USS Parche

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sea wolf
    Junior Member
    • Mar 2020
    • 4

    #46
    Here is the image they used at her sail display, My guess is it not to far off.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	350_USS Parche SSN-683_01.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	47.6 KB
ID:	134021

    Comment

    • GabesDad
      Junior Member
      • Feb 2020
      • 21

      #47
      What I have been doing for the past two years...

      It's been a while since posting on this topic. Sadly, I never received any response from the Trump Executive Branch pertaining to my FOIA request to declassify Parche's hull plans (no surprise there!).

      Meanwhile, being retired and all, I worked on completing a transcription of my maternal grandfather's journals that he kept while working as a geomagnetic field observer for the Carnegie Institution back in 1908 through 1910. He was tasked with collecting earth's magnetic field data in Turkey, Western Asia, Africa, and India. His writings consisted of twelve volumes, and their transcription plus ancillary materials amounted to more than 800 pages in MS Word. I also mapped his 35,000 miles +/– of travels during that time in KMZ files that can be viewed in Google Earth, along with an embedded narrative reflecting the work that he did.

      Following that, I resumed work reconstructing plans for the sailing ship he had sailed in as the vessel appeared during 1906–07. He was doing the same kind of work as previously described, only at sea in the Pacific. The ship was and still is rather famous—the brigantine Galilee, built in Benicia, California, in 1891. Using the 3D digital naval architecture program DELFTship Free, a lot of the work was tedious and time-consuming. I realize this is a submarine model website, but maybe there are some here that might appreciate the digital reconstruction of a 19th-century sailing ship:
      Click image for larger version

Name:	Transom Names.jpg
Views:	168
Size:	312.5 KB
ID:	149222
      Click image for larger version

Name:	Galilee-Topsides-4.jpg
Views:	164
Size:	399.5 KB
ID:	149223

      The bridge-like structure supported four magnetic instruments that were used to collect the data at sea.

      I have put this project aside until winter time when I can model the instruments and add the final touches to the hull. At this point, I'm not planning to model the masts or rigging.

      The free version of the software can model any vessel (including submarines, or any other vehicle) and one can export detailed modeled parts as STL files that can be 3D-printed after importing them into an appropriate slicer program.

      ************************************************** *********************************

      More recently, I ran across The SubCommittee's profile on Instagram, and that got me to thinking that I hadn't visited in a while, so here I am. Evidently, there was a major site upgrade. Apparently, when they transferred the old forum text to the new architecture, any character that wasn't part of the basic ASCII character set was replaced by some garbage characters. So I had to go through my posts and clean those up and do some editing as I went.

      Glad to be back!
      Last edited by GabesDad; 09-07-2022, 08:04 PM.

      Comment

      • GabesDad
        Junior Member
        • Feb 2020
        • 21

        #48
        Parche's Gondolas—Part B

        I reviewed what I had written under this heading back in 2020 and I decided that preserving my thoughts in images as I had done back then would bias any future attempts to model this ship. Instead, I encourage the fine workers here to take what was written and produce a model that incorporates the ideas already discussed. I can understand that some will feel that we didn't adequately address the characteristics of the ship in her final extended form. I think that a detailed reading of the comments earlier in this thread, especially by Tom Dougherty, should get workers thinking about what would be reasonable, taking all things into consideration.

        Personally, I think that there were three "gondolas," or, better, underhull structures. Their placement were constrained by the restrictions discussed in post #20 in this thread.

        The forward-most structure was probably fairly small and contained only the bow thrusters and the forward mushroom anchor. Recall from the foregoing discussion that this structure probably didn't even need to touch the bottom (when the ship was bottomed) to save weight. When the extension was added, the forward structure probably moved with the bow.

        The aft structure was probably positioned somewhere between the aft bulkhead of AMR 2 and the forward bulkhead of MBT 6. It probably didn't need to be this full length. Its width was probably similar to the middle underhull structure.

        The middle structure likely held the cable tap pods and their associated equipment, so its dimensions, as discussed earlier, would need to be large enough to accommodate these pods. I assumed that, initially, two pods could be carried side-by-side. Cables and pickups, handling gear, and other tools could be stored either in this structure or the aft structure.

        It would not be unreasonable to assume that there was some streamlining of the forward and after ends of these structures to reduce flow noises while under way.

        Again, when modeling these things, a modeler should consider making them as small as reasonable, taking all the factors mentioned in Post #18 to minimize the loss of reserve buoyancy.

        Some readers may ask, how tall were these underhull structures? My response would be that they needed to be high enough to hold the tap pods as described earlier, and include enough room for some substantial framing to support the ship.

        And finally, I expect that there needed to be side doors to the middle structure that were large enough to access the tap pods. They probably acted like inclined planes when hinged down. Again, this is all conjecture.

        Finally,

        What Was that Thing Sticking Out of the Towed Array Tube?

        Referring back to the image in the first post, to me, it looks like a yagi antenna, which is used for receiving HF through UHF radiofrequency bands, not sound waves. Briefly, it is unlikely that mission planners would give up the ship's ability to deploy a towed sonar array to replace it with a relatively short-range radio antenna that wouldn't have any height of eye at the ocean's surface. One-way communications would be carried out via the normal floating wire when on station.

        So this is one detail that I think is clearly not sound. I've actually seen this detail on models of the ship offered for sale on the Web. Don't do it!

        Cheers! Terry​
        Last edited by GabesDad; 09-08-2022, 04:35 PM.

        Comment

        • tom dougherty
          Senior Member
          • Jul 2005
          • 1354

          #49
          I was able to confirm with one of the saturation divers that they did not routinely swap out pods but rather had a way to capture and transfer the recordings of cable activity between pod visits. Placing the heavy pods in place required helium filled floatation bags to take up most of the weight of the pod so it could be maneuvered into place. Also, he pointed out that there would have been no need to use a plutonium RTG to power the pod if it was swapped out regularly. High capacity batteries would do if that were the case. I do continue to agree that any lower “gondolas” would be limited in size, if there at all. The MikroMir “later” version model has a roughly 200 foot long section. Especially with the later 100 foot extension, I would imagine that most items needed for missions could be stowed internally in that section.

          Prior to the upgrade, Parche was a “long hull” Sturgeon. The saturation diving chamber from Halibut was on her aft, over the aft machinery space access. I would hazard a guess that the torpedo room was reconfigured to create space for deploying the camera containing cylinders (Fish), possibly through one torpedo tube. This would mean a next generation system that would fit through a 21 inch diameter tube. Possibly in that configuration Parche carried a reduced torpedo load out to make space for the special equipment. The original "fish" were cylinders 3 feet in diameter and 16 feet in length.

          I have also been thinking about the how Parche would have maneuvered when “parking” next to the pod. One possibility is thrusters passing through the nose cone which also houses the sonar sphere. In the stern, the mud tank where the shaft exits the boat or through the ballast tank that surrounds the forward machinery space “waist”. It occurred to me that another possibility would be to use the electric SPM “outboard” in the aft ballast tank. When the 100 foot extension was put on Parche a second SPM could be part of that addition. . The advantage to using two SPMs is that they are trainable to different angles, allowing considerable flexibility to fine maneuvers. In contrast, a straight through thruster pair would be at a 90 degree angle to the hull axis. Certainly there would be other adjustments in the ballast to compensate for the additional displacement.

          One speculative model of Parche I saw on another site placed the thrusters through the aft machinery spaces, which would probably not be appreciated by the crew.
          Last edited by tom dougherty; 09-17-2022, 10:09 AM.

          Comment

          • navy2000
            Member
            • Jan 2007
            • 102

            #50
            Found this photo of the Parche add on section while it was still in drydock. This photo would confirm that the additional lower add on section is in fact on the real sub.

            Duane

            Comment

            • tom dougherty
              Senior Member
              • Jul 2005
              • 1354

              #51
              Yes, I have this photo already. What it shows is a cupola-like lower extension on the added hull section of Parche, possibly for diver and/or ROV deployment. What is unclear is how far it extends back along the submarine. The Mikromir model and Sutton drawing has it (lower gondola) extending for 200+ feet along the keel of the submarine.

              Since a 100 foot extension had been added to the bow, it’s unclear what the extra room from such a keel “gondola” extension would be used for. As pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to drydock the submarine if an extension went for 200+ feet below the keel. Not to mention the fact that the 100 foot hull extension added to Parche’s wetted hull drag, slowing the submarine. A large lower “gondola” would add even more drag. So while there was a lower section added and visible in this photograph, its total length remains unknown. And probably will remain unknown for the foreseeable future.

              Comment

              • sea wolf
                Junior Member
                • Mar 2020
                • 4

                #52
                Its been a while since I have been on the page , its nice to see people still guessing about the Halibut Seawolf and Parche ( with a little Richard b Russle thrown in)
                My suggestions ...

                First we are talking about 1970 -1980 tech.

                Spec op boats followed some basic rules..
                KISS... keep it simple. if it wasn't needed don't install it
                Hide it, if it could be placed inside the hull it was.
                Disguise it , if you could make it look like some thing else the better.
                Don't make it noisy. don't hang a bunch of stuff all over the hull. Make it streamlined.

                If you guy saw the underside of one of these boat uncovered in dry dock you would be disappointed. yes its cool but you would go away saying, boy was that a simple way of doing something.

                Comment

                Working...
                X