WI: Surplus fleet boats for oceanography?

[phx1138]

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.

I was hoping it might be.

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.

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.

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.

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 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...)

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?

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.

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

Except the batteries & snort mast, I wouldn't bother with any of that. It's added cost for no gain to the new operator.

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 )

My sense is, the tubes would have to be removed completely (security reasons). They could reasonably be replaced by a sampling-tube system...

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.

Instead of mounting a small sub on the escape hatch I'd suggsest mating it to the torpedo loading hatch.

As an in-transit location, that makes sense. I had the escape trunks in mind for simplicity of operation.

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.

Officiers quarters will be the same if not a bit more crowded as will most everything all the way back to the motor rooms.

With fewer people aboard, & no enforced separation by rank, I'd guess it would be pretty comfortable (at least in submarine terms ).

small arms locker which can be a location for a lockout chamber or ventral sampling station

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.)

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.

That makes sense.

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... 😮

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

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.)

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?

That's the key question, isn't it? I may be so wedded to the idea I'm not objective.

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.

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.

 

[RanulfC]

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.

Research spending is down all through the late 40s except where the government is putting out funds. And that's not specifically directed to things like oceanography. That didnt' pick up till around 1950.

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.

That's why I relented and had the Navy provide the new batteries of the new class (Sargo II) since they were refitting other subs with them.

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...)

"Old and Obsolete" not worn out, it was just the cost of upgrading and re-epuipping vis-a-vis something like a Balao or Tench wasn't cost effective for the US Navy. By 1947 OTL the Navy had vastly more boats than it had crew to put on them. They also had a small and shrinking budget so they had to be very wary of where they put thieir money.

In context the Gato's are likely viable for use on some level for a decade or two with careful use and abuse. Depends on what's done to them and how much that extra does or does not strain the hull and systems.

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.

If we could even go down to two shifts of 10 each 'crew' that would help since you've got to fit the scientist in somewhere. Whilst reading up on the FLIP ship, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP) it's noted that one of the reasons it was built was due to a discussion on how difficult research was to conduct on a submarine, (USS Baya, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Baya) even after a 23 foot sectoin of hull was added to the submarine between the forward torpepdo and battery room s to house 12 scientist and technicians. (Picture at the top of the wiki page is from 1962 after all conversions are done and includes the extension segment)

Another thought is adding something like a 'transport can' aft of the conning tower, such as used to transport the Loon and Regulus missiles, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balao-class_submarine#/media/File:USS_Cusk;0834807.jpg) or something a bit more dedicated such as done with the Transport Submarines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balao-class_submarine#/media/File:USS_Sealion;0831502.jpg)

Except the batteries & snort mast, I wouldn't bother with any of that. It's added cost for no gain to the new operator.

Disagree actually, a more streamlined hull means even if you don't use the 'speed' increase you extend the submerged battery life. And most of the hydrodynamic changes are essentially sheetmetal work.

My sense is, the tubes would have to be removed completely (security reasons). They could reasonably be replaced by a sampling-tube system...

Should have been 'clearer' I think; The tube themselves would be ripped out but the outer ends would be "capped" with windows fpr direct observation. The 'mounting points' for the tubes would be used to build an enclosed (both in the isolation and emergency sense) space for an observer or two, some equipment and sample tubes.

If (as I anticipate) two main engines would be removed, the patches could be transparent...

One maybe but you'd still need one engine to run the boat as AIP isn't ready at this point for main operations. Oh and you 'remove' the engines by taking the boat apart, not cutting and patching the pressure hull Same thing they essentially did above to 'add' a section.

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.

The hull penetrations and supports are there so I figure why not try and use them. Though adding ports on the aft section don't make a lot of sense since they would be around just below wash-deck level and subject to tubulance. My "optimum/head-cannon" option would be to fit a "ball" type fixture which amounts to putting a 'diving bell' with multiple windows and light fixtures low, (so it's below the water line even when surfaced) on the hull. But i suspect that would generate too much drag.

As an in-transit location, that makes sense. I had the escape trunks in mind for simplicity of operation.

I did too as they would allow the escape trunks to remain 'open' for use and put the mounts for any mini-subs where there is structure to handle them. (IE the forward and aft Gun mount positions) This way an 'accident' with the docking of the minisub isn't an automatic disaster like linking directly with the escape trunks would be. The minisub would approach and dock to a 'cradle' structure mounted on the deck and be secured. If it's a 'wet' sub the divers make their way to the relevant escape chamber and cycle through. If it's a 'dry' sub then once secured the 'loading tube' is extended to a similar recepticle on the minisub, blown clear and the crew on both sides open the hatch and they 'slide' down into the main sub. (Not 'slide' per-se but it would be an angled access tube)

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.

Mostly for where you'd put a minisub since the divers would use the escape trunks regardless since they are pretty much set up to operate that way. The problem is while the escape trunks 'could' be used to attach the rescue diving bells your 'minisub' technology is still pretty dang primitive till the mid-60s. It just seems wiser to have a dedicated structure that 'locks' the minisub into a fixed position given the tech of the day.

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.

There is that... And no they normally could not but you'd modify them to do so of course and they would be limited to how deep they could be used but that applies to everything from the torpedo tubes to the escape hatches anyway

With fewer people aboard, & no enforced separation by rank, I'd guess it would be pretty comfortable (at least in submarine terms ).

Not sure but it's possible. Lets see, the Petty Officers berth is two rooms with two berths each, you might squeeze one more making it even more cramped. As I understand that's what they did for 'guests' (such as dowed pilots) or such. The Captain and FO were in singles across from each other with an 'office-space' (closet) attached to the Captains room. You 'could' maybe fit one more in either but as they were 'cramped' even as singles I doubt that's going to work unless you tear it all out and build new. Which is plausible since that would mean you could include the "Wardroom" and "Pantry" area in the redesign.

The crews quarters aft of the galley were rated for 36 berths and lockers but as I understand it that was more like around 30 at any time as half the crew was 'on' while half was 'off'. So if we can keep the crew and scientist around 30 they should still fit but if we need more space it's likely we'll need to add hull extensions to accomodate.

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.)

I was thinking the ventral location makes it a bit easier to 'drop' a hardhat diver or remote probe. The latter won't work out of the escape trunks very well.

That makes sense.

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... 😮

Sorry I thought I posted this:

Submarine Photo Index

www.navsource.org

especially: http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0821230.jpg

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.)

Not as much room as you might think and we're adding more equipment and such so we run out of room for life support pretty dang quick.

Randy

 

[phx1138]

Sorry I thought I posted this:

Submarine Photo Index

www.navsource.org

especially: http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0821230.jpg

Those are both very helpful. Thx.

Research spending is down all through the late 40s except where the government is putting out funds. And that's not specifically directed to things like oceanography. That didnt' pick up till around 1950.

Good point. I'm probably pushing a bit, but given USN has an opportunity for cash, & there's a rare chance for a research platform, I see this as both sides making a deal. IMO, there are going to be institutions that will go for this.

That's why I relented and had the Navy provide the new batteries of the new class (Sargo II) since they were refitting other subs with them.

I can believe that. (I wasn't opposing a USN-sourced battery, just thinking they might be cheaper if purely commercial.)

"Old and Obsolete" not worn out, it was just the cost of upgrading and re-epuipping vis-a-vis something like a Balao or Tench wasn't cost effective for the US Navy. By 1947 OTL the Navy had vastly more boats than it had crew to put on them. They also had a small and shrinking budget so they had to be very wary of where they put thieir money.

In context the Gato's are likely viable for use on some level for a decade or two with careful use and abuse. Depends on what's done to them and how much that extra does or does not strain the hull and systems.

I imagined every one of the surviving boats being up for grabs, with the newest ones held by the Navy as GUPPY conversions, & the newer going to allies. So, Tenches & high-number Balaos converted, low-number Balaos mostly sold off, & Gatos, Tambors, & Salmons, & Narwhals, surplus. This may end up with more actual GUPPYs, with a small cash infusion from the surplus. Is that a selling point for doing this?

If we could even go down to two shifts of 10 each 'crew' that would help since you've got to fit the scientist in somewhere. Whilst reading up on the FLIP ship, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP) it's noted that one of the reasons it was built was due to a discussion on how difficult research was to conduct on a submarine, (USS Baya, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Baya) even after a 23 foot sectoin of hull was added to the submarine between the forward torpepdo and battery room s to house 12 scientist and technicians. (Picture at the top of the wiki page is from 1962 after all conversions are done and includes the extension segment)

I'll go as far down as practical, safe operation allows; I just can't quote a number.

Another thought is adding something like a 'transport can' aft of the conning tower, such as used to transport the Loon and Regulus missiles, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balao-class_submarine#/media/File:USS_Cusk;0834807.jpg) or something a bit more dedicated such as done with the Transport Submarines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balao-class_submarine#/media/File:USS_Sealion;0831502.jpg)

I did too as they would allow the escape trunks to remain 'open' for use and put the mounts for any mini-subs where there is structure to handle them. (IE the forward and aft Gun mount positions) This way an 'accident' with the docking of the minisub isn't an automatic disaster like linking directly with the escape trunks would be. The minisub would approach and dock to a 'cradle' structure mounted on the deck and be secured. If it's a 'wet' sub the divers make their way to the relevant escape chamber and cycle through. If it's a 'dry' sub then once secured the 'loading tube' is extended to a similar recepticle on the minisub, blown clear and the crew on both sides open the hatch and they 'slide' down into the main sub. (Not 'slide' per-se but it would be an angled access tube)
Mostly for where you'd put a minisub since the divers would use the escape trunks regardless since they are pretty much set up to operate that way. The problem is while the escape trunks 'could' be used to attach the rescue diving bells your 'minisub' technology is still pretty dang primitive till the mid-60s. It just seems wiser to have a dedicated structure that 'locks' the minisub into a fixed position given the tech of the day.

I'd be fine with a transport container. IMO, that's a good idea. Given your suggestion of access, a pressure-tight one on the loading hatch (or one each, fore & aft) might be the best idea: use the transport cylinder also as a lockout for the minisub(s).

I grant minisub tech was crude, but if this can be made to work, I'm thinking: how hard is it to build one with a hatch like the McCann chamber? If it doesn't have to run for hours just to get to depth, & if it doesn't have to have hours of dived endurance. (A couple of hours for an excursion, yes, but not 10 at a time.)

Minisubs on the escape trunks in transit might well be a bad idea; I hadn't thought about that.

Disagree actually, a more streamlined hull means even if you don't use the 'speed' increase you extend the submerged battery life.

Good point. Agreed.

Should have been 'clearer' I think; The tube themselves would be ripped out but the outer ends would be "capped" with windows fpr direct observation. The 'mounting points' for the tubes would be used to build an enclosed (both in the isolation and emergency sense) space for an observer or two, some equipment and sample tubes.

I like that. I was thinking of using the outer doors for sampling (if not in all cases); that still leaves about 15' of space.

One maybe but you'd still need one engine to run the boat as AIP isn't ready at this point for main operations. Oh and you 'remove' the engines by taking the boat apart, not cutting and patching the pressure hull Same thing they essentially did above to 'add' a section.

I was frankly unaware how the main diesels were removed. That said, I would take the same approach USN did OTL: remove 2 & turn over the space formerly taken up by the other two. I would happily remove 3, since speed isn't really a big deal; the only question I have is, does running a "donkey" engine make battery charging a lot slower? Time between dives isn't trivial for a research boat, either.

The hull penetrations and supports are there so I figure why not try and use them. Though adding ports on the aft section don't make a lot of sense since they would be around just below wash-deck level and subject to tubulance. My "optimum/head-cannon" option would be to fit a "ball" type fixture which amounts to putting a 'diving bell' with multiple windows and light fixtures low, (so it's below the water line even when surfaced) on the hull. But i suspect that would generate too much drag.

I suspect you're right about drag. I wonder if there isn't value in observing aft--but removing the tubes & support gear, & turning the space over, makes a lot of sense.

I don't disagree with the idea of adapting the periscope fittings to other use.

Not sure but it's possible. Lets see, the Petty Officers berth is two rooms with two berths each, you might squeeze one more making it even more cramped. As I understand that's what they did for 'guests' (such as dowed pilots) or such. The Captain and FO were in singles across from each other with an 'office-space' (closet) attached to the Captains room. You 'could' maybe fit one more in either but as they were 'cramped' even as singles I doubt that's going to work unless you tear it all out and build new. Which is plausible since that would mean you could include the "Wardroom" and "Pantry" area in the redesign.

The crews quarters aft of the galley were rated for 36 berths and lockers but as I understand it that was more like around 30 at any time as half the crew was 'on' while half was 'off'. So if we can keep the crew and scientist around 30 they should still fit but if we need more space it's likely we'll need to add hull extensions to accomodate.

That looks to me more like a capacity for as many as 60 [!]: half on, half off. IMO, tho, something like 30, with benefits to improved dived endurance (& better operational endurance, given food storage). (Which does mean the scientists will have to get used to the idea of walking on canned food for awhile.)

I was thinking the ventral location makes it a bit easier to 'drop' a hardhat diver or remote probe. The latter won't work out of the escape trunks very well.

A remote, it makes sense. I'm tending to using minisubs & scuba, rather than hardhat; IMO, hardhat creates problems with tethers & hoses.

Not as much room as you might think and we're adding more equipment and such so we run out of room for life support pretty dang quick.

True (& looking at the cutaways, there's less overall room than I recalled ). OTOH, with less than half the original complement...

 

[RanulfC]

I can believe that. (I wasn't opposing a USN-sourced battery, just thinking they might be cheaper if purely commercial.)

Timeframe You're "commercial" batteries are car and truck batteries, nobody but the Navy needs or uses large, deep-cycle, heavy duty, long-life batteries. I was inititally thinking along the same lines and then recalled a Frank Sinatra movie where they 'salvaged' a WWII German U-boat for a planned heist... And just about bought every battery in the state of Florida to get it to run for 5 minutes "Commercial" submarine batteries didn't exist at the time and 'surplus' ones were going to be expensive and probably pretty well worn out.

I imagined every one of the surviving boats being up for grabs, with the newest ones held by the Navy as GUPPY conversions, & the newer going to allies. So, Tenches & high-number Balaos converted, low-number Balaos mostly sold off, & Gatos, Tambors, & Salmons, & Narwhals, surplus. This may end up with more actual GUPPYs, with a small cash infusion from the surplus. Is that a selling point for doing this?

Depends on what the Navy is getting out of all this AND what the overall situation in the background is. Keep in mind that while the Gato's were "obsolete" they weren't really "old" and arguably had some years left in them even if they were only training and utility boats. The reason OTL that the Navy was dumping subs wasn't that they didn't need them, they did and they really wanted to keep as many as they could, (hence the number that went to storage rather than the scrapyard) but due to the post-war budget cuts they had neither the funds nor the manpower to actually run them.

A possible PR program in support of some research groups that could use a submarine would be nice but in such a situation it's not clear the Navy could afford to be at all as generous as we're suggesting. Under different circumstances then it's a question of does the Navy actually underwrite and therefor control all this or is there some way to find a middle ground?

I'll go as far down as practical, safe operation allows; I just can't quote a number.

Life aboard WWII submarines was brutal

No one has ever claimed that life aboard a U.S. Navy ship was luxurious. Even on the most advanced warships on the planet life can still be cramped.

www.wearethemighty.com

U.S. Pacific Submarines In World War II

maritime.org

"Typical of fleet type submarine crew size in the early days of the war was 55 enlisted men. Of these, 42 were rated men, 7 were seamen, 4 firemen, and 2 mess attendants. Enlisted crew size grew to about 72. The number of officers increased from 5 to 8 or 9. Increases were generally due to added equipment such as radar and new sonar."

Looks like the 'standard' 3-shift layour for the military

"Firemen" IIRC was engine personnel, "seaman" were in training and "mess" was the cooks. So 42 divided by 3 equals 14 per 'shift' on average. Considering a number of those would be 'specialty' jobs such as topedoman and gunner for example we could probably cut that a bit. 10 per 'shift' at least if not down a few more since we're not going into combat you could argue for fewer 'spares' which was what some of them were. But call it 30 'crew' plus 4/5 officers which would then "allow" between 7 and around 10 scientists if we don't add room for them.

I'd be fine with a transport container. IMO, that's a good idea. Given your suggestion of access, a pressure-tight one on the loading hatch (or one each, fore & aft) might be the best idea: use the transport cylinder also as a lockout for the minisub(s).

That could work. Another idea is adding a segment or two fwd and aft, (some of the subs will be broken up and setting some sections aside for such expansions wasn't uncommon as we've seen already)

I grant minisub tech was crude, but if this can be made to work, I'm thinking: how hard is it to build one with a hatch like the McCann chamber? If it doesn't have to run for hours just to get to depth, & if it doesn't have to have hours of dived endurance. (A couple of hours for an excursion, yes, but not 10 at a time.)

The McCann chamber, (and I was thinking of it as a baseline as well) needed to have guide cable attached to the escape chamber supports that it ran up and down and it 'sealed' by attaching to and pulling against some installed clamp supports. The rubber 'sealing' ring had to be flat against the hatch surround and none of this was a foolproof process. Now do it without the cables and guides and with (maybe) some free swimming divers for 'assistance' if you're lucky. That's why I suggested a 'cradle' the minisub rests in that then pulls it down and locks it to the hull. The transport container might be a better option

Good point. Agreed.

"They were equipped for submerged operations with two 126 cell electric storage batteries. A fully charged battery provided a maximum submerged endurance of about 36 hours at a creeping speed of about 2 1/2 knots, and a maximum speed of 8 to 9 knots for about 1/2 hour. Oxygen addition and carbon dioxide absorbent was needed after about 12 to 15 hours submerged."

Every little bit helps.

I was frankly unaware how the main diesels were removed. That said, I would take the same approach USN did OTL: remove 2 & turn over the space formerly taken up by the other two. I would happily remove 3, since speed isn't really a big deal; the only question I have is, does running a "donkey" engine make battery charging a lot slower? Time between dives isn't trivial for a research boat, either.

Oddly I'd seen plenty of pictures of the 'segments' being put together and never connected the process in my mind till I saw they did the same thing with modern subs

Keep two as the idea remains the same; Ones a 'spare' and that's always a good thing. Surface speed actually WILL be a thing because it's how you get from one spot to another in a timely manner. The 'donkey' engine isn't used for charging it was in fact used for what was called the 'hotel' load or crew support electricity. Galley, lights, etc was all powered by the small engine rather than one of the big ones which were used to charge the batteries and run the electric motors for surface travel.

"They were typically equipped with four main diesel engines, and one smaller auxiliary diesel. The latter was generally used for carrying the "hotel" load. They had a surface speed in a calm sea of 20 to 21 knots on four main engines at full power, and a cruising speed on two main engines of about 15 knots. "

I suspect you're right about drag. I wonder if there isn't value in observing aft--but removing the tubes & support gear, & turning the space over, makes a lot of sense.

It'd look neat though I'm wondering if you couldn't fit a set of cupola window bays around the hull? One forward, one aft and maybe one on the ventral surface?

That looks to me more like a capacity for as many as 60 [!]: half on, half off. IMO, tho, something like 30, with benefits to improved dived endurance (& better operational endurance, given food storage). (Which does mean the scientists will have to get used to the idea of walking on canned food for awhile.)

Over 80 towards the end of the war but that was likely the Balao and Tench types rather than the Gato and earlier boats. And keep in mind while it notes that the 'crew quarters' had some "36 berths and lockers" the reality was you had upwards of 18 men sleeping on top of the torpedos in the forward torpedo room and others scattered around the boat. The scientists aren't likley to be thrilled at the conditions and that's something to keep in mind with how this would have to be 'sold' as an advantage.

A remote, it makes sense. I'm tending to using minisubs & scuba, rather than hardhat; IMO, hardhat creates problems with tethers & hoses.

Which is why I suggested a ventral lockout/diving chamber to reduce those problems.

True (& looking at the cutaways, there's less overall room than I recalled ). OTOH, with less than half the original complement...

Randy

 

[phx1138]

Timeframe You're "commercial" batteries are car and truck batteries, nobody but the Navy needs or uses large, deep-cycle, heavy duty, long-life batteries. I was inititally thinking along the same lines and then recalled a Frank Sinatra movie where they 'salvaged' a WWII German U-boat for a planned heist... And just about bought every battery in the state of Florida to get it to run for 5 minutes "Commercial" submarine batteries didn't exist at the time and 'surplus' ones were going to be expensive and probably pretty well worn out.

Obviously, I've never seen that film, or I'd have known better. Thx. (Note to self: keep an eye on TCM. )

.Depends on what the Navy is getting out of all this AND what the overall situation in the background is. Keep in mind that while the Gato's were "obsolete" they weren't really "old" and arguably had some years left in them even if they were only training and utility boats. The reason OTL that the Navy was dumping subs wasn't that they didn't need them, they did and they really wanted to keep as many as they could, (hence the number that went to storage rather than the scrapyard) but due to the post-war budget cuts they had neither the funds nor the manpower to actually run them.

I knew a lot went into mothballs, but given the nukes (& even the GUPPYs), I had the impression that was a kind of blindness (or denial). I honestly have trouble believing Rickover would want to keep diesel boats.

A possible PR program in support of some research groups that could use a submarine would be nice but in such a situation it's not clear the Navy could afford to be at all as generous as we're suggesting. Under different circumstances then it's a question of does the Navy actually underwrite and therefor control all this or is there some way to find a middle ground?

If you're right (& I don't doubt it), there will still be boats that are useless even as training boats, & unlikely to go into even the mothball fleet; how many were scrapped outright? Its them I'd be most inclined to target for this. (I don't figure most of the 218 wartime new builds would be surplused for this by any means.) And that excludes the R- & S-boats that hadn't already been scrapped; they might (just) be added to the pool.

As for the Navy being a partner...I don't exclude it. To what extent the Navy's willing to put money in, IDK.

Life aboard WWII submarines was brutal

No one has ever claimed that life aboard a U.S. Navy ship was luxurious. Even on the most advanced warships on the planet life can still be cramped.

www.wearethemighty.com

U.S. Pacific Submarines In World War II

maritime.org

"Typical of fleet type submarine crew size in the early days of the war was 55 enlisted men. Of these, 42 were rated men, 7 were seamen, 4 firemen, and 2 mess attendants. Enlisted crew size grew to about 72. The number of officers increased from 5 to 8 or 9. Increases were generally due to added equipment such as radar and new sonar."

Looks like the 'standard' 3-shift layour for the military

"Firemen" IIRC was engine personnel, "seaman" were in training and "mess" was the cooks. So 42 divided by 3 equals 14 per 'shift' on average. Considering a number of those would be 'specialty' jobs such as topedoman and gunner for example we could probably cut that a bit. 10 per 'shift' at least if not down a few more since we're not going into combat you could argue for fewer 'spares' which was what some of them were. But call it 30 'crew' plus 4/5 officers which would then "allow" between 7 and around 10 scientists if we don't add room for them.

And most of those won't be required in a civilian boat: I'm thinking (two shifts), so a couple of "chiefs" for the diesels, a couple of motormacs for the electrics, a couple of electricians for the batteries, four planesmen, a couple of diving panel men (to work the valves & monitor the Christmas tree), & a couple of steersmen, with the captain (or senior scientist) as navigator. Then add at least four divers (two out at a time, two off duty), maybe 6 or 8 (those 4, plus two or four decompressing), plus an MD (not just a pharmacist's mate). Then the science team aboard, maybe 10-15 more. In all, 35-40. (Option of mandatory appendectomies before sailing. )

That could work. Another idea is adding a segment or two fwd and aft, (some of the subs will be broken up and setting some sections aside for such expansions wasn't uncommon as we've seen already)

That works. If they have to be cut apart to remove the main diesels, putting them back together with a specially-built plug with all the lab gear already built in (rather than trying to refit an engine room on the ways) is a good idea. How much cutting would be needed to remove all the top secret gear, IDK, but that might lead to needing a new fore section, too: it might actually mean the torpedo rooms need significant rebuilding. (This is getting less & less cost-effective.)

The McCann chamber, (and I was thinking of it as a baseline as well) needed to have guide cable attached to the escape chamber supports that it ran up and down and it 'sealed' by attaching to and pulling against some installed clamp supports. The rubber 'sealing' ring had to be flat against the hatch surround and none of this was a foolproof process. Now do it without the cables and guides and with (maybe) some free swimming divers for 'assistance' if you're lucky. That's why I suggested a 'cradle' the minisub rests in that then pulls it down and locks it to the hull. The transport container might be a better option

I didn't realize the McCann chamber was such a kludge. Your cradle option looks like a good one.

It looks to me like the ideal would be, carry the minisubs in transport pods to the "ops area", then put them in the water & attach to the trunk-cradles. (My hope, if I haven't been clear, is to operate them entirely dry to dry.)

Assuming the containers are pressure-tight, they'd need to have an emergency jettison, so they couldn't be permanently fastened; as big as they might be (judging by Cusk), they might need a partial flooding system, to overcome their buoyancy.

"They were equipped for submerged operations with two 126 cell electric storage batteries. A fully charged battery provided a maximum submerged endurance of about 36 hours at a creeping speed of about 2 1/2 knots, and a maximum speed of 8 to 9 knots for about 1/2 hour. Oxygen addition and carbon dioxide absorbent was needed after about 12 to 15 hours submerged."

Every little bit helps.

No argument, but that's also with a crew of around 80 & men that were doing heavy labor (like reloading torpedo tubes).

Oddly I'd seen plenty of pictures of the 'segments' being put together and never connected the process in my mind till I saw they did the same thing with modern subs

I recall, in retrospect, reading about the GUPPY conversions & the hull plugs that were used; it honestly didn't cross my mind they'd just remove whole sections... (When the electric motors were changed, in some boats, they were cut & patched; somehow, that's what stuck.)

Keep two as the idea remains the same; Ones a 'spare' and that's always a good thing. Surface speed actually WILL be a thing because it's how you get from one spot to another in a timely manner. The 'donkey' engine isn't used for charging it was in fact used for what was called the 'hotel' load or crew support electricity. Galley, lights, etc was all powered by the small engine rather than one of the big ones which were used to charge the batteries and run the electric motors for surface travel.

The donkey wasn't routinely used, but could be; my question was (is), is fuel use a big enough issue to warrant not using a big F-M or Winton for charging?

cruising speed on two main engines of about 15 knots.

And that's the rub: cruise on one won't be above 10 knots (if that), given the other is on charge. That's not outrageously slow, but food aboard is (always) a limit, so slower on-station is a factor.

You're ultimately right, two is better.

It'd look neat though I'm wondering if you couldn't fit a set of cupola window bays around the hull? One forward, one aft and maybe one on the ventral surface?

If you're removing two diesels, I'd say removing two motors & geartrains make that a very reasonable option aft, anyhow. (Cf "patches" above It makes an interesting viewing position. ) Forward, maybe less so. Given the sonar head & its rig in/out gear is removed (&, as top secret, it would be), the space might be turned over to a fixed hydrophone & viewing station.

I wonder if the conning tower could be fitted out for observation, since Control would be the main conn station.

I also wonder if the gun access trunks & hatches could be modified for lockout use (if they aren't already pressure-tight).

Over 80 towards the end of the war but that was likely the Balao and Tench types rather than the Gato and earlier boats. And keep in mind while it notes that the 'crew quarters' had some "36 berths and lockers" the reality was you had upwards of 18 men sleeping on top of the torpedos in the forward torpedo room and others scattered around the boat. The scientists aren't likley to be thrilled at the conditions and that's something to keep in mind with how this would have to be 'sold' as an advantage.

They'd have been mostly retrofitted to a common standard. That might explain some of the need to sleep in torpedo rooms, IDK. Either way, we're well under half that number in this configuration, so it shouldn't be an issue.

Which is why I suggested a ventral lockout/diving chamber to reduce those problems.

Oh, okay, I misunderstood you. My thinking is, don't go adding hull penetrations you don't need to. With the escape trunks, you've got two ready-made for scuba or drysub. And there are two, so, in a pinch, you can use one as a decompression chamber.

 

[gatordad699]

Interesting concept. What about atmosphere control equipment? Food, cooks? Who does all the grunt work? Painting, cleaning, trash? Do you shoot trash overboard or keep it? A submarine is a black hole of maintenance. All those engines and generators require constant maintenance. The motors are DC with crap loads of brushes. They need to be cleaned and checked and brushes replaced constantly. The cleaning, painting and preservation never ends. Dry dock to clean and paint the hull. Electricians work like crazy. Each battery has to be maintained. Normal and equalizing charges. Cleaning, specific gravity readings, etc. Spare parts for everything that breaks. When ripping out equipment you would need to watch the weight distribution on the boat. You might not be able to trim correctly if too much removed. The “Conning Tower” is a free flooded area where the masts pass through. A modern Nuke SSN has very little room inside. WWII boats would be as small or smaller. No AC, very little potable water, very cramped. Just don’t see civilians volunteering for that.

 

[phx1138]

Interesting concept.

TYVM.

What about atmosphere control equipment?

There would be scrubbers & air bottles, per wartime standards. With smaller complement, that's less an issue.

Food, cooks?

I overlooked the cooks.

Food storage for 85 on a 60 day patrol meant (very often) canned food all over the decks, & fresh food a luxury. With these conversions, I'd expect some additional fresh food storage, but with about half the crew numbers, also less an issue.

Who does all the grunt work? Painting, cleaning, trash? Do you shoot trash overboard or keep it? A submarine is a black hole of maintenance. All those engines and generators require constant maintenance. The motors are DC with crap loads of brushes. They need to be cleaned and checked and brushes replaced constantly. The cleaning, painting and preservation never ends. Dry dock to clean and paint the hull. Electricians work like crazy. Each battery has to be maintained. Normal and equalizing charges. Cleaning, specific gravity readings, etc.

Obviously I've underestimated the crew requirements...but I do think you'd get some pitching in by the science team. (I also suspect some of that was busywork for the Navy crews.)

At the time, I'd expect trash to be dumped, with less sensitivity

When ripping out equipment you would need to watch the weight distribution on the boat. You might not be able to trim correctly if too much removed.

Obviously, the yard (& the conversion designers) would take account of that...

The “Conning Tower” is a free flooded area where the masts pass through.

No, it's a pressure-tight space on top of the pressure hull with redundant control stations. Check the cutaways RanulfC so graciously provided.

WWII boats would be as small or smaller. No AC, very little potable water, very cramped.

Sorry, the fleet boats were air conditioned. The Kleinschmidts [sp?] had trouble providing enough water for 80-90 men; with nearer half that, less an issue.

I'm not suggesting this is a hotel, by any means. People are willing to work in Antarctica for months at a time. I imagine you'd find some willing to work aboard a converted fleet boat.

 

[gatordad699]

Did not know that about the conning tower. Still think not many people would do it. It’s not easy being shut in a boat for days/weeks/months. Showers once a week.

Have to humbly disagree with you on the busy work. I worked my ass off as an electrician on Nuke boats. You just can’t imagine the amount of maintenance. It’s a steel sub that operates in salt water. Think I chipped and painted more then I operated the reactor.

 

[phx1138]

Did not know that about the conning tower.

No worries.

Still think not many people would do it. It’s not easy being shut in a boat for days/weeks/months. Showers once a week.

You might be right. Average people probably wouldn't be willing much. If you're dedicated to science, tho... IMO, that makes for greater willingness to sacrifice.

Have to humbly disagree with you on the busy work. I worked my ass off as an electrician on Nuke boats. You just can’t imagine the amount of maintenance. It’s a steel sub that operates in salt water. Think I chipped and painted more then I operated the reactor.

Don't be humble. You actually did it. I meant more along the lines of Navy demanding absolute see your reflection perfect, where a civilian boat wouldn't. Not slacking enough to compromise safety, but enough most Navy submariners would be pretty appalled.

 

[RanulfC]

Obviously, I've never seen that film, or I'd have known better. Thx. (Note to self: keep an eye on TCM. )

Just a quck 'fly-by'

Assault on a Queen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Randy