WI: Surplus fleet boats for oceanography?

phx1138

After WW2, USN had a lot of older fleet boats it really didn't need. A number of them were updated to GUPPY standard. Some were turned over to Allies. Some, however, were simply too old to have useful life as potential combat vessels. (More would become obsolescent after Nautilus.)

WI the oldest boats, instead of being scrapped, were demilitarized (TT & secret gear removed) & sold off to universities or research groups for oceanography? I'd say being able to dive to 200 or 300' & stay out for weeks could have had enormous value to science.

I picture a typical Gato with two main diesels, crew of (say) 30 plus 15 scientists, labs in the (former) torpedo rooms & (now empty) engineroom, possibly one or two minisubs (usually attached at the escape trunk hatches fore & aft), plus dive gear, & added sample tubes (vertically in the hull, added), with endurance on the order of 100 days.

Am I being crazy?
 

riggerrob

OTL During the Cold War, the US Navy invested massively in oceanography and seismology.
Unfortunately, submarines are far more expensive to operate than surface ships.
Fore example, if you want a water sample from 300 feet down, just lower a sample tube on a 300 foot rope.
The USN funded dozens of university surface research vessels to map the sea floor, measure oceanic currents, etc. All this research vastly improved human knowledge of oceanography within a mere generation.
They did all this research primarily to improve their ability to track Soviet nuclear submarines.
Meanwhile, the US Air Force developed several spy aircraft (balloons, long-wing Canberra, U-2, SR-71, satellites, etc.) to monitor above ground nuclear tests. When above ground nuclear tests were banned, the US Armed Forces invested heavily in seismographs to track Soviet underground nuclear tests. All this geological research led to acceptance of the current theory of plate-tectonics.
 

mattep74

phx1138 said:
After WW2, USN had a lot of older fleet boats it really didn't need. A number of them were updated to GUPPY standard. Some were turned over to Allies. Some, however, were simply too old to have useful life as potential combat vessels. (More would become obsolescent after Nautilus.)

WI the oldest boats, instead of being scrapped, were demilitarized (TT & secret gear removed) & sold off to universities or research groups for oceanography? I'd say being able to dive to 200 or 300' & stay out for weeks could have had enormous value to science.

I picture a typical Gato with two main diesels, crew of (say) 30 plus 15 scientists, labs in the (former) torpedo rooms & (now empty) engineroom, possibly one or two minisubs (usually attached at the escape trunk hatches fore & aft), plus dive gear, & added sample tubes (vertically in the hull, added), with endurance on the order of 100 days.

Am I being crazy?
Click to expand...
I think a better idea would be to sell all surplus to Hollywood.
 

phx1138

riggerrob said:
OTL During the Cold War, the US Navy invested massively in oceanography and seismology.
Unfortunately, submarines are far more expensive to operate than surface ships.
Fore example, if you want a water sample from 300 feet down, just lower a sample tube on a 300 foot rope.
The USN funded dozens of university surface research vessels to map the sea floor, measure oceanic currents, etc. All this research vastly improved human knowledge of oceanography within a mere generation.
They did all this research primarily to improve their ability to track Soviet nuclear submarines.
Click to expand...
Note, that was targeted research.

I'd also note oceanography is more than just lowering a sample container on a rope.

What I'm suggesting is the ability to remain at 300' for a day or more, for a month or more at a time, in perhaps 100 locations. (Offhand, IDK how many fleet boats were scrapped, but if half the 218 new-builds were retained for conversion or passed on to allies, that still leaves about 100.) Even 50, permanently turned over (not at the mercy of USN funding), would be of continuing value. What USN research vessel did month-long research with day-long 300' dives? I'll wager none. I'll also wager none had divers going out even at 100', given the seafloor labs were pretty shallow.

Yes, subs are more costly to operate. Balance that against the value of the research.

The question is, would any university or research institute (Scripps, frex?) find them useful enough to buy. Might Cousteau's organization?

And, yes, there are opportunities for Hollywood, here, too: "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" or something, using an actual submarine. (Yeah, that requires somebody with the wit & nerve to shoot it with an Arriflex... :rolleyes: )
 

phx1138

Driftless said:
Earlier Sealab(stationary)? I have no idea how you'd make that practically work though....
Click to expand...
If you wanted to include the surviving R- & S-boats, building platforms to allow them to rest on the bottom & giving them snorkel masts (of some variety) to run their diesels occasionally would work nicely. Put them on the seafloor in, what, 150' of water? (This is actually something I'd never considered before.)

Doing that with fleet boats defeats the purpose, IMO: they're big enough to be mobile research platforms, capable of doing worthwhile work.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
phx1138 said:
If you wanted to include the surviving R- & S-boats, building platforms to allow them to rest on the bottom & giving them snorkel masts (of some variety) to run their diesels occasionally would work nicely. Put them on the seafloor in, what, 150' of water? (This is actually something I'd never considered before.)

Doing that with fleet boats defeats the purpose, IMO: they're big enough to be mobile research platforms, capable of doing worthwhile work.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the expense of operation being much less with a stationary lab.
 

Cockroach

WW2 vintage diesel subs really can't stay below snorkel depth for weeks. They can manage hours if running at anything much over two knots... you might eek out a week if you switch off absolutely everything, burn oxygen candles and keep everyone lying down in their bunks, but that kinda renders the whole point of the mission irrelevant.

To keep the sub useful you're gonna need to do fairly frequent refits... That'll be expensive.

Crews qualified for submarine operations will also be more expensive to train and pay than for a conventional ship.

The modifications to fit minisubs to the boat will also be expensive compared to launching them from a surface ship.

And from the perspective of the actual science (having a PhD in it and so on...)... Well, effective water sampling for physical oceanography and biogeochem are just as well done from the surface (drop rosette of Nansen bottles, CTDs and other instruments, pull up sampling water as you go), while the mother sub doesn't have the maneuverability to chase down animals, rendering it kinda useless for biological oceanography/marine biology.

So, all in all, doesn't seem worthwhile.
 

sonofpegasus

Just look at the FLIP research vessel, why use a clapped out sub? Now take a few subs and dismantle them down to the pressure hulls and use those to build an underwater Habitat for long term research might just be worth while in the late 1940's early 50's.
 

phx1138

Cockroach said:
WW2 vintage diesel subs really can't stay below snorkel depth for weeks. They can manage hours if running at anything much over two knots... you might eek out a week if you switch off absolutely everything
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting the entire duration be spend dived. 😮 Dives of 3-5 days seem reasonable, given small crew size, slow operation, & limited equipment power draw; the refit might want (need?) more battery capacity added, too.
Cockroach said:
To keep the sub useful you're gonna need to do fairly frequent refits... That'll be expensive.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Beyond the reach of a major institution? Or beyond reasonable?
Cockroach said:
Crews qualified for submarine operations will also be more expensive to train and pay than for a conventional ship.
Click to expand...
True. In the postwar period, I suspect a lot of qualified submariners from a lot of navies might relish the chance to go back. (Maybe not...) Either way, would you say that cost would also be unreasonable?
Cockroach said:
The modifications to fit minisubs to the boat will also be expensive compared to launching them from a surface ship.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing that. Clamp down on the escape trunk(s), same as a McCann chamber (or, later, DSRV).
Cockroach said:
And from the perspective of the actual science (having a PhD in it and so on...)... Well, effective water sampling for physical oceanography and biogeochem are just as well done from the surface (drop rosette of Nansen bottles, CTDs and other instruments, pull up sampling water as you go), while the mother sub doesn't have the maneuverability to chase down animals, rendering it kinda useless for biological oceanography/marine biology.
Click to expand...
Actually observing marine life at depth is an option, ISTM. Measuring & mapping underwater currents (actually, discovering them, first) is, too. Measuring & mapping thermoclines & haloclines?

I'm not an oceanographer, so IDK what use, exactly, a submersible science vessel might have, but I'm thinking: a surface vessel with retrieval gear is a bit like a NASA rover; a sub is more like an Apollo lander.
sonofpegasus said:
Just look at the FLIP research vessel, why use a clapped out sub? Now take a few subs and dismantle them down to the pressure hulls and use those to build an underwater Habitat for long term research might just be worth while in the late 1940's early 50's.
Click to expand...
Because FLIP can't dive as deep? And because fixed oceanfloor habs can be as simple & cheap as former rail tank cars? And because wasting perfectly good subs on fixed positions is pretty dumb when they beat both?
 
Last edited:

Jukra

Soviets converted two Project 613 "Whiskey" class submarines for oceanographic and fisheries research.
 

Cockroach

phx1138 said:
Actually observing marine life at depth is an option, ISTM. Measuring & mapping underwater currents (actually, discovering them, first) is, too. Measuring & mapping thermoclines & haloclines?
Click to expand...
A 1000 ton sub without windows isn't exactly suited for observing marine life in situ. Go with scuba in the shallows or a purpose built minisub for deeper.

Mapping ocean currents? Large scale geostrophic flow (density/pressure gradient balanced against coriolis) are normally measured insitu by taking a temperature and salinity section, computing density and then applying the thermal wind equations... Measuring T&S profiles is just as, if not more easily, done from a surface ship (rosette of Nansen bottles and electronic CTD, or Expendable Bathyothermographs). Using velocity sensors on a sub... well, mechanical flow meters (as per 1940s to 1970s tech) suffer from turbulence in proximity to the sub, and while mounting some remotely on a cable can be done, you can do the same from a cheaper surface platform (ala FLIP, specifically designed to act as a massive spar bouy for stability), more modern acoustic sensors (ADCPs for instance) work just as well looking down from a surface ship as up from a mooring or submarine; using Lagrangian approaches you need a large number of passive drifting 'particles', so, either dozens of submarines (not realistic) or cheaper unmanned platforms such as SOFAR/RAFOS acoustically tracked float, drouged surface drifters, or per my own work (Roach et al. 2016 and 2018) profiling float (e.g. Argo) with a time spent at depth substantially greater than the time spent at the surface.

Mapping T & S structure? Already discussed above. Taking measurements from a surface ship with Nansen bottles and CTDs or XBTs is easier than doing so from a submarine.

Edit: If a navy wants to run such vessels, well and good, but for the more academic and (civilian) operational sides of marine science they're a dumb idea compared with surface ships.
 
Last edited:

phx1138

Cockroach said:
A 1000 ton sub without windows isn't exactly suited for observing marine life in situ.
Click to expand...
Fair point. No modification allowed for viewing?
Cockroach said:
Go with scuba in the shallows or a purpose built minisub for deeper.
Click to expand...
I did propose minsubs, operated from the "mother". With a fleet boat at depth, it saves hours of descent/ascent time. More dives, or more time at depth, seems like a good thing, to me. (In the '40s, a *JIM suit is improbable, but I wonder if it might occur to somebody, given subs to use it from.)
Cockroach said:
just as, if not more easily, done from a surface ship (rosette of Nansen bottles and electronic CTD, or Expendable Bathyothermographs).
Click to expand...
In the 1940s?
Cockroach said:
Using velocity sensors on a sub... well, mechanical flow meters (as per 1940s to 1970s tech) suffer from turbulence in proximity to the sub
Click to expand...
Fair point.
Cockroach said:
while mounting some remotely on a cable can be done, you can do the same from a cheaper surface platform (ala FLIP, specifically designed to act as a massive spar bouy for stability), more modern acoustic sensors (ADCPs for instance) work just as well looking down from a surface ship as up from a mooring or submarine
Click to expand...
In the 1940s?

I don't doubt surface ships are capable of doing good science. More dives, or more time at depth, for any minisubs (or divers) seem an obvious benefit. It seems to me subs as platforms would be a pretty good idea for detecting or measuring underwater currents, since OTL nobody operating from the surface even noticed them (AFAIK). And I do think subs must be able to reach places surface ships can't. Under the Arctic ice, frex? (That probably needs more battery capacity, or fuel cells, so not a "first-generation" option.)

Do you genuinely think there is no value to this?
 

RanulfC

phx1138 said:
After WW2, USN had a lot of older fleet boats it really didn't need. A number of them were updated to GUPPY standard. Some were turned over to Allies. Some, however, were simply too old to have useful life as potential combat vessels. (More would become obsolescent after Nautilus.)

WI the oldest boats, instead of being scrapped, were demilitarized (TT & secret gear removed) & sold off to universities or research groups for oceanography? I'd say being able to dive to 200 or 300' & stay out for weeks could have had enormous value to science.

I picture a typical Gato with two main diesels, crew of (say) 30 plus 15 scientists, labs in the (former) torpedo rooms & (now empty) engineroom, possibly one or two minisubs (usually attached at the escape trunk hatches fore & aft), plus dive gear, & added sample tubes (vertically in the hull, added), with endurance on the order of 100 days.

Am I being crazy?
Click to expand...

You're totally nuts but isn't that the 'fun' part? ;)
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.

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.

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. (Some were given minimum modernizations and given to allies but the overall GUPPY 1B program didn't offer much and most of the specs remained the same) So to take an example of one that was listed as 'scrapped' post WWII and apply it:

USS-Guardfish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Guardfish_(SS-217))
Instead of being 'recommissioned' as a training ship in 1948 she's "leased" as an oceanagraphic submarine in 1948 with ('cause the Navy is feeling generous) at least GUPPY 1A/1B upgrades. So here stats would be:

Class and type:Gato-class diesel-electric submarine
Displacement:1,525 long tons (1,549 t) surfaced, 2,424 long tons (2,463 t) submerged
Length:311 ft 9 in (95.02 m)
Beam:27 ft 3 in (8.31 m)
Draft:17 ft (5.2 m) maximum
Propulsion:
Speed:21 kn (39 km/h) surfaced, 9 kn (17 km/h) submerged
Range:11,000 nmi (20,000 km) surfaced @ 10 kn (19 km/h)
Endurance:48 hours @ 2 kn (3.7 km/h) submerged, 75 days on patrol (This will have to change)
Test depth:300 ft (91 m)
Complement: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?


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

Ok using this (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0821230.jpg) as a general arrangment reference.
In addition the forward and aft torpedo rooms are "empty" and going with your suggestion to add 'windows' (or at least viewing ports :) ) 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.

Back half of of that will be a lab with access to various sample ports above, along the sides and below. Instead of mounting a small sub on the escape hatch I'd suggsest mating it to the torpedo loading hatch. Moving aft the Officiers quarters will be the same if not a bit more crowded :) as will most everything all the way back to the motor rooms. One change is the mid-ships magazines and small arms locker which can be a location for a lockout chamber or ventral sampling station.

Do you really need all four motors? If you can remove the two aft motors and replace them with more lab space that would be a good thing, or move the propulsion and control room down into it and turn that room into lab space to support the aft torpedo room operations. This would also be where a lockout chamber can be located. Again any small vessel should use the aft torpedo loading hatch instead of the escape trunk 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.

Another and possibly 'better' suggestion is to turn the aft torpedo room into an extended life support system to extend submerged time.

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?

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.

Randy


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top