Calling all "41 for Freedom" SSBN fans

[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

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

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

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!

[Vepr157]

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

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 Barbel:

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

[Pappy]

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

[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

[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'day Jacob,

Thanks very much,

cheers,

Pappy

[Jcholman]

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

[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/com ... ass_ssbns/)

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

Jacob

[sejohnso]

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.

[CC Clarke]

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/com ... ass_ssbns/)

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

Jacob

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.

[Fivi_1241]

Hello everyone!

I have a chance to buy Revell's 1/200 Andrew Jackson for just a couple of EUR, and I can't find any detailed information on the kit's overall accuracy - many old comments on the Internet redirect to nonexistent pages, so I don't know what to think about this one

Of course I won't bother about the interior, but I wonder if its overall shape and major details are acceptable.

[Vepr157]

Ken Hart's take on that model is probably the best I've seen:

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

But he had to do extensive modifications to it. It looks pretty good to my eye (although the towed array tube isn't quite right), but it's hard to say how dimensionally accurate it just from those photos. At that point, you might as well just scratch build the entire thing really. Or better yet, 3D print it.

Jacob

[CC Clarke]

A little Boomer porn for your enjoyment: https://sassik.livejournal.com/386387.html

CC

[AKeyman657]

was on the Key 657 70,71 gold crew. never saw or heard of towed array on any boomer. we had a floating wire for communications but that's it We hide, not look for anything.

[Vepr157]

was on the Key 657 70,71 gold crew. never saw or heard of towed array on any boomer. we had a floating wire for communications but that's it We hide, not look for anything.

That's because you were on the Key before she got a towed array. I have a Piping TAB from the Key dated October 1980 that shows the BQR-15 towed array (although it was likely installed ca. 1975). And you gotta look out for things to hide from

Jacob

[Tom Dougherty]

The towed arrays were retrofitted onto the first SSBNs during overhaul periods. From what I could find, it was installed well after the early 1970�s.

The towed array was streamed from the starboard stern plane. In this photo from the 1980�s of Henry Clay in drydock, you can see the deploy tube as well as the array conduit along the hull. The array reel was up in the turtleback on the starboard side. A bump out in the turtleback was the only visible sign of the reel.

Here�s the Clay photo: http://navsource.org/archives/08/616/0862514.jpg

Here�s examples of the extension bump and the array conduit on a couple of SSBNs:
You can see the deploy tube near the stern, as well as the reel extension http://navsource.org/archives/08/616/0861800.jpg
The reel storage extension and array conduit can just be made out
http://navsource.org/archives/08/658/0865509.jpg
Good shot of the reel storage extension on the starboard side of the turtleback. Just aft of the missile tubes:
http://navsource.org/archives/08/616/0862207.jpg

[Tom Dougherty]

I post this here only because it is a minor but very annoying issue with almost all submarine kits. Almost all kits come with decals that include hull numbers, and sometimes specific submarine names and DSRV docking markings for hatches. The fact is that these markings are all, at least in the case of US submarines (SSNs and SSBNs) removed after sea trials. Numbers and other identifiers are eliminated once accepted by the Navy and during the operational life of the submarine.

What are still visible are draft markings, particularly on rudders and the hull. And almost none of the kits provide these permanent markings in their decal sets. Given a choice, I would much rather have items such as accurate draft markings and abbreviations such as �PROJ� for projections like stern planes, etc. These markings are maintained through the life of the submarine.

Many kits also ignore the sacrificial zincs at the stern, but those I can easily fashion. Accurate decals are another item all together. This would be a great opportunity for aftermarket decal companies and the artwork is very straightforward and applicable to a number of kits. One sheet could cover SSNs and SSBNs.

And no, I don�t feel like making my own. I would need a new printer that prints white numbers and letters.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Tom, you are right, I noticed it too.

For the resin kits of Dutch submarines Zwaardvis and Walrus (Naval Models) for which I made the masters several years ago I took care to create the depth markings as decals, both in white (early) and red (late/current). So it is possible, for sure.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

For the USN however, these are not usable, as these are calibrated in decimetres (yeah, metric measures!), so for the USN (and also RN) we need other sets calibrated in feet.

One particular problem is, that due to the cylindrical shape of the hull, the scales are not linear on a decal, but need to be adapted for that shape. The good news however is: all USN subs apart from the Ohios have the same hull diameter of 33 feet, which makes one set valid for in fact all these types, with small adaptations for the boomers. For the Ohios a separate set will be necessary.

As for now, I never studied the USN markings in detail, so if you happen to have information on that (dimensions of the markings, typeface, possible abbreviations other than PROJ) it would be greatly helpful to create an accurate set.

[Tom Dougherty]

Hi Maarten,
US submarines draft markings are six inches high, and spaced 1 foot apart. There are no other marker lines accompanying them as there are on other nations. The numbers are measured from the keel and yes, the circumference of the hull needs to be taken into account for accurate spacing. Every 10 feet are marked with a full 2 digit number, as is the highest number. Otherwise, the numbers are single numbers of feet between the 2 digit ten foot marks. I have included some photos as examples.

The dry dock photo shows that the numbers are not extended all the way to the keel. In the case of the Sturgeon and Los Angeles classes, the rudder numbers were sometimes only on the leading edge of the rudder; sometimes on the sides. I have seen photos of Virginia class with number on either side of the rudder or on the leading edge as well.

The Ohio class, being much larger in diameter, would indeed require different sets.

[Maarten Sch�nfeld]

Hi Tom,

I will look into it and try to come up with a design. Please have some patience, I won't do that overnight as I have other obligations to attend to!

As for the printing, I used to do that myself on an OKI printer (ALPS is similar), but since I ran out of ribbons and worse: the printer driver could not be updated any further, I have reverted to a commercial printer in the Netherlands, delivering nice white prints at an affordable price.