You're totally nuts but isn't that the 'fun' part?
I was hoping it might be.I've actually got some note on various 'conversion' concepts and ideas but they are admittedly for an ASB/Fiction idea so are only applicable in general but I'll point out the "SS-73/O12" link is pretty applicable.
ISTM selling them, even at bargain-basement prices, beats the scrap value. It might need to be done on layaway, if the cost was high enough... I honestly have no idea what a scrap (or near scrap) fleet boat sold for, nor what Scripps, or Harvard, or somebody would be able (willing!) to pay.The first question is "who pays"? As we need to keep in mind that unless Truman isn't in the White House the Navy is going to be essentially 'broke' by 1948 and what funds they do have are going towards what 'active' vessels they have. One reason the Navy was selling off ships was they (in theory at least) got a portion of that money to apply to their own budget. "Demilitarizing" a hull isn't cheap but with the right incentive it could be done. The SS-73/O12 highlights some of the issues with using a submarine for research purposes but the concepts are also good.
So lets say the Navy has a better time of it, (no Truman or Dewey gets elected, whatever) and the offer up some de-mil-ed boats for use. (Hollywood won't bite as long as they can sweet-talk the miiltary into cooperation and use stock footage ) We'll also assume they were offered at scrap-metal prices to any research or science organizations but they toss in some of the 'equipment' for 'free' in the deal. (Engines, fittings, most of the electrical and mechanical systems, likely NOT the batteries though, as the new owner will likely want to ensure he's got good ones) you're still likely looking at thousands of dollars for the deal. Maybe better to arrange a 'lease' with the Navy instead of a purchase? Sure the argeement says it will be 'returned' to the Navy, (wink, wink, nudge, "Say no more, eh" etc) but really once transfered the Navy will just want to ensure it doesn't end up in the "wrong" hands at the end.
You make an interesting point on the batteries. I was presuming the boats would include them, but you're right, refitting new (fresh) ones, or new-design better ones, is a good idea.
I understood as much. I also imagine there are surviving pre-Gatos that have some hull life on them (the Tambors & Gars, & maybe even Narwhal & Nautilus). That gets into issues of hazard; would the wear on the hull framing render them unsafe for civil work? (My sense is no, at least for awhile, but...)First of all lets be clear that the Gato's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gato-class_submarine) were considered to old and obsolete for much 'modernization' so were passed over by the GUPPY program.
I'd say you need more crew than that: 15 each in two shifts. I may be overestimating the total number; I haven't counted the essential jobs against that.Normally the 'standard' crew is 6 officers and 54 enlisted for a total of 60 but that's with hot-bunking and rack-n-stacking which you can't do in this case so ... Can we get by with say fifteen dedicated 'crew' and fifteen helpful science types?
Except the batteries & snort mast, I wouldn't bother with any of that. It's added cost for no gain to the new operator.Modifictions for GUPPY 1A/1B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Underwater_Propulsion_Power_Program#GUPPY_IA_program):
- Streamlined Bridge and outer hull, addition of a snorke, (including installing intake and exhaust stacks in conning tower) This won't help as much as one would hope since we're going to modify the hull and add other do-dads that are going to slow things down.l
-Replacement of Sargo I batteries with longer life, (but more complex) and supposedly cheaper Sargo II batteries
My sense is, the tubes would have to be removed completely (security reasons). They could reasonably be replaced by a sampling-tube system...lets convert the forward torpedo room "tubes" to a couple of integrated (sealed from the interior most of the time) 'viewing' alcoves with spotlights and multiple ports.
...going with your suggestion to add 'windows' (or at least viewing ports )
If (as I anticipate) two main engines would be removed, the patches could be transparent... Adding a viewing port or something in one (or both) of the torpedo rooms isn't a bad idea; I hadn't given location much thought.
As an in-transit location, that makes sense. I had the escape trunks in mind for simplicity of operation.Instead of mounting a small sub on the escape hatch I'd suggsest mating it to the torpedo loading hatch.
I'm taking you to mean divers going in & out by the loading hatch. Or do you mean the minisub itself? I had in mind something closer to DSRV than DPV; with DPVs, the loading hatch may make more sense.
That said, depending on the divers' mission, either or both could be used. I'm unclear if the loading hatch could be operated submerged; my sense is, no.
With fewer people aboard, & no enforced separation by rank, I'd guess it would be pretty comfortable (at least in submarine terms ).Officiers quarters will be the same if not a bit more crowded as will most everything all the way back to the motor rooms.
Sampling. With two escape trunks, there isn't a need for a dedicated lockout chamber. (Given scuba & not hardhat, & even hardhat divers should be able to go out through a standard 24" hatch.)small arms locker which can be a location for a lockout chamber or ventral sampling station
That makes sense.and while you might be able to turn the aft torpedo tubes into 'observation' points I really think it'd be better used for sample and measurment systems.
I wish I could find my copy of The Fleet Submarine. Having the cutaway diagram in front of me would simplify knowing what space is (& isn't) available; doing it from memory... 😮
There is room to add equipment for sampling & scrubbers. The sonar shack might be turned over to some of that, too, with the sonar operator's station moved to the conning tower. (I expect a hydrophone array somewhere, for recording whalesong, if nothing else.)Another and possibly 'better' suggestion is to turn the aft torpedo room into an extended life support system to extend submerged time.
That's the key question, isn't it? I may be so wedded to the idea I'm not objective.Then it all comes down to is the cost of all this worth the science it gains and that's going to be rather subjective There's 'value' if you can drive the cost down far enough and overcome the various issues with a submerged platform with limited facilities. You actually have less space and power to work with than someone with, say, a converted mine sweeper as a platform In return you have a bit more 'freedom' down to around 250ft but the main question is how much more or less science does that net you?
Yeah, that drastically cuts the value... As noted, tho, I'd expect Arctic ops to want something like AIP; I wouldn't want to be under the ice & unable to surface with battery alone.You have a bit of a point on the idea of Arctic (and Antarctic) utlity but keep in mind you need to then outfit the sub with things like insulation and heaters which they didn't have originally as well as more batteries and the afore mentioned extended submerged life support.