Talk:USS San Francisco (SSN-711)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Date format[edit]

I noticed that the date formats were changed from month day, year as I had originally written to the day month year format. Is there any reason for this? I didn't notice any general order to use the latter format on the WikiProject:Ships page or on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I don't want to make the mistake of using the former date format should there be any general preference toward the latter.--YanA 01:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no preference, and it doesn't matter anyway -- if you link the dates, they will be displayed in the order chosen by the viewer's preferences. ➥the Epopt 15:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but if I recall correctly, the two orders are possible. "10th of January 2005", or "10 January 2005" are more standard English, while "January 10, 2005" is more US (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)). I tend to favour the standard English in general [1]; however, it is generally considered good form to use the standard format for European and Commonwealth-related articles, and the Amnerican format for USA-related article. I very much doubt that it is questionable that this article is about the USA (the submarine herself is diplomatically US territory), so the American format is acceptable.
This begin said, let's not take it too seriously either ! ;) Rama 16:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you want to use the format most appropriate for the article, use the format used by the US military: 10 January 2005. But, as I said, it doesn't matter because the Wikipedia software will translate linked dates into the form chosen in the user's preferences. ➥the Epopt 00:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

There are more photos without the cover here. Since they were taken in the drydock, I believe they are also US military photos. They also show clearly the sonar cone of the sub. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Me thinks the guy who posted the above referred un-obstructed pictures should face the musketry! The sonar array is the most advanced and most secret technology in any submarine and US sonar is decades ahead of russkies' and the ricers. These photos can much help the commie enemy, it is treason! When a new submarine is launched from the ramp, its nose is covered in flag drapes to obscure the secret sonar equipment from view. Now some dunce gives everything to the enemy for free! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.242 (talkcontribs) 18:16, August 5, 2005
The image has been deleted from Commons because someone removed the license. It is still all over the web and is probably a photo by a contractor that was not properly approved for release. --Dual Freq 12:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speed[edit]

I think that the confidential information included in this article (i.e. the speed of the ship when it struck the underwater mountain) should be changed to "in excess of 20 knots" or "20+ knots", or something to that effect. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.188.165 (talkcontribs) 19:27, November 18, 2005

Oh, right, and I suppose Image:SSN-711-damages 04.jpg should be deleted because it shows the sonar array? Anyone that is interested in these things already knows how fast it was going and what the sonar array looks like. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've removed reference to speed since the speed listed is not cited. Please cite to re-add. --Dual Freq 12:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeport[edit]

The article text correctly identifies the homeport in Guam, but the sidebar table has incorrect data stating the homeport is Bremerton, WA (As of 19th August 2005)

This is not an error. The ship has been homeported in Bremerton since summer 05. It will not be returning to Guam even after the bow restoration and sea trials are completed. Namor360 06:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Honolulu is actually newer, why not keep her?[edit]

The Honolulu is actually newer build than the crash damaged San Francisco. Why do they cut her up for SF repair cannibalization then? It would be safer choice to keep the hawaiian running and gut SF for parts. 82.131.210.162 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the Honolulu is a newer ship (slightly newer) her nuclear fuel is almost completely spent, whereas the San Francisco was just refueled. Refueling the reactor was estimated to be more expensive than the bow restoration project. This is the primary stated reason for the decom of the Hono and the repairs on the San Fran, though I expect for the Navy there is a pride issue at stake also.Namor360 06:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I personaly feel that they should rename the USS San Francisco, to the USS Hono-Francisco (SSN-7118) Seeing as she has the bow of Honolulu, and the ass of San Francisco. Or they could rename her USS Honolulu 2 (SSN-718B) and get rid of the San Francisco name all together, seeing as the city of San Francisco hate the military like they do.--Subman758 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Materials removed from the USS San Francisco[edit]

Is there anything (sources) that verify how much material was removed from the USS San Francisco during the bow replacement? I realize that subs are heavy and all, but one million seems a little much, even for a sub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Vertical launch tomahawk cruise missiles[edit]

I'm pretty sure the San Fran had them. I was stationed at Subase Pearl harbor from 1991 to 1994. Herogamer (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Style[edit]

"The dry-docking project involved cutting more than one million pounds of forward ballast tanks and sonar sphere off". One million pounds is something a Discovery channel would say. Can it just say "500 tons" like an encyclopedia should? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)