Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Attachment:
7DA5B94A-27A8-4103-B06E-9E3D591E429E.jpeg [ 208.22 KiB | Viewed 367 times ]
The actual autographed certificate is taped to the back, by Eugene Wilkinson.
[attachment=0]7DA5B94A-27A8-4103-B06E-9E3D591E429E.jpeg[/attachment]The actual autographed certificate is taped to the back, by Eugene Wilkinson.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2022 11:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Attachment:
IMG_1140.jpeg [ 2.64 MiB | Viewed 162 times ]
This is just a Lindberg kit I did a few years ago. But I have read a couple of books on the Nautilus and the voyages to the North Pole. I also have a framed and autographed picture hanging over my fireplace. I made some changes as of 6//23/23.
[attachment=0]IMG_1140.jpeg[/attachment]This is just a Lindberg kit I did a few years ago. But I have read a couple of books on the Nautilus and the voyages to the North Pole. I also have a framed and autographed picture hanging over my fireplace. I made some changes as of 6//23/23.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2022 11:43 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Woodstock74 wrote: What do we know about the relationship between the diameter of the 5-blade and the diameter of the 7-blade? Can we assume they share the same diameter? Or, as their functions are completely different (speed prop vs J-prop), there's no reasonable expectation of similarity? And is the general blade shape on the Natuilus' 7-blade prop the same as on the Sturgeon/Thresher? Was looking at that this morning and it seems very different. Need to hunt for more pictures, if there are any. I would expect that the diameter of the propellers would be unchanged. They can't be much larger (not enough room and higher blade tip speed) and being smaller would exacerbate the decrease in propulsive efficiency. I seem to recall that a few 594s or 637s had five-bladed propellers specifically installed for trials, but in operational use, I believe the seven-bladed propellers were nearly always used after they were developed. So I wouldn't think of the five-bladed propellers as being specially-designed for speed. I would also expect that the blade profile between nearly all seven-bladed propellers of that era to be broadly similar. There is a set of propellers at Pearl Harbor (on base) that are either for the Nautilus or Skate. If I get the chance to get on the base, I'll take some photos. Jacob
[quote="Woodstock74"]What do we know about the relationship between the diameter of the 5-blade and the diameter of the 7-blade? Can we assume they share the same diameter? Or, as their functions are completely different (speed prop vs J-prop), there's no reasonable expectation of similarity? And is the general blade shape on the Natuilus' 7-blade prop the same as on the Sturgeon/Thresher? Was looking at that this morning and it [i]seems[/i] very different. Need to hunt for more pictures, if there are any.[/quote]
I would expect that the diameter of the propellers would be unchanged. They can't be much larger (not enough room and higher blade tip speed) and being smaller would exacerbate the decrease in propulsive efficiency. I seem to recall that a few 594s or 637s had five-bladed propellers specifically installed for trials, but in operational use, I believe the seven-bladed propellers were nearly always used after they were developed. So I wouldn't think of the five-bladed propellers as being specially-designed for speed.
I would also expect that the blade profile between nearly all seven-bladed propellers of that era to be broadly similar.
There is a set of propellers at Pearl Harbor (on base) that are either for the Nautilus or Skate. If I get the chance to get on the base, I'll take some photos.
Jacob
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
What do we know about the relationship between the diameter of the 5-blade and the diameter of the 7-blade? Can we assume they share the same diameter? Or, as their functions are completely different (speed prop vs J-prop), there's no reasonable expectation of similarity? And is the general blade shape on the Natuilus' 7-blade prop the same as on the Sturgeon/Thresher? Was looking at that this morning and it seems very different. Need to hunt for more pictures, if there are any.
What do we know about the relationship between the diameter of the 5-blade and the diameter of the 7-blade? Can we assume they share the same diameter? Or, as their functions are completely different (speed prop vs J-prop), there's no reasonable expectation of similarity? And is the general blade shape on the Natuilus' 7-blade prop the same as on the Sturgeon/Thresher? Was looking at that this morning and it [i]seems[/i] very different. Need to hunt for more pictures, if there are any.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:57 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Jacob, I will look closely at the propellers when I go.
I have not forgotten about the email concerning fleet boat refueling of seaplanes. I have gone through all my digital issues of All Hands from the 1944-45-46 period and two other sources in search of the reference on their use in the invasion plans. Nothing so far.
NEW EDIT The Submarine Force Library & Museum in Groton, Ct. has reopened after 14 months closure due to Covid.
Very Important Point: The museum is home of the Nautilus, SSN 571. But, Nautilus will NOT be there, as she is being moved on Oct. 16 downriver to Electric Boat for drydocking, hull repair, and repainting and other maintenance. She will return to the museum in early summer of 2022.
Jacob, I will look closely at the propellers when I go.
I have not forgotten about the email concerning fleet boat refueling of seaplanes. I have gone through all my digital issues of All Hands from the 1944-45-46 period and two other sources in search of the reference on their use in the invasion plans. Nothing so far.
[b][i][size=150]NEW EDIT[/size][/i][/b] The Submarine Force Library & Museum in Groton, Ct. has reopened after 14 months closure due to Covid.
[size=150][b]Very Important Point:[/b][/size] The museum is home of the [i]Nautilus, [/i] SSN 571. But, [i]Nautilus[/i] will [u][b]NOT[/b][/u] be there, as she is being moved on Oct. 16 downriver to Electric Boat for drydocking, hull repair, and repainting and other maintenance. She will return to the museum in early summer of 2022.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:54 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Tom Dougherty wrote: Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.
I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit. Tom, if you do end up going down to Groton at some point, I would love to see a photo of the data inscribed on the propeller. Usually there is information on the pitch and diameter (among other things) on the hub between the blade roots. Jacob
[quote="Tom Dougherty"]Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.
I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit.[/quote]
Tom, if you do end up going down to Groton at some point, I would love to see a photo of the data inscribed on the propeller. Usually there is information on the pitch and diameter (among other things) on the hub between the blade roots.
Jacob
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:41 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Tom Dougherty wrote: Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.
I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit. Ultimately both though I started work first on the original conventional 5-blade screw.
[quote="Tom Dougherty"]Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.
I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit.[/quote]
Ultimately both though I started work first on the original conventional 5-blade screw.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.
I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit.
Addendum: BTW, I put one of your five blade printed screws on my USS Tullibee model (as launched version) that will eventually show up in the What’s New gallery here.
I mentioned it was from you in the write up on the model.
Mike, Which ones? The “original flavor” five blade screws or the later seven blade screws? I can drive down and measure the five blade version at the museum.
I have photos of the original screws as well, taken from a couple of angles during a previous visit.
Addendum: BTW, I put one of your five blade printed screws on my USS Tullibee model (as launched version) that will eventually show up in the What’s New gallery here.
I mentioned it was from you in the write up on the model.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:33 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Do we have a source for the diameter of the Nautilus' propellers?
Do we have a source for the diameter of the Nautilus' propellers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
CC Clarke wrote: I'll check the next time I'm there to find out if they let Sub School students tour the engineering spaces.
CC Yes, it is. At least it was before COVID. I did a re-enlistment back in the ER over a year ago. Dave
[quote="CC Clarke"]I'll check the next time I'm there to find out if they let Sub School students tour the engineering spaces.
CC[/quote] Yes, it is. At least it was before COVID. I did a re-enlistment back in the ER over a year ago.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:07 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Timmy C wrote: Nautilus' reactor section is not opened to the public, which is consistent with it being apparently still used for training. If she were still used for any type of nuclear propulsion training, (Who else uses this type of antique pressurized water plant? Hint: No one,) the public wouldn't be allowed onboard, and the WT door to the RC wouldn't be left ajar. I'll check the next time I'm there to find out if they let Sub School students tour the engineering spaces. (It's less than an hour away from me.) The Nautilus was still a little too hot to be used as a museum ship and remained tied to the pier @ MINSY for several years, (I was stationed there at the time) before she was deemed ready for the public to step onboard and towed to the East coast. CC
[quote="Timmy C"]Nautilus' reactor section is not opened to the public, which is consistent with it being apparently still used for training.[/quote]
If she were still used for any type of nuclear propulsion training, (Who else uses this type of antique pressurized water plant? Hint: No one,) the public wouldn't be allowed onboard, and the WT door to the RC wouldn't be left ajar. I'll check the next time I'm there to find out if they let Sub School students tour the engineering spaces. (It's less than an hour away from me.)
The Nautilus was still a little too hot to be used as a museum ship and remained tied to the pier @ MINSY for several years, (I was stationed there at the time) before she was deemed ready for the public to step onboard and towed to the East coast.
CC
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
D-Boy wrote: Re Nautilus, during preparations to make her a museum boat, was her reactor section fully removed (as occurred with later classes)? Is she a shorter length berthed in Groton that when in service? Or was the equivalent length of the reactor section replaced? Nope, all still there. When she was prepared as a museum, all the work was done to make the ER accessible for a prototypical ''enter at the front, leave at the back'' tour route. Before they opened her, they changed their minds and decided to keep the ER closed for security reasons. Dave
[quote="D-Boy"]Re Nautilus, during preparations to make her a museum boat, was her reactor section fully removed (as occurred with later classes)? Is she a shorter length berthed in Groton that when in service? Or was the equivalent length of the reactor section replaced?[/quote]
Nope, all still there. When she was prepared as a museum, all the work was done to make the ER accessible for a prototypical ''enter at the front, leave at the back'' tour route. Before they opened her, they changed their minds and decided to keep the ER closed for security reasons.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:32 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Nautilus' reactor section is not opened to the public, which is consistent with it being apparently still used for training.
Nautilus' reactor section is not opened to the public, which is consistent with it being apparently still used for training.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Re Nautilus, during preparations to make her a museum boat, was her reactor section fully removed (as occurred with later classes)? Is she a shorter length berthed in Groton that when in service? Or was the equivalent length of the reactor section replaced?
Re Nautilus, during preparations to make her a museum boat, was her reactor section fully removed (as occurred with later classes)? Is she a shorter length berthed in Groton that when in service? Or was the equivalent length of the reactor section replaced?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Seawolf (SSN-575) built in parallel with the Nautilus had a pair of main turbines as well. (I referred back to the Main Steam System - Engine Room pages in my piping tab to verify.)
She may have had an alternate lineup due to her (first) unique power plant before being converted to a standard pressurized steam plant (S2Wa) just like the Nautilus. Whenever we had issues with hard-to-find parts for the plant, Nautilus (parked nearby a@ MINSY being modified for museum duty) was our first stop since we had Brickbat priority and could cannibalize anything we needed.
CCC
Seawolf (SSN-575) built in parallel with the Nautilus had a pair of main turbines as well. (I referred back to the [b]Main Steam System - Engine Room[/b] pages in my piping tab to verify.)
She may have had an alternate lineup due to her (first) unique power plant before being converted to a standard pressurized steam plant (S2Wa) just like the Nautilus. Whenever we had issues with hard-to-find parts for the plant, Nautilus (parked nearby a@ MINSY being modified for museum duty) was our first stop since we had Brickbat priority and could cannibalize anything we needed.
CCC
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:47 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
And not only did the Nautilus have two turbines per shaft, she also had two coolant turbine generators (CTGs) in addition to the standard two SSTGs for a total of eight turbines in the engine room. Presumably the Seawolf had a similar turbine arrangement both during her S2G and S2Wa phases.
Presumably the Nautilus had HP/LP turbines because that was (and still is) the standard for most marine steam turbines. I bet they quickly realized that it would be preferable not to have eight turbines to deal with.
In the Skate TAB I have, it just shows a single turbine and SSTG per side, which would become the standard with the Skipjack and later like you said. The Tullibee and Lipscomb each had four turbines too, had propulsion turbine generators (PTGs) instead of propulsion turbines. The Jack and Narwhal both had a single, direct drive propulsion turbine, but I have heard that the latter had only a single SSTG because the main coolant pumps drew so much less power (I have not yet confirmed this). Incidentally, I believe the Jack was the only U.S. Navy submarine ever built without an electric motor on the shaft. And then the NR-1 presumably had two SSTGs/PTGs.
Jacob
And not only did the Nautilus have two turbines per shaft, she also had two coolant turbine generators (CTGs) in addition to the standard two SSTGs for a total of eight turbines in the engine room. Presumably the Seawolf had a similar turbine arrangement both during her S2G and S2Wa phases.
Presumably the Nautilus had HP/LP turbines because that was (and still is) the standard for most marine steam turbines. I bet they quickly realized that it would be preferable not to have eight turbines to deal with.
In the Skate TAB I have, it just shows a single turbine and SSTG per side, which would become the standard with the Skipjack and later like you said. The Tullibee and Lipscomb each had four turbines too, had propulsion turbine generators (PTGs) instead of propulsion turbines. The Jack and Narwhal both had a single, direct drive propulsion turbine, but I have heard that the latter had only a single SSTG because the main coolant pumps drew so much less power (I have not yet confirmed this). Incidentally, I believe the Jack was the only U.S. Navy submarine ever built without an electric motor on the shaft. And then the NR-1 presumably had two SSTGs/PTGs.
Jacob
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Interesting! I wonder why they went with that design and how many other early SSNs had two stage turbine systems? Was it carried through on the Skates?
I think by the Skipjack series with the S5W plant there were two main turbines driving the one shaft.
Interesting! I wonder why they went with that design and how many other early SSNs had two stage turbine systems? Was it carried through on the Skates?
I think by the Skipjack series with the S5W plant there were two main turbines driving the one shaft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:17 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
I have since confirmed from someone who trained on the S1W prototype that the Nautilus did indeed have a high pressure and low pressure turbine on each shaft.
Jacob
I have since confirmed from someone who trained on the S1W prototype that the Nautilus did indeed have a high pressure and low pressure turbine on each shaft.
Jacob
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans |
|
|
Very specific question, but does anyone know how many turbines each of the Nautilus' shafts had? I thought it was just one, like the Skates, but one page 3 of this pdf: http://navsource.org/archives/08/pdf/0857153w.pdfit shows two turbines in series (presumably a high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine). I know this arrangement is quite common on surface ships, but I have never seen it on a submarine, so I would be interested to see if anyone knows for sure. Jacob
Very specific question, but does anyone know how many turbines each of the Nautilus' shafts had? I thought it was just one, like the Skates, but one page 3 of this pdf:
http://navsource.org/archives/08/pdf/0857153w.pdf
it shows two turbines in series (presumably a high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine). I know this arrangement is quite common on surface ships, but I have never seen it on a submarine, so I would be interested to see if anyone knows for sure.
Jacob
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:29 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: Calling all USS Nautilus (SSN) fans |
|
|
All of my comments are for final configurations (except where noted). As a boat ages, there are always sonar upgrades and other short-term test modifications installed, so there is no way to definitively define a ship's configuration except by year/period.
Common sonar errata that has been repeated endlessly until it's taken as fact: Trident submarines are often cited as having a BQS-15. There were BQS-15 components installed, (High Frequency sail-mounted projectors, the rotating receiver pedestal mounted above them, and the HF processors - basically the whole front end) but the back end of the system was pure IBM-built Q-6. IBM built the majority of the system in Manassas, VA. (not Oswego, where sub-system components were procured.) They sold their stake in the sonar system business to Lockheed/Martin after the SUBACS/BSY-1 fiasco occurred. IBM built very good systems with the best documentation I have ever read. There were 84 volumes of tech manuals for the Q-6 alone!
Other common mistakes for sonars installed on Tridents:
The BQR-19, (a mast-mounted array that was raised above the thermal layer while proceeding to periscope depth, installed on the original boomers) was never installed. Didn't need it with the spherical Q-6. The BQR-19 was never a navigation system as its often described. (24 staves of hydrophones in a tiny array on top of the mast.) It was purely dedicated for collision avoidance, and had super-short range with a very narrow receiver bandwidth. The BQR-19 used a BTR (Bearing Time Recorder) display. There was a remote BTR on the conn as well that the other sonars (BQR-2/7) could feed. It was the best BTR made until the PDRs (Precision Data Recorders) were furnished with the Q-5 and 6. I had a buddy who was the Sonar Supervisor on the 598 when they sank a Japanese freighter on their way to PD. He saw the BQR-19 flashing Alert light (that gave a semblance of fair warning until the BTR could trace enough lines to indicate target bearing) which triggered when it detected a high SNR broadband noise level. According to standard protocol, he instantly alerted the OOD that there was a close-aboard contact and he should abort the depth excursion. The OOD blew him off and the rest is history. The OOD and CO lost their careers; the sonar sup was unscathed. (Everything we said in sonar was recorded, as well as the primary passive sonar acoustic channel on our dual-channel, dual-tape deck UNQ-7s.
The BQR-23/25: Another towed array and processing system installed on old boomers that wasn't ever installed on Tridents. The same goes for the 60's BQS-13 Fire Control System components - again, it had it's own purpose-built FCS using 688-class components.
This is probably the most accurate unclassified as-built Trident sonar info ever published, so you saw it here first:
The BQQ-6 configuration was composed of letter-designated groups:
Group A: Detection and Tracking (Passive-only neutered Q-5 with BQS-15 components, and a pair of TB-16 "Fat Line" towed arrays.) Group B: Acoustic Communication (AN/WQC-5 Underwater telephone) Used to communicate through the water acoustically with other equipped vessels. Group C: Depth/Sound-Speed (AN/BHQ-1) a bathythermograph that measured the speed of sound through water as we moved up & down in the water column. Group D: Emergency Acoustic Comms (AN/BQC-1) A short-range, underwater telephone located near each escape trunk to communicate with rescue vessels. Group E: Distress Beacons (AN/BQN-1) Located near each escape trunk for rescue vessels to localize a downed boat's position. It could ping for ten days straight. Group F: Depth Sounding (AN/UQN-1) - Standard Navy fathometer, good to 6000 fathoms, Group G: Bathythermograph (Standard BQH-7 expendable SSXBT system, launched from the aft signal ejector to measure the water temp) Group H: Recorder-Reproducer (Dual-deck AN/UN-7E - just like the Nautilus) When one deck got to the end of the reel, the other would start.
In the mid-80's, the Rockwell-built AN/BQQ-9 system was installed on all Tridents after the Georgia (at EB) and the first four boats were back-fitted by Trident Refit Facility's sonar shop over three, twenty-four day refit periods. The Q-9 used the 1" diameter Thinline Towed Array (TLTA) installed on a handling system in the superstructure behind the missile tubes. Initially, this was deployed on the surface manually, but proved to be too dangerous and the system was subsequently upgraded with a handling system that was operated inboard. One original TB-16 (called the Fatline Array after that) was retained. Both tow cable reels were housed just forward of the Sonar Control room (a pair of OK-742 Handling Systems.)
After attending a Rockwell International factory Q-9 course, I was the Lead for all four Q-9 installations performed at Subase Bangor.
The picture of the 50' section (we all knew it was longer, but that's what we called it) is the only known shot of the MINSY conversion that I know of online. The vertical plates that cover the sides of the Ocean Engineering section served two purposes - they kept it level, preventing it from rolling over as it was slid into place and concealment. (Notice the beams beneath - round hulls don't slide too well without side support and MINSY didn't use a launch cradle to move the OE section.) The plates were subsequently removed for hydrodynamic streamlining, (contributing to overall quietness and less drag) and a curtain was used when in drydock for concealment as noted above. Note the watertight door in Frame 27 leading from the front of the Crew's Mess. Above it hung the sign attached below. . . When inport, there was an expanded metal mesh door with a six-button cipher lock and a curtain positioned in the passageway behind the screen leading through the watertight door. It was removed when underway.
One day while inport, I was standing the Projects Watch when someone wearing an Admiral's costume pulled the and banged on the screen door, demanding access. He wasn't wearing the special access badge that was handed out topside when checking in, (only the crew didn't sport access badges) so I told him I couldn't allow him access. He got pretty pissed-off and asked me if I knew who he was. I shrugged my shoulders and said, "You could be anyone wearing an admiral's uniform sent down here to test me. No badge, no entry . . . sir. --I don't make the rules, I just obey them."
A moment later, the CO ran up behind him, motioning wildly for me to let him enter. As it turned out, it was COMSUBPAC! He shook my hand on the way out and thanked me for earning my 57 cents an hour.
Sorry to get off-topic in a Nautilus-related thread. . .
CCC
Attachments: |
Frame 27 Sign.jpg [ 275.5 KiB | Viewed 3235 times ]
|
All of my comments are for final configurations (except where noted). As a boat ages, there are always sonar upgrades and other short-term test modifications installed, so there is no way to definitively define a ship's configuration except by year/period.
Common sonar errata that has been repeated endlessly until it's taken as fact: Trident submarines are often cited as having a BQS-15. There were BQS-15 components installed, (High Frequency sail-mounted projectors, the rotating receiver pedestal mounted above them, and the HF processors - basically the whole front end) but the back end of the system was pure IBM-built Q-6. IBM built the majority of the system in Manassas, VA. (not Oswego, where sub-system components were procured.) They sold their stake in the sonar system business to Lockheed/Martin after the SUBACS/BSY-1 fiasco occurred. IBM built very good systems with the best documentation I have ever read. There were 84 volumes of tech manuals for the Q-6 alone!
Other common mistakes for sonars installed on Tridents:
The BQR-19, (a mast-mounted array that was raised above the thermal layer while proceeding to periscope depth, installed on the original boomers) was never installed. Didn't need it with the spherical Q-6. The BQR-19 was never a navigation system as its often described. (24 staves of hydrophones in a tiny array on top of the mast.) It was purely dedicated for collision avoidance, and had super-short range with a very narrow receiver bandwidth. The BQR-19 used a BTR (Bearing Time Recorder) display. There was a remote BTR on the conn as well that the other sonars (BQR-2/7) could feed. It was the best BTR made until the PDRs (Precision Data Recorders) were furnished with the Q-5 and 6. I had a buddy who was the Sonar Supervisor on the 598 when they sank a Japanese freighter on their way to PD. He saw the BQR-19 flashing Alert light (that gave a semblance of fair warning until the BTR could trace enough lines to indicate target bearing) which triggered when it detected a high SNR broadband noise level. According to standard protocol, he instantly alerted the OOD that there was a close-aboard contact and he should abort the depth excursion. The OOD blew him off and the rest is history. The OOD and CO lost their careers; the sonar sup was unscathed. (Everything we said in sonar was recorded, as well as the primary passive sonar acoustic channel on our dual-channel, dual-tape deck UNQ-7s.
The BQR-23/25: Another towed array and processing system installed on old boomers that wasn't ever installed on Tridents. The same goes for the 60's BQS-13 Fire Control System components - again, it had it's own purpose-built FCS using 688-class components.
This is probably the most accurate unclassified as-built Trident sonar info ever published, so you saw it here first:
The BQQ-6 configuration was composed of letter-designated groups:
Group A: Detection and Tracking (Passive-only neutered Q-5 with BQS-15 components, and a pair of TB-16 "Fat Line" towed arrays.) Group B: Acoustic Communication (AN/WQC-5 Underwater telephone) Used to communicate through the water acoustically with other equipped vessels. Group C: Depth/Sound-Speed (AN/BHQ-1) a bathythermograph that measured the speed of sound through water as we moved up & down in the water column. Group D: Emergency Acoustic Comms (AN/BQC-1) A short-range, underwater telephone located near each escape trunk to communicate with rescue vessels. Group E: Distress Beacons (AN/BQN-1) Located near each escape trunk for rescue vessels to localize a downed boat's position. It could ping for ten days straight. Group F: Depth Sounding (AN/UQN-1) - Standard Navy fathometer, good to 6000 fathoms, Group G: Bathythermograph (Standard BQH-7 expendable SSXBT system, launched from the aft signal ejector to measure the water temp) Group H: Recorder-Reproducer (Dual-deck AN/UN-7E - just like the Nautilus) When one deck got to the end of the reel, the other would start.
In the mid-80's, the Rockwell-built AN/BQQ-9 system was installed on all Tridents after the Georgia (at EB) and the first four boats were back-fitted by Trident Refit Facility's sonar shop over three, twenty-four day refit periods. The Q-9 used the 1" diameter Thinline Towed Array (TLTA) installed on a handling system in the superstructure behind the missile tubes. Initially, this was deployed on the surface manually, but proved to be too dangerous and the system was subsequently upgraded with a handling system that was operated inboard. One original TB-16 (called the Fatline Array after that) was retained. Both tow cable reels were housed just forward of the Sonar Control room (a pair of OK-742 Handling Systems.)
After attending a Rockwell International factory Q-9 course, I was the Lead for all four Q-9 installations performed at Subase Bangor.
The picture of the 50' section (we all knew it was longer, but that's what we called it) is the only known shot of the MINSY conversion that I know of online. The vertical plates that cover the sides of the Ocean Engineering section served two purposes - they kept it level, preventing it from rolling over as it was slid into place and concealment. (Notice the beams beneath - round hulls don't slide too well without side support and MINSY didn't use a launch cradle to move the OE section.) The plates were subsequently removed for hydrodynamic streamlining, (contributing to overall quietness and less drag) and a curtain was used when in drydock for concealment as noted above. Note the watertight door in Frame 27 leading from the front of the Crew's Mess. Above it hung the sign attached below. . . When inport, there was an expanded metal mesh door with a six-button cipher lock and a curtain positioned in the passageway behind the screen leading through the watertight door. It was removed when underway.
One day while inport, I was standing the Projects Watch when someone wearing an Admiral's costume pulled the and banged on the screen door, demanding access. He wasn't wearing the special access badge that was handed out topside when checking in, (only the crew didn't sport access badges) so I told him I couldn't allow him access. He got pretty pissed-off and asked me if I knew who he was. I shrugged my shoulders and said, "You could be anyone wearing an admiral's uniform sent down here to test me. No badge, no entry . . . sir. --I don't make the rules, I just obey them."
A moment later, the CO ran up behind him, motioning wildly for me to let him enter. As it turned out, it was COMSUBPAC! He shook my hand on the way out and thanked me for earning my 57 cents an hour.
Sorry to get off-topic in a Nautilus-related thread. . .
CCC
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:00 am |
|
|
|
|