Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. 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/20140219211318/http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A038fade9-083d-4ca9-8212-b44b043e9a1f to http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A038fade9-083d-4ca9-8212-b44b043e9a1f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

crew / complement

The crew and complement figures are redundant and disagreeing. This article violates wikipedia's own definition of complement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement by mentioning the officers as part of the complement. And then it mentions a larger crew than complement, whereas according to the definition complement = crew + officers. I also have to say that at least coloquially and in many books crew = complement. So something is messed up in this ship class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.39.46 (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK... well, feel free to go ahead and fix it. - ^theWOLFchild 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

list order

With the latest update, DDG-125 & 126 will be the start of the new Flight III, but contracted separately, DDG-127 will still be a Flight IIA. The Flight III line will continue with DDG-128. As the table is now, the ships are (and will be) in the following order;

• DDG-123
• DDG-124
• DDG-127
• DDG-125
• DDG-126
• DDG-128
• DDG-129

I propose a slight change whereby we add an extra column break with a note, and keep the list in numerical and chronological order, to avoid any possible confusion (and edits from those trying to "fix" it). I made the change briefly then reverted, so that I could post an actual example, please see here and let me know what you think. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it'd better/maybe easier to add a separate column for the Flight number (config) and list them all by hull number. (This is not exactly what your edit did.) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding a new column would waste a lot of space and be very repetitive (as some of the section titles are more than just a flight number, e.g. "Flight IIA: 5"/62, one 20mm CIWS variant"). —RP88 ^(talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I like the general structure of your proposed solution. The table section title "DDG-127 contracted separately as a single Flight IIA build" is a bit wordy, but I admit I can't immediately think of a good title that is terser. If we adopt your solution and also keep the longer wording I think "approved separately" is better than "contracted separately". While it is true that adding DDG-127 as flight IIA was approved by Congress under separate legislation from the legislation that approved the modification of the FY13-FY17 MYP contract (N00024-13-C-2305) to add DDG-125 and DDG-126 as flight III, looking at the contract announcement I think DDG-127 was also a modification to that same contract rather than a separate contract. —RP88 ^(talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This text can go in the Status column (maybe on a 2nd line) if it is kept short enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in any way picky about the details. You guys can work out what wording you think best. I'm really just looking to have the list in sequential order. That ddg-127 just looks out of place right now. Thanks for the replies. - ^theWOLFchild 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you both have good ideas, so let's combine them. We can use the suggested wording by RP88, and also add much additional info as we like, (even include a links or a ref), but add it to a note. This way, the column break is kept brief as Fnlayson advised, in fact it'll be a single line. What do you guys think? - ^theWOLFchild 13:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

YDone - I've made the change (it's been almost 2 weeks). To keep the column-break/header clean and uncluttered, I kept the title simple and uniform, and added a detailed refnote at the bottom of the list, that includes a cite to the source regarding the contract details. Any concerns or questions, let me know. This page is on my watchlist - ^theWOLFchild 08:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 22:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to speedy fail this GA nomination as substantial amounts of work are needed for the article to meet GA criteria 2 and 3:

• Criterion 2: Several sections of the article are not referenced at all ('Contractors', 'Ships in class' - which has a large amount of content and 'In popular culture')
• Criterion 3: The 'Operational history' section is greatly inadequate, as it covers only two incidents in the long history of this class of ship. Their use in multiple wars, how their deployment has changed over time, various notable accidents (collisions, etc) and other incidents and uses of the ships are not covered. There is also no discussion at all of the derivative variants of this class used by Japan and South Korea, and other derivatives (eg, the so-called 'baby Burke' design proposed for Australia). Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Article size

The article is now approx. 95kB in size. Perhaps, as per WP:TOOBIG, we should look at splitting?
The table listing of ships alone is almost 30kB, and would be both the easiest and most obvious content to spin out. I'm happy to do it if there are no objections, or if someone else would strongly prefer to do it themselves. Thoughts? - wolf 22:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's really not that long an article by screen length. I'd wait until it gets way above 100kB. BilCat (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it would need to get well above 100K to justify starting a new article for the split. Abbreviating in the table and trimming in places could probably remove 10 kB from the total size. But the Size guideline is for readable prose, not total article size with refs, templates and such. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just reading Nick's GA review and based on that, this article needs, (and will hopefully get), more content. Regardless, it will grow, and at some point, something will need to be split off. But, I agree with both your points, and there is no hurry. Thanks for the replies. - wolf 01:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks and fair point. For splitting content off, the Development section is the longest and seems like the best one to split in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Succeeded by: Zumwalt class , even after like 90% of the class has been cancelled and from 3 finished ships only 2 are active?

Hi, the question is already above... I mean we talk about currently 68 Destroyers vs 3 finished (it seems?) and only 2 of these being active Zumwalt class destroyers, because of unexpected high costs and always less ships the costs even increased more and more, costs per unit have been 4.24 billion USD without R&D, but with only building 3 ships with R&D the unit costs are/were at least 7.5 billion US-$ per ship (as this number is from April 2016 and so its 5 years and 1 month old, I guess you could add interest for debt and ass the ship didn't enter service before Mid-October 2016 some other unexpected costs can be added I guess, for such a high price of at least 7.5 bln why are only 2 out of 3 units used? Is the 3rd still undergoing sea trials or is it to save (operating) costs and so on?!

Already by April 2016 one Zumwalt was well exceeding the per-unit cost of a nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarine ($2.688 billion). Now I'm sure the almost ~575 million US-$ missing in April 2016 to get 3 nuclear Virginia-class submarines for 1 Zumwalt are no longer missing, even if a Virginia-class submarine is a bit more expensive now (if still under construction?! Somehow I "see" an old ship(-class) when hearing Virginia-class (nuclear) submarine, something like late Vietnam war or maybe a bit later, but still cold-war?!. Lets hope China has its problems too in developing for example Aircraft carriers with nuclear propulsion strong enough for Chinas first large nuclear aircraft carriers designed themself, I think like the US an increase from around ~100,000 long tons Displacement to at least 115,000 or more is planned, the last remaining sector where the US is ahead even compared with the rest of the world together, I think the Chinese Navy is the strongest in comparison and number of smaller ships and (nuclear and conventional submarines... Kilon22 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)