The Ship Model Forum

[quote="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/comments/c0nso3/mystery_sonar_dome_on_ethan_allenclass_ssbns/)

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

Jacob[/quote]

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.

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.

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/comments/c0nso3/mystery_sonar_dome_on_ethan_allenclass_ssbns/)

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

Jacob

So in doing some research on the George Washington class SSBN's, I noticed that for a time, they carried "fin like projections on top and beside their missile decks. I assume that these are some form of passive sonar as they resemble smaller versions of the PUFFS arrays present on Guppy III and Tullabee. Any knowledge out there on exactly what these are?

USS George Washington: http://navsource.org/archives/08/600/0859832.jpg, http://navsource.org/archives/08/600/0859844.jpg, and http://navsource.org/archives/08/600/0859845b.jpg (November 1960, gone by June 1962)

USS Patrick Henry: http://navsource.org/archives/08/600/0859929.jpg and http://navsource.org/archives/08/600/0859913.jpg (1960-1961)

Thanks!

John

[quote="Vepr157"]I typically use a mixture of bright red with bit of rust or brown. When the red antifouling is freshly applied, it's intensely red, but over time it gets toned down to a slightly darker and browner color.

Jacob[/quote]

G'day Jacob,

Thanks very much,

cheers,

Pappy

I typically use a mixture of bright red with bit of rust or brown. When the red antifouling is freshly applied, it's intensely red, but over time it gets toned down to a slightly darker and browner color.

Jacob

G'dsy Maartin and Justin,

Thanks very much for the great info. I am definitely going for an in service look and will be using the demarcation as suggested by Justin but i like the idea of a purple-ish boot topping. Incidentally, what would you reccomend for the red colur, it is a little closer to orange than a deep red and alittle hard to nail down?

cheers,

Pappy

[quote="Pappy"]G'day again,

I am getting to the paointing stage for my USS Kamehameha (BF Class) and I have doubts about the painting guide in the Mikro Mir instructions. The red oxide demarcation is depicted as halfway up the hull sides and level with the aft horizontal dive planes, but images in this thread show that the red oxide was extended higher up the hull sides, basically level with the top of the bottom section of the upper rudder if that makes sense?

Secondly, what colour should the screw be? I am thinking a goldish colour but short of brass

cheers,

Pappy[/quote]

It depends how you want to depict the submarine. If you want to depict her in active service, the red antifouling paint goes halfway up the side, level with the main axis of the hull (thus level with the stern stabilizers/planes), like you described. Red paint only extended up to the waterline when the submarine was launched (some subs were launched this way, some weren't). Sometimes after an overhaul, the area between the waterline and the red paint on the lower half of the hull was painted with a mixture of black and red antifouling paint, which is sort of a dark maroon. See this photo of the [i]Barbel[/i]:

http://navsource.org/archives/08/580/0858009.jpg

But if you're going to be depicting her in active service, the bottom half should be red and the top half should be black. I also like to make the areas on the bow where there are an acoustic windows for sonar a lighter shade than the main hull colors, but that's up to your personal preference.

As for the propeller, it was made of manganese bronze, which tarnishes to a dull yellowy-orange metallic color. But if it's fresh a brass or gold-colored paint would do just fine.

Jacob

[quote="Pappy"]G'day again,

I am getting to the paointing stage for my USS Kamehameha (BF Class) and I have doubts about the painting guide in the Mikro Mir instructions. The red oxide demarcation is depicted as halfway up the hull sides and level with the aft horizontal dive planes, but images in this thread show that the red oxide was extended higher up the hull sides, basically level with the top of the bottom section of the upper rudder if that makes sense?

Secondly, what colour should the screw be? I am thinking a goldish colour but short of brass

cheers,

Pappy[/quote]
Hi Pappy,

Maybe take good look at the previous post of Vepr: note that the waterline is at the 29 ft mark on the vertical rudder. That's the top of the boot topping or the dark grey band. The boot topping itself is six feet high at most, so the top of the anti fouling (what you like to call oxide red which it isn't) is at the 23 feet mark on the rudder. That's still above the end plates on the dive planes.
Next thing: take another close look at the water line: it's not parallel to the axis of the cylindrical hull, but running lower to the right of the image. Meaning: the hull is not horizontal in the water, but lying deeper at the stern then at the bow. So to be accurate you have to look also at bow pictures, and note that the waterline lies lower on the hull sides then at the stern!

G'day again,

I am getting to the paointing stage for my USS Kamehameha (BF Class) and I have doubts about the painting guide in the Mikro Mir instructions. The red oxide demarcation is depicted as halfway up the hull sides and level with the aft horizontal dive planes, but images in this thread show that the red oxide was extended higher up the hull sides, basically level with the top of the bottom section of the upper rudder if that makes sense?

Secondly, what colour should the screw be? I am thinking a goldish colour but short of brass

cheers,

Pappy

Here are some drawings that might help. To give you some dimensions to scale these drawings, the distance between the main axis and the baseline in the profile view is 16'6" and the total breadth of the stern planes is 40'4".

[img]https://i.imgur.com/o5k4odk.png[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/qFMDozW.png[/img]

Jacob

[quote="Maarten Schönfeld"][quote="Maarten Schönfeld"]So, then I will scratch those endplates myself, documentation on the Franklin class was passed in this thread earlier on.[/quote]

Here some pics in the raw form, so you can see well what I did. Still some sanding to be done when all cement is dry.

It was necessary to modify the aft diving planes to a great extend, as these appeared incorrect in the first place. Also for any of the 609 or 616 boats that is. The only difference is the wider section where the endplates are based on. Some homework to do on my Lafayette and Ethan Allen models![attachment=2]IMAG1777cr.jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]IMAG1778cr.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]IMAG1779cr.jpg[/attachment][/quote]

G'day All,

I have the Mikro Mir 1/350 USS Kamehameha kit with the twin Dry Deck Shelters (DDS).

I want to correct the aft control surfaces. I have read through this thread and if I understand correctly, the USS Kamehameha was a Ben Franklin (640) class so it should also have the end plates. My question is, what would the dimensions of the endplates be in 1/350? Martin's excellent work has shown how to correct the missing end-plates, but does not include their dimensions,

cheers,

Pappy

Ouch.

The STASS (Submarine Towed Array Sonar System) installed aboard the 598 class contained a hinged stub cable storage compartment located on the starboard stern plane stabilizer that contained enough cable to reach topside with a couple of figure 8 turns thrown in for good measure. A day before we would leave for patrol, divers would remove the cable and lay it into the tow point before passing a line topside for us to haul the rest of it on deck. When we got outside Guam's Apra harbor, a Mike boat (a repurposed WWI landing craft) with the array on a reel would come alongside and we would pass the stub cable over to them. They connected it to the array and reduced speed to trail the array behind us away from the screw, far enough away to prevent fouling.

When we left Pearl Harbor for the final time to transit to the West coast for eventual de-activation (Oct '79) we prepared to pull the stub cable topside. The diver left too much slack in the cable and when we spun the shaft (the shaft seals are tightened import and loosened when underway, so the shaft has to rotate occasionally to maintain the seal) the Fickle Finger of Fate intervened. Anyway, the second pic of me displaying the result is priceless. Our CO was always a screamer, known for his epic meltdowns, and this initiated yet another. For us, it was just one less piece of equipment to monitor as we headed to San Diego. He blamed us for the diver's mistake and made our lives (extra) hellish for the entire transit.

The array was from the BQR-15, which in later boats was equipped with an onboard storage and handling system. For the 598's, the channel amplifier was the BQR-25, and the display processor was the BQR-23. I think there were something like 20 beamformed, waterfall narrowband channels to monitor and only four could be displayed on the screen at once. The Sonar Supervisor (sitting in the back of the shack) would rotate a dial and the channels would cycle on and off the screen the screen. During operation, it was sensitive enough to pick up the turbine signatures of high-flying commercial aircraft for short periods of time. The CO hated to be underway without it.

San Diego-based, Spectral Dynamics built the BQR-23, based on their proven BQR-20, 20A, and 22 series spectrum analyzers. They all stood about five feet high and were divided into function-specific rack-mounted, slide-out units. None were light. Unit 4 was the monitor - an 18" monochrome green screen CRT. We had one fail on a Seawolf mission with no spares. The BQR-22 was a dual-channel spectrum analyzer that we relied on to analyze our primary sonar acoustic data. One of the spooks heard about our problems and brought us a dual-channel spectrum analyzer that fit in the cavity unit 4 occupied. Not only was it small, it had more capability! They got the money for fancy equipment and we didn't.

[attachment=1]STASS Component ID (Sm).jpg[/attachment] [attachment=0]Munched Stub Cable.jpg[/attachment]

Even though there is no fairing, MikroMir kindly includes the hump as a seperate piece.

[img]https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/145185/20200510_104933-1409786.jpg[/img]

Excellent! Those are exactly what I was looking for.

[quote="Maarten Schönfeld"] A towed array on a Franklin class? I honestly never heard of that! Only on the SSNs I believe. Or have I missed something?[/quote]

Yep, pretty much all of the Polaris SSBNs had towed arrays. The 598-class SSBNs just had a tow point on their starboard stabilizer for a clip-on STASS towed array:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/opqAwaN.jpg[/img]

The 608 and 616 classes (and the 640 class, if you want to consider them as a separate class) probably initially got similar tow points, which is what I think this photo of the [i]Henry Clay[/i] shows:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/0CYfyRS.jpg[/img]

They subsequently got reelable BQR-15 towed arrays. The drums that stored the cable were inside a hump on the starboard side of the turtleback:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/UIHDGfl.jpg[/img]

The array was stored in a fairing that went to the starboard stabilizer:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/foj1M2F.jpg[/img]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/bagl35l.jpg[/img]

This photo of the [i]Will Rogers[/i] and a drawing I have of the [i]Francis Scott Key[/i] suggest that there was an alternate arrangement where the towed array fairing took a more direct route to the stabilizer like the tubes on the 594 and 637-class SSNs:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/vZF91K5.jpg[/img]

Here is a photo showing three 640-class SSBNs and one 608 class, all with BQR-15s:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/wR7KK6r.jpg[/img]

[quote="maccrage"]Does anyone have a good image or drawing of the towed array fairing on the Franklin class? I want to do a late fit boat. Thanks to Maarten's posts, I already know about the control surface modifications I need to make.

Here is Von Steuben with Pogy after primering.
[img]https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/145185/20200429_155101-1393059.jpg[/img][/quote]

A towed array on a Franklin class? I honestly never heard of that! Only on the SSNs I believe. Or have I missed something?

Does anyone have a good image or drawing of the towed array fairing on the Franklin class? I want to do a late fit boat. Thanks to Maarten's posts, I already know about the control surface modifications I need to make.

Here is Von Steuben with Pogy after primering.
[img]https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/145185/20200429_155101-1393059.jpg[/img]

I agree with Martin on the Mikro-Mir kit (the Yankee Model Works kit, if you can find it, is less detailed). Blue Ridge sells the Lafayette and the Webster, so those would be suitable as a Madison (although the Webster would have to be modified to eliminate her unusual "mini-sail"). Apart from the usual ship-to-ship differences, they were identical to the Lafayettes except for the missiles initially fitted, as Martin said.

Jacob