Talk:Ohio class submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Ohio class submarine as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Targeting

Where did the idea come from that SSBNs went to sea with no pre-assigned targets? (They do, and the targets are stored in fire control, not the missiles. The data is transferred to the birds during the launch countdown.) Elde 09:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're a geezer, Elde. You're right that in our day, we loaded the target package in port, then went to sea ready to deliver hot and fresh to downtown Moscow. These punk kids today, though, can't be trusted, and so have a much more restrictive set of PALs and whatnot. They really don't have target packages on-board; they have to download them before they can launch. In my day we were real sailors ... we didn't bother with a jacking gear; we turned the shaft by hand, let me tell you.... --the Epopt 04:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<g> I remember carrying target packages to the boat, uphill both ways in six feet of snow... </g> Elde 22:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Epopt, you're an old-boat guy? How long ago? I respect your territory, but things are different now. Also, there are no PALs on Tridents, nor is there the need to download target packages. I went through BESS and never heard the term Ohio, and was scolded a few times on the boat as a NUB for using the term Boomer. ..I will look for citations for you. I suppose the alternative is to be straight, by-the-book. I need some more time to clean the errors off of this page. --Greg.krsak@gbrx.com 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC), MT2 (SS)

[edit] Boat listing/Homeports

Why are these boats listed by homeport rather than by the more traditional by hull number? Elde 20:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Be bold. I nuked the homeport listing and went with the template. --the Epopt 04:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm an import from E2, this being bold thing is still new to me.  :) Elde

The list sorted by homeports did add a couple of bits of information.
Would it be worth putting in a table, showing the number, name, launching (or commissioning) year, current status? Anything else?
—wwoods 05:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Collated information is good, but out-of-date information is bad. Beginning-of-life dates won't change, but data like homeports does. I just don't want someone to come along twenty years from now and see "USS Ohio (SSBN-726) is conducting strategic deterrent patrols, defending all that is right and holy, from her home port of Bangor, Washington." (Cf many of the Sturgeon boats' DANFS entries.) --the Epopt 14:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The history of homeports is important because it reflects the changing strategies of the strategic forces. We need something like:

The first eight boats were homeported in Bangor WA to replaces the A3 carrying submarines that were being decomissioned. The remaining ten boats were originally homeported in King's Bay GA, replacing the Atlantic based Posiedon and Trident Backfit submarines.
After the first four hulls were converted to SSGNs, two boats were shifted from KB to BA. Further shifts are occuring

Elde 03:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not that you need my approval, but I like that. --the Epopt 13:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the new information on the homeports is on the main article page, along with some refactoring of the page to make it flow better. Elde 16:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deterrence force - ohio subs

They can be used offensively and deffensively. They are classified under term detterance force by the military and I am fine with using that term, if there is some explanation. The US nuclear weapons (tactical) could have been potentially used offensively in Vietnam, even though they maintain nukes for "deterrance". I can see the other point of view too, the US is unlikely to use trident missiles offensively, but perhaps some convention should be made about POV US miltary terms, such as detterance force, or "Peacekeeper" missles. Mir 05:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are not POV terms, but precise technical terms. Deterrence implies by it's very nature that the force in question is capable of both offensive and defensive usage. (The essential concept behind this in strategic terms was first codified with the development of the doctrine of the 'fleet in being' by Mahan in the 1890's.) Don't confuse the common usage of the term with the professional usage, in this field or any other. Elde 06:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From what I understand, the "detterance" label is based on the foreign policy of the country, for example the no-first strike policy of the US during the Cold War. With the current state of foreign policy in the US, perhaps the label isn't very accurate in some cases. Although in case of nuclear arsenal I would agree that the term deterrance is accurate. Mir 06:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking if anything could be done about misleading terms used by militaries (not just US i think) like "Peacekeeper" nukes or "Operation Iraqi Freedom" etc. Kind of like double-speak from Orwell, huh. Mir 06:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to describe the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. The fact is that the LG-118A missile is named "Peacekeeper." Wikipedia does not have the authority to rename them. It is also a fact perhaps worth mentioning that no war has been started over the Peacekeepers (or by them), so perhaps their name is perfectly accurate. ➥the Epopt 15:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The concept of "deterrance" is specifically with regard to nuclear warfare, not conventional. I suggest you leave your POV out of this, Mir. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:50, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Actually Joseph, deterrence as a concept is also used for conventional forces. (Again, see Mahan - specifically the concept of a 'fleet in being'.) In the context of Ohio class boats and in the mind of the public it's applied mostly to nuclear warefare, but that's again a product of the difference between popular usage and technical usage. Elde 17:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about conventional forces. But you are right Epopt, they are a detterance force right now, I didn't think about it enough. Mir 06:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, Epopt. Also, the now-ex Peacekeeper is LGM, as opposed to LG. Trident sailors go to sea with the impression that they are a deterrent force. With CTM, this may change; who knows? --Greg.krsak@gbrx.com 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destructive Force

"A single submarine can wield the destructive power of more than nine times the total Allied ordnance dropped in the European theater in World War II." Destructive power is quite ambiguous. An Ohio class submarine can contain 8 warheads in each of its 24 missiles. That is 192 warheads each of a possible 475 kt. That is more than 20 times as powerful as "Little Boy" for each warhead. Detonating these warheads above several large cities would cause destuction on an entirely different scale than world war 2 strategic city bombings. What forms the basis for the statement "9 times more destructive(...)"? How is it calculated? Pietas 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

you need to re-check your facts on the number of warheads the latest tridents can carry. 8 is not correct

If no one disagrees, I will remove the statement: "A single submarine can wield the destructive power of more than nine times the total Allied ordnance dropped in the European theater in World War II." Pietas 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Erased: "A single submarine can wield the destructive power of more than nine times the total Allied ordnance dropped in the European theater in World War II." Pietas 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The megatonnage of a boat with a missile split as of 2005 is in excess of 25MT. --Greg.krsak@gbrx.com 20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement

We in the UK are begining a debate on the replacement for 2030/2040s of our Tridents (D-5)and Vanguard (SSBNs), just out of intrest is there anything up for discussion to replace the Ohio's and the D5's in the States ??? Pickle 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • There is some preliminary work being done on a smaller and shorter ranged missile to eventually replace the D5/Ohio class system. Realistically, the shorter range is a consequence of the desired to use a Virginia (approx 10 meter diameter) hull in place of the larger and expensive Ohio (approx 14 meter diameter) hull. <makes note to self to start page later this weekend on the new missile.> Elde 00:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for that, its a real big issue over here the concept of a replacing the nuclear deterrent, with people's memories of the expensive cost of building the trident (vanguard subs with trident D5s) and the CND campaigns in the 1980s. Realistically we'll buy whatever you do or go some sort of TALM-N, ALCM, or even free fall nukes. Pickle 21:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No we wont end up using free fall ones. They were abandoned years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.186.73 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism Problems

I happened to read the fas.org link in the links section after reading the article, and noticed that several sentences in the intro are copied directly from this source, and need to be removed or changed. Unfortunately, I don't have the time now to check through the whole article for copied sentences. I will do it later if no one else does first, but it may be a couple months. Blazotron 07:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, typical "minimal rewrite" from fas.org in the finest traditions of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia: "The Ohio-class submarines were specifically designed for extended deterrence patrols. Each submarine is complemented by two crews, Blue and Gold, with each crew operating on a 100-day interval. To decrease the time in port for crew turnover and replenishment, three large logistics hatches are fitted to provide large diameter resupply and repair openings. These hatches allow sailors to rapidly transfer supply pallets, equipment replacement modules and machinery components, significantly reducing the time required for replenishment and maintenance."

Wikipedia article: "The Ohio-class submarines are specifically designed for extended deterrent patrols. To increase the time in port for crew turnover and replenishment, three large logistics hatches are fitted to provide large diameter resupply and repair openings. These hatches allow sailors to rapidly transfer supply pallets, equipment replacement modules and machinery components, significantly reducing the time required for replenishment and maintenance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.22 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar/Spelling Errors in "Ohio class submarines in popular culture"

Consider revision.75.112.134.2 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

let me add to the section. as for putting the data on the submarines' fictional involvement on Sum and DoH, they might get buried somewhere in the books' plot premise, which could attract the overly excessive template if every last bit of what happened is written in. Eaglestorm 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of notability and popular culture? This is not supposed to be a detailed list of every appearence by an Ohio-class boat. Just those in which a sub played a major or notable role, or in which the apprearance is especially notable or well-known. The full details of each appearance, even the notable ones, are unnecessary. I'd rather not get into a revert war here, so please stop reverting me, and let me help to make the article better. If you don't, someone else may come along and remove the entire section per WP:TRIV. - BillCJ 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Checking

I'm not entirely sure, but it states that the subs carry about 50% of the total strategic nuclear arsenal of the United States, while in the page on Nuclear Weapons and the United states, it states that the US maintains over 5000 nuclear warheads. 24 times 14 doesn't come close to 2,500...

I think you forgot to multiply the number of warheads per missile. I'm not certain how many warheads a D5 carries, but I believe its about 8. 8x24x14=2688. Close enough for you? = BillCJ 09:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prop design now public?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003859908_satellite30.html

Here's a quote of the story:

"This month, a photograph appeared on the Internet of the propeller on an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine at Trident Submarine Base in Bangor. A key to the submarine's ability to deploy and remain undetected, propeller designs have been kept under wraps for years, literally. When out of the water, the propellers typically are draped with tarps."

Is this the same submarine? I don't know anything about subs, but it sounds relevant to the page, I'll let more knowledgable people decide if this is correct/worthy of inclusion. Champion sound remix 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Its another easy journalsitic story following on from many that have come before about "secrecy" and the wonders of google earth and other such services. One can see area 51, numerous missles bases, etc aroudn the world. panic not ;), if you've too much time on your hands investigte the infamous http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan-turnbull/SECRET-BASES/ site Pickle 21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Article and picture on the front page of the online edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. John Dalton 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boats or Ships?

I see a number of references in this article to the Ohio class being "ships" and not "boats" like I believed. I realise www.navy.mil uses ships, but is it right? Mark5677 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, they are ships. But submariners like to call them "boats". Jigen III (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)