Calling all Sturgeon-class (SSN-637) fans

[maccrage]

Pogy repaired, and added the supports to the towed array tube.

[maccrage]

And immediately had to redo the whole towed array. I goofed and mounted it to the side of the stern plate. It should be on top.

[maccrage]

Finally got primer on Pogy.

[jrbm]

Hi all,
I just learned that MikroMir came out with a 1/350 USS Parche kit showing her with the modifications that enabled her to do some "extra" special ops missions. (skegs, hull extension, etc). What are your opinions on the accuracy of the mods as depicted in the kit? Based on reality or conjecture? I understand that much about Parche is still not open to the public, but I don't know if this secrecy applies to her external features as well. Google images seems to only have above-the-waterline pictures. Thanks.
J

[Vepr157]

It's 100% conjecture below the waterline. I believe MikroMir took inspiration from H.I. Sutton's drawing of the Parche, but he's just guessing too. Not that I think there's anything wrong necessarily with this depiction, but it's nothing more than speculation.

I actually have a drydock photo of the Parche from before her big conversion, but the angle doesn't show much. I have heard that she was covered by a big curtain before the drained the water from the drydock, so we probably won't get a good idea of what she looked like below the waterline until the heat death of the universe.

Jacob

[Tom Dougherty]

Jacob has pretty much summed the situation up. Hal Sutton basically took a guess at below the waterline outfitting of the early Parche Special Projects conversion. The saturation diving chamber at the stern of Parche is the same one originally installed on Halibut in the early 1970�s.

One aspect I have been thinking about is how much wetted hull drag the rather large large keel insert would add to Parche, in addition to the drag from the saturation diving installation. One might expect maneuvering thrusters and a deployment tube for robotic cameras (�Fish�) under the keel, but how large an installation would be needed?

As an aside, he also put a similar �gondola � structure on the later Parche version with a 100 foot extension. I would have guessed ( note: �guessed�) that much of the necessary Projects functions would have been incorporated into the extension interior. Again, lengthening the hull adds wetted surface area drag, slowing the submarine, so any large external additions like a gondola would only further exacerbate the drag. Again, just my conjecture. I do see that Mikromir has come out with the later version as well. The �after extension � Parche drawings on the box cover they released still show the saturation diving chamber at the stern, which is wrong.

I�m not at all criticizing Hal�s work; it�s a �best guess� on his part, and I�m a fan of his work on Covert Shores. Speaking with people who worked in (Seawolf SSN575) or around Parche, they all said that when in drydock, the lower areas were very much covered, strictly off limits, guarded, and unless you had authorization to be working in that area, forbidden. When Seawolf was expanded by 52 feet with a Special Projects compartment, a warning was given at sea when operations were about to commence, and the compartment was sealed off to everyone except the Projects group. Even if you were in the Seawolf crew, you had little idea what was going on in that area.

[Woodstock74]

Jacob has pretty much summed the situation up. Hal Sutton basically took a guess at below the waterline outfitting of the early Parche Special Projects conversion. The saturation diving chamber at the stern of Parche is the same one originally installed on Halibut in the early 1970�s.

One aspect I have been thinking about is how much wetted hull drag the rather large large keel insert would add to Parche, in addition to the drag from the saturation diving installation. One might expect maneuvering thrusters and a deployment tube for robotic cameras (�Fish�) under the keel, but how large an installation would be needed?

As an aside, he also put a similar �gondola � structure on the later Parche version with a 100 foot extension. I would have guessed ( note: �guessed�) that much of the necessary Projects functions would have been incorporated into the extension interior. Again, lengthening the hull adds wetted surface area drag, slowing the submarine, so any large external additions like a gondola would only further exacerbate the drag. Again, just my conjecture. I do see that Mikromir has come out with the later version as well. The �after extension � Parche drawings on the box cover they released still show the saturation diving chamber at the stern, which is wrong.

I�m not at all criticizing Hal�s work; it�s a �best guess� on his part, and I�m a fan of his work on Covert Shores. Speaking with people who worked in (Seawolf SSN575) or around Parche, they all said that when in drydock, the lower areas were very much covered, strictly off limits, guarded, and unless you had authorization to be working in that area, forbidden. When Seawolf was expanded by 52 feet with a Special Projects compartment, a warning was given at sea when operations were about to commence, and the compartment was sealed off to everyone except the Projects group. Even if you were in the Seawolf crew, you had little idea what was going on in that area.

Don't think you're sticking your neck out too far by stating the increase in length and the addition of the gondola structure would have had adverse effects on performance. That would be alot of increased wetted area. I once asked similar of a former crew member, "Hey, any hints about below the water line? Even just a yeh or neh on Sutton?" I was merely fishing regarding if there was a gondola structure at all (I've read elsewhere on the Net that there was NOT and that Sutton, "got it all wrong"-- this from someone who served on her [it was a Veteran's group for the Parche]) He came back with the expected never having seen it, which is pretty understandable. But I countered by saying, if you were familiar with the general performance and handling of a standard Sturgeon (he was), even having never seen what the Parche looked like, you might have anecdotal evidence something major was afoot given what must have been large performance and handling differences. That unfortunately ended the conversation...at least be bought one of my 3D printed conversions!

I too used Sutton's work for my 3D printed conversion. But with Mikro-Mir's kit my conversion has become old hat given the price point. About the only thing I think I can offer will be upgrades to the Mikro-Mir kit, like improved detailing of the insides of the moon pool, which the conversion already has and I don't think Mikro-Mir did anything about. So a repackaging of the existing CAD after I get my hands on the kit.

[FRAMSailor]

I know almost everything about Parche below the waterline is "best guess." So, was interested in your best guess - do you think that the Skis (or whatever they are called) would be retractable? Seems to me they would be less likely to be damaged and would at least slightly reduce drag?

[Guest]

Good question. Anyone have thoughts or even guesses? Also, does the kit have the sail plane much too high? Seems higher than their other Sturgeon kits.

[Tom Dougherty]

A very extensive debate occurred on the SubCommittee forum about accuracy of the Special Projects Parche. Go here:
https://subcommittee.com/forum/showthre ... USS-Parche

I should say that I am a big fan of Hal Sutton�s work on Covert Shores. But as you can see from the above, I have reasons to believe that some of the below hull details are highly suspect. As CC Clarke has pointed out, those that really know aren�t talking. So, make the above hull details accurate, and enjoy the below the waterline speculations.

As far as the question about the sail planes. It looks that when the hull was extended by 100 feet forward, the sail planes were moved higher on the sail. This may have been due to hydrodynamic factors of the extension and the �hump� added just forward of the sail. This can clearly be seen from the Navsource photos of Parche:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08683.htm
Especially in these:
http://navsource.org/archives/08/SSN637/0868325.jpg
http://navsource.org/archives/08/SSN637/0868321.jpg

[CC Clarke]

The fairwater planes were moved, and they aren't 637 planes. They're straight 688 baby!

CC

[FRAMSailor]

Thank you for the info. So, it appears that the Mikr Mir kit sail with higher planes is correct for their "late version" but NOT correct for their "early version"??

[CC Clarke]

Parche went through three major configurations while assigned to the Ocean Engineering program. By earlier, if you mean their kit with the extendo-sail prior to the last MINSY major conversion it's fine. There's plenty of online reference material to verify it. As for the later version they put out, it isn't even accurate above the waterline.

Speculation/fantasy and realism are diametrically opposed. Best guessed is half-assed. Better a model with verified details than one with those that aren't.
CC

[Vepr157]

Wait, the big fairwater planes predated the hull extension? All of the photos I can find from the mid-80s with the fairing aft of the sail show normal 637 planes.

Jacob

[CC Clarke]

Correct. Parche was still a basic 637 Stretch until the Plug was added; hence the new fairwater planes. After that, she was a Franken-stretch.

The Russians were allowed short-notice, on-site inspections at Subase Bangor to verify Salt II treaty adherence. Basically, they could choose a boat, pick a tube and it would be opened so they could count how many warheads were installed.

After the Parche arrived in Nov 1994, they made it a habit of asking to verify her "warheads" since they used the pretext of a turtleback to "assume" she was carrying missiles. Basically it was a running joke; it was obvious they wanted to get as close to her as possible. They would request and we would refuse. In fact, the bus carrying their inspectors, (who were of course, riddled with GRU) was intentionally routed away from the complex SUBDEVGRUONE had built.

CC

[Vepr157]

Forgive me, I'm still a bit confused. Are you saying that some time between when the fairing aft of the sail was added and when she started the major conversion at MINSY in '87 the big fairwater planes were added? Before the major conversion starting in '87 I can find only photos of her with normal 637 fairwater planes. I was under the impression that the 688 fairwater planes were added during the '87 to '91 conversion when the hull extension was added.

By the way, perhaps you can resolve a question I've had for some time about the short vs. long/stretch 637s. The length between perpendiculars of SSN 637 was 292'3" due to the addition of five 33" frame spacings over the 594 class. I know that an additional three frame spacings (presumably 33") were added to make the stretch 637s based on Piping TAB drawings that show the extra frames 49A, 49B, and 49C. This would equate to a length between perpendiculars of 300'3". Of course, the overall length would be somewhat smaller than this because the aft perpendicular was maybe a foot or so aft of the unusual truncated propeller boss the 637s had. However, many sources say that the stretch 637s were 302' (sometimes 302'3"). So what gives? Is 300'3" the correct LBP?

Jacob

[FRAMSailor]

Just to clarify, the "early version" of the kit (that is what they call it) has higher and larger sail planes. So, can the kit be built that way?

[CC Clarke]

If you want to build it accurately, use 637 fairwater planes.

If my memory serves me, the last configuration sail was a modified 688; I remember it used a drop-on 688 sail scaffold for doing mast and antenna work. These were metal units with a cradle that would be installed with a crane.

CC

[Bill Morrison]

Vladimir at Micro-Mir has informed me that They are soon releasing a new 1/144 kit of a 637. He did not state which version, but I do know that Tom Dougherty had sent them plans of a 637 boat. I am looking forward to this release!

Bill

[Bill Morrison]

I love that they continue to put out 1/350 subs, but why not a JULIETT or ECHO or CHARLIE etc. If they drop a PARCHE, I'm sure it'll be a great seller, but how about YANKEE STRETCH or DELTA STRETCH I/II. Yes, I do want it all :) I'll keep buying what they put out anyway.

Cheers,

Dave

Dave,

Have you considered making your request to Vladimir at Micro-Mir? He is always looking for new ideas.

Bill