD 567 operated for USNR training out of Tacoma and was in similar arrangement except she retained the 53 mount.

Cheers: Tom

Tom,
I appreciate the offer but I went ahead this afternoon and placed an order w/Hobbylinc for 8 different diameters of hollow tubing. I'll probably use 4 of them on this build, but wanted to have the others on hand in case I needed them.

It will probably be the last order I place for a while - I've got to get some organization going on this project; I have things all over the place and need to create a punch list before I mess up something without the proper info on hand. Sort of putting the cart before the horse.

Hank

Think of the logistic organization existed in real shipyard construction and what a wrangling nightmare it must have been during the war competing priorities. It was the approaching "steel shortage" that led to the cancellation of the Montana's, the last 4 Alaska's and delay of Illinois and Kentucky. DE's were completed variously with steam and diesel electric drive due to the lack of reduction gear cutting capacity. CVE's were launched with triple expansion Uniflow Steam (Piston) engines for the same reason. Of course having components delivered simplifies things a bit. If the yard (you) don't have to make the 5" 38's or the torpedo mounts, then a few less parts on hand.

Orders are good to help keep the hobby shops open!

Glad she's under construction!

Cheers: Tom

Hi there Hank and all.

Glad to see that the first construction in your new shipyard is going to be your first commission, USS Stoddard. No doubt nice memories will be coming to your mind non-stop, something invaluable when building a model.

One single question for now: What Revell 1/144 Fletcher are you building, the WWII version or the Z1-Z3 version of the German Navy ???

And one correction, and sorry if I dissappoint you: I never served on board SNS Jorge Juan, but on board SNS Catalu�a, the Spanish a/a-a/s version of the Knox class, i.e., with a Standard missile launcher instead of the flight deck. This ship exactly : As I had some good contacts at BuPers I was lucky enough to be able to choose my ship, but I have thought many times since then if I made the right decision. My ship was very modern at the time, and the spearhead of our Navy, and after some visits to the Fletchers and Gearings we had, I could see that the living conditions in my ship were those of a 5* hotel in comparison.

I see now that Fletchers were pure Naval History afloat, and Jorge Juan/MacGowan herself had been involved in decisive battles in WWII, including the sinking of IJN Fuso, something that very few ships could display in their battle honors in the mid 1980�s.

History against comfort.

On the other hand, Jorge Juan was already (by then) a more or less high seas patrol ship, so it meant many days moored in port against continuous sailing (and battle stations every other day) in my ship, visiting every other port, home and abroad, between exercises...

Homeport comfort against travelling.

Anyhow, you cannot go back in time.

Good luck in your construction, and nice going in NC,

Willie.[/size]

Willie,

Thanks so much for the gracious reply!! and the correction - I'll edit that comment quickly.

I'm using the 1/144 Revell FLETCHER kit by the way. I got a rather good deal on it from another forum member a couple years ago and have had it sitting in the shadows since!

Hope to be in contact every now & then as we both make progress on our builds!

Welcome aboard!

Hank

Certainly the Tin Can Sailors were likely to have a more exciting war. Even little Whitehurst, DE 634 sank a submarine and took a Kamikaze off the Philippine Islands. A lot of history walking those decks! I'm sure in Hank's day there were still old hands who had achieved their manhood in the Great Blue Fleet of the Pacific.

Fliger747 wrote:Certainly the Tin Can Sailors were likely to have a more exciting war. Even little Whitehurst, DE 634 sank a submarine and took a Kamikaze off the Philippine Islands. A lot of history walking those decks! I'm sure in Hank's day there were still old hands who had achieved their manhood in the Great Blue Fleet of the Pacific.

Tom,
Yes, when I walked aboard STODDARD in June 1966 there were quite a few "lifers" in the crew who had served in WWII as teens and either lied about their age to enlist or were just past the legal age to enlist. They NEVER spoke ill of the Navy or anything it did. I guess for most, the Navy gave them their lives, so to speak.

OK, I'm winding down on the bottom of the hull penetration work, with mostly double checking the dockyard plan for DD-628 (USS WREN) to make sure I'm on track. I will build the salt water intakes once the wooden cradle is temporarily removed and I have access to the inside of the hull. I've gotten the two shaft alley pieces in place and will putty them tomorrow. So, here's the hull: (the parts taped on the hull are for the salt water intake boxes) I have not yet begun to sand with very fine emery paper (crocus paper) to smooth out the surface of the hull.

I've just taken stock of my 3D parts and what has and has not been cured under the UV lamp. Since these have all been sitting in their shipping bubble wrap for the last 2 years, some of them are yellow, some white, some about the same. I'm guessing they're all still good - I'd hate to have to buy new ones all over again.

Note: Using the 1952 Charleston, SC shipyard DryDock Plan for USS WREN (DD-568), my hull penetrations may not be identical to those that Willie has drilled into his hull. Close, but not identical.

The last couple days have been correspondance with Rick E. Davis regarding SONAR domes, FLETCHER class DD's, and what these pieces of exterior equipment looked like, etc. We both found an illustration which more than likely was the appropriate dome and after a call to one of my former shipmates, who JUST happened to be an S03 during our cruise, was able to correctly locate the dome on the bottom of the hull (STODDARD's unit was located on the centerline of the ship, not to one side). So, last night and today I created the SQS-4 dome out of basswood and after some final dimensional corrections today, came up with the final version which is thus: Tomorrow evening I'll putty the base of the dome & hull area and once it has set up, shape it to the proper contours, etc.

After a double check of all my bottom of hull openings I'll then remove the cradle and construct the insides of the salt water intakes in order to complete their assembly (has to be done from the inside of the hull).

Looks really good Hank! Now that the hull won't sit upright on it's own are you going to modify the cradle (or build a new one) to hold it shiny side up? So far I have built flat bottom ships without protrusions and haven't had that problem. I enjoyed your last build and will eagerly follow this one and all the evolutions of research and problem solving!

Cheers: Tom

Hi there Hank and all,

Sir, excellent updates, sir. Even at this early stage, and even if you were not going to do anything else, this hull looks years-light away from what you get out of the box. Lots of work, but a very rewarding work.

BB62vet wrote:(...) I created the SQS-4 dome out of basswood and after some final dimensional corrections today, came up with the final version (...)

Again a very good solution, that makes me wonder (a) what picture you are talking about, and (b) if this is the sonar dome that I have to build for my Jorge Juan as well. If Mr. Davis is reading this and if he would like to lend a (further) hand, his expertise would be as always more than welcome.
I suppose we are talking about this sonar (USS Cassing Young, I think, but I am not sure): The shape seems to be the same, but the position seems to be way more forward than in USS Stoddard. And Hank, if it happened that I have to build the same sonar, and you wanted to give the the measures of yours, I would really appreciate it.

Keep the good job, and very best regards from this side,

Willie.[/size]

Fliger747 wrote:Looks really good Hank! Now that the hull won't sit upright on it's own are you going to modify the cradle (or build a new one) to hold it shiny side up? So far I have built flat bottom ships without protrusions and haven't had that problem. I enjoyed your last build and will eagerly follow this one and all the evolutions of research and problem solving!
Cheers: Tom

Thanks, Tom! Yes - I'll modify the cradle to sit the hull upright once everything on the hull bottom is in place. That probably will take next week to do, but who's counting days, right?? Still in the unpacking of plans - as I just found my full sized prints of STODDARD's 1968 BoGP that I had rolled up in a tube. Always something else!!!

Hank

Willie wrote:

The shape seems to be the same, but the position seems to be way more forward than in USS Stoddard. And Hank, if it happened that I have to build the same sonar, and you wanted to give the the measures of yours, I would really appreciate it.

Willie,
Over the last several days I have been in contact with Rick E. Davis and a fellow shipmate (SONARMan) whom I served with in order to pin down some info that up to this point evaded me as to the correct SONAR dome that STODDARD had installed when I was aboard. So, Rick has provided me with a couple photos of the later SQS-4 SONAR dome as was fitted in 1956 on STODDARD. It was further updated in 1959 with new components, but the dome remained the same. I will email you these photos so you can see them better than posting them here. Determining the exact size is a bit tricky - we do know that dome was 185" long from fore to aft and located centerline on the hull. You'll see this in the photos. I have some further shaping work to do on my model's dome in order to make it as accurate as possible, esp. after seeing the photos myself. This is the same dome as shown on the photo you included of CASSIN YOUNG.
We also found online a good simple illustration of a typical SONAR dome which more than likely was like the one installed. However, there were no dimensions, so that took a bit of guesswork on our part and some math to come up with 3 dimensions when only one is known.

I am sending you an email with photos and further info regarding what we've come up with and so forth.

10PM Edit - However, the 2nd photo I sent you shows a tape measure and I've explained in my email how I arrived at the dimension for the overall depth of the dome. I've adjusted the sizes given for your ship due to the shorter dome length. All in millimeters (mm). Lastly, my former shipmate and Rick seem to think that the domes are the same color as the hull, and I tend to agree. I just checked my photos from the 2019 Norfolk harbor cruise where I got pix of an ARLEIGH BURKE DD in drydock. the SONAR dome was red all the way down to the plastic sheeting covering the dome which tells me it's all red. So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it


Hank

Hank:

From the photo you sent me the dome looks at the same position as on Cassin Young if the bilge keel on the kit is correctly located. I have the Alan Raven Fletcher AOS book and (amazingly) there is not hint one that the ship had any sonar dome at all. Did the model kit have one? Out of sight out of mind I guess!

Looking good! Cheers: Tom

Nothing is more frustrating and hard to research in my efforts on the FLETCHER class, than what sonar they had. However, based on what I have found, I can state some things.

During the operational life of FLETCHER's, two locations were used to install sonars, the transducer was located at either Frame 25 or at about frame 52. This was mostly due to WHERE the underwater systems (not just the echo-ranging gear) had been initially installed and where the space had been allocated for the associated equipment. It would have been too expensive to install the sonar in an all new location. The WWII sonars, the first fixed dome and the late war retractable dome types, were located at Frame 25. The retractable dome types centerline location required an ALL new seachest that broken into the original keel. The SUMNER's and GEARING' got a new sonar installed at Frame 52 (where on the FLETCHER's the Depth Finder system was located). When the USN recommissioned FLETCHER's back to Fleet Service during the KW, they got an upgraded version of sonar that had evolved on the SUMNER's and GEARING's in commission post WWII, re-classified as SQS-10, but installed at Frame 25. On the units that were not decommissioned and returned to mothballs, the newer SQS-4 family of sonars, were installed at Frame 52. On some FLETCHER's in an effort to reduce some interference, the SQS-4 sonars were moved to Frame 25. But, this was a very expensive mod, and most units modified were the specialized DDE conversions, planned to be in service longer than the "Fleet Destroyer" versions.

The SQS-4 Sonar Family were FOUR units with different frequency ranges. Initially they were all called SQS-4 with a Mod number. When the systems were upgraded with RDT, they became SQS-29 through 32. A VERY FEW systems, were give an additional upgrade, calling them SQS-39 through 42 (I have only identified less than a hand full of units that ended up with the third iteration during the late 1960's).

SQS-4 Mod 1 ---> SQS-29 ---> SQS-39
SQS-4 Mod 2 ---> SQS-30 ---> SQS-40
SQS-4 Mod 3 ---> SQS-31 ---> SQS-41
SQS-4 Mod 4 ---> SQS-32 ---> SQS-42

On top this, there were 100-in long and 185-in long domes of several types, known by their "CW" numbers. I don't know why two sizes of domes were installed, I thought that maybe the frequency of the units determined that. But, I don't have enough evidence and what I do have doesn't show an apparent pattern. Also several different dome types were used. I'm afraid that we are seeing different types for each of these sizes of domes. For 100-in domes, I have come across CW351, CW351A, and CW553. For the 185-in domes, I have come across CW405, CW438, and CW554. CW553 and CW554 were the newest domes. I have not found any "engineering" drawings specific to domes, that would give their size parameters. It is unlikely that the USN would change the installation footprint, length and width, where the dome mates to the Foundation "ring". However, the depth could change for some reason.

Some examples by looking at BGP's for Tom's, "FLIGER747", and his project USS WATTS, Willie's project for ex-USS McGOWAN (JORGE JUAN), and the museum destroyer USS CASSIN YOUNG.

For USS WATTS (DD-567), she was an NRT unit starting in 1958, retaining the old SQS-10 sonar and didn't get the SQS-4 sonar until the Berlin Wall mobilization when she was quickly updated in 1961 with one of the SQS-29/30/31/32 sonars with a 185-in dome at Frame 25.



For USS McGOWAN (DD-678), she was active with the USN until 1960 and was only upgraded with the SQS-4 sonar family in 1959, when she had the upgraded SQS-32 installed with a 100-in dome, at Frame 52.



For USS CASSIN YOUNG (DD-793), she was also active until 1960, and was upgraded to the SQS-4 Mod-? in 1957, with a 185-in dome, at Frame 52. There is no info that she was upgraded to a SQS-29/30/31/32 sonar version of the SQS-4



Hank's USS STODDARD is more inline with USS CASSIN YOUNG, except that she was in service until 1969. Her SQS-4 Mod 3, upgraded to a SQS-31 in 1959. Were the domes on CASSIN YOUNG and STODDARD the same "CW" type, I don't know for sure.

As you can see, these BGP images aren't in most cases very informative in details about the system installed or the dome parameters. As a reference, frame spacing is 21-in.

Tom - I appreciate your comments. The model does NOT indicate any SONAR dome - period!

Rick - Thanks so much for the further clarification. This is certainly one of those subjects that needs to be explored (mass rush to NARA II??) and details made available. I did notice on the DD-567 BoGP picture you posted that there was a depth dimension given which is the first one I've seen. I can't read it, but perhaps if you have the original, you could post that particular info. Also, the two photos you sent me - one shows one of the workers with a tape measure; I did the math on that and the dome itself comes out to be 44" deep, but check my math!!! So, in terms of a 1/144 scale model, this works out to be 5/16" deep (7.94mm) and that's what I've basically used on my build. So, at this point, I would guess the only real "unknown" dimension is the actual width, and that could be one of two different dimensions depending on the model of dome - 100" or 185". Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking possibly you could print out that photo (w/tape measure), cut the tape measure off, and use it to determine the width. However, to further invalidate that idea, the photo was NOT taken directly behind the dome so its full width cannot be seen (or measured).

Hank

Hank,

The dimension "says" ... 5-ft, 9.5-in (69.5-in) ... from the keel to the bottom of the 185-in dome. Again which "CW" version of the dome this is suppose to be, I don't know. BUT, since WATTS got the SQS-4/SQS-29/30/31/32 dome installed in 1961, I "assume" that it would be the newest version which I think is CW-554.

The sonar dome shown off the unknown destroyer at MINSY in January 1946, is a 100-in long type dome in the two photos I sent you and posted below. The "dome height does appear to be about 44-in, but the foundation ring adds about 5-in more at the KEEL (at centerline) to the two stacked together.

.



And for completeness, here are the other two images taken at LBNSY in April 1961 showing the foundation ring fore and aft areas where a 185-in long dome was attached on USS McDERMUTT (DD-677).





Things to notice between the 100-in dome images and the 185-in dome images, is that it appears that there are more and closer spaced bolts holding the 185-in dome in place. Also, realize that no matter the dome used, the SQS-4 sonar transducer for both was the same and extended down from the hull the same distance.

It is a moot point about doing a DEEP DIVE at NARA II, since they are closed and will open again TBD. Plus, I already did a deep dive in the records I thought would yield the most information.

1) I looked at ALL the BGP plans they have of FLETCHER's and made digital camera shots of them for views and/or notes on sonar installation. And checked to see if there was a collection of Engineering Drawings of sonar domes.

2) I went through the BuShips files for the WWII and ALL of the individual Post-WWII FLETCHERS from 1946 to the end of them in 1961, which captures most changes made to the class. After 1961, few mods were made to the remaining FLETCHERS in commission, since the USN was planning on taking them out of service soon. As it was, the FLETCHERS remained in service longer than expected because of the Berlin Wall/Cuba Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War. The only significant upgrade seen on the class from about 1959-62, were the installation of the Mk 32 triple ASW torpedo tubes, of which fewer than two dozen actually had it installed.

3) I went through BuShips SONAR Specific textual records (S67 and S68 filing codes, depending on time frame ... S68 for "underwater sound systems" was pulled out as a separate file code in WWII and merged back into S67 Electronics in the 1950s) for ship type, destroyer types, and general. Although I found lots of information, none really provided details on the domes installed during the 1950's.

4) I also, looked at as many photos as I could find showing sonar domes installed. Which, everyone can attest are few and far between.

I tabulated my findings into a spreadsheet. But, there are a lot of holes in my data set and very few verified "CW" type domes identified for a given destroyer. The length of the domes is about the only parameter that I have a fairly large data set for on these destroyers.

Ships Characteristics Cards (cards is misleading, these are multiple page reports) that list the ket parameters of USN ships in WWII and into the 1960s, are helpful if you can find them. The USN decided to destroy most of these before sending the files to NARA. Sigh. I have found a scattered few of these in various places, I would say less than 1% of those produced.

In none of these searches, did I find a treasure trove of sonar dome drawings. Engineering and manuals should have information, but many of these from the 1950's (and assume 1960's) are in limbo until the USN and NARA surveys at the reports and DECLASSIFIES them. About the best we can do as modelers for accuracy, is make it as "generic" as we can. As can be understood, sonar was a guarded secret that unlike topside photography remained hidden and images were not routinely released. Unless someone took photos of their ship in drydock (if allowed), there are few photos available for now.

Rick,

Thanks so much for the additional information & photos. I also agree with your dimension of 5'-9 1/2" from the DD-567 BoGP; very hard to read, but I came up with the same figure. I've pretty much finalized my dome with the input of the tape measure photo and have modified my dome accordingly. I think for modeler's sake, your comments about using this in a generic sense is probably the most logical & sensible at this point. One can go screwy trying to get so finite about every little detail that they loose sight of the overall picture. I'll be posting photos of the final dome configuration (it's currently drying from being primed again!) and I'm going to move on with the model.

As usual, your input, photos, and descriptional analysis, etc. are invaluable to all of us - Thanks, once again!

Hank