Talk:Columbia-class submarine

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Ships Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

October 2012 presentation

There's more details in the Brougham presentation and in an article about it here if someone wants to incorporate it. The SSBN(X) designation seems to being deprecated in preference to the Ohio Replacement Submarine. FlagSteward (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

The page is currently "SSBN-X future follow-on submarine," however the program is now officially titled the "Ohio-class Replacement Program." I believe one of the most up-to-date articles on the subject can be found here. The article makes this point but the title remains unchanged. Should it not be changed? Rugz (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/triomphant/
Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Section

Does the miscellaneous section really belong in this article? It seems to me to be, at best, tangentally related to the subject.HubcapD (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ohio Replacement Submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150420224306/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_14/torpedoes.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_14/torpedoes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential ship naming

The first Ohio replacement sub may be the USS Columbia, which would make this the Columbia class ballistic missile submarine. The name Columbia would be in honor of the U.S. District of Columbia. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent a premature page move, I have redirected the new potential target page and made a couple of pro forma edits so non-administrators will not be able to move the page. Once a consensus exists to move the page, a move can be requested. Safiel (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is to wait a few days. — Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Replacement Submarine → Columbia-class submarine – Now that the ship is officially named, it should be moved to the appropriate page. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT a few days The submarine has not been officially named yet. While the proposed name was sent to Congress at the end of July, statute requires the Secretary wait at least 30 days after the notification of Congress before a vessel can be officially named. I would expect that the vessel will be officially named, probably this week or next week. Until that happens, wait, but as soon as that happens, I will concur with the move proposal. Safiel (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Congress already expects the ship to be named Columbia, and the class to be the Columbia class. An August 18 report from the Congressional Research Service describes the program as the "Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement) Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN[X]) Program" in its title, and also describes it specifically as "the Columbia class program, previously known as the Ohio replacement program (ORP) or SSBN(X) program." The Congressional Research Service is a non-partisan research team operating under Congress, which prepares reports for Congress at its request. It is generally regarded as an unbiased and reliable source. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do hold a high respect for the CRS, but I believe their usage of Columbia-class is pragmatic and the right thing to do for the purposes of their report. Congress expects the class to be named Columbia-class because the Secretary of the Navy sent them the necessary notification. HOWEVER. The ship class is not OFFICIALLY the Columbia-class until tthe Secretary of the Navy makes the formal naming announcement, which he has not done yet. Until, it is still the Ohio Replacement Program. While it is tempting to do so, we should not jump the gun. I believe we are looking at mere days until that announcement comes and I believe we should wait for it. So I will stick to my current position of wait, with the caveat that the instant that naming announcement is made, then we can go ahead and move the page. Safiel (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until official announcement - as Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, and per Safiel's comments. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]