688-Class Flights and Stuff

[Davjacva]

THE 688-CLASS FLIGHTS AND OTHER 688 INFO

FOR THOSE WHO CARE


Since I was on subs, hell, maybe even at Sub-school you’d hear people spouting off about what flight of 688 a particular boat was, and it never was consistent, and this was just prior to the advent of VLS. Today, you can go on the internet and go to paragons of correct information like (Wikipedia) (sic), and they’ll tell you about first, second, and third flight 688’s. Some of these sites are pseudo government ones, but none of them are official Last week I was watching the old Subreggatta- Subcommittee videos and it’s to a person spouting off Flights I, II, and III, but at least they were consistent. . I do tanks, and there’s something kind of similar, where they’ll assign production monikers to a particular vehicle such as INITIAL PRODUCTION, MID-PRODUCTION, and LATE PRODUCTION, whereas in reality modifications/ advancements came out each month of production. The thing with 688’s in not like this, and sometimes just flat wrong. When I got off a boomer and became an inspector for NAVSEA and worked daily on boats of sub squadron’s 6 and 8, it continued, and you understood that it was almost made up to one’s understanding. Some people did have it right, but in the plethora of a sea of disinformation you couldn’t tell. When I got onto my next boat, the PCU Charlotte (SSN-766) we were told it was a 5th Flight 688, this was pretty close, but later find it was not accurate at all. It was the first of the Mod 25 boats, of which there were 4 (Charlotte, Tuscon, Columbia, and Greenville). Anyway, time went on and I retired and went to work for the design yard of 688’s (Newport News Shipbuilding) at Test Engineering, doing both Fleet Support (existing hulls) and Virginia Class. Being so positioned you become privy to a lot of info and some contractual with the government. One of the things we had was a master guide on all the 688’s. It had what flight a particular hull was, and what mods were installed to the hull. The Greenville had the most modifications, and the Charlotte the second-most.
Now for flights: First flight 688’s were from 688-699 (Los Angeles to Jacksonville), and there’s nothing different except sometimes with the Memphis (691) as it was an R&D hull. It almost got a 30” torpedo tube and ejection system on the port side, but the Cold War was over and the funding was canned (along with a lot of the first flight 688’s). The second flight was 700-718 (Dallas to Honolulu), now exteriorly, there was really nothing different with the 2nd flight with the exceptions of 710 (Augusta) which has the WAA and the 718 which has inner/ outer stern planes. Now how many times have you all seen a VLS-equipped 688 model that had 700 on it. One that I saw was RC and the other I saw was model at an IPMS show. Great laugh at that. So for third flight, it’s only the 719-720 (Providence-Pittsburg), these two hulls were unique as they were laid down and VLS was added to the design afterwards. Their VLS tube configuration is different and some of the details. The also had their drain valves for VLS up in the bathtub area which was a problem when freezing occurred, so on the later hulls they moved them into the ballast tanks (Virginia Class for some reason reversed this). The Fourth flight 688’s arranged their VLS tubes differently and they would remain this way for the remainder of hull construction. These hulls were 721-725, and the 750 (Chicago-Helena, and the Newport News). Fifth flight has a lot of changes, you’ll start seeing shrouded screw, dihedrals, and all submarines will have SHT installed. The Fifth flight are 751-773 sans 766, 769, 771, and 772 which are the Sixth flight and have the SEAWOLF Mod 25 propulsion plant changes. These last four were the quietest of all the 688’s, the only exterior differences were seawater ports back aft. Another thing, all the 688-I’s got dihedrals, this was solely to install countermeasure launchers, but a bi-product was the big change in the ship’s SOE while at high speeds. So driving a sub from Alpha trials up to PSA was very different than post-PSA. All the 688-I’s except for the last couple hulls got their dihedrals during PSA. PSA is when all the government contract obligations that came out after the initial contract are conducted. I've been on almost all of the 688's, except for most of those in New London, as I hated going up there, so I'd usually trade inspections with someone else who didn't like Kings Bay, or go on a longer trip out West. Anyway, I wrote this at 2am when I'm trying to wake up after getting to work and tried to stay coherent.

[SubICman]

Also, There are no less than 6 patterns for the flood grates on the bottom of the boats.

[Tissanjoe]

Your experience working with NAVSEA and Newport News Shipbuilding must have given you such a unique perspective.

Reminds me of a time when I upgraded to business class for a long-haul flight. It was like stepping into a whole new world of comfort and luxury. Your attention to detail in describing the different flights of 688's reminds me of the meticulousness required in ensuring a seamless travel experience, whether in economy or business class.

[Albacore 569]

THE 688-CLASS FLIGHTS AND OTHER 688 INFO

FOR THOSE WHO CARE


Since I was on subs, hell, maybe even at Sub-school you’d hear people spouting off about what flight of 688 a particular boat was, and it never was consistent, and this was just prior to the advent of VLS. Today, you can go on the internet and go to paragons of correct information like (Wikipedia) (sic), and they’ll tell you about first, second, and third flight 688’s. Some of these sites are pseudo government ones, but none of them are official Last week I was watching the old Subreggatta- Subcommittee videos and it’s to a person spouting off Flights I, II, and III, but at least they were consistent. . I do tanks, and there’s something kind of similar, where they’ll assign production monikers to a particular vehicle such as INITIAL PRODUCTION, MID-PRODUCTION, and LATE PRODUCTION, whereas in reality modifications/ advancements came out each month of production. The thing with 688’s in not like this, and sometimes just flat wrong. When I got off a boomer and became an inspector for NAVSEA and worked daily on boats of sub squadron’s 6 and 8, it continued, and you understood that it was almost made up to one’s understanding. Some people did have it right, but in the plethora of a sea of disinformation you couldn’t tell. When I got onto my next boat, the PCU Charlotte (SSN-766) we were told it was a 5th Flight 688, this was pretty close, but later find it was not accurate at all. It was the first of the Mod 25 boats, of which there were 4 (Charlotte, Tuscon, Columbia, and Greenville). Anyway, time went on and I retired and went to work for the design yard of 688’s (Newport News Shipbuilding) at Test Engineering, doing both Fleet Support (existing hulls) and Virginia Class. Being so positioned you become privy to a lot of info and some contractual with the government. One of the things we had was a master guide on all the 688’s. It had what flight a particular hull was, and what mods were installed to the hull. The Greenville had the most modifications, and the Charlotte the second-most.
Now for flights: First flight 688’s were from 688-699 (Los Angeles to Jacksonville), and there’s nothing different except sometimes with the Memphis (691) as it was an R&D hull. It almost got a 30” torpedo tube and ejection system on the port side, but the Cold War was over and the funding was canned (along with a lot of the first flight 688’s). The second flight was 700-718 (Dallas to Honolulu), now exteriorly, there was really nothing different with the 2nd flight with the exceptions of 710 (Augusta) which has the WAA and the 718 which has inner/ outer stern planes. Now how many times have you all seen a VLS-equipped 688 model that had 700 on it. One that I saw was RC and the other I saw was model at an IPMS show. Great laugh at that. So for third flight, it’s only the 719-720 (Providence-Pittsburg), these two hulls were unique as they were laid down and VLS was added to the design afterwards. Their VLS tube configuration is different and some of the details. The also had their drain valves for VLS up in the bathtub area which was a problem when freezing occurred, so on the later hulls they moved them into the ballast tanks (Virginia Class for some reason reversed this). The Fourth flight 688’s arranged their VLS tubes differently and they would remain this way for the remainder of hull construction. These hulls were 721-725, and the 750 (Chicago-Helena, and the Newport News). Fifth flight has a lot of changes, you’ll start seeing shrouded screw, dihedrals, and all submarines will have SHT installed. The Fifth flight are 751-773 sans 766, 769, 771, and 772 which are the Sixth flight and have the SEAWOLF Mod 25 propulsion plant changes. These last four were the quietest of all the 688’s, the only exterior differences were seawater ports back aft. Another thing, all the 688-I’s got dihedrals, this was solely to install countermeasure launchers, but a bi-product was the big change in the ship’s SOE while at high speeds. So driving a sub from Alpha trials up to PSA was very different than post-PSA. All the 688-I’s except for the last couple hulls got their dihedrals during PSA. PSA is when all the government contract obligations that came out after the initial contract are conducted. I've been on almost all of the 688's, except for most of those in New London, as I hated going up there, so I'd usually trade inspections with someone else who didn't like Kings Bay, or go on a longer trip out West. Anyway, I wrote this at 2am when I'm trying to wake up after getting to work and tried to stay coherent.

Excellent info. I knew the last boats had the Seawolf Mod 25 changes. Was always impressed how the class evolved in subtle ways that categorizing in just three groups was impossible, but very useful for spreading disinformation and maintaining security which I would expect & applaud. Maybe an authoritive book someday perhaps? Sure it would need clearance and editing would be heavily redacted but if Norman Friedman can maybe you too?

[Davjacva]

Excellent info. I knew the last boats had the Seawolf Mod 25 changes. Was always impressed how the class evolved in subtle ways that categorizing in just three groups was impossible, but very useful for spreading disinformation and maintaining security which I would expect & applaud. Maybe an authoritive book someday perhaps? Sure it would need clearance and editing would be heavily redacted but if Norman Friedman can maybe you too?

I had been on every Trident at least once, and they didn't get changes like other modern classes did. I688's not only had flight changes, but there were things that the individual yard did that let you know immediately who built it. You also knew the boats that had production horror stories (like Annapolis), as you knew most of the members of the other inspection teams. Crazy. The Key West is now the oldest 688 out there now. I remember when it was brand spanking new. It now is the older of Okane's cribbage board. Virginia Class has so many modifications you almost couldn't keep up. Each block had major changes, but each boat had changes and was crazy to keep up with. Most of those were production modifications to make production assemblies move faster. For example, each shipyard in the beginning launched a boat every other year, then it became one a year. Each shipyard also produced certain sections. These individual sections were sent by barge to the other shipyard to attach to other sections and may get sent back to the originating shipyard after that work had been done. As the time decreased to produce each boat, the shipyards had to modify all that, so that eventually got to where they would send stuff early, so they could get back 'super-sections', to do this all the piping and equipment had to be changed how they did it. Virginia Class is the first class that all systems were built 'clean', so all piping was immaculate and ready for operation when received. All previous classes took weeks to flush each pipe as they'd have so much garbage in them. Still curious about the Columbia class, as to why it's as long as a Trident, but only has 16 of the same size of tubes. Tridents already were incredibly voluminous on the inside.

[Sikerce]

I imagine your work at Test Engineering provided a deep dive into the complexities of fleet support and Virginia Class submarines. It's impressive how the design and modifications evolved, especially with the introduction of VLS and propulsion changes in later flights. Your insights into the dihedrals and their impact on submarine operations are particularly interesting.
If you're into finding travel deals, I recently stumbled upon a method for scoring surprisingly cheap business class flights. It's been a game-changer for my travels. Let me know if you'd like to hear more about it!

[CC Clarke]

In direct contrast, EB has reps at Bangor and Kings Bay. One of their jobs is to perform continuous ship checks to ensure configuration management control. Sailors love to modify things and adding an extra locker here and there occassionally happens. EB had them removed unless a configuration change was submitted and approved. Any time we installed a major mod or SHIPALT at TRF, we could be sure the prints matched the work areas. This was a huge change from when I was in the Navy and we had the tender add all kinds of changes to make our lives easier.

[Davjacva]

In direct contrast, EB has reps at Bangor and Kings Bay. One of their jobs is to perform continuous ship checks to ensure configuration management control. Sailors love to modify things and adding an extra locker here and there occassionally happens. EB had them removed unless a configuration change was submitted and approved. Any time we installed a major mod or SHIPALT at TRF, we could be sure the prints matched the work areas. This was a huge change from when I was in the Navy and we had the tender add all kinds of changes to make our lives easier.

Yes, Tridents were absolutely devoid of any personalization. NAVSEA-08 (Naval Reactors) additionally had a big hand in it. Back in 1996 I got on my second inspection team after getting off the Charlotte, and inspected my first Trident which was in Kings Bay. It was the USS Pennsylvania, and it had nothing at all on it that differentiated it from other Tridents. Back then, they were still making Tridents and I think three of them were still to come. The Kings Bay facilities had some different stuff that the Bangor facility had. One thing was the forward access. Bangor had a straight vertical ladder, whereas Kings Bay had a staircase. So these were differences about the facilities and not the sub. All the subs were sterile and exact duplicates. If the crew put something up, it got hit and removed. The day after I did the Pennsylvania, I did the USS Narwhal. You couldn't get a bigger contrast, as you could hardly go very far without seeing some sort of personalization on the boat. I knew a lot of people that had served on her, and then I knew why. The older boats were not all this way or that. Some were very bland with nothing, others had some, and then again others were filled with stuff. After seeing how Tridents were, I never desired to be on one, and I understood why so many fast-boaters I knew came back after doing a tour on one. This was only part of the reason.

[episodeofgeorge]

I’ve heard similar stuff from folks on the Virginia Class subs—every yard would put its own spin on things based on what they needed at the time. Those small tweaks stack up, especially over years of production, so it’s cool you got to see all those differences firsthand.
And if you ever need a break from all the tech and want to treat yourself to a more laid-back flight, check out https://travelbusinessclass.com/best-deals/region/europe/. I’ve snagged a few upgrades there myself, and it really takes the edge off those long hauls after big projects.

[CC Clarke]

[QUOTE=Davjacva;n180756]

TRF Bangor had a spiral staircase that fit in the LETs, but it wasn't as useful as the caged twin parallel ladders with room left over for a skip box to be moved up and down through the top when the roof was opened. We only used it for VIPs, and very rarely - especially if they had mobility issues. Kings Bay opened in the late 80's and anyone wanting to volunteer to open TRF KB was promised promotions to lead shops. The result was that the majority of volunteers we lost were people that would likely never advance at Bangor, and accepted the offer in a heartbeat. The results were predictable.

Like you said, the Tridents were for the most part, identical. Over the course of many years at Bangor, we developed thousands of procedures. In the Weapons Repair Department where I worked, we built up a considerable knowledge base. In '93, I was promoted to the Weapons Department Head's staff to prepare for the Parche's homeport change from MINSY to Bangor in '94. I was sent TDY twice to Kings Bay to determine why they were destroying towed arrays during routine offloads/inspection/module swaps onto a barge parked aft of the screw. As they shop prepared to begin the offload, I asked the Sonar Shop Work Leader why he wasn't using the standard procedure. He said they didn't need it, and they knew what they were doing. I told him if they did, I wouldn't be there and promptly stopped the job, I left he barge to pay the Shop Foreman (an ex-Bangor sailor from the Ohio I knew well) a visit with his boss.

He couldn't answer why they refused to use the approved procedures we developed at Bangor. The CDR dismissed him after a few minutes and offered me the Foreman Job on the spot. I told him he'd hate me because my first act would be to take a flamethrower and clear out the shop. Much of it was attitude. Being the South, I heard, "We don't care how you do it at Bangor" more than once by the rank and file. I warned the Dept Head if he couldn't get his people to follow standard procedures (and destroying towed arrays and tow cables as a result) they would get contracted out of existence.

And that's exactly what happened a few years later.

I went back to KB to look at another problem the following year, and it was very similar. Again, I was offered a job and declined. As a Weaponeer, I thought it was a complete ****show.

KB had a covered dry dock with an elevator! Bangor's mobile cover wasn't nearly as large and was mostly used to cover sensitive ops (like screw/shaft replacement) from satellites. They also had two EHWs (Explosive Handling Wharfs) to our one. (Bangor has two now.) So yeah, they had decent infrastructure, but their workforce wasn't up to par (Weapons-wise). The horror stories I heard from Bangor Sailors that were sent to boats out of KB were frightening. The most memorable was from a Sonar Chief I knew well and he said, "We never let these idiots touch our gear. We used to let you guys swap suspect assemblies to other boats when time was short. That would never happen here."

My office would be the first to board every Trident when they came in from patrol. (Evening arrivals sucked because we knew it would be a long night.) Each of us Technical Support Managers: Radio, ESM/Radar/Ship's Control, Fire Control and Sonar would run a complete system check-out, (often discovering issues the sailors were unaware of) write up 2-Kilos to generate repair work orders, and generated a Big Picture status report for the CO's inbox to read the following morning just as crew turnover started.

Three days before each ship departed on patrol, we ran the entire scenario again to ensure the systems were at 100%.

Parche allowed us to perform this level of testing once or twice, but being a fast boat (with one crew) with an unpredictable schedule, they didn't want the disruption. Being the only cleared Projects guy at TRF, I became the Ship's Superintendent. Not just for Parche, but all of the squadron detachments. Later, I became the NAVSEA Projects Office West Coast's assistant and had a seat on the perimeter of the room around the High Table, where the Program Managers in DC made their decisions. At the time, there was a growing debate regarding acquiring the Jimmy Carter when it was under construction. Big Navy wanted the platform since only three Seawolf-class boats were slated to be built. The Program Office's dithering was costing tens of millions for each month they didn't make a decision. At the last moment, they decided to move ahead, and EB started the plug's design work, delaying getting the boat in the water for a long time.

Getting bored with it all, I used my contacts and clearance and left DoD for another 25-year career.

I spent my first ten years at Bangor in the Sonar Shop, and looking back, that was probably my favorite job. I could go to all the Navy sonar schools I would have had to re-enlist to get. Out of ten years in the shop, I probably spent two in school. Bangor was a great place with an excellent workforce, and saved the taxpayers untold bucks - until it was merged with PSNS to lower their man-day rate and look more "efficient" - which they weren't. (Ours was 3X lower than theirs, so it was a bargain.)

[Albacore 569]

Hi CC Clarke,

Thank you fascinating.

"Parche allowed us to perform this level of testing once or twice, but being a fast boat (with one crew) with an unpredictable schedule, they didn't want the disruption. Being the only cleared Projects guy at TRF, I became the Ship's Superintendent. Not just for Parche, but all of the squadron detachments. Later, I became the NAVSEA Projects Office West Coast's assistant and had a seat on the perimeter of the room around the High Table, where the Program Managers in DC made their decisions. At the time, there was a growing debate regarding acquiring the Jimmy Carter when it was under construction. Big Navy wanted the platform since only three Seawolf-class boats were slated to be built. The Program Office's dithering was costing tens of millions for each month they didn't make a decision. At the last moment, they decided to move ahead, and EB started the plug's design work, delaying getting the boat in the water for a long time."


My question, I know you can't go into details. Parche went straight to the front of the deactivation scraping line when her amazing, classified career was accomplished. Seeing the speculative models and public illustrations of the Parche on the net. Do you think modelers got her accurately?

[CC Clarke]

I toured the underbody of both Parche conversions and all I can say is truth is indeed stranger than fiction. My 1/72 Parche (1st conversion edition) will be mounted on blocks soon, and ultimately end up in one of two deserving museums once I take it to our Seawolf reunion in Vegas next year, along with a 1/72 Seawolf I have in the design stage.

I had three options when building the Parche:

1. Make it realistic and get raped repeatedly in prison.
2. Model the lower half smooth and avoid option # 1.
3. Add the protective curtains that were lowered as the water level in the drydock was pumped out. Thinking about it, accurate placement would give too many unknown details away and end up obscuring too many of the 90 keel blocks I'm mounting it on.

Seawolf's curtain arrangement was different, and I'll use that (with LEDs inside to illuminate the edges) making it fairly realistic.

Now that I live in Arizona, I've been asked to build a Block V with a midship's missile deck (Vertical Payload Module). There are no known pics since the boat isn't built yet and a few NAVSEA renders
exist, but that's a bad path for references. Fate smiled on me and I scored a dinner invite with the CO and a few crew members this week. I should be able to clear up the few questions I have and get this done so I can switch to the Seawolf. No rest for the wicked!!

CC