Off Topic Boats cut up for razor blades & submarine weapon systems

[snrdg082102]

Morning all,

A couple of months a member made two comments which where

1. that all the boats I served on from 1975 to 1995 have been cut up for razor blades and their reactors buried in the desert. Here is the list of hull numbers of the boats I served on.

SSBN-610: Listed as scrapped in 1997. In other worlds cut up for razor blades and reactor buried in the Hanford Reservation in Washington.

SSBN-635: Converted to a moored training ship and is now designated as MST-635. The boat is scheduled to operate in the role of a trainer until 2018.

SSBN-636: Listed as scrapped in 2000. The boats sail is on display at Port Canaveral, Florida.

SSN-591: Listed as scrapped in 1996.

2. My knowledge of submarine weapon systems is out of date and no longer valid today.

Per sources on the Internet, books found in the local library, and my time in the USN's submarine service there are two submarine weapon systems which are torpedoes, missiles, and their launching systems.

A torpedo of today is vastly improved over the Whitehead torpedo developed in 1866, but still functions and is launched in the same way.

Looking at Janes, official USN sites, and in library books the Mark 48 is still the primary submarine war shot for the US. The information available from the varies electronic and paper sources matches my memory of the Mk. 48 torpedoes capabilities and how the weapons are launched after almost 22 years of being retired.

Basically the torpedo is fired by opening the breech door, inserting the torpedo into the tube, closing and locking the breech door shut, programing the torpedo, flooding the tube, opening the outer/bow door, and impulsing with a gas out of the tube with enough acceleration to start the torpedoes propulsion system.

The launching of missiles from a submerged submarine is a variation on the process of launching torpedoes. There have been a number of television documentaries that support the information found on the Internet, library books, and my memory. The difference is that the missile is ejected with enough acceleration to clear the surface by a certain distance before the rocket motors ignite sending it towards the designated target.

During my Naval service I experienced the launch of two submarine launched ICBMs with instrument packages in place of warheads and launched two live Mk 48 torpedoes that went boom. The only differences that I can find from public sources and my first hand knowledge is that the ICBM or SLBM as they are identified now and the torpedoes is that the weapons have improvements in range and destructive capability. The basics have not changed.

 

[Timerover51]

Given that the sub's hulls were HY-80 Steel, I am not sure that they were made into razor blades without first being melted down and mixed with a lot of other low-quality steel scrap.

With respect to weapons, rarely do modern weapons go totally obsolete, although they might no longer be, in theory, brand-new. And sometimes the replacements are not as good. The current US 500 pound bomb is not a effective as the ones used in World War 2 and Korea.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello timerover51

Given that the sub's hulls were HY-80 Steel, I am not sure that they were made into razor blades without first being melted down and mixed with a lot of other low-quality steel scrap.

With respect to weapons, rarely do modern weapons go totally obsolete, although they might no longer be, in theory, brand-new. And sometimes the replacements are not as good. The current US 500 pound bomb is not a effective as the ones used in World War 2 and Korea.

Thank you for your reply and you right that the hulls would not be easily melted down directly for razor blades. However, that is the common joke about what happened to their hulls.

I agree that weapons once created usually stay around somewhere doing their designed function and that the new weapons designed to replace them are not better even though they usually cost more.

 

[BlackBat242]

In regards the 500lb statement. Bombs are a unique item here.

The most efficient shape for high explosive (such as the 500lb bomb) is a sphere, as that allows best detonation of the explosive and optimal force dispersal volume.

The WW2 500lb bombs were a fat cylinder, not optimum, but still good. Of course, none of the aircraft that carried them externally (or internally for that matter) could exceed ~400 mph with those bombs carried - most flew 300mph or less with a full bomb-load. As an example, the A-1 Skyraiders used in Vietnam could still use WW2 ordnance, but B-52s could not.

As aircraft became able to fly at speeds of 600mph (or much faster), the bombs had to be redesigned into a long, thin, tapered shape that had much less drag - the old shape produced so much drag that the forces on the pylons exceeded the capabilities of the design of the pylon & wing/fuselage attachments, and would slow the aircraft (and reduce its range) too much even if the pylons & attachments were stronger.

Even if carried internally, those fat bombs would not drop well at high speeds, resulting in a wide and unpredictable dispersion of the bomb pattern, greatly reducing its effectiveness - if the bomb didn't twist and hit part of the dropping aircraft.

That new shape is rather inefficient at allowing good detonation of the explosive, and produces a very variable blast pressure shape - but it can be carried externally at high speeds, and separates from the aircraft in a predictable manner that allows for good accuracy.



Missiles and the like are much better now than they were, in reliability, accuracy, and all other measures that really count.

The modern mods of the Mk48 torpedo are much better than those in the 1960s/70s or even 1980s - their ability to home in on a target's acoustic signature, and to separate that from countermeasures noise is much better than that of the Mk48s in the boats when you served aboard them.

 

[MThompson016]

Greetings fellow submarine veteran!

I was on SSBN-735 from 2007-2012, and I did get to do a test launch of a SLBM.

The Trident II system generally works in the same way, but the layout of the newer boats was changed to enhance efficiency during BSM operations, including the gas supply system. Also, the electronics have migrated over to fully integrated circuits. Mind you, they use standards that are totally obsolete on the civilian side, but are supposed to be reliable.

What really accelerated the change over of equipment for the US Navy was the end of the Cold War. When the Bad Guy you've been preparing to fight for fifty years goes, the funding and the hulls go too. I remember how many ships were built in the 60's and 70's back in the day, and there were newer ones as well. Now, most were designed in the 1980's.

As for your old boats, my SWS C School class was assigned the 636 boat to have on our graduation slideshow.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello BlackBat242,

Thank you for your reply.

The modern mods of the Mk48 torpedo are much better than those in the 1960s/70s or even 1980s - their ability to home in on a target's acoustic signature, and to separate that from countermeasures noise is much better than that of the Mk48s in the boats when you served aboard them.

Yes, my comment was less than accurate would something like this have been better.

"The information available from the varies electronic and paper sources generally matches my memory of the Mk. 48 torpedoes capabilities with improvements and how the weapons are launched after almost 22 years of being retired.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy MThompson016

Thank you for your reply, greetings back at you fellow bubblehead and after nuc.

Greetings fellow submarine veteran!

I was on SSBN-735 from 2007-2012, and I did get to do a test launch of a SLBM.

The Trident II system generally works in the same way, but the layout of the newer boats was changed to enhance efficiency during BSM operations, including the gas supply system. Also, the electronics have migrated over to fully integrated circuits. Mind you, they use standards that are totally obsolete on the civilian side, but are supposed to be reliable.

What really accelerated the change over of equipment for the US Navy was the end of the Cold War. When the Bad Guy you've been preparing to fight for fifty years goes, the funding and the hulls go too. I remember how many ships were built in the 60's and 70's back in the day, and there were newer ones as well. Now, most were designed in the 1980's.

As for your old boats, my SWS C School class was assigned the 636 boat to have on our graduation slideshow.

We have another bit in common while onboard SSBN-610 the boat launched two Polaris missiles as a follow on test. The bad thing was that while waiting for the launch command the surface ships maintaining a security zone also practiced ASW operations since the boat had to stay in the exercise area. After launching we where able to maneuver and got back at them. Attack periscope pictures with the cross hairs marking points from bow to stern.

The 635 is the boat you had the slide show and thank you for confirming that the boat is training nuclear engineers.

 

[nobby-w]

[ . . . ]
I agree that weapons once created usually stay around somewhere doing their designed function and that the new weapons designed to replace them are not better even though they usually cost more.

A surprising amount of WWII or early cold-war era tech remained in service right into the end of the 20th century. q.v. Mig-17, Hawker Hunter, 25 pounder.¹ The RAF were flying variants of the H2S radar system right into the 1990s. The General Belgrano was sunk with a Mk 8 torpedo (a WWII-era design) even though the captain had more modern types available, as the Mk 8 was considered more reliable.

¹ This is still in limited service and there is an outfit in Pakistan that still makes ammunition for it. Arguably the L118/M118 is basically a modernised 25pdr chambered for 105mm ammunition. Apocryphally, the original brief from the MOD was that they essentially wanted an updated version of the 25pdr.

 

[MThompson016]

Howdy MThompson016

The 635 is the boat you had the slide show and thank you for confirming that the boat is training nuclear engineers.

It's the 636 boat, the one where the sail is on display at Port Canaveral because of NOTU, that my class had to throw a display on. I'm a recovering MT.

I did know a few guys who did prototype on the 635. They hated it because it's so dissimilar to the operational plants.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy again MThompson016

It's the 636 boat, the one where the sail is on display at Port Canaveral because of NOTU, that my class had to throw a display on. I'm a recovering MT.

I did know a few guys who did prototype on the 635. They hated it because it's so dissimilar to the operational plants.

My bad I was on a different train of thought so I'll stand corrected. Unfortunately, I never got a good look at the LA-Class engineering spaces while I was assigned the the Submarine facility in Groton, CT or AS-33. I didn't get the opportunity to compare the layout on the Ohio-Class either.

 

[JimMarn]

There were a few diesel boats at the Destroyer and Submarine piers at Norfolk, VA in 1970. From what the other guys then told me the nukes were fast attack boats.

We had mostly destroyers made since about 1961vat the piers. There were a few Fletcher class DDs and one DDER, a destroyer escort radar picket ship. Two of the old DDs, 2 turrets forward, one aft, had been converted to the FRAM set up. A small hanger carrying a drone that had a camera and could drop two ash can depth charges was put in place of the aft turret.

Some of these older ships still had 40mm Bofers AA guns on them. One still had the old rails on the stern for the roll offs of AS ash cans. These ships were gone before I got out, broken up for scrap.

I remember all of these from photos in Admiral Morison's Official History of the US Navy in WW2. I had the thick paperback abridged version back then. I have since bought all of the hard bound books.

In, 1970, the 1090s DEs started started showing up at the piers. They were smaller than the DDG I was stationed on. Got to see it porpoise as we went through the western Med as a Sirroco wind blew across the water towards France. We got wet to, standing up on the signal bridge, but it looked like it was going under water, except for the stack. One of the FRAM conversions was with us to, it also went under rather often.

 

[JimMarn]

I believe they were Sumner class, 2 guns in each turret for a total of 6 5"/38.

Here is a list I found. The only open tub guns I remember were the 40mm Bofers AA weapons. I don't remember any of them having 20mm guns, although the drawings and photos below shows them. The photos could be bigger so I can see them better.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-dd.html

some larger photos and diagrams. Just click on the drawings when you get to that page.

Sumner class.

http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/l/Allen_M_Sumner_class.htm


Fletcher class:

http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/l/Fletcher_class.htm