Talk:Columbia-class submarine

Conventional Trident

Does anyone know if there has been any furthering of the Conventional Trident in general, but more specifically any consequences, permutations, versions, etc. for the Columbia/Ohio Replacement?
LP-mn (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We can now go ahead with the move to Columbia-class submarine

Well, it was actually more than the "few days" I said in the previous move discussion, but with this reliably sourced announcement https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/secnav-mabus-to-officially-designate-first-orp-boat-uss-district-of-columbia-ssbn-826 I think we can safely go ahead with the move. Mabus will OFFICIALLY name the new class tomorrow. I will post the necessary tag at the target. Safiel (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• CSD G6 move tag placed at the target and I have updated the article accordingly. Safiel (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Hull number of the USS Columbia will be SSBN-826. Safiel (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. - BilCat (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

O'Rourke, Ronald. "Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress" R41129.pdf

This pdf has 4 different Reference entries, seemingly to the same work? DramaticExit (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Boat vs Ship

The Columbia-class is referred to as both 'boat' and 'ship' in the article at several points. I appreciate that 'boat' is the colloquial term that people use for submarines, but, in the case of new shipbuilding, I feel like 'ship' would be more appropriate in a phrase like "A total of 12 boats are planned, with construction of the first boat planned to begin in 2021."

I made appropriate changes, replacing 'boat' with 'ship' or 'submarine' as felt appropriate, and the one phrase "boats 2 through 12" were changed to "hulls 2 through 12" since I find that that is a more common way to refer to ship classes by hull number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRSpeshul (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@IRSpeshul: Have to disagree with you here, and I wouldn't be surprised if other regular contributors to naval-related articles do as well. First, you should've proposed your changes before you made them. Second, and more importantly, it is an accepted standard here that submarines are referred to as boats, in keeping with, and in respect of, established naval traditions. All (should be all) submarine articles use "boat" in place of ship. In instances where both submarines and surface ships are being referred to, the words "vessel" or "hull" are used. There are times when subs are included in the generic use of the word "ship", such as "List of US Navy ships". With that said, I have gone through the page and removed most of the instances where "ship" was used, and replaced them with "submarine", "boat" or "vessel", or just removed "ship" where it wasn't needed. Should you, or anyone, have an issue with this, I would encourage you to discuss the issue before making any further changes, either here on this talk page, or at the WP:WikiProject Ships talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 18:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Previous turbo-electric subs

From this article:

Later on, two nuclear-powered submarines, USS Tullibee and USS Glenard P. Lipscomb, were equipped with turboelectric drives but experienced reliability issues during their service life and were underpowered and maintenance heavy.

This statement oversimplifies the facts. Tullibee was designed to be "underpowered", this was a deliberate feature of the original ASW hunter-killer concept. Also, there is nothing in the public domain that says Tullibee "experienced reliability issues" or was "maintenance heavy". Since these facts really apply only to the Glenard P. Lipscomb, the statement should be re-written to remove the reference to Tullibee:

Later on, one nuclear-powered attack submarine, the USS Glenard P. Lipscomb, was equipped with a turboelectric drive but experienced reliability issues during her service life and was underpowered and maintenance heavy.

Also, a question: does anyone know if the proposed Columbia-class turbo-electric drive is to be AC or DC? The Glenard P. Lipscomb's problems appear to be the consequence of having a large DC plant. Also, the French turbo-electric drive subs reportedly use AC. The problem with AC is that gearing is necessary for reverse, while reverse with a DC motor is a simple matter of reversing electrical polarity. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tfdavisatsnetnet: It would be AC, nobody seriously uses DC for motors anymore. AC motors do not need anything fancy to go backwards, they just need somewhat more complicated electronics to run them, look at EV cars, all AC motors, and they go backwards without gearing --Edman007 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing numbers

Query. Noting that the USS Columbia will be SSBN-826 (and the second of the class, USS Wisconsin, will be SSBN-827), to which vessels are SSBN/SSN 822-825 alloted? I'm assuming here that the ten Block VI and Block VII Virginia Class SSNs will be SSN 812 to SSN 821. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Not the first time the Navy has left gaps in a hull numbering sequence. And if some of those numbers turn out to not be assigned at all, that won't be the first time either. If you can find an answer in a reliable source, that would be helpful, otherwise, there isn't much we can do here unless/until the Navy makes a decision, which then needs to be announced/reported in a reliable source. Without that, this can just become forum-type discussion which we really don't do here. But for what it's worth, I (and I'm sure others here) are just as curious about this as you. - wolf 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)