Talk:Ticonderoga-class cruiser/Archive 1

Infobox question
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
Ticonderoga has 16 Mk. 41 VLS with 8 cell. 8x16 is 128. With number of cells are problem in all Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.49.236 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ticonderoga-class cruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004181818/http://opencrs.com/document/RL32109/2010-02-26/?24684 to http://opencrs.com/document/RL32109/2010-02-26/?24684

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"Shoot down"?
Is "Shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655" good English? I would have thought that "Shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655" would be better.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - the WOLF  child  13:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing
Under VLS, this article states:

In addition to the added radar capability, the Ticonderoga-class ships built after USS Thomas S. Gates included two Mark 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS). The two VLS allow the ship to have 122 missile storage and launching tubes that can carry a wide variety of missiles, including the Tomahawk cruise missile, Standard surface-to-air missile, Evolved Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missile, and ASROC antisubmarine warfare (ASW) guided rockets. More importantly, the VLS enables all missiles to be on full stand-by at any given time, shortening the warship's response time before firing. The original five ships (Ticonderoga, Yorktown, Vincennes, Valley Forge, and Thomas S. Gates) had Mark 26 twin-arm launchers that limited their missile capacity to a total of 88 missiles, and that could not fire the Tomahawk missile. After the end of the Cold War, the lower capabilities of the original five warships limited them to duties close to the home waters of the United States. These ships' superstructures were a modification of that on the Spruance-class destroyers, and were required to support two deck-houses (one forward for antennas forward and starboard), and the aft deck-house housed the aft and port antenna arrays. All Aegis cruisers are almost identical, with the exception of the Mk 26 GMLS, replaced by the Mk 41 VLS systems. The later Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers are designed from-the-keel-up to carry the SPY-1D radars, and have them all clustered together on the forward deck-house, saving space and weight and simplifying cooling requirements. Radar support equipment is closer together, minimizing cable runs and concentrating support equipment.[citation needed] Standard missile loadout for a Ticonderoga cruiser is 80 SM-2 SAMs, 16 ASROC anti-submarine rockets, and 26 Tomahawk cruise missiles.[13]

About half of this meandering paragraph talks not about the VLS system but about the design of the ship superstructure and comparing it to the later Arleigh Burke class ships. This discussion would more properly be put up in the design section above. Also Vincennes last duty port (yes, during the post cold war era) was Yokosuka which is hardly in "the home waters of the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)