Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer/Archive 1

Hurricane Katrina
Does anybody agree with me that the fact Katrina damages two being constructed is significent. I would like a second opinion before I add it. --Lionheart Omega 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Revamping all ships tables of the class
Alright, I may get some of the info wrong so feel free to edit the templates that will be used for the ship tables. Thank you.

Here's the list of the templates.

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer displacement I

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer displacement II

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer displacement IIA

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer length I

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer length IIA

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer beam

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer draft

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer speed

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer range

Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer complement

Like I said, feel free to edit these templates if some of them are wrong. I'll be watching this discussion page. ViriiK 07:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

South Korea
Is the type of the Korean D991 King Sejong a derivative of the Arleigh Burke class ? There are striking similarities. Rama 11:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the above question is answered in King Sejong the Great class destroyer, which I hadn't spotted. Rama 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of GD Template
I don't think it's correct to include a General Dynamics template on this page since the DDG-51 class is built by both Northrup Grumman and GD. I think a link is appropriate, but the inclusion of the template is a bit much. Hydrant 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S.S. Cole
I'm deleting the bit about the U.S.S. Cole in the bottom. It's totally irrelavant to the article. If people want to find out about the Cole attack, go to the article about the Cole! The article is about the Arleigh Burke destroyer in general, not specific ships of the class. (Panzer-Kavalier 02:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Encircle?
How does one ship 'encircle' anything? Bckirkup (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Production restart
I don't see anything in the current article about the issues with the production restart so I'll reorg a little bit so it comes after the refits. Hcobb (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Restarting production is mentioned at the bottom of the Ships section now. Moving to the Modernization might be better though, as the new ships will include new features. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's lots of options floating around, such as the AGS, but it seems that they will at least be Flight IIA standard with COTS. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3655903 Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph on steel construction ...
Based on this FAQ http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7 and another US Navy FAQ (which I can't re-locate) that says the same thing, I have removed the paragraph discusing the use of steel as a construction material due to Falklands experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.136.228 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That link supports all the paragraph except for the Falklands War part. Removing the whole paragraph because of a small inaccurate part is not helpful.  It's been restored with corrected wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What possibly did the U.S. learn from the RN and the Falklands War that was incorporated in the Arleigh Burkes? There's not one, but two unsupported references to the Falklands in this article - the above reference makes it pretty clear that going all steel had nothing whatsoever to do with the Brits - looks like just some more imaginative editing by the pro-UK Wiki brigade. As for capabilities, can't see where the Brits' experience would be much good either.Jmdeur (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The all-steel construction paragraph was corrected weeks ago. But the previous paragraph similarly mentioned the RN and Falklands War.  That was either missed then or something.  In any event, that's been fixed too. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What influence did the Falklands have on ship design, I don't know, maybe 1. The Broadsword/Coventry incident proved the need for VLS, which was incorporated into Ticonderogas from then on (the first few still used obsolete launcher arms). 2. The Sheffield having RADAR and missiles incapable of tracking and engaging sea-skimming targets, with no secondary protection - hence ships needed AEGIS and better missiles and Phalanx for extra protection (something the USS Stark didn't have), not to mention the RADAR cross-section reduction design. There's 2 things - looks like just some more imaginative editing by the pro-USA Wiki brigade.


 * I like the line "In July 2010, BAE Systems announced that they had been awarded a contract to modernise 11 ships.", so it seems that the US Navy needs to employ the Brits' knowledge - "can't see where the Brits' experience would be much good either" doesn't really stand up as a sensible comment when the US Navy learned a LOT from the Falklands, having conducted their own extensive investigation into that conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.175 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BAE bought UD who made things like the Mk41 launchers, although BAE's artillery division includes elements from Vickers and others. The US Navy did learn a lot from the Falklands - see Lessons of the Falklands (PDF) - but steel construction was not one of them (see page 60), that decision had already been made after the Bellknap fire and in any case it's not clear that making the T21s of steel would have helped much. VLS was already happening - the early version of Sea Wolf was VLS back in 1968 before the RN ditched it; VLS was already being revived for "new Sea Wolf" in 1982. 82.26.208.252 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1986 BBC Horizon programme "In the Wake of HMS Sheffield" here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Harpoon Removal?
The article discusses how the latest flight have had their Harpoon launchers removed. Does anyone have any specifics on what the Arleighs are using for ASuW capability now? Does it all rest on the SM-2s? TheSwordandScales (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * yes nowadays I think the USNavy hates the Harpoon. Google around and there are sources explaining the removal.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sentences don't match
The Arleigh Burke class are among the most powerful destroyers ever built in the United States.[citation needed] Only the Spruance class destroyers were larger (563 feet)--one is about power the other sizeOther dictionaries are better (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevlar
These ships are armored

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt1.htm

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not armored with Kevlar in the traditional "armored warship" sense. This isn't an armor belt. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And globalsecurity.org is no longer considered a reliable source, per the discussions here. - BilCat (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another source:

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg90/pages/specs.aspx In the ARLEIGH BURKE Class, all-steel construction is used. Extensive top-side armor is placed around vital combat systems and machinery spaces. The bulkheads are constructed of steel from the waterline to the pilot house. The bulkheads are designed with double-spaced plate construction for fragment protection. The frontal plate causes fragments to break up and the backup plate stops the fragments from causing further damage to the interior of the ship. Other Aegis combat system equipment rooms are protected by Kevlar shielding. And, topside weight is reduced by incorporating an aluminum mast.

These are about the best armored surface combatants of our times. Hcobb (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is armor, but that doesn't make them "armored" - splinter protection is pretty common these days, it's not enough to make a big deal of IMHO. They're still pretty puny compared to a Long Beach or a Suffren, and ton for ton a Udaloy is probably better protected. 82.26.208.252 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DDG-113 — DDG-116
The construction contracts for these hull numbers have recently been awarded. Brad (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Aegis radar
Aegis radar is dumb. There ain't no such thing, and there isn't an article about it in the Wikipedia. The Aegis Combat System is a very sophisticated combination of computers, radars, missiles, and man-machine interfaces. Get rid of "Aegis radar". 98.67.108.12 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Multirole destroyers
These are multirole destroyers, not multi-role destroyers. For many decades now "multianything" has not been hyphenated, except by people from certain countries who are too dim to catch up, and they aren't Americans. Here are some examples of the use of "multi":

multibranched, multicolored, multifactored, multimode, multinational, multipurpose, multiracial, multiregional, multisensory, multistage, multistory, multitalented, multitonal, multitudinous, multivariable, multiverse, multiyear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.108.12 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it up with the US Navy or the defense contractors. Sources says "multi-"whatever.   Same thing for SPY-3     ViriiK (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As a rule, English grammar does not allow compound words to be created, unlike German. Hence 'multi-role' is correct, as it is two words with no pause between them when spoken, the hyphen indicating this. The same goes for company names such as Rolls-Royce, the hyphen indicating that it is pronounced as one word.


 * This is to prevent convoluted words such as thisonewheretheseperatewordsallrunintooneanother, which although often seen in written German, is not acceptable in proper English. This is also why words like 'co-operation' are also properly hyphenated otherwise written 'cooperation' it looks like something to do with barrel making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Superseded, eh (or huh)?
Succeeded by: Zoomwalt-class - not. "What had once been seen as the backbone of the navy's future surface fleet with a planned production run of 32, has since been replaced by destroyer production reverting to the Arleigh Burke class after ordering (a measly) 3 Zumwalters" Perhaps the article should revert to superseded by None, and the Zumwalt-class articles updated to read superseded by A. Burkes.


 * Agreed. It's esp. true now that they're restarting AB production. Will update the article. -Oosh (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , I believe you're misinterpreting what Succeeded means in this context and draw you attention to Infobox ship class overview:
 * Class after
 * Used to indicate the succeeding class in cases where there is a direct design or type lineage across classes.
 * Alternately, used to indicate the ships that have/will replace this class.
 * Please describe how the Zumwalt meets either of those clauses? It's as big as a cruiser, vastly different in design, intended to fulfil a role closer to that of a battleship, and is not replacing the AB. -Oosh (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See description in the Navy destroyer fact file, especially the part about the Zumwalt class (DDG 1000) being "next-generation" destroyer and was to replace the DDG 51 until 2008. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Interview on Flight III
Lots of detail here in an interview with the DDG-51 program manager if anyone wants to incorporate it.86.23.80.112 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Flight IIA landing deck
They have a "bubble" like those in aircraft carriers ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.113.211 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Armament
Who added that Bullcrap about 1 or 2 127mm lightweight guns? It has a single DP 127mm Mark 45 Mod 4 gun, not 2, I am immediately removing that stupid edit.

Have a great day --Luis Santos24 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen or en dash?
I believe the use of the class name preceding the class makes "Arleigh Burke-class" a compound modifier, and per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, it should be hyphenated (as the article name already is). The use of an en dash in "Arleigh Burke–class" in the infobox and a few other places is inconsistent with the rest of the article.180.93.253.88 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Crew size?
Word "crew" appears just once in the article, re USS Cole. What is the nominal size of the crew for normal operations? Shouldn't this be listed in the infobox, as a sort of "basic fact" of what it takes to operate one of these things? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DDG-121
Please see discussion here regarding the new name for this ship. - the WOLF  child  19:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source for claim on DDG-125?
Claims for 124 and 125 to each be "the" first Flight III need better sourcing. For example we've got this:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/adding-arleigh-burkes-northrop-grumman-underway-06007/
 * both FY 2017 ships (DDG 124-125), will “incorporate Flight III capability,” but not the new radars themselves.

So can we withdraw the claim for now and give the refs time to clarify? Hcobb (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to cite real sources instead of your own personal twitter, which you did not even link to, as you did in your edit summary, then sure. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was removing my personal math when a closer check on the sources didn't back it up. If you want to keep the claim that DDG-125 is the first Flight III then please provide a source for this. Hcobb (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please respond to what people actually say to you. The issue is you making edits, and citing your own personal twitter as a source. Are you going to respond showing that you know that is not acceptable? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the format for a ref that doesn't exist? I adjusted a number by calculation from the existing information listed here then found that it didn't line up. I went on Twitter to ask the author of the referenced article and he reported he didn't know either. At that point I went back and removed the unsupported claim. Twitter isn't the source of information here nor is it a confirmation of the negative. It's simply one of the places I went to search. Hcobb (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You claimed in your edit summary that your twitter was the source. Put what you just said in your edit summary next time (or better yet, don't do personal calculations that are essentially WP:SYNTH) in the first place). If you come here and just say "look at my twitter" in your edit summary, you will be reverted. You made no mention of all of the rest of this, your own calculations, or anything, and you STILL haven't linked to your twitter for us to see all of this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the author of the reference on the subject:

https://twitter.com/samlagrone/status/727590869843496963 Sam LaGrone ‏@samlagrone @henrycobb The additional DDG in 16 complicates the math. Until the NAVSEA puts it out, we're not going to hang a number on it.

So can we withdraw the claim about DDG-125 for now? (DDG-124 and DDG-126 have their own references, but I'm the only person who prematurely fingered DDG-125.) Hcobb (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Had you not synthesized a number not in your source to begin with, this would not be a problem. Yes, you can withdraw the claim, but have you learned anything from this about not making up numbers and not using your own twitter as a cited source for your edits? Can you answer anything asked of you? This circle has been getting danced for YEARS, you never seem to respond to the criticism levied at your editing behavior. Will it take bringing in administrators? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suddenly twitter becomes a source (sarcasm)Cantab1985 (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect primary mission for SM-3
The SM-3s primary mission is ballistic missile defense(BMD), not anti-aircraft warfare (AAW). SM-2 and SM-6 are the primary Area Air Defense weapons, with the SM-6 supplanting, but not fully replacing the SM-2 in service as it is produced in numbers. SM-6 is also capable of a secondary Anti Surface Warfare (SUW) mission.

I propose correcting the article from:

Their AEGIS Combat System differs from a traditional rotating radar that mechanically rotates 360 degrees for each sweep scan of the airspace. Instead, Aegis uses a passive electronically scanned arrays, which allow continual tracking of targets simultaneous with area scans. The system's computer control also allows centralization of the previously separate tracking and targeting functions. The system is also resistant to electronic counter-measures. Their standalone Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers give them an anti-ship capability with a range in excess of 64 nautical miles (119 km; 74 mi).[9] With the retirement of the Tomahawk anti-ship missile variant, only Arleigh Burke-class ships before Flight IIA versions are well-equipped for anti-surface warfare with Harpoon launchers. Others are not, but are loaded with SM-2 missiles in their vertical launch cells capable of an anti-ship mode, though they have limited range and damage potential.[19] "The 5-inch/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, in conjunction with the Mark 34 Gun Weapon System, is an anti-ship weapon which can also be used for close-in air contacts or to support forces ashore with Naval Gun-Fire Support (NGF), with a range of up to 20 miles (32 km) and capable of firing 20 rounds per minute." The class's RIM-7 Sea Sparrow/RIM-162 ESSM missiles provide point defense against missiles and aircraft while the Standard Missile-3 provides area anti-aircraft defense. Additionally the ship has an electronics warfare suite that provides passive detection and decoy countermeasures.[9]

to

Their AEGIS Combat System differs from a traditional rotating radar that mechanically rotates 360 degrees for each sweep scan of the airspace. Instead, Aegis uses a passive electronically scanned arrays, which allow continual tracking of targets simultaneous with area scans. The system's computer control also allows centralization of the previously separate tracking and targeting functions. The system is also resistant to electronic counter-measures. Their standalone Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers give them an anti-ship capability with a range in excess of 64 nautical miles (119 km; 74 mi). With the retirement of the Tomahawk anti-ship missile variant, only Arleigh Burke-class ships before Flight IIA versions are well-equipped for anti-surface warfare with Harpoon launchers. Others are not, but are loaded with SM-2 missiles in their vertical launch cells capable of an anti-ship mode, though they have limited range and damage potential. "The 5-inch/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, in conjunction with the Mark 34 Gun Weapon System, is an anti-ship weapon which can also be used for close-in air contacts or to support forces ashore with Naval Gun-Fire Support (NGF), with a range of up to 20 miles (32 km) and capable of firing 20 rounds per minute." The class's RIM-7 Sea Sparrow/RIM-162 ESSM missiles provide point defense against missiles and aircraft while the Standard Missile-2 and 6 provide area anti-aircraft defense and the SM-6 provides over the horizon missile defense. Standard Missile 3 and 6 also provide Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD). Additionally the ship has an electronics warfare suite that provides passive detection and decoy countermeasures. Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article name
You recently renamed this article from "Arleigh Burke-class destroyer" to "Arleigh Burke–class destroyer" (with an en-dash) with the suggestion that this was done to comply with MOS:PUNCT. I think the original was correct, ship class names should should use a hyphen. See Naming conventions (ships). I reverted your change. You also changed some of the uses of "Arleigh Burke-class" in the text. I changed some of them back as well, but I may not have gotten them all. Please feel free to revert my changes if you think I've misinterpreted the guidelines, but all of the other U.S. ship class articles have adopted the style from Naming conventions (ships). —RP88 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Aw, foo. I'm sorry—I was not familiar with that specific rule, and was following the general usage of punctuation, in which en dashes are used a "super hyphens" for compound terms.  See, for instance, The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, 6.80 "En dashes with compound adjectives".—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I am happy to see that we are now on the same page. —RP88 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Flights
A table outlining the differences between the different flight configurations would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2017 (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. - the WOLF  child  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; 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. - the WOLF  child  21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * DDG-123
 * DDG-124
 * DDG-127
 * DDG-125
 * DDG-126
 * DDG-128
 * DDG-129


 * 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. - the WOLF  child  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? - the WOLF  child  13:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

✅Done - 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 - the WOLF  child  08:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of current vessels in class
The third para of the intro states that there are currently 62 ships in service in the class with another 42 "envisioned", yet the sidebar states that as of April 2020 only 89 are planned but there are 68 active. It seems that some cross checking here has not been done.

I apologise that I do not have access to primary sources so I don't which set of figures is correct, maybe someone better informed then me can help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.36.208 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Flights
The flights are mentioned but never explained. Context needed. Toddst1 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I always understood them to be the equivalent of sub-classes, blocks, tranches, etc, ie. groups of ships of a similar build standard. I don't know if it's ever explained in a source anywhere or not. And for the life of me, I don't know why they used "flights" for ships! (The contemporary Virginia-class submarines use "blocks".) BilCat (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Found it: From the US Navy fact file of the class: "...and comprises four separate variants or 'Flights.'" No explanation of why "flights" instead of "blocks" though. BilCat (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've added a subsection explaining the flights. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

USS Mason missile attacks
Is the overall incident major enough to add to the "Accidents and major incidents" section? In October 2016, in the Red Sea, USS Mason was attacked by anti-ship missiles on three separate occasions: October 9, 12, and 15. The ship came out unharmed, but it could be seen as "major" because this was the first time any warship fired SAMs and deployed decoys to successfully neutralize incoming vampires in actual self-defense. (In the 1991 USS Missouri incident, the only other incident involving intercepting anti-ship missiles in actual combat, Missouri was not the one who defended herself; it was a nearby Type 42 destroyer.) Findingmoney100 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not "major" is used as a descriptor, this incident should be included in the article. (imo) -  w o lf  06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph on it under "Operational history." Since there's no dedicated wiki page on the incident it's a quite in-depth paragraph but can obviously be condensed if seen fit Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If this is a combat type event, it belongs in a section such as the Operational history section, not in an Accidents type section. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I went ahead an added a paragraph on it. It's long but I wanted to keep it as one paragraph for consistency (it can obviously be condensed if seen fit) Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Alternative notes


This is a demo for Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Derivatives
Thoughts on briefly mentioning there are destroyer classes modeled on the Arleigh Burke class (like which section it would be appropriate to discuss them, or if this deserves its own section)? The Kongō, Atago, Maya, and Sejong the Great classes are currently only ever mentioned as "related classes" in the template at the bottom. The lack of their discussion was apparently one of the reasons this article speedy failed its GA review back in 2018. Findingmoney100 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this deserves its own heading section. I'll add something brief under the Ships in class section; it can be refined later. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Refinement
Been thinking about giving this article another shot at GA status, but I'm reaching a point I'm not sure what major works still needs to be done. I think it's good references-wise (unless we still need more citations in the Ships in class section?). Size is sitting at 135 KB right now, compared to 95 KB back in 2020. Of course the templates eat up the size, so I think splitting is still not warranted. The Operational history section finally has stuff in it, and I still intend to add maybe a bit more to that section.

Unless I'm missing something major, I think this article at least won't be speedy failed. It's definitely improved a lot since 2018. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Findingmoney100 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and nominated for GA to get some critique of the article. If it still doesn't meet GA criteria at least we'll get helpful comments Findingmoney100 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Weapons
The US Navy plans to procure and fit a Mk38 Mod 4 30mm (made by MS International) to the Flight II and Flight III Arleigh Burke DDGs in lieu of the Mk38 Mod 2/3 (25mm) fitted to-date. Sjhedger (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, wasn't sure if it was worth mentioning but I'll go ahead and add it. I'll just copy some info I wrote in Mark 38 25 mm machine gun system into Modernization. Please feel free to optimize it further.
 * And I think overall refinement of Modernization is still necessary. It's long and doesn't flow the best (imo). We also have to be careful about adding new information into that section which is why I didn't add Mk 38 Mod 4 originally. Findingmoney100 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , you guys have a source for this info? - w o lf  23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Rapid Prototyping, Experimentation & Dem ref from the DoD says:
 * "The MK 38 MOD 4 30mm gun weapon system (GWS) will provide surface ship defense capability addressing unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and high speed maneuverable unmanned surface vehicle (USV) threats. This is a Maritime Accelerated Acquisition (MAA) starting in FY19 and will field an Initial Capability (IC) in FY22 on DDG-51 ship class with AEGIS Baseline 9 combat system."
 * Though it doesn't mention specific Flights, just ships with Baseline 9 (pre-Flight III). Given that it's already 2023 I'm trying to find a more current source on the status of the Mk 38 Mod 4 program to see if Flight III are really planned to get Mod 4. Findingmoney100 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From 4m 30secs onwards MSI state that the Mk38 Mod4 is planned to be rolled out across DDGs (Flight II and Flight III) initially but ultimatley there are plans for a fleet-wide roll-out. Other NAVSEA documents I have seen refer to the initial roll-our being for Flight IIA and Flight III https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90BV0Wzsndk
 * FY 2023 E5006 MINOR CALIBER GUN MODS 2.1.13) MK 38 MOD 4 GWS INSTALL PLANNING: Increase from FY22 to FY23 due to conducting installation planning to field MK 38 MOD 4 GWS on DDG51 ships. Installation planning includes development of installation drawings and topside analysis. This cost element funds all efforts required to plan the installations of the gun systems on their respective ships.This includes development of a ship installation drawing package, which is required to start 22 months before installation and takes 7.5 months to develop, since it involves ship checks and extensive safety andengineering analysis. This effort supports fielding of critical C-UAS and C-USV capability to five (5) DDG 51 ships. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/23pres/WPN_Book.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhedger (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * YT is not considered a reliable source so we can't cite really the vid.
 * But that NAVSEA doc is great, thank you for that. I'll add in info citing that doc later today (or you can now if you want). Findingmoney100 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem - I am glad to try and help but have never contributed to Wikipedia before so I am just finding my way around and trying to understand how to correctly make comments and the right etiquette etc! I would be interested to know if you are aware of whether the Mk38 Mod4 is linked to the AEGIS Baseline 9 upgrade (AN=APY-6 radar in particular) as perhaps that will inform the roll-out of this weapon i.e. each Flight IIA as it comes in for midlife upgrade? I assume all new Flight III's starting with Jack H Lucas will have the Mk38 Mod4 fitted although the photos of it from Dec 2022 sea trials seemed to show them not fitted and no Phalanx either?
 * Sjhedger (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, ships with SPY-6 (Flight IIIs with SPY-6(V)1 and Flight IIAs upgraded with SPY-6(V)4 during modernization periods) will have Aegis Baseline 10, not 9.
 * https://news.usni.org/2020/08/27/top-level-requirements-for-large-surface-combatant-in-development-planned-spy-6-backfit-effort-in-flux
 * https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2021/SAS2021-AEGIS_and_Forge.pdf
 * Production ships are definitely still getting a Phalanx on Mount 22, and there's no sources that suggest the Navy plans otherwise:
 * https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1603812306068115456
 * I think production ships get Mk 38 later on (like after delivery to the Navy), but I wouldn't be able to give you a source for this.
 * Anyway getting off topic as talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback much appreciated. Sjhedger (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would also be good to start a dedicated page for the Mk38 Mod4 to sit alongside the pages for the DS-30B and DS-30M that are already created. I would have a go myself but as I say im very new to this currently but look forward to more indept contributions going forward once I get familiar with how all the editing works. Sjhedger (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Digressing here but I myself created the Mark 38 25 mm machine gun system article not too long ago (not the best since I'm also new to this) that has a brief paragraph on Mk 38 Mod 4. If you want to discuss this further we should move to its talk page. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another Wiki article is not needed to cover a newer version of a weapon or other system unless possibly if major changes are involved. This has been the approach for WP:Air and WP:Mil History articles that I've helped with. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback - the Mk38 Mod4 has a Bushmaster cannon (30mm) hence the Mk38 25mm machine gun system heading in itself is no longer applicable or needs to be amended if referring to the Mk28 Mod 4. I dont want to create work, its just that the DS30B and DS30M already have their own Wiki sections so I assumed this would too? Sjhedger (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the future it would likely need to be moved (renamed) to something like "Mark 38 machine gun system" to account for the Mod 4. Again, we're still in the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer talk page so if you would like to continue talking about this, start a topic in Mark 38's talk page. Findingmoney100 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Unit list
If anyone finds a reliable unit list source to replace that globalsecurity.org external link, that would be great (I guess the alternative being citing every single ship in Ships in class). Findingmoney100 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we need a source, just to have a list of the ships. They each exist and have their own sourced articles to support that. In fact, I don't recall ever having to have a source to support any list, especially when every entry on that list has it's own article. I wouldn't put to much worry or effort into this. We have the globalsecurity ref, but if that gets removed at some point, I don't believe it would put the article in any sort of peril. Anyway, we always the NVR that can be used as a source. (jmho) - w o lf  05:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh that's good to know. In that case I think the article is adequately cited with reliable sources (except one Fox News citation (varying reliability), but I don't have any reason to believe it needs to be changed) Findingmoney100 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Norman Friedman
Kind of surprised nobody's cited anything Friedman has to say on this topic from his book US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History (Revised ed.).

I myself don't have access to it; if anyone does then could you look through his discussion of the Arleigh Burke class and find anything noteworthy not covered in this article/fact check this article? Thanks. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)