Talk:USS Narwhal (SSN-671)

Sourcing

@Vepr157: thanks for adding a ref, but don't be suprised if it gets removed. That source is being removed from hundreds of articles, since around the time of this RfC. (fyi) - wolf 00:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't my first choice, but I had trouble finding a non-archive source that had the correct 33' figure. I've replaced it with a better citation. Vepr157 (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sail position and forward hull structure

On the question of the last point of the list of innovations regarding the sail position, I have reverted the edit to remove this point. Page 150 of U.S. Submarines since 1945 by Norman Friedman claims: "The [Narwhal's] sail was moved aft because it had been discovered, unsurprisingly, that placing it over the discontinuity between the cylinder and forward cone of the pressure hull could also cause noise. With the forward cone omitted, the torpedo tubes now emerged at a much shallower angle from the big domed bulkhead that closed off the front end of the pressure hull."

In this respect Friedman is mistaken, and you only have to go a few more pages to p. 153 to see that the Narwhal did in fact retain the same basic sail position and hull structure as the 594 and 637 classes. Before anyone argues with me that the drawing on p. 153 is just a preliminary design drawing, consider that (1) final designs do not deviate hugely from preliminary designs and (2) see this "Welcome Aboard" pamphlet which shows the forward compartments of the Narwhal: http://navsource.org/archives/08/pdf/0867116.pdf.

I suspect that Friedman (as he is often want to do) read that such a modification as moving the sail aft was considered, but wrote it up as if it reflected the final ship. I have reverted the edit, and I don't think it would be appropriate to cite a source for the absence of a piece of information, so I hope that this comment in the talk page suffices. Vepr157 (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I am developing the opinion that you have an antipathy towards Friedman as an RS that is non-NPOV and (so far) unwarranted. Look at what you did on the USS Glenard P. Lipscomb (SSN-685) article: you removed Friedman's correct identification of the SCB project number for the sub and replaced it with Polmar's incorrect identification - and this despite the fact that Roberts recent publication of U.S. Navy Design Project Numbers, 1965-1979 (a RS that you yourself discovered - that is, if you are not Roberts😊) shows that Roberts and Friedman are in agreement!

You did the same thing with the Lipscomb design history. In his book Friedman presents evidence that the Lipscomb and Los Angeles-class are not exact design contemporaries (though they ARE contemporaries from a constructive budgeting perspective), and you use that budgeting delay to refute Friedman's evidence. From where I sit the refutation did not succeed.

The Narwhal "Welcome Aboard" pamphlet is not a design document. It is tantalizing, it seems to support your argument, but it does NOT confirm it. It could easily have reused illustrations from a Sturgeon-class "Welcome Aboard" pamphlet. Therefore it does not refute Friedman.

You are very close to doing original research. You may be right "that Friedman (as he is often want to do) [non-NPOV?] read that such a modification as moving the sail aft was considered, but wrote it up as if it reflected the final ship", but you have to prove it. That means going beyond your conjectures (I'm actually fine with conjectures, I've written a couple myself, but they must be worded as such; simply deleting RS derived text on the basis of unsupported conjectures is wrong). You have to build a comprehensive case that Friedman is wrong. That means - as I see it - retracing his research, publishing outside of Wikipedia, and then getting someone like me to review your publication, agree to your analysis. and then cite it here.

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I think that, say, 95% of the material in Friedman's books is correct. In writing such a long and technical book, it is quite understandable that some errors creep in. I have no qualms about pointing those errors out. Contrary to what you might think, I don't have some antipathy toward Friedman. I have corresponded with him and found him to be a nice guy. I have two copies of U.S. Submarines since 1945, what does that say?

I do not see why my voicing my opinion about Friedman's writing on a talk page is an issue for you. I think it is of critical importance to consider the strengths and limitations of sources. If you think that any antipathy I have toward Friedman would affect the factual content of my edits, you are mistaken (and again, I do not have anything against him, as I said above). My one and only concern is ensuring that the information on Wikipedia is correct.

My edit here is not speculation, it is based on the drawing in Friedman's own book and that drawing from the Welcome Aboard pamphlet (which was almost certainly sourced from a Piping System Training Aid Booklet). What are the circumstances under which the latter drawing might be incorrect? If you compare the drawings, you will see the same arrangement of spaces, which is distinctly different from that of a Sturgeon (to preempt anyone saying that the sailors who assembled the pamphlet somehow accidentally slipped in a 637 drawing instead). If I can be honest with you, there is far less speculation here than some of the things you have written on other submarine pages. It is pretty cut-and-dry.

You are correct that Polmar and Moore got the SCB number wrong; thank you for fixing that and I should have remembered to fix it after I found the Roberts' source (I am learning to review my edits more carefully). As for the Lipscomb and Los Angeles being contemporaries, they certainly were. The concepts originated around the same time (March 1964 for the High Speed Submarine, July 1964 for the Electric Drive Submarine; see Rickover and the Nuclear Navy by Ducan, p. 28), were usually discussed in the same congressional hearings, and were laid down within less than a year of each other. There was never any consideration of putting electric drive on the Los Angeles (that would defeat the purpose of both her and the Lipscomb) and since they were developed and built at about the same time, there was no chance for the in-service issues with the Lipscomb's electrical system to influence the design of the Los Angeles. That is why I made the edit I did. Vepr157 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Re your last paragraph: you are getting closer to the multiple RS (Ducan, Congressional transcripts, etc.) that you need to prove your assertions. Keep it up and you may get there. But again, claiming that a Welcome Aboard pamphlet was "almost certainly sourced from a Piping System Training Aid Booklet" without an RS is not going to help.

But here is an example of what I see to be a continuing issue:

There was never any consideration of putting electric drive on the Los Angeles (that would defeat the purpose of both her and the Lipscomb) and since they were developed and built at about the same time, there was no chance for the in-service issues with the Lipscomb's electrical system to influence the design of the Los Angeles.

This makes no sense, because if true then there was no point to building Lipscomb in the first place. It is unreasonable to think that a sub with an experimental engine room would be built knowing that if successful it would still have no influence on the next 20 years of sub construction. If true this means that even in 1964 Lipscomb was a failed experiment and should never have been built. It is obvious that Rickover did not see it this way. Why? From a project planning viewpoint this is a big story, with many potential twists and turns, and it is not as cut and dried as you seem to want it to be. PS: to be clear, to me the answer is Lipscomb WAS meant to impact Los Angeles, somehow, and the somehow changed constantly due to all of the variables that were in play.

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have presented more evidence for my assertion than you have for many of yours (e.g., the lack of Lipscomb SCB number being due to Rickover vs. McNamara, deliberate obfuscation of the Narwhal's relation to the Sturgeon class, influence of the Lipscomb on the Los Angeles) and yet you are lecturing me, condescendingly, that I am not rising to the level of rigor required for Wikipedia. This is an unreasonable double standard, and at this point it is beginning to seem like you have a personal antipathy toward me that is coloring your view. That is very disappointing given our mutual interest.

As for the Lipscomb, I don't understand your logic. The Lipscomb was an experimental prototype to prove that turboelectric drive could be applied to submarines larger than the Tullibee, as you know. Why would decisions be made regarding a similar propulsion plant on the Los Angeles before the Lipscomb had even been built? That was the whole point of building her as a prototype, and it certainly does not mean she was a failure in 1964. Again, the purpose of the Lipscomb was to test turboelectric drive, and the purpose of the Los Angeles was to prove a large reactor plant for high speed. These innovations were diametrically opposed in terms of speed, hence why the Los Angeles used geared turbines. Because they were designed and built at about the same time, there is no way that the in-service success or failure Lipscomb's plant could possibly have influenced the Los Angeles.

You might ask, "well what about the follow on ships of the class?" First, they would be slower, negating the raison d'être of the class. Second, they would have had to be designed in some window of time when the Lipscomb's plant was looking promising and had not yet had the overheating and arcing that would plague her. And third, the Los Angeles class was highly contentious, both within the Navy and Congress, and throwing the wrench of turboelectric drive into the works (which would make the submarine larger, slower, and more expensive) would not have been a good option for anyone.

I am not writing the two paragraphs above as properly-cited material or justification for my edit on the Lipscomb page, I am writing them to explain to you, @Tfdavisatsnetnet, why it does not make any sense that the Lipscomb would influence the Los Angeles. I edited the page again to properly cite that sentence, and rearranged it a bit so that there is no mention of decision (neither Polmar and Moore or Friedman explicitly mention a decision as such to not repeat turboelectric drive, although of course such a decision likely was made at some point).

If it is clear to you that the Lipscomb was meant to influence the Los Angeles, prove it! I would suggest using Cold War Submarines by Polmar and Moore, Rickover and the Nuclear Navy by Ducan, and Running Critical by Tyler in addition to Friedman to do your research. I am quite confident that none of those sources mentions any consideration of putting electric drive on the Los Angeles (although there are many other interesting concepts based on the 688 design mentioned in Friedman). Vepr157 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)