|
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 2191
Location: Port Ludlow, WA (the Olympic Penninsula) | Subject: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
I received the following message from an attendee at one of my recent"Silent Service Speaks" talks. He picked up one of our (free) posters and came up with quite a shopping list of questions of which my weekend house guest (Dan Martini) and I are pouring over. When he refers to the Submarine Evolution Poster, it is the one below this message (difficult to make big enough here)
Thanks for giving the talk about subs the other night at the PT yacht
club. I left right after that for vacation so I didn't get to ask some
other questions via email I had like:
1. The poster shows many subs that are very similar in size and profile
yet are entirely different classes like the Narwhal, Sturgeon, Permit
classes. These are all SSN class vessels. Or the Lipscomb class of which
one was built. Why would there be in some casses just one built? Given
the design and build cycle, they must have figured the short run and
scarce built subs were not right or limited or???? So why would they not
build more of these?
2. Sort of similar to #1, there are single vessels like the Parche class,
Darter, Grayback, Triton, etc. Why only one? Were they experiments that
didn't work or were they all very specialized and if so, what were they
designed to do?
3. Some of the L.A. class subs were decommissioned even though they are
newer than ones that are still operational. Why would the oldest subs not
be decommissioned?
4. What do the designations mean like:
A. SS
B. SSN (nuclear apparently)
C. AGSS (AGS-579)
D. SST (SST-1)
E. SSK/SST (SSK-1/SST-3)
F. SSR/SS (SSR/SS-572)
G. NR-1 (Nuclear Research?)
H. SSBN (nuclear-ballistic sub I guess)
I. SSBN/SSN (SSBN/SSN-642 and -645), DITTO -609. 610. 611 and 618 for
Ethan Allen CLASS)
J. SSGN Conversion
5. Where did the 6881 class designation come from? That's an odd name
and there was not a first vessel named or numbered 6881 to begin the class
as is customary.
6. I thought the German U boats could dive twice as deep as the US fleet
subs (I'm not sure of the Japanese subs. But the US subs were supposedly
a lot more comfortable (relatively speaking). Is that true and if the
German boats could go so much deeper, why were the US subs superior?
Is there any reference that talks about the evolution of these vessels?
Like the first hunter/killer subs and how the Permit class went to the
Tullibee, Sturgeon, Narwhal, etc? These are guesses as to Hunter/Killers
since I can see from the profile they don't have the deck and conning
tower forward like a SSBN. And I assume the H/K's started as the need for
"boomers" caused a huge divergence in the operational needs of nuclear
boats for hunting other subs vs. a stealthy missle platform. Ditto the
seemingly small outward differences of the ballistic missle subs that have
had a LOT of different classes.
Sorry for the long winded message but I find it utterly fascinating. And
I also have something of a personal interest in that I built a couple of
personal subs (see attached for the address) capable of depths to 3300'.
http://www.deepflight.com/subs/df1.htm
Graham had built steel subs but wanted to learn how to build in composites
so we got together and built these two guys, Deep Flight 1 and 2. Since
as a kid, I was checking out everything in the library about submarines
and flying, I have always founds submarines to be a fascinating subject.
Thanks again for the talk, I really enjoyed it!
 (sub_evolution1.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 sub_evolution1.JPG (86KB - 626 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1814
Location: Boydton, Virginia | Subject: RE: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
John, the way I figure trying to make sence of the odd classes of boats is that DoD is subject to the fickel nature of Congressional appropriations. They can cut off funding for anything at any time. This may not be cause of death of all classes of boats, but must surely come into the matrix at some time.
This guy sounds pretty astute for being an NQP!
BTW, are there any posters still available?
Steamboat sends
Edited by steamboat 2008-09-20 7:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Senior Crew
Posts: 186
Location: Chunky, MS | Subject: RE: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
Check out this link:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm
4. What do the designations mean like:
A. SS = Submarine (Attack/Fleet) - after 1920
B. SSN (nuclear apparently) = Attack Submarine, Nuclear Powered
C. AGSS (AGS-579) = Auxilary/Experimental Submarine
D. SST (SST-1) = Submarine, Target/Training
E. SSK/SST (SSK-1/SST-3) = Hunter-Killer Submarine/Submarine, Target/Training
F. SSR/SS (SSR/SS-572) = Radar Picket Submarine/Submarine (Attack/Fleet) - after 1920
G. NR-1 (Nuclear Research?) = ? I thought Naval Research
H. SSBN (nuclear-ballistic sub I guess) = Submarine, Ballistic Missile, Nuclear Powered
I. SSBN/SSN (SSBN/SSN-642 and -645), DITTO -609. 610. 611 and 618 for
Ethan Allen CLASS) = Submarine, Ballistic Missile, Nuclear Powered/Attack Submarine, Nuclear Powered
J. SSGN Conversion = Attack Submarine, Guided Missile, Nuclear Powered |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1814
Location: Boydton, Virginia | Subject: RE: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
Not to add to the confusion, but I noticed that a lot of DBF's were changed from SS to AGSS in last months/years of service. Was this to denote change of mission ie. training rather than defence/offence? Was there any physical changes made to the boat when this change was made?( I got out in '64, just before the mass execution of the beautiful old ladies.)
Steamboat sends
Edited by steamboat 2008-09-20 7:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Great Sage of the Sea
Posts: 566
Location: Inyokern, Ca. | Subject: RE: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
FWIU the change happened due to mission change. They (for the most part) were no longer assigned to the sea lane control/Spec-op mission which had been taken over by the SSN's. As AGSS's they performed RDT&E missions.
BB |
|
| |
|
Great Sage of the Sea
Posts: 602
Location: Visalia, Ca. | Subject: RE: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
crystal - 2008-09-20 3:40 PM
4. What do the designations mean like:
I. SSBN/SSN (SSBN/SSN-642 and -645), DITTO -609. 610. 611 and 618 for
Ethan Allen CLASS)
Indicates boats originally designated SSBN which had their missiles removed (due to one of the SALT treaties, if I remember correctly) and were converted to SSN service until they reached reactor core end-of-life and were decommissioned.
5. Where did the 6881 class designation come from? That's an odd name
and there was not a first vessel named or numbered 6881 to begin the class
as is customary.
Actually, it is not 6881, it is 688I, as in 688-Improved. These are the 3rd-flight boats with the VLS tubes in the bow, the forward diving planes moved from the fairwater/sail to the bow, and other improvements.
|
|
| |
|
Great Sage of the Sea
Posts: 602
Location: Visalia, Ca. | Subject: RE: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
1. The poster shows many subs that are very similar in size and profile
yet are entirely different classes like the Narwhal, Sturgeon, Permit
classes. These are all SSN class vessels. Or the Lipscomb class of which
one was built. Why would there be in some casses just one built? Given
the design and build cycle, they must have figured the short run and
scarce built subs were not right or limited or???? So why would they not
build more of these?
2. Sort of similar to #1, there are single vessels like the Parche class,
Darter, Grayback, Triton, etc. Why only one? Were they experiments that
didn't work or were they all very specialized and if so, what were they
designed to do?
While the Thresher/Permit Class is similar in size and shape to the Sturgeon Class, there are major differences in hull and Fairwater shape, equipment installed, and other capabilities. There is a noticeable evolution in hull form from the B-girls to the Skipjack, Thresher/Permit, and Sturgeon classes, leading finally to the LA class and the Seawolf and Virginia classes. With each class of boat built, they learned more, and improved on the capabilities of the previous designs. In some cases, the improvements were applied to a group of boats, such as the "stretch" 637s and the 688I (3rd-flight) boats.
You can see a similar evolution in the SSBNs. The Washington-class boats were Skipjack hulls converted during construction, to get the Polaris missiles into the fleet. Later classes were fully designed as missile boats, evolving not only with the state-of-the-art in hull design, but also to accommodate the increasing size of the missiles they carried.
Most of the Single-boat classes were experimental - Nautilus and Seawolf, Triton, Narwhal, G.P. Lipscomb - testing new propulsion plant designs. In some cases, a boat originally designed as part of a class was extensively modified, either during or after construction, such that it became a class unto itself, ala the Regulus boats Tunny, Grayback, Growler, and Halibut; and the Special-Ops mods for Grayback, Halibut and Parche (and now Jimmy Carter).
|
|
| |
|
Great Sage of the Sea
Posts: 602
Location: Visalia, Ca. | Subject: RE: Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
3. Some of the L.A. class subs were decommissioned even though they are
newer than ones that are still operational. Why would the oldest subs not
be decommissioned?
It sort of depended on the boat. Some boats with lower hull numbers spent a lot of time in the shipyard, so had less time on their hulls and more reactor core left. It also depended on their materiel condition, and where they were in the upgrade cycle - boats that had just come out of a shipyard availability for upgrades and alterations were less likely to be retired than boats of similar age that were in need of major repairs or had not yet gotten the upgrades. Plus, when it became clear that the Seawolf class was only going to be 3 boats, and the follow-on Virginia Class boats were not going to enter the fleet as soon as expected, the Navy started looking at refueling some of the 2nd-flight LA boats to maintain the force levels.
USS San Francisco was about a year out of refueling overhaul (as I recall) when she hit the mountain and pranged her bow. If it had happened before she was refueled, they probably would have scrapped her in a heartbeat, and refueled another boat in her place.
|
|
| |
Anyone else want to help answer some sub questions?
