|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
Shouldnt the Class Name in the infobox be simply Ticonderoga and not Battle of Ticonderoga? I've changed it(tough retaining the link to the battle so people can see where the name come from) Abel29a 03:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the Class Overview table, the name of the ship-class is listed at the top. The "Class name" field illustrates what the class's name is derived from. For other examples of the Class Overview succession box in use, see Iowa class battleship, Providence class cruiser, etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- AH I see - sorry - I'll leave well alone from now on..... Abel29a 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a reference to the replacement USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class of ships?
Here's a quote from USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51):
"The Arleigh Burke's designers incorporated many lessons learned by the Royal Navy during the Falklands campaign and from the USS Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers. The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were supposedly becoming too expensive to continue building, and were supposedly too difficult to upgrade. The Arleigh Burke's design includes what is now better known as stealth technology, which improve the ship's ability to evade and/or destroy anti-ship missiles. Furthermore, her all-steel construction provides good protection for her superstructure, while her Collective Protection System allows her to operate in environments contaminated by chemical, biological, or radiological materials." LP-mn (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Burkes were not seen as replacement ships for this class. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Ticonderoga has 128 cell
- I don't mean to be difficult here, but you are flat out wrong. There is a 3 cell strikedown crane on early models of the Mk-41 VLS. I will allow that perhaps some cruisers may have been modified, but I know that as built they all had 2x 61 cell launchers each. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
4 Gas turbines ?
In the Article:
4 × General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engines, 80,000 shaft horsepower (60,000 kW)
The earlierst version:
The LM2500 delivers 33,600 shaft horsepower (shp) (25,060 kW) with a thermal efficiency of 37 percent at ISO conditions. When coupled with an electric generator, it delivers 24 MW of electricity at 60 Hz with a thermal efficiency of 36 percent at ISO conditions.
4 x 25.060 kW = 100.240 kW = 100,24 MW and not 60 MW.
2nd Version: The improved, 3rd generation, LM2500+ version of the turbine delivers 40,500 shp (30,200 kW) with a thermal efficiency of 39 percent at ISO conditions. When coupled with an electric generator, it delivers 29 MW of electricity at 60 Hz with a thermal efficiency of 38 percent at ISO conditions.
4 x 30,200 kW ...
The latest, 4th generation, LM2500+G4 version was introduced in November 2005 and delivers 47,370 shp (35,320 kW) with a thermal efficiency of 39.3 percent at ISO conditions
Since the fuel is not cheap anymore since 2000 I think the US Navy is looking for best efficiency... Anyone got further information about the propulsion of the Ticonderoga-Class? Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Navy Fact File is basically what we went with there. "4 General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines; 2 shafts, 80,000 shaft horsepower total." I'm pretty sure the navy skews more towards reliability and other capabilities. Fuel efficiency is in the equation, but not number one, maybe not even number 2. It looks to me like they just used the 1975 era numbers from the Spruance destroyers, 21,500 SHP and rounded down to an even 80,000 SHP. I don't think it's possible for us to know exactly which model number is installed on each ship in the class, so it is probably best to stick with the numbers they provided. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)