Talk:Ohio class submarine

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)

I added some information I found on a new class with a cited reference. Feel free to improve it but I believe it is relevant to maintain especially when we approach the end of this class's life.AH-64 Longbow (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

It used to be a big deal to cover up the screws on our submarines, but since f***ing Toshiba sold the Russians the computer-controlled milling equipment to make their own ultra-quiet with the software for Trident & 688 screws installed, it's a moot point now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.36.202 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sum of All Fears?

Quote: "Two Tom Clancy novels also focus heavily on Ohio-class submarines: The Sum of All Fears and Debt of Honor."

I don't know about Debt of Honor, but I don't recall any subs in The Sum of All Fears. SeriousWorm (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a prominent plot thread featuring the Captain of an Ohio class whose boat is damaged during a military crisis, revealing its position to a Russian sub. Due to misunderstandings the two end up firing on one another, sinking the Ohio. It's a fairly central plot to the book. BobThePirate (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this image be added

Is it redundant and unnecessary to add this to the Ohio article given that it is available by clicking on the Trident missile link. Or is it relevant to show the Ohio performing it's primary mission, after deterrence that is. AH-64 Longbow (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Posture Review 2010

It seems like it might be a neato idea to incorporate comments and information from the new Nuclear Posture Review produced by the DoD, particularly as it relates to corroborating other information already in place within the article, but from less official sources.

find the article on this page --Asday85 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Akula is not a fictional submarine

Akula is a Russian nuclear powered attact submarine that were first commisioned around 1984. Very quiet and deady. 98.230.41.45 (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you've misinterpreted the sentence. "For example, the fictional Akula-class submarine Admiral Lunin attacks" – fictional is referring to the fact that ship is named Admiral Lunin, not the Akula-class submarine. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Life support

There are life support issues that need to be addressed with ships (boats?) that stay underwater from 60-90 days straight. Maybe not quite as essential as International_Space_Station#Life_support since a satellite can't re-enter or be easily resupplied, but something between nothing and the Space Station would be about right. While subs have always needed underwater sustainability, it was never as crucial as it is with FBMs. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you breaking the talk-pages-are-not-fora-for-general-discussion-of-the-article's-subject rule? Or, am I not understanding the purpose of your post? And, it's boats. --Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The intent of the post seems to be about improving the article. Though in a general sense Life support is covered at Submarine#Life support systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I imagine submarine is linked in the article. This doesn't seem to really answer the article's (really a boomer article, since other nations have them) need for a special subsection on life support. For example, everyone stinks after 6 weeks on American boomers. The stink persists until after several weeks ashore. Esters/perfumes etc. are banned because they persist in the sub's atmosphere. These pollutants are tracked assiduously by the crew to ensure that the crew is not "poisoned!" Student7 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Ohio-class article does not need a life support section. Boomers and fast-attacks both come to snorkel depth periodically for a variety of reasons. When they do, they often gulp in fresh air, though sometimes they get the wind just right and the diesel exhaust gets sucked into the boat by the main induction fans. Talk about esters. Yeah, we had a certain "scent" that, I think, was primarily caused by the Monoethanolamine used to remove CO₂ -- I never stuck my head in an amine tank to find out. Boomers have showers - these boats are relative pleasure yachts compared to the diesel boats of yore. So, no life support section - the reference that Fnlayson provided is adequate. --Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Snorkels would indeed remove any necessity for a life support subsection. I am shocked to hear that boomers do this since satellites would spot them at that depth. What is the point of boomers anyway? Depth is their only defense. I was told by another former boomer crewman that this did not happen except in emergencies. This made sense to me.

BTW, you lost me on the "diesel exhaust." What are diesels doing on a nuclear sub (except as backup maybe)? Student7 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood what the other sailor said. Or I wasn't clear. The diesel I refer to drives a generator. Very necessary when the reactor is off-line. --Trappist the monk (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my notes are the result of a presentation made by a former submariner.

Maybe what is needed (at a higher level) is a history that reports that when boomers were really counted on, that they stayed at depth (and not just "snorkel-depth") and out of touch (from the sub) for 60-90 days without even their own Navy knowing exactly where they were; that life-support systems were then quite critical; that current use is to try to keep the crews trained in the event that they are ever needed as a threat in the future since they are not operating that way today. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Just no. Almost all of that post is wrong. Boomers are counted on just as much now as then; they snorkel just as much now as then; they are "out of touch" (rarely) just as much now as then; the Navy knows where the boats are just as much now as then; life support systems are just as important now as then; crews train just as much now then; and the boats operate today much the same now as then. A "history" that says otherwise would be wrong and not supported by the facts. --Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we discussing nuclear-powered subs here? This article claims much the same operational capability for Soviet Foxtrot subs of 1950s design. Submerge for a week or so, then rise for snorkeling. The subs that seem to be discussed here don't seem that much more advanced in life support technology or operational capability. 00:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been talking about nuclear subs. This talk page isn't the place to compare Foxtrot-class submarines with Ohio-class submarines. Nothing in what you've said has convinced me that we should be adding a life support section to this article as that topic is already discussed elsewhere. So I guess I don't understand what it is that you don't understand. --Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize it when I started, but this is about strategic use of boomers. Question: 1) Can a sub be detected at snorkel depth by military satellites (deployed for that purpose BTW)? 2) Can a sub be detected at "shallow" depths by airplanes deployed with magnetic gear (for the purpose of detecting submarines). 3) Does a boomer sub have any weapons suitable for defending ITSELF against destruction, other than deep diving? and 4) If a sub can be detected at shallow depths AND it is essential to the defense/offense of the controlling nation, why is it revealing its position when it doesn't have to? Student7 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Those questions, not being related to your original life support section proposition, nor being related to the article's primary topic (Ohio-class submarines as a class), will have to go unanswered. --Trappist the monk (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation style

On 27 September 2011, in keeping with WP:CITEVAR, I edited the article for uniformity of citation style. Now comes User:Fnlayson who, counter to WP:CITEVAR, changes the {{Citation}} format to "Make cite template wrap to save space". I undid that change as the "space-saving" argument is nonsense — there is no need to "save space" in the edit window; we aren't trying to fit all of the text and markup onto one side of a post-it note.

Not liking that, Fnlayson undid my edit with this edit summary: "Revert, both layouts are valid for templates. See the template documentation for examples." Fnlayson is correct that both template styles are valid. Personal preference isn't sufficient reason to have made the change.

So, I have yet again restored the reference style to what it was; I have fixed date formats for the accessdate parameters; I have changed <ref Name=.../> to <ref name=.../> so that all such ref tags are the same.

Fnlayson, leave the style alone please.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The {{cite web}} and other documentation presents the templates in both horizontal and vertical layouts. I did not remove any of the cite templates, only changed them to a horizontal layout. Putting the cite templates in horizontal or vertical layout does not affect their appearance in the References section. So my edit did not change the citation style and did not violate WP:CITEVAR. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Harpoon missiles no longer carried (assuming they ever were)

I deleted the part at the top about carrying Harpoon to fire from the torpedo tubes. Sub Harpoon is long out of service. Also changed the entry on the Tomahawks' warheads on the same line to state that only conventional warheads are now carried. Many thanks. Chris Werb, Orkney, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I undid your changes because you didn't provide a sources to support your changes. Yeah, I know, the existing text isn't sourced either ...

--Trappist the monk (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)