The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:56 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
merriman wrote:
You guys got it wrong. Upgrade from Polaris to Poseidon made no difference to the boat length whatsoever. They simply took out the inner 'launch' tube from within the 'mount' tube to make the transition. This happened during a scheduled yard period.

Trust me, I was a Launcher Tech (Torpedoman) on the WEBSTER for nine patrols.

David


Hi David,
Thank you very much, the point is very clear! The Lafayettes, including Webster, could all be upgraded the way you described.

But the Ethan Allans couldn't, as these had only the smaller tubes similar as the Washingtons. That was the whole point of my conversion description. And therefore the length of the Allans was shorter than of the Lafayettes.

Or are you telling us that the Allans had the same tube arrangement as the later classes? In that case, why weren't they upgraded then?

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:38 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
merriman wrote:
You guys got it wrong. Upgrade from Polaris to Poseidon made no difference to the boat length whatsoever. They simply took out the inner 'launch' tube from within the 'mount' tube to make the transition. This happened during a scheduled yard period.

Trust me, I was a Launcher Tech (Torpedoman) on the WEBSTER for nine patrols.

David


Hi David,
Thank you very much, the point is very clear! The Lafayettes, including Webster, could all be upgraded the way you described.

But the Ethan Allans couldn't, as these had only the smaller tubes similar as the Washingtons. That was the whole point of my conversion description. And therefore the length of the Allans was shorter than of the Lafayettes.

Or are you telling us that the Allans had the same tube arrangement as the later classes? In that case, why weren't they upgraded then?


The launcher-school at Dam Neck was very comprehensive -- it's the training some Torpedoman got as they transitioned from their normal duties (I was formerly on a diesel boat) to being stationed on an SSBN. If I remember correctly (they trained us on all class launcher systems past, present and projected) from the GW on up, all had a mount tube with a launch tube within. OHIO was the exception. So, physically the ALLEN's could be upgraded to the larger missiles (C-3 and C-5) but were not because of the arcane pneumatic launcher system and ship-support limitations.

I don't have my class notes at hand, so I'm working from nearly 40 year-old memory here. When the SSBN program started, solid rocket propellant ISP and robustness was just enough to get a 1200 mile range. The A-1 and A-2 propellant grain was 'fragile'. To protect the missile grain, a launch tube was suspended within the mount tube through an array of 'shock-absorbers' that mitigated collision and close-aboard explosions to the missile. The assumption that when WW-3 started, the FBM's would be in for a hard time by ASW forces -- the missiles had to survive if the boat did. Later, with continuing improvement to propellant grain structure through new binders, it was found that the missile had a good chance of still being flyable if only cushioned by a tight fitting array of sacrificial pads between the missile body and inside of the mount tube -- which was the case for C-3 and C-5.

Physically the ALLEN's could be upgraded to the bigger diameter missiles, but were not for other reasons.

David

_________________
"... well, that takes care of Jorgensen's theory!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
merriman wrote:
If I remember correctly (they trained us on all class launcher systems past, present and projected) from the GW on up, all had a mount tube with a launch tube within. OHIO was the exception. So, physically the ALLEN's could be upgraded to the larger missiles (C-3 and C-5) but were not because of the arcane pneumatic launcher system and ship-support limitations.
...
Physically the ALLEN's could be upgraded to the bigger diameter missiles, but were not for other reasons.
David


Hi David,

Your obviously educated reply leaves little room for argument! Thank you for providing us with your inside knowledge.

Nevertheless, I'm still left with a few questions:

1) If the launch tube compartment of the Ethan Allen class was essentially the same as on the later Lafayettes/Madisons and Franklins, where then did the length difference of the boats sit? This is not obvious, as the length is changed only easily within the cilindrical part of the hull. Or, alternatively, the hull length of the Allens was the same as the later boats, and then all the references are wrong? Do you maybe have some evidence clearing up this point?

2)
Quote:
(they trained us on all class launcher systems past, present and projected) from the GW on up,

You say GW (George Washington) on up: did the GW also have the bigger diameter tubes, that could in principle launch the larger C-3 and C-5 missiles? In that case, the MikroMir George Washington kit must be in error here too. And then my entire assumption of the Ethan Allen conversion falls flat on its back.

I really hope you can shed some more light on these two points, and it would be awesome if you could provide some evidence as well!

Thanks again for all your effort,
Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:38 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
I can not provide 'evidence'. Just my many decade old memory on display here. Take it as you will. Maybe it all came to me as a Walter Mitty type dream. Who knows? Next time I'll take the red-pill.

I am not a purveyor of bull-shit. But, I do make mistakes. Take my input with a gain of salt. Keep researching this -- I would like to know the definitive answer to this question you raised.

I'm not absolutely sure that the GW's and 608 boats had the launch-mount tube system, but I think, based on memory, that the two concentric tube arrangement went back to the first of the 41.

I recall hearing that the lengthening after the 608's was in engineering spaces as well as the operation compartment (to address the need for better habitability).

Keep digging.

David

_________________
"... well, that takes care of Jorgensen's theory!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Hi David,

I appreciate your attitude very much, and your professional expertise too. Both are valuable qualities here.

So let's see if we can find more material info on the topic of the 608 Allan boats, to check the assumptions I made earlier, or prove them wrong.

Regards, Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:38 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
Hi David,

I appreciate your attitude very much, and your professional expertise too. Both are valuable qualities here.

So let's see if we can find more material info on the topic of the 608 Allan boats, to check the assumptions I made earlier, or prove them wrong.

Regards, Maarten


The search for truth is never wrong. I'll contribute where I can.

David

_________________
"... well, that takes care of Jorgensen's theory!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:33 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Bremerton, Wa
Maarten,

Maybe these will help:
Attachment:
610 Class page 01.jpg
610 Class page 01.jpg [ 172.59 KiB | Viewed 1939 times ]
Attachment:
610 Class page 02.jpg
610 Class page 02.jpg [ 185.82 KiB | Viewed 1939 times ]


John :wave_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
jcmackay wrote:
Maarten,

Maybe these will help

John :wave_1:


WOW! I hadn't guessed these plans would ever become available! Many thanks John!

Just in case: do you happen to have slightly larger scans of these plans? The figures are only just readable, it would be so much helpful if we would have some numerical data available.

Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Last edited by Maarten Schönfeld on Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:08 pm
Posts: 153
Location: United States
Those plus more:
http://imgur.com/a/0uTTL

Jacob

_________________
Under Construction:
1/350 Typhoon
1/350 Skate
1/350 USS Nautilus
1/350 Tang
1/350 November
1/350 Hotel II
1/350 Alfa
1/350 George Washington
1/72 Type VIIC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Hi Jacob,

That's really awesome! Where on earth do you get these plans from? And I even note they aren't exactly the same, as these are from SSBN 611, whilst the previous ones were from SSBN 610. True sisters I suppose, though.

Adding all this info doesn't make it any simpler: I already have to confess my assumptions don't seem to hold, as the missile compartment is definitely longer than the one in MikroMir's Washington model. I'll have to study these plans very closely befor I make new assumptions!

In the meantime my Ethan Allan model build will appear into the Gallery one of these days, please take my assertions there with a pinch of salt! Definitely an update will be needed soon.

Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:38 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Someone kept their Qualification notes and documents.

Those drawings came out of a piping training aid book (TAB). One of four (I think) system TAB's used by people qualifying or re-qualifying aboard a specific class of submarine. The drawings in there taken with a grain of salt as there are zingers in there -- for example, the trailing edges of the upper and lower rudder fall along the same vertical line, not staggered as you see in the profile drawings, etc. The piping TAB featured page after page of rationalized schematically presented hydraulic, sanitary, hydraulic, trim, MSW and ASW water, and weapon impulse runs. The other TABS where block-schematics of electrical distribution, reactor control, and other systems.

Those same plans of the boat from the TAB were also found in the more comprehensive Ships Information Book (SIB), a multi-volume document which provides a detailed discussion of the function, design, and use of the boats sub-systems; as well as a chart and graph heavy identification of the boats performance and dynamic characteristics in all conceivable situations.

Each crew had a piping TAB, but had to dig out one of the big SIB's for the narrative of the sub-system in question. Copies of these big books were held by the Engineer in Maneuvering, a copy in the Wardroom, and likely another copy down in the crews library.

David

_________________
"... well, that takes care of Jorgensen's theory!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
David: thanks for explaining the source and purpose of the drawings! I hope we will see more of these soon, also from the other SSBN classes maybe?

My first analysis (putting all frames in a table, with their correct interval distances) brings me to these conclusions:

- in the 608 (Ethan Allan) class the missile section (frame 60-84) is exactly 70 feet long: 24 frames of 35 inches interval. This means three frames or 105" per missile tube. (note: the actual compartment is longer, from frame 58 to 85, but these frames are not very clear from modelling point of view).
- The Benjamin Franklin class drawing doesn't show the frame positions, nor any dimensional data, unfortunately. I scaled the drawing however to match the MicroMir Lafayette model, and all the missile tubes, sail and upper casing positions line-up very well. I assume for the time being that the MicroMir model is quite correct.
- Based on this assumption, the length of the missile compartment in the Lafayette end subsequent classes is 76 feet: this means 9.5 feet or 114" per missile tube. A little more than in the Allen class.
- In MicroMir's George Washington (GW) the length of the missile compartment is 64 feet: this means 8 feet or 96" per missile tube. I originally assumed the Allens had the same length, but that is now proven incorrect.
- Apparently the 608 Allen class tubes were a sort of mid-point in dimensions between the GW and Lafayette classes. Or the tubes were similar to the later Lafayettes, but then the space between the tubes was smaller.
- The nose section ahead of the missile compartment was in the Allens shorter than in the Lafayettes: 136 feet versus ca 149 feet in the Lafayettes. This is visible as the sail of the Allen is more forward on the curved upper casing, as being almost on a hoizontal surface on the Lafayettes. So David's assertion that the Allens were shorter in the service spaces must be entirely correct.

- as the overall length of the Allans is 410 feet 6 inches, so not really different from the 410 feet 4 inches assumed initially, I envisage changing my model this way: replacing the deck over the missile tubes with a longer version, and placing the sail accordingly further forward. As I already reduced the length of the entire boat, the sail will get into the correct relative position to the bow. Of course I will add material to the bottom rim of the sail to keep it horizontal, relative to the hull.

I am very interested in your comments, whether I overlooked something?

Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:38 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
I applaud your dedication to accuracy. I'm a bit more pragmatic about it. Sometimes its better to complete the project well than to plan, prepare, and detail the project into abandonment.

Are the soup cans in your cupboard oriented by content, and are the labels facing just so?

Danger! ..... Danger!

David

_________________
"... well, that takes care of Jorgensen's theory!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
merriman wrote:
Are the soup cans in your cupboard oriented by content, and are the labels facing just so?
David
They are! :thumbs_up_1:

But just kidding: my pragmatic self did first make a model (since yesterday in the Gallery). But given the new information injected by you, now I'm getting a good idea on how to improve upon it, without thrashing the whole thing entirely. Seems quite pragmatic to me! :cool_2:

Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:38 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Indeed.

Looking forward to what you come up with, Maarten.

David

_________________
"... well, that takes care of Jorgensen's theory!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Well, not too difficult, as I described. Here's my Ethan Allen in new version.

- Length unchanged.
- Deck over missile bay replaced with a new version, 5mm longer than the previous one. All hatches enlarged accordingly
- Sail moved forward by 11 mm, so much closer to the bow. Added sliver to make the sail follow the curved contour of the forward hull deck
- Sail to vertical rudder distance is now the same for the Ethan Allan and the Lafayette.

Some pictures:
Attachment:
IMAG1625a.jpg
IMAG1625a.jpg [ 149.15 KiB | Viewed 1788 times ]
Attachment:
IMAG1627a.jpg
IMAG1627a.jpg [ 107.18 KiB | Viewed 1788 times ]
Attachment:
IMAG1628a.jpg
IMAG1628a.jpg [ 103.13 KiB | Viewed 1788 times ]

I left the Allen unpainted for the moment to show clearly the change.

David, many thanks for spotting the error in the assumptions, and Jacob & John for providing the documents to get it right! Good teamwork I would say.

Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:38 pm
Posts: 227
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
... and very good execution, sir. Thanks for sharing.

David

_________________
"... well, that takes care of Jorgensen's theory!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
merriman wrote:
... and very good execution, sir. Thanks for sharing.

David

Thanks for the compliment :smallsmile:

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 250
Location: Connecticut
The Lafayette was my last boat. I caught her coming out of her Posiden upgrade refit at EB in 74. My Qual boat was the RE Lee SSBN 601 a 598 boat. The 598s never were upgraded past Polaris A3 birds. They were small hot rod boomers with the heart of a Skipjack. In fact the 598s were only a few knots slower than the Permit SSNs. I loved the 601 even though she was a small and very cramped boomer compared to the 616 and their patrol radius was limited to the Polaris short range and were usually 3 knots to nowhere in Ivan's backyard especially on WESTPAC.. The Lee ended her career as an SSN after they emptied her bird farm of the old A-3s. AS for the 608s I remember the Tom Edison being wharfed to the :afayette at Port Caneveral for Operational Reactor Safeguards Exam ( ORSE) and weapons trials. I do not remember any obvious difference ( Hull wise ) between the two boats. However they were very different otherwise. Both the 601 and 616 had 7 blade screws back then. No "outriggers " on the sternplanes.

_________________
"When you shoot at a Destroyer and miss. It's like hit'in a wildcat in the A-- with a banjo" !
Lt. Joe Willingham Skipper USS Tautog SS-199

Life is Good/ DBF
Walt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Walt,

Thank you for your submariner's story, it certainly adds to the topic! The period of the Cold War boomers...

As we were able to ascertain there were certainly dimensional differences between the 598, 608 and 616 types, but the overall looks were quite similar of course.

Maarten

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group