Talk:Iowa-class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Iowa-class battleship is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Iowa-class battleship has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic star Iowa-class battleship is the main article in the Iowa class battleships series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 31, 2005.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Question about the refit in the eighties[edit]

Hello! There is a sentence in Iowa_class_battleship#1980s_refit saying that the ships were refitted to burn navy distillate fuel. If there was a need for a refit to make them use this fuel, what did they use before? I cannot imaging that any conventionally powered steamship consuming fuel oil burns something else than heavy fuel oil / Bunker C (with the exception of IJN warships at the close of WW II using something like [light] crude oil). A clarification would be nice. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been told by men in the U.S. Navy that for decades, all of the conventional ships of the Navy have burned a fuel that is identical in all regards to JP - 4 or JP - 5 jet fuel. This includes all such ships that are propelled by steam turbines. Of course, this was extremely convenient in the conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, such as the USS Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America, and John F. Kennedy, in which the ships, their jet planes, and their helicopters (propelled by gas turbines) all burned the same kind of fuel. All conventional ships that have helicopters burn jet fuel in all engines. All ships powered by gas turbines (such as the Spruance class, the Ticonderoga class, the Arleigh Burke class, and the Oliver Hazard Perry class) burn jet fuel, and these all carry helicopters that burn jet fuel, too. All ships of amphibious warfare that carry helicopters and/or AV - 8B Harriers just need that one kind of fuel, no matter if they use steam turbines or gas turbines for propulsion. All of the replenishment ships burn the same kind of fuel that they carry as cargo.
For a long time, the Navy hasn't had any "Black gangs" that burned black fuel oil in the ship's boilers.
You can look up the details on all of this elsewhere if you choose to do so.98.81.2.31 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
All of the Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers need to be re-supplied by tankers that carry just one kind of fuel. Their jet aircraft burn JP - 4 or JP - 5 (You can look up the details.) All of their helicopters (such as Seahawks) are powered by gas turbines that burn the same stuff. Their E-3Cs and C-2s have turboprop engines that burn the same stuff. Those big carriers also have tanks of fuel for their escorting cruisers, destroyers, and frigates when those run low on fuel (before the tankers can arrive). It doesn't matter too much, but all of these warships in the present Navy are powered by gas turbines that run quite happily on JP - 4 or JP - 5. Nowadays, the only warships in the navy that are conventionally-powered and also use steam turbines are amphibious warfare ships, such as the Wasp-class and the USS Pelileu. All of this has been true ever since the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS John F. Kennedy have been retired from service -- and those burned JP - 4 or JP - 5 anyway. Until such time as the USS Zumwalt enters service, ALL of the destroyers of the Navy are from the Arleigh Burke class. All of the cruisers are Ticonderoga class, and all of the frigates are Oliver Hazard Perry class. All but one of the aircraft carriers is of the Nimitz class -- with the USS Enterprise being the only exception. There are only two classes of attack submarines - the one whose main job is to hunt enemy submarines.98.81.2.31 (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
No to everything above. With the shift away from heavy fuel oil / Bunker C - vastly reduced soot and maintenance requirements for the boiler. The shift was to Distillate fuel marine (DFM). This is pretty close to diesel fuel in composition - DFM can be used in a diesel engine. Using JP-4 or JP-5 in a diesel engine is acceptable for a limited usage - burn hotter, helps clean out any issues. In the Middle East when a batch of HL-4 or JP-5 would fail the specification test - it was frequently sold as DFM, accepting the slightly lower sale price. When using heavy fuel oil / Bunker C fuel must be preheated, and light-off of the plant was done with a different fuel (such as DFM or JP-4. I thing the steam powered ships from the 1960s were built lacking the preheaters needed for black oil. I expect all of the US Gas Turbine ships (FFG-7, CG47, DDG) have a separate system for JP-5 for helicopters. I remember in the Eadly 1980s have a port call at Rota Spain- and as taking on fuel noticed the residue of heavy fuel oil / Bunker C from the prior refuelling and having to ensure we were about to recieve DFM Wfoj3 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Size comparison / info[edit]

I'm not a fan of the 'longest battleship' wording that had been in the article's Lead. The Lead should only summarize the body of the article, not introduce new info. But some info on class's size compared to other battleship classes might be a good idea for the Design section. Just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

we could do that, but it would have to be done carefully since comparisons of this class and that class are what lead to a months long edit war in the article the last time that this was tried, even accounting for the citations (or lack thereof) for the information provided in the past. Understandably, based on the lessons of the past, I'm a little hesitant to begin adding comparisons to the article again, although I grant that the decision to remove the comparison information in the article in the first place was based on consensus at the time, and consensus can change over time, so I'd be open to revisiting in the issue again if others feel that the time is right to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought some comparisons of length and width would be OK, but I can understand that could lead to useless edit battles/wars. I had a little trouble finding the size info in the Design section at first, but it is mainly worked in with Propulsion. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally a comparison of the length and width with regard to preceding class from which the current class is devised is considered acceptable, as it shows the growth of a battleship class (or any class of ship really) as they relate to their predecessors, so as long as you stick with US battleships in the comparison it should be good. The powder keg, such as it were, doesn't appear until you start comparing ships from one nation to the ships from someone else's nation, which is where the edit warring last time came in. In the case of latter, you'd have to make an expressed point to really site all the information meticulously if you want to compare across international borders, and even then it definitely should not be in the intro. If you want to be WP:BOLD and go for it then feel free to do so, just be forewarned that if it turns out that the information is controversial and threatens to restart the edit waring it'll need to be removed or reworked to stay in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Plural Form of Ship Names[edit]

Using an "s" for the plural form of a ship's name is awkward and sloppy (e.g., Iowas). Referring to "class" or "-class ships" is a preferred usage. Still further, the "s" usage is not employed consistently on Wikipedia. For example, the New York-class article does not refer to New Yorks. Now that the effort has been made to clean up these articles, the better usage should be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.94.46 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen both usages in professional publications. Kindly respect the existing usage rather than your personal preference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Others have noted that the usage is less awkward. Just because someone wrote the article using an awkward, shortened form doesn't mean it should stay that way forever. 2601:0:9680:36:E18D:B068:F2D8:D1ED (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
One person's opinion. I don't believe that it's noted as a major faux pas by any of the major copyediting or style guides, which would give your opinion a lot more weight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Using the plural form is a viable alternative to repeating class over and over again, and so adds some variety to the text. Keep it in. - BilCat (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iowa-class battleship. 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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)