Talk:Columbia-class submarine/Archive 1

October 2012 presentation
There's more details in the Brougham presentation and in an article about it here if someone wants to incorporate it. The SSBN(X) designation seems to being deprecated in preference to the Ohio Replacement Submarine. FlagSteward (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Article title
The page is currently "SSBN-X future follow-on submarine," however the program is now officially titled the "Ohio-class Replacement Program." I believe one of the most up-to-date articles on the subject can be found |newswell|text|World%20News|s here. The article makes this point but the title remains unchanged. Should it not be changed? Rugz (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2012 (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/triomphant/
 * 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 12:36, 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 22:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous section
Does the miscellaneous section really belong in this article? It seems to me to be, at best, tangentally related to the subject.HubcapD (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Potential ship naming
The first Ohio replacement sub may be the USS Columbia, which would make this the Columbia class ballistic missile submarine. The name Columbia would be in honor of the U.S. District of Columbia. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To prevent a premature page move, I have redirected the new potential target page and made a couple of pro forma edits so non-administrators will not be able to move the page. Once a consensus exists to move the page, a move can be requested. Safiel (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is to wait a few days. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Replacement Submarine → Columbia-class submarine – Now that the ship is officially named, it should be moved to the appropriate page. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WAIT a few days The submarine has not been officially named yet. While the proposed name was sent to Congress at the end of July, statute requires the Secretary wait at least 30 days after the notification of Congress before a vessel can be officially named. I would expect that the vessel will be officially named, probably this week or next week. Until that happens, wait, but as soon as that happens, I will concur with the move proposal. Safiel (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that Congress already expects the ship to be named Columbia, and the class to be the Columbia class. An August 18 report from the Congressional Research Service describes the program as the "Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement) Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN[X]) Program" in its title, and also describes it specifically as "the Columbia class program, previously known as the Ohio replacement program (ORP) or SSBN(X) program." The Congressional Research Service is a non-partisan research team operating under Congress, which prepares reports for Congress at its request. It is generally regarded as an unbiased and reliable source. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I do hold a high respect for the CRS, but I believe their usage of Columbia-class is pragmatic and the right thing to do for the purposes of their report. Congress expects the class to be named Columbia-class because the Secretary of the Navy sent them the necessary notification. HOWEVER. The ship class is not OFFICIALLY the Columbia-class until tthe Secretary of the Navy makes the formal naming announcement, which he has not done yet. Until, it is still the Ohio Replacement Program. While it is tempting to do so, we should not jump the gun. I believe we are looking at mere days until that announcement comes and I believe we should wait for it. So I will stick to my current position of wait, with the caveat that the instant that naming announcement is made, then we can go ahead and move the page. Safiel (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait until official announcement - as Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, and per Safiel's comments. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conventional Trident
Does anyone know if there has been any furthering of the Conventional Trident in general, but more specifically any consequences, permutations, versions, etc. for the Columbia/Ohio Replacement? LP-mn (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We can now go ahead with the move to Columbia-class submarine
Well, it was actually more than the "few days" I said in the previous move discussion, but with this reliably sourced announcement https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/secnav-mabus-to-officially-designate-first-orp-boat-uss-district-of-columbia-ssbn-826 I think we can safely go ahead with the move. Mabus will OFFICIALLY name the new class tomorrow. I will post the necessary tag at the target. Safiel (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CSD G6 move tag placed at the target and I have updated the article accordingly. Safiel (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hull number of the USS Columbia will be SSBN-826. Safiel (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. - BilCat (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

O'Rourke, Ronald. "Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress" R41129.pdf
This pdf has 4 different Reference entries, seemingly to the same work? DramaticExit (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Boat vs Ship
The Columbia-class is referred to as both 'boat' and 'ship' in the article at several points. I appreciate that 'boat' is the colloquial term that people use for submarines, but, in the case of new shipbuilding, I feel like 'ship' would be more appropriate in a phrase like "A total of 12 boats are planned, with construction of the first boat planned to begin in 2021."

I made appropriate changes, replacing 'boat' with 'ship' or 'submarine' as felt appropriate, and the one phrase "boats 2 through 12" were changed to "hulls 2 through 12" since I find that that is a more common way to refer to ship classes by hull number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRSpeshul (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Have to disagree with you here, and I wouldn't be surprised if other regular contributors to naval-related articles do as well. First, you should've proposed your changes before you made them. Second, and more importantly, it is an accepted standard here that submarines are referred to as boats, in keeping with, and in respect of, established naval traditions. All (should be all) submarine articles use "boat" in place of ship. In instances where both submarines and surface ships are being referred to, the words "vessel" or "hull" are used. There are times when subs are included in the generic use of the word "ship", such as "List of US Navy ships". With that said, I have gone through the page and removed most of the instances where "ship" was used, and replaced them with "submarine", "boat" or "vessel", or just removed "ship" where it wasn't needed. Should you, or anyone, have an issue with this, I would encourage you to discuss the issue before making any further changes, either here on this talk page, or at the WP:WikiProject Ships talk page. - the WOLF  child  18:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Boat certainly is the proper name for all submarines in the USN. To that end, wouldn't all members of the class be called boats such that the title for the table of class members would be "Boats in Class," not "Ships in Class" as this article currently uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:380:63E0:0:0:0:5F0A (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Navy calls submarines "ships", from OPNAV, to Submarine Forces Pacific , to Naval Sea Systems and Commander, Submarine Forces , to the Naval Vessel Register . Do these organizations, and the sub community in general, sometimes or even often call subs "boats"? Sure. (Do aviators call their aircraft carriers "boats"? Yes, whenever a surface-warfare officer is within earshot.) But no one in the Navy bothers to insist on "boats" when, say, discussing the overall fleet: it's "Battle Force Ships", not "Battle Force Ships and Boats". I'm not particularly expecting to change anyone's mind here, much less Wikipedia style, but using "boats" to mean "submarines"—like referring to vessels as "she"—ought to be regarded as unencyclopedic jargon.PRRfan (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh, well... agree to disagree. - w o lf  04:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Previous turbo-electric subs
From this article:

Later on, two nuclear-powered submarines, USS Tullibee and USS Glenard P. Lipscomb, were equipped with turboelectric drives but experienced reliability issues during their service life and were underpowered and maintenance heavy.

This statement oversimplifies the facts. Tullibee was designed to be "underpowered", this was a deliberate feature of the original ASW hunter-killer concept. Also, there is nothing in the public domain that says Tullibee "experienced reliability issues" or was "maintenance heavy". Since these facts really apply only to the Glenard P. Lipscomb, the statement should be re-written to remove the reference to Tullibee:

Later on, one nuclear-powered attack submarine, the USS Glenard P. Lipscomb, was equipped with a turboelectric drive but experienced reliability issues during her service life and was underpowered and maintenance heavy.

Also, a question: does anyone know if the proposed Columbia-class turbo-electric drive is to be AC or DC? The Glenard P. Lipscomb's problems appear to be the consequence of having a large DC plant. Also, the French turbo-electric drive subs reportedly use AC. The problem with AC is that gearing is necessary for reverse, while reverse with a DC motor is a simple matter of reversing electrical polarity. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be AC, nobody seriously uses DC for motors anymore. AC motors do not need anything fancy to go backwards, they just need somewhat more complicated electronics to run them, look at EV cars, all AC motors, and they go backwards without gearing --Edman007 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. I would guess that the Navy was not happy with the state of that "somewhat more complicated electronics" circa 1960, hence their fixation on DC and polarity reversal . Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing numbers
Query. Noting that the USS Columbia will be SSBN-826 (and the second of the class, USS Wisconsin, will be SSBN-827), to which vessels are SSBN/SSN 822-825 alloted? I'm assuming here that the ten Block VI and Block VII Virginia Class SSNs will be SSN 812 to SSN 821. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the first time the Navy has left gaps in a hull numbering sequence. And if some of those numbers turn out to not be assigned at all, that won't be the first time either. If you can find an answer in a reliable source, that would be helpful, otherwise, there isn't much we can do here unless/until the Navy makes a decision, which then needs to be announced/reported in a reliable source. Without that, this can just become forum-type discussion which we really don't do here. But for what it's worth, I (and I'm sure others here) are just as curious about this as you. -  wolf  10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator's proposal for automatically changing a class name after the namesake vessel changes her name gained no traction. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Columbia-class submarine → District of Columbia-class submarine – Lead ship was recently renamed so the class name should reflect that as well. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet. This needs a reliable source that supports the class name first before renaming this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Class name automatically follows the lead ship's name, at least in the US Navy. I don't know if a single recent case where it doesn't. If you need a source then here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - Has the Navy explicitly said that it will change the class name? If so, I haven't seen it. In fact, a Navy press release issued the day after the renaming announcement said, "District of Columbia is the first Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine being constructed in the minimum 12-ship class..." Let's hold off on this and similar moves until the Navy says it's changing the class name. PRRfan (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Class name automatically follows the lead ship's name, at least in the US Navy. I don't know if a single recent case where it doesn't. If you need a source then here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - Until we have confirmation that the USN has changed the class name. BilCat (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per above - w o lf  02:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Class name automatically follows the lead ship's name, at least in the US Navy. I don't know if a single recent case where it doesn't. If you need a source then here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to repeat the same response to more than one person, as that could be considered "bludgeoning". Second, the source you just supplied repeatedly refers to the class as the "Columbia class". So yes, there's one recent case. BilCat (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Was going to say the same about repeatedly posting the same reply, this editor just did the same on the USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826) talk page. As for a class adopting the name of the lead ship, while that is common, it does not always happen. And as for the "source" provided, the name "Columbia-class" is mentioned in the article four times, while "District of Columbia-class" is only mentioned once, and that is a quote. One person misspeaking a name is hardly a basis to change it. - w o lf  23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.