Rontini Submarine BBS Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > U.S. Submarine Related
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Three U.S. and British Subs Meet at the North Pole
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

"The opinions posted here do not represent those of any company, organization, or group and are those only of the author of the respective post." - From Rontini

RontiniSubmarineBBS.com is proudly sponsored by Submarine Shop for Submariners. Your patronage helps support this BBS.

At Ron's direction, we have removed all forums that were not being actively posted to.


Three U.S. and British Subs Meet at the North Pole

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
SaltiDawg View Drop Down
Rickover
Rickover
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Points: 2865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SaltiDawg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Three U.S. and British Subs Meet at the North Pole
    Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 6:23pm
Agree.

Airless surfacing (with LP Blower) would not cut it with the thicker ice we surfaced thru before the later restriction.  The head valve sometimes was much, much deeper when we Vertical Surfaced.


Edited by SaltiDawg - 24 Mar 2018 at 7:31pm
Back to Top
FTGC(SS) Lane View Drop Down
Old Salt
Old Salt
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Location: Conway New Hamp
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FTGC(SS) Lane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 6:25am
This was after airless surfacing becoming routine. It is the same as using MBT except it takes a bit longer. Get the water out of the MBTs and the boat comes up more and is stable on the surface.

One surface the ice was across the top of the sail. The XO attempted to raise #1 and wondered why it wouldn't go up more than a couple of inches. He was looking down the well to see if he could figure out why; and I did to, until dawn broke over Marblehead(s) and we realized what the cause was.Big smile

Back to Top
SaltiDawg View Drop Down
Rickover
Rickover
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Points: 2865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SaltiDawg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 9:23pm
Interesting!

On the earlier 637`s we blew MBTs after we had stopped rising vertically... which always was immediately.

Would use as little HP air as possible, and as soon as head valve or upper hatch was open we'd use the LP  Blower.  Always wanted to keep HP Air Flasks charged, and did not want the noise from the compressors.

Again, this frequently was thru ice much thicker than a later imposed restriction.


Edited by SaltiDawg - 24 Mar 2018 at 7:30pm
Back to Top
FTGC(SS) Lane View Drop Down
Old Salt
Old Salt
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Location: Conway New Hamp
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FTGC(SS) Lane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 8:14pm
Originally posted by SaltiDawg SaltiDawg wrote:

I have no idea what an "Arctic Blow" is, and I've participated in many dozens of Stationary Dives and Surfaces on SSN-637s.


As DOOW I did 35+ vertical surfaces and 40 stationary dives in '82 and '84 on two 637 class boats. I don't know what a "Arctic Blow" is either.
I only surfaced through ice. Once the sail broke through and the head valve opened we used an airless surface. If the head valve did not open then we did a normal MBT blow.



Edited by FTGC(SS) Lane - 23 Mar 2018 at 8:15pm
Back to Top
SaltiDawg View Drop Down
Rickover
Rickover
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Points: 2865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SaltiDawg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 7:46pm
Originally posted by SaltiDawg SaltiDawg wrote:

Originally posted by Runner485 Runner485 wrote:


A question I have for all you olden day nucs, is how did you know the boat was at a point of thin enough ice to break thru and surface. Did you use the same method that was just used? And BTW, how did they know the ice was thin enough to surface and just what is "thin enough"? Confused



Joe,

In the day, simplistically, we'd determine the draft of the ice canopy using an upward looking active portion  of the Under ice suite as we transited along.  We'd keep track of the areas where we thought we might surface in an emergency by marking them on the DRAI plot.  If too much time elapse... e.g. the distance to the last surfacing area became excessive, we would slow and do a search on either side of our track.  Finding one, we'd mark it and resume our transit.

Due to what some of us considered an "artificial restriction" on ice thickness we were permitted to surface thru, this safe surfacing feature came to be defined as flat refrozen areas called Polynyas.

Prior to that restriction being issued, we found that indeed the thinness areas were not at al the easiest to surface thru.  Indeed on Pargo, for example, we routinely surfaced thru ice many times that  "artificial restriction" which had not yet been dreamed up.  Also, note that I did not say we plotted polynyas or refrozen spots exclusively - we found some other features  that were generally much easier to surface thru and included those and thus plotted "Safe Surfacing Areas."

With the addition of a max ice thickness for surfacing, I would assume boats would plot "Open Ice" rather than "Safe Surfacing Areas."

That "restriction" was based on a concern that if you deballasted "too much" without upward movement thru the ice that the boat would become unstable in the athwartship plane.  This was a Naval Architecture concern.

A few years after that restriction was put in place, I had the opportunity to  work with Capt Harry Jackson during a summer at MIT.  At my request, the Class did an analysis of the issue and we concluded that the restriction from a Naval Architecture perspective could not be justified.

"
To punch through the ice, the submarines conduct what’s called an “Arctic blow,” venting ballast to rapidly boost buoyancy."

On those trips and my later trips on Trepang we did not Vertical Surface with MBT vents open. I have no idea what an "Arctic Blow" is, and I've participated in many dozens of Stationary Dives and Surfaces on SSN-637s.  Albeit early 637s.

Back to Top
SaltiDawg View Drop Down
Rickover
Rickover
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Points: 2865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SaltiDawg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 7:26pm
Originally posted by Runner485 Runner485 wrote:


A question I have for all you olden day nucs, is how did you know the boat was at a point of thin enough ice to break thru and surface. Did you use the same method that was just used? And BTW, how did they know the ice was thin enough to surface and just what is "thin enough"? Confused



Joe,

In the day, simplistically, we'd determine the draft of the ice canopy using an upward looking active portion  of the Under ice suite as we transited along.  We'd keep track of the areas where we thought we might surface in an emergency by marking them on the DRAI plot.  If too much time elapse... e.g. the distance to the last surfacing area became excessive, we would slow and do a search on either side of our track.  Finding one, we'd mark it and resume our transit.

Due to what some of us considered an "artificial restriction" on ice thickness we were permitted to surface thru, this safe surfacing feature came to be defined as flat refrozen areas called Polynyas.

Prior to that restriction being issued, we found that indeed the thinness areas were not at al the easiest to surface thru.  Indeed on Pargo, for example, we routinely surfaced thru ice many times that  "artificial restriction" which had not yet been dreamed up.  Also, note that I did not say we plotted polynyas or refrozen spots exclusively - we found some other features  that were generally much easier to surface thru and included those and thus plotted "Safe Surfacing Areas."

With the addition of a max ice thickness for surfacing, I would assume boats would plot "Open Ice" rather than "Safe Surfacing Areas."

That "restriction" was based on a concern that if you deballasted "too much" without upward movement thru the ice that the boat would become unstable in the athwartship plane.  This was a Naval Architecture concern.

A few years after that restriction was put in place, I had the opportunity to  work with Capt Harry Jackson during a summer at MIT.  At my request, the Class did an analysis of the issue and we concluded that the restriction from a Naval Architecture perspective could not be justified.

"
To punch through the ice, the submarines conduct what’s called an “Arctic blow,” venting ballast to rapidly boost buoyancy."

On those trips and my later trips on Trepang we did not Vertical Surface with MBT vents open. I have no idea what an "Arctic Blow" is, and I've participated in many dozens of Stationary Dives and Surfaces on SSN-637s.



Edited by SaltiDawg - 23 Mar 2018 at 7:35pm
Back to Top
FTGC(SS) Lane View Drop Down
Old Salt
Old Salt
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Location: Conway New Hamp
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FTGC(SS) Lane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 2:23pm
Originally posted by Sewer Pipe Snipe Sewer Pipe Snipe wrote:

I think the term was planchia,

It is polynya, a Russian word, meaning open water. We use the word to describe the areas between ice keels that is thin enough to break through. And, without aid from on the ice, they have to be searched for.
Back to Top
Sewer Pipe Snipe View Drop Down
BBS Supporter
BBS Supporter
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2016
Location: Albany, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 5723
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sewer Pipe Snipe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 1:02pm
I think the term was planchia, areas deemed thin enough to bust thru. Those were closely tracked in case there came a need for one of them. It would seem that they knew where they were located before they went looking for them. They used the same sonar used to determine wave heights, I would guess. That was a long time ago, and what I knew or may have known I probably forgot. As I believe we all had been instructed to do.
Walt,
Had I done everything right throughout my life, the World wouldn't have noticed.
Back to Top
FTGC(SS) Lane View Drop Down
Old Salt
Old Salt
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Location: Conway New Hamp
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FTGC(SS) Lane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 12:43pm
A top sounder is used to detect ice thickness. Some engineers determined that 4' was the maximum thickness a 637 class could safely break through.
Back to Top
Runner485 View Drop Down
BBS Supporter
BBS Supporter
Avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2015
Location: Delaware
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Runner485 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 11:41am

A question I have for all you olden day nucs, is how did you know the boat was at a point of thin enough ice to break thru and surface. Did you use the same method that was just used? And BTW, how did they know the ice was thin enough to surface and just what is "thin enough"? Confused

DBF
Joe
SS485,CVA42
Holland Club
Mid-Atlantic Base
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.