Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why the Bow Plane theory on the USOS/SSRN SEAVIEW is WRONG.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why the Bow Plane theory on the USOS/SSRN SEAVIEW is WRONG.

    I’m going to preface this by stating I am NOT a Marine Engineer/Naval Architect , nor have I stood watch as a Qualified Sonarman during my tenure in the Silent Service, though I have spent many an hour in the shack with headphones on. Most of all, neither am I a “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea” (VTTBS) expert like many of you. I am merely looking at this from what is missing, but important piece, to this vessel and would necessitate the “manta ray” projections at the bow of a fictional submarine.

    The single most important necessity to a submerged vessel is situational awareness with respect to its environment. It needs to have some sort of sensor to understand the world around it. By the physics of the underwater environment, this information is sound.

    So, SONAR is not only the primary source or data regarding the environment around it, it’s the only valid source. Granted the SEAVIEW boasts the windows of the bow observation room (8 USOS, 4 SSRN), but as we know, even the clearest water in the oceans, visual detection distance is FAR less than what sonar can detect. And while we’re bringing up the Observation room, that is the reason why I feel the “bow plane” theory is wrong.

    Note David Merriman is a proponent of the Bow Plane Theory, and I first saw it on the cover of Issue 15 of the SubCommittee Report. Mark Curatolo 1993. He also indicated Stern planes at the end of the Horizontal fins, and a V tail flaps on the “Cadillac fins”. Way to many control surfaces in my not so humble opinion.


    The observation room in the SEAVIEW has displaced the physical location of the aforementioned Sensor, specifically the bow mounted sonar sphere. The photo below is the AN/BQQ5D which normally resides there. Removing such a component is going to degrade the sensory capability of the boat.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	SEAWOLF_BQQ5D.jpg Views:	0 Size:	68.9 KB ID:	169592

    SEAWOLF Class AN/BQQ-5D/E low frequency spherical sonar array

    Not really having room for it anywhere else, how would the Naval Architect account for this design requirement? They may decide to break it up. We already have two distinct features on the upper half of the bow that appear to be streamlined sonar domes. They are positioned in such a way as to “listen” all about the boat with the exception of the baffles. Toward the bow they would overlap. Like how some species of birds (most notably non-predatory) which can see all but directly behind themselves with a small bit of binocular vision looking forward. So here we have your “generic” low frequency sensor.

    So what about those thin scribed marks at the outboard sections of the “Manta Ray’s? The ones that have been turned into bow planes?? Those are actually served better as High resolution, High frequency side scanning/navigation sonar domes.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	sonar_close-up.png Views:	0 Size:	83.5 KB ID:	169593

    It makes sense, much more so than “bow planes” on a boat with fairwater planes!

    They are far outboard of the bow, away from the flow noise produced by the Main Searchlight, WIndow Frames, and FS-1 Doors. Those windows point directly athwartships, and would be angled down to the sea floor. Perfect for such a use.

    Looking closely at these lines (which also appear scribed on my 80” DeBoer SEAVIEW), they do NOT appear to have much of an “arc of listening” fore and aft that would extend completely through the horizon plane to the bow and stern. I affirm they are NOT scribed in such a way as to facilitate bow planes from an Engineering standpoint! Be aware that I am not stating they’re not functional as such, but in canon, we've never seen them used that way, so the only other plausible explanation is sonar.

    ​Excuse the “Eddiegram’s” as they are a sad attempt to visualize my insane mental wanderings.


    The Red indicates the High Frequency Sonar Zones
    The Blue indicates Low Frequency Sonar Zones
    The Purple indicates Low/High Frequency Sonar Zone overlap
    Dark Blue indicates Low Frequency Sonar Zone overlap
    Dark Red indicates High Frequency Sonar Zone overlap



    Click image for larger version  Name:	SSRN_F.png Views:	0 Size:	121.3 KB ID:	169594

    Click image for larger version  Name:	SSRN_P.png Views:	0 Size:	182.8 KB ID:	169595

    Click image for larger version  Name:	SSRN_T.png Views:	0 Size:	261.5 KB ID:	169596


    There is NO indication of a Towed Sonar Array exit. For the record, NOT a Commissioned Combat sub that needs one. Probably doesn't need to conduct Counter Detection Maneuvers (CDM’s), what you civilians call “Crazy Ivan’s” anyway unless in heavy traffic areas. Then again Putin’s Orc’s could be sneaking about gathering information. So Why not have a Towed array. I’m neutral here in this nerdfest speculation. BTW, can I pick up Thor’s hammer in Zero G?

    We can call that small bump forward of the sail a GNATs (General Noise and Tonals) dome, or maybe something analogous to AN/BQS-15 close range active sonar (for ice detection); MIDAS Mine and Ice Detection Avoidance System (Didn’t have THAT in the movie!), SADS-TG active detection sonar blah blah blah….

    As well all know that the SEAVIEW was in fact an Experimental Research Sub. Prefixed USOS for the 8 window Movie Version (1) and S.S.R.N. for the later 4 window/FS-1 Refit Television Series (2). So she was most likely out there studying oceanographic features, generating high-detail bathymetric cartography data, finding long lost ships, and looking for stuff like Atlantis. When not fighting huge underwater plant creatures or things that looked like Greedo the Rodian bounty hunter from Star Wars.

    All in all this is pure speculative conjecture on my part, done on a Saturday afternoon after signing off from all my shipmates on a Dive Tribe Zoom meeting. That short space of useless time between that and dinner when my rather fevered brain is stupidly pumped by those guys yet I can’t afford to get involved in a build in such a short period. None of this, including the fictional SEAVIEW, is serious.

    DON’T pump me up….


    ​In the end, this is only a vague attempt by me to keep my beloved “Manta Ray” fins intact w/o installing those god awful looking bow plane cuts. Again, just from all the evidence supplied as being “canon”. FWIW I found just controlling speed allowed her to run just fine in terms of depth control. Now that I've spoken my piece on the subject I’ll shut up and you all can go away now.

    The SEAVIEW you own, is yours. Do with it as you see fit.

    God I need a life…..

    In Fellowship,
    "Sub" Ed


    Wikipedia: USOS SEAVIEW

    (1)Seaview was prefixed "USOS" only in the 1961 film. The prefix "USOS" is spoken in a news report about the ship during the first minutes of the film, and when the ship's radio operator tries calling Washington, D.C. In Theodore Sturgeon's novelization of the film, "USOS" stood for United States Oceanographic Survey. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USOS_Seaview

    (2) In the United States Navy, the hull classification symbol "SSRN" (without periods) would indicate a nuclear-powered radar picket submarine. Seaview was nuclear-powered, but no indication was ever given that she was equipped for radar picket missions. The hull classification symbol of a U.S. Navy ship is never written with periods after the letters. For example, the hull number of USS Triton (the only nuclear-powered radar picket submarine ever built for the United States Navy) is always written "SSRN-586", never "S.S.R.N.-586." There are at least six episodes of the series that show "S.S.R.N." written with the periods:


    ​​







    Last edited by QuarterMaster; 02-12-2023, 10:25 AM.
    v/r "Sub" Ed

    Silent Service "Cold War" Veteran (The good years!)
    NEVER underestimate the power of a Sailor who served aboard a submarine.
    USS ULYSSES S GRANT-USS SHARK-USS NAUTILUS-USS KEY WEST-USS BLUEBACK-USS PATRICK HENRY-K432-U25-SSRN SEAVIEW-PROTEUS-NAUTILUS

  • #2
    8 seconds Clipped by Romel Costa Original video "God damn it, Gump! You're a goddamn genius!..You must have a goddamn IQ of 160!" by Ms. Phica
    Make it simple, make strong, make it work!

    Comment


    • #3
      You're fixating on something that isn't required to be factual - or even possible; Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is called science fiction for a reason. Sci-Fi (of any kind) vessels don't have to be accurate - just cool-looking.

      How many submarine-related shows are technically correct? Towed arrays weren't even being deployed operationally from submarines when the Seabview was created.

      As for a sphere, future hull arrays will be shape-agnostic. Accurately applied, sensor-embeded "skins" are in testing and development. A sphere isn't required; just calibrated hydrophone locations that software can scan, compensate arrival paths spatially and display. This is more science than fiction.

      Comment


      • #4
        You "get" me Rob, always! lol!!
        v/r "Sub" Ed

        Silent Service "Cold War" Veteran (The good years!)
        NEVER underestimate the power of a Sailor who served aboard a submarine.
        USS ULYSSES S GRANT-USS SHARK-USS NAUTILUS-USS KEY WEST-USS BLUEBACK-USS PATRICK HENRY-K432-U25-SSRN SEAVIEW-PROTEUS-NAUTILUS

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by QuarterMaster View Post

          You "get" me Rob, always! lol!!
          Sorry...Capt Rommel!

          Long day, age, and a large part of the 70's are to blame!

          v/r "Sub" Ed

          Silent Service "Cold War" Veteran (The good years!)
          NEVER underestimate the power of a Sailor who served aboard a submarine.
          USS ULYSSES S GRANT-USS SHARK-USS NAUTILUS-USS KEY WEST-USS BLUEBACK-USS PATRICK HENRY-K432-U25-SSRN SEAVIEW-PROTEUS-NAUTILUS

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CC Clarke View Post
            You're fixating on something that isn't required to be factual - or even possible; Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is called science fiction for a reason. Sci-Fi (of any kind) vessels don't have to be accurate - just cool-looking.
            There is absolutely nothing wrong with translating current technology methodology to a sci-fi craft. Taking the time to evaluate the technology and shoehorn it into these craft is a fun exercise. Ed isn't requiring that the tech fit, he's just making an educated evaluation of a craft that he's passionate about, and in this case, the tech fits.

            Bob

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RCSubGuy View Post

              There is absolutely nothing wrong with translating current technology methodology to a sci-fi craft. Taking the time to evaluate the technology and shoehorn it into these craft is a fun exercise. Ed isn't requiring that the tech fit, he's just making an educated evaluation of a craft that he's passionate about, and in this case, the tech fits.

              Bob
              There's daydreaming -- working up a rational for every observed appendage, and interesting contour -- where assumed functions are assigned by third parties (fanboys like me, Ray, Kerr, Barr, DeBoer, Teskey, Ed and others). The standard is what's on the studio drawings and/or what the effects model-shop produced.

              Then there's making the ****ing thing work in the real world, via R/C; doing so without excessive changes from scale appearance, i.e., retaining the ideal standard -- making the incredible, credible.

              Static display permits complete fidelity to represent the vehicle as designed by the studios Art Director(s) and/or effects model shop.

              Practical R/C operation, not so much; even absolutists like me have to bend to the rules of the physical world to make things work credibly.









              David
              Who is John Galt?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by He Who Shall Not Be Named View Post

                There's daydreaming -- working up a rational for every observed appendage, and interesting contour -- where assumed functions are assigned by third parties (fanboys like me, Ray, Kerr, Barr, DeBoer, Teskey, Ed and others). The standard is what's on the studio drawings and/or what the effects model-shop produced.

                Then there's making the ****ing thing work in the real world, via R/C; doing so without excessive changes from scale appearance, i.e., retaining the ideal standard -- making the incredible, credible.

                Static display permits complete fidelity to represent the vehicle as designed by the studios Art Director(s) and/or effects model shop.

                Practical R/C operation, not so much; even absolutists like me have to bend to the rules of the physical world to make things work credibly.


                David
                "F*** you Ed!" would have worked just as well!

                I live for those little love kisses Dave.
                v/r "Sub" Ed

                Silent Service "Cold War" Veteran (The good years!)
                NEVER underestimate the power of a Sailor who served aboard a submarine.
                USS ULYSSES S GRANT-USS SHARK-USS NAUTILUS-USS KEY WEST-USS BLUEBACK-USS PATRICK HENRY-K432-U25-SSRN SEAVIEW-PROTEUS-NAUTILUS

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by QuarterMaster View Post

                  "F*** you Ed!" would have worked just as well!

                  I live for those little love kisses Dave.
                  Life is not complete with out one or several of those.
                  If you can cut, drill, saw, hit things and swear a lot, you're well on the way to building a working model sub.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by trout View Post

                    Life is not complete with out one or several of those.
                    Word.

                    BTW Dave, I love the "Caribbean teal" color on your submerged photo's. Planned or accident?

                    They rival the show!

                    v/r "Sub" Ed

                    Silent Service "Cold War" Veteran (The good years!)
                    NEVER underestimate the power of a Sailor who served aboard a submarine.
                    USS ULYSSES S GRANT-USS SHARK-USS NAUTILUS-USS KEY WEST-USS BLUEBACK-USS PATRICK HENRY-K432-U25-SSRN SEAVIEW-PROTEUS-NAUTILUS

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You mean those surface refractions/distortions that appear on the hull? The model was stock gray above, white below with counter shading as seen in the second season 8' miniature.



























                      Who is John Galt?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Question, If they were control surfaces wouldn't they be more effective if they were on the trailing edge of the manta fins instead of at the tips? Also the leading of the control surface could rounded off in a more hydrodynamic profile instead of a blunt vertical surface.
                        Last edited by redboat219; 02-13-2023, 10:23 PM.
                        Make it simple, make strong, make it work!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yep... but, you're limited to working with what you have to work with if you want to keep aesthetics. There are a million things you could do to make a better running boat if you're willing to mess with the design. For boats like these, most go with form over function.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RCSubGuy View Post
                            Yep... but, you're limited to working with what you have to work with if you want to keep aesthetics. There are a million things you could do to make a better running boat if you're willing to mess with the design. For boats like these, most go with form over function.
                            Exactly.

                            And as to unsolicited advice: I weigh the validity of said advice against the actual accomplishments of the advice giver.

                            You either have, or you have not. Internet sleuthing does not denote accomplishment.

                            David
                            Who is John Galt?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Lateral sensor array sounds good , maybe eps conduits for the main deflectors so an inverse tacion pulse can be omitted......ooops wrong show.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X