Talk:Ballistic missile submarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ships (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 

OOps!ont be ins

Guinnog 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Chinese SSBN ?[edit]

How can these be listed as SSBNs if they carry no missiles? The submarine ballistic missile page states that neither the JL-1 nor the JL-2 are operational missiles. The only Chinese submarine apparently persistently associated with a submarine launched ballistic missile is the about 50 year old single Golf Class.Moryak (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jin class in service?[edit]

Ive removed the jin class from the in service list since there is no reference that i can find to it being in service. Especially since it was only last week that it was first spotted afloat i assume it is still undergoing tests and wont be in service for quiet some time.

Operation is estimated to begin by 2010 or earlier[1]. Shawnc 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

Someone wrote, "SSBN is not an acronym," in the article but this is incorrect. In fact it IS an acronym and stands for Submersible Ship Ballistic Nuclear, hence SSBN. Even the source cited actually explains this, though admittedly it's scattered throughout the document. I'm removing the incorrect statement. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

US Navy Hull type designations are NOT acronyms. It is a common misconception even bought into by many otherwise credible sources because it is one of those things retold often enough even though wrong, that it gains the weight of truth. You see the same thing happen with Frigates (FF) when they are referred to as "Fast Frigates". But if true... then what does the second D and B stand for in the designation for Destroyers (DD) and Battleship (BB)? BB simply means Battleship (Not Big Battleship) And DD simply means Destroyers (Not Dangerous Destroyer) Likewise, FF simply means Frigate, not Fast Frigate, and SS means Submarines, not Ship, Submersible.

There are a number of things wrong, that told often enough.. appear true even to those who should know better. Even to this day you will find people, even sailors IN the USN, who will refer to an Aegis Class Cruiser, despite the fact that Aegis is a combat information system and not a class of cruiser. The Class name of the cruiser is Ticonderoga.

It is the same with SS and FF. It is a CODE, Not an ACRONYM. It simply means Frigate and Submarine. Not Fast Frigate and Ship, Submersible.

If it truly is an ACRONYM as you insist. then explain to me what the double consonants DD and BB stand for. Or admit you're wrong.

But what do I know. I was only an Electronic Warfare Systems Tech (EW) in the US Navy. Cg23sailor (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

The item about submarines being the only naval vessels called "boats" is incorrect. Many smaller vessels are also called boats, including a captain's gig, an admiral's barge, various utility boats, tugboats, PT boats, and the YP class of training vessels at the US Naval Academy. When I served aboard a large naval vessel, I was the officer in charge of (i.e. responsible for) "ship's boats" of which this ship had several. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Two Crews Per Boat[edit]

Does this mean that each sub carries twice what it needs to operate and each crew works in opposite shifts or that there are two crews assigned to each boat and that one is aboard and one is ashore (home base) for each cruise? Axeman (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the USN blue and gold crews, each crew goes out for about six weeks. When they return. the sub stays for about 2-4 weeks, then the other crew goes out. So they aren't on the sub at the same time. I assume the other navies do the same thing. The text doesn't explain this, but an SSBN spends almost all of its patrol time underwater, which is hard on the crews. By rotating entire crews, the SSBNs can spend more time on patrol. I'll see if I can find a sources to cite that explains this, and the text is very vague. - BillCJ (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 3 days[edit]

Due to escalating IP involvement in the edit war, the page has been semi-protected for the next three days.

Please stop edit warring on the article and take discussions to the article talk page here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

. . . and the edit war has broken out again.
I am knowingly walking into a minefield, but based on AP and Reuters articles (which I've used as cites in the nuclear triad article) on the Arihant's launch three things are clear: 1) It is (or is meant to be, in some fashion at least) definitely a SSBN. 2) It is still under development (it doesn't even have a reactor yet, for heaven's sake). 3) It does not yet have any ballistic missiles to fire. Thus, Arihant clearly belongs in the Under Development subsection. If you want to argue these points, you'd better have good cites. YLee (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this article suffers from far too much pushing of the Arihant as though it's in service. There are doubts over whether it is a ballistic missile submarine. Space25689 (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Model Launch Depths[edit]

Earliest models of SSBN submarines carried the Polaris A1, A2, and A3 missiles. From the beginning, missiles did not have to be launched from the surface. Maximum launch depth for all three models of Polaris was 100 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.70.114 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Classes under development[edit]

I've added tags to each class under development. I hope this helps clarify their stage of development. I oppose having two sections for classes under development as this seems POV. I read the source regarding an Arihant follow on class but couldn't find any mention of such a class. Many countries with SSBNs have plans to replace their current SSBNs, such as the USA and UK have plans to do so, but those planned classes are not mentioned in the article because their just plans so far rather than already under development. Space25689 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be POV? Can you answer that. The objective is clarity when you say certain submarines are undergoing sea trials and some are planned. Is removing this POV or not? If you have not seen it, then you must read it again. I'm asking you what's the objective of Wikipedia. To provide information or to hide it. If there is proper information about plans for a new generation of Nuclear subs with sources then why not add it. Is it not a POV hiding this information from readers?
I don't have any objection to the list with proper information of the stage of development of the submarine like sea trials etc. Is the Type 096 in planning stage or has started production? Also add the Follow on to the Arihant in planning stage.Bcs09 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no need for multiple sections for SSBNs under development. They are all under development, whether at different stages of development or not. Any important information, such as that regarding stages of development, is noted in the section. There's only one section for SSBNs in service, and there should be only one section for SSBNs under development for the same reason. It is POV to have multiple sections for SSBNs under development in order to exaggerate those near completion over those which are in the early stages of development. It is also POV to include future classes of SSBNs without supporting reliable sources. The US Navy and Royal Navy have planned future SSBNs but there is no mention of these in the article because they are still speculation. Future SSBNs without academic sources should not be added to the article as that would be wp:original research. Also remember, Wikipedia is not a wp:crystal ball. Only reliable academic information should be published on articles. Space25689 (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No one is asking for separate sections for development and planned ones if the information can be fit into one that's development with clarification of stages. Earlier you removed details like sea trials for the reason best known to you. Now it seems all right except for you having problem with the inclusion of follow on class to the Arihant class. First you did not read the article. Sad. Anyhow, I'm pasting the sections for you to read. Hope that helps.[2]"In 2005, the UPA Government gave an in-principle clearance for building a follow-on series of larger ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), costing nearly Rs 8,000 crore a piece or nearly twice that of the current series of ATVs and another line of nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSNs) to escort them. "Bcs09 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I stated earlier both the US and UK plan to replace their SSBN classes with new ones but these new classes are not included in the article because they're only speculation. Adding such speculated future classes is far too crystal ball for Wikipedia. Space25689 (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war so I've decided to include all planned classes and allow the section to be split into two in that case. Space25689 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I never thought of things beyond what is being approved or may be in design stage. Your foresight to bring in the all the planned subs was really informative. Never knew about the U.S program and the British Sub program (except for the Trident replacement issues) But I dislike the way you removed approved from the list of Arihant class sub. I also request your help to create a page for Follow on to the Arihant class submarine.Bcs09 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay maybe we could expand some nuclear submarine articles and the articles on their missiles which are stubs. If you have any websites with info on them it could help. Space25689 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Good, which articles need improvement?Bcs09 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

'Keel depth'; 'Purpose'[edit]

The third sentence of the article names phrase 'keel depth'. One, you do not define it. Hence, no reader other than those with, evidently, a knowledge about submarines or ships to begin with, can understand this article. An invalid premise.

Two, the hyperlink on the word 'keel' has problems:

- Any link here should be a definition of 'keel depth'. Hence 'keel depth', not 'keel' alone, should be the link.

- The link points to article 'Keel'. But a text search on 'keel depth' there turns up nothing.

- For that matter, why are readers directed to an article about keels? The last time I looked at a submarine, I didn't see a keel on it.

- Hence article 'Keel' is invalid as well. If 'keel depth' is a legitimate and useful term, then you would think that article would explain it, by way of listing all major uses of the word 'keel'. Hence someone ought to fix it too.

While I'm at it, paragraph 'Purpose' must be rewritten. You start out, as so many Wiki articles drearily do, by stating what an SSBN is not. You begin by describing not only one, but two other kinds of submarine, attack and cruise missile submarines.

Do not write, or at least do not begin, an article on a subject by telling us what it is not.

Begin by describing the subject, period. Then, and only then, you may tell us how the subject differs from one or more other subjects.

Additionally, sentences in Wikipedia often give their confused purpose away through their punctuation. The first sentence under 'Purpose' is three separate sentences strung together into one. One, remove the semi-colon and begin a new sentence. Two, break up the remainder into two sentences, one about attack and one about cruise missile, subs.

Also, notice how the second paragraph under 'Purpose' is more important than the first paragraph. This is typical of the inverted writing seen in Wikipedia. Once you invert your first sentence (the long run-on one with the semi-colon), inversions then cascade until the entire section is written backwards. So consider putting that nuclear-triad para. first. --Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep depth is a standard term of art in submarine design and operations, and it's used extensively in Wikipedia, but had no explanation or definition here. Fixed ( Keep depth article now exists).
I'm too busy to rewrite the Purpose section right now, though I agree that it's poorly written. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Strategy?[edit]

Is there some "strategy" article that applies to these subs? It turns out that Ohio type subs no longer sail well-submerged, but travel instead at a "go ahead and hit me" depth which totally vitiates the concept of strategic defense as well as the capability of staying "at depth" for 60 to 90 days, which once was important to the US. Maybe part of some treaty? Or unwritten agreement between the US and Russia (and other countries)? Or maybe it no longer does any good to stay way down, so why bother? Student7 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)