Hello to all Shipmodellers!
I am going to build USS George Washington (SSBN-598) in 1/700 scale from OKB Grigorov. I discovered the picture of the submarine, painted in orange/black colors! This scheme of painting is extremely exciting for me. But I discovered NO confirmations of it!
No one photos of George Washington in the same colors.
Gentlemen, please help me with the problem. Was it the real painting scheme or it was only the fantasy of the photographer (journalist)?
Many thanks to everybody for the help!
It's real enough. Those were the colors it was launched in on June 9, 1959. The red is a primer, and it was soon covered with a gray overcoat before the first Polaris detterence patrol. She later (at some point) had the two tone gray & black scheme. See the link. http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0859815.jpg
Thank you for the answer!
Now it is clear for me how to paint my George Washington model in 1/700 scale.
In fact, I decided to ask the question about this unusual colour schemme because of this photo of NR-1 US Navy Research Submarine.
Having been within 10 feet of the NR-1, I can tell you that the NR-1 was painted in those bright colors as well. The sail is plastic (fiberglass). The below NR-1 photos were taken at the New London Submarine Base, during the christening of the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23).
That looks more like a DUUG-1 hydrophone which were installed on the 598 class, but removed in the mid-seventies. The DUUG (also known as De Gaulle's Useless Underwater Gadget) was an active emissions receiver like the WLR-9/12/17 series. The much-improved WLR-9-17 (built by Norden) used a tapered fiberglass fairing on the bow, roughly the same height as the DUUG-1. The DUGG was a very simple system to operate, but the Norden systems were much more capable.
I'm puzzled and would like to ask for help on George Washington (SSBN-598) design history.
Most common literature say GW was initially designed from just laid down USS Scorpion, a Skipjack SSN by "cutting the hull behind the sail and adding a missile section".
However, Norman Polmar in "Cold War Submarines" (Brassey's, 2004) writes "this fact is but a myth": the "cutting" was only virtual, being done on the blueprints, not for real and both boats share many common parts and equipment (page 119).
Comparing both boats dimensions, one finds a width of 33ft for George Washington and 31.5ft for Scorpion, so both hulls obviously don't fit.
Comparing internal profiles of both (Polmar p121 for GW, p135 for Skipjack) it's hard to find exactly the same arrangement aft of the torpedo room.
I don't know what to think. Should I follow Polmar's writing or "Common statement"?
If you look at the dates involved, the Scorpion had just been started a few weeks before it was reordered as the George Washington. When submarines were built in that era, the hull sections were placed on the building ways, all medium to large equipment was installed in place, and then the completed sections were welded together (which takes several weeks to accomplish). Once sections were welded, from there on in, everything to be installed had to go through a small hatch, so smaller equipment was the rule. If I recall, it was only 8-9 weeks into the build when the Scorpion SSN was reordered as an SSBN.
Much of the equipment for the GW was originally intended for Scorpion. The engineering section and SW5 reactor compartments were basically the same. The control areas had to be redesigned to accommodate the missile control and firing equipment, gyro stabilizers were added, as were ballast compensation tanks for the missiles and the missile compartment itself was obviously newly designed. To fit the missiles, the larger compartment was necessary, and the hull diameter increase for the missiles is partially hidden beneath the turtleback section. It basically had to bulge to 33 feet to fit the Polaris missile tubes into the basic Skipjack hull. The rudders were beefed up and the sail redesigned to contain extra equipment and masts. The submarines did not have the rafted machinery spaces (neither did the Skipjacks) so they were acoustically louder than the follow on classes which were based more on the Thresher/Permit designs. It was a quick, interim design to get some SSBNs out sooner than the planned dates.
I served on The 601 (RE Lee) and she was originally named Shark. These were not Literally cut in half Skipjack hulls. They were Skipjacks redesigned with a bird farm on the drawing boards. However the 601 finished he career as a SSN. One of the SALT treaties made her and her Polaris A-3s absolete..Good boats the 598s were.. Fast..
"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
Does anyone have information about the flood holes for MBTs 3 and 4? The flood holes in the other MBTs are presumably identical to the Skipjack/Scamp, but as part of the "conversion," MBT 3 was extended aft into the pressure hull and MBT 4 was created forward of the reactor compartment:
Extra flood holes must have been added, but I don't have a Piping TAB or docking plans that would show them.
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
I just re-read this thread and thought I might be able to answer your question.
The flood grates for all six Main Ballast Tanks were virtually the same on the 598 class. (I served aboard the 600 - the "Ever-Ready, Never-Steady, Teddy".) When she was drydocked in Guam, (where we conducted patrols with the help of the venerable Proteus) all of us non-qual, nubletts were required to enter the drydock basin and eyeball everything, which made getting the sig for Tanks and Compartments on our qual cards a lot easier, since we could relate to what was drawn in the piping tab to what we'd seen.
The DCTs (Depth Control Tanks) shown inboard of MBT 4 A/B were part of the Trim and Drain system (the DCTs were located in the aft end of the Rocket Room - nobody ever called it "Sherwood Forest".) These tanks were larger due to the added mass of the Missile Compartment compared to the original Skipjack class design. DCTs are the heart of the Hovering system, used to maintain the ship at a prescribed depth (like launch depth.) A submarine cannot remain still when losing the mass of a missile unless an equal amount of water is used to compensate for the missile and water flooded into the missile tube. The main Hovering valve (HOV-1) was a high-speed valve used to move water between both tanks and the sea to keep the ship level.
Without having seen a Skipjack class Tanks and Compartments layout, I don't know what the original arrangement looked like before their designs were modified for boomer duty. Maybe someone with more detailed knowledge can respond.
Thanks for the info! Fortunately, I've since gotten a hold of the compartments & access pages from a 598 TAB. The locations (for anyone else wanting to model) are:
MBT 1, 2A/2B, 3A/3B (external) - same as Skipjack
MBT 3A/3B (internal) - one pair between fr. 29 and 30, and a second pair between fr. 30 and 31
MBT 4A/4B - one pair between fr. M46 and M47, and a second pair between fr. M49 and M50
MBT 5A/5B, 6A/6B - same as Skipjack (where these MBTs were numbered 4A/4B and 5A/5B)
MBT 7A/7B - on pair between fr. 63 and 64 (due to addition of SPM)
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
