Talk:USS Jimmy Carter

Pictures
When there is enough room can someone add this photo back in:

It gives a good overview of the entire boat out of the water, not something you see very often, IMO. Right now it would just be overload since there is so little content. PPGMD 22:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dates
It seems odd to me that the "Ordered" date is six months *after* the "Laid down" date. - UtherSRG 13:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't find the keel laid date; even NVR doesn't have it. Maybe it'll get added when they update the page after Saturday.


 * Also, the launch date is listed as 13 May, while the christening date is elsewhere listed as 5 June, which seems a long delay.


 * (Also, "The Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) was moved outdoors for the first time, May 8, 2004 at the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard." vs. "...moves the third and final  Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine,  Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), outdoors for the first time on June 4, 2004.")
 * &mdash;wwoods 17:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Irony
Perhaps it should be noted that the sub is (widely) said to be able to tap undersea cables to intercept communication, it's ironic that it wasn't named the USS Richard Nixon. One that many people have made note of.


 * It was named during the time when the Navy announced that the names of the USS Reagan and USS Bush, it was felt that nothing was named from Democrats, so the Carter was named. Carter was a nuc on the USS Seawolf, a ship that the Navy later used for tapping cables, though Carter wasn't on board for any of those missions. PPGMD 18:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Carter was in the Navy, and I do believe he was a nuclear tech of some sort. Simplest, most rational explanation. Jersey John (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's been 18 years since this Talk section was started, and there's still no mention of the sub's interception potential in this article, despite media coverage of it in the context of Edward Snowden's NSA affair. Like: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/die-uss-jimmy-carter-soll-fuer-die-nsa-glasfaserkabel-anzapfen-a-908815.html and https://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/internationale-datenaffaere-die-aussenwelt-der-innenwelt-12243822.html Nakonana (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

She? It?
It seems this article uses she and it interchangeably to refer to the submarine. Could someone decide which it should be and go change all of the pronouns to match? I'm not an expert so don't know how it should be.

--Jacobolus 12:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed the it's to her, just to standardize it. PPGMD 16:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was in the Navy stationed a submarine base pearl harbor. Subs are refured to as IT. Herogamer (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For hundreds of years by tradition the feminine pronouns have been used in reference to ships; that now applies to submarines too. I've been a submariner since 1961. DocRushing (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuc eng on an SSBN for years - the sub was always "the boat" or "it" - never once did I ever hear the sub referred to as 'she.'50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Typo?
Hi: I'm not good with Wikis, and I don't want to break any links, but the images entitled *sea_trails* should probably be renamed to *sea_trials*. A trail is a path from here to there, while a trial is an excersize to test capabilities. The Jimmy Carter is undergoing her trials in these photos, not trails.


 * Meh, don't really see a need to, it was my error, but the names are mostly to make them unique so they aren't overwritten, since it's unlikely that there will be another photo with that name I see no reason to. PPGMD 20:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Backup of Documents
Does anyone have a backup of the PDF hosted? It seems to be missing now.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.251.88.50 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Depth capability classified
The "official" depth capability of the Carter, like all current USN subs, is >800 feet. I have to agree that all the talk of tapping communication cables had to have originated with someone who had just read "Blind Man's Bluff" and is not accurate. A far more central role of fast attack boats was and to some extent still remains identifying the patrol areas of enemy ballistic missile subs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.223.72.5 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to miss the very considerable history of subs employed specifically for SIGINT-missions. See USS Parche for that. I do not content that SSBN-tracking remains a SSN-role, but that does not mean that there are other areas of considerable importance. SSN-23 is a boat with rather unique capabilities and assigning it to SSBN-tracking would seem a terrific waste of time and ressources. While I would not put it in this article due to lack of sources, I do not have the slightest doubt that SSN-23 has some very fine capabilities for cable-tapping and the like (and I dont read or like techno thrillers). Para-OZ (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that no adversary of the United States maintains regular FBM patrols, how could the central role of the USN SSN be to hunt boomers? Your information is out of date. Furthermore, the Jimmy Carter is a special operations platform, not a traditional SSN, and even in wartime would be tasked as such. Just because the submarine itself cannot submerge to the depth of an undersea cable does not mean that it couldn't deploy vehicles which could. The US has tapped undersea cables in the past, and it does not follow that this capability has not been further developed, given the incredible leaps in signals intelligence capabilities since the cable tapping incident described in BMB.216.96.229.206 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The Russian Federation has a whole new class of SSBN's, very modern, very dangerous. Same as it ever was.50.111.6.129 (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several sources that place the depth capability at 1600 ft or even 2000 ft.
 * https://www.navsource.org/archives/08/080023.htm
 * California Center for Military History: http://www.submarinehistory.com/JimmyCarter.html archived: https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.submarinehistory.com%2FJimmyCarter.html#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url
 * https://nvo.ng.ru/notes/2020-08-07/16_1103_simbol.html Nakonana (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Tapping into underwater cables using subs. inc. USS Jimmy Carter http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/the-creepy-long-standing-practice-of-undersea-cable-tapping/277855/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.30.164 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"First to be named for living president." - not.
This claim is also made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN-76) USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier in the service of the United States Navy. The ninth ship of her class,[1] she is named in honor of former President Ronald Reagan, President of the United States from 1981 to 1989. Upon her christening in 2001, she was the first ship to be named for a living former president.

CVN-76 was named first. I can not claim that CVN-76 was the first USN ship so named but it is clear that SSN-23 can not be. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Righteous9000 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this has since been corrected to read 1st "Submarine", but "the first ship of the United States Navy to be named for former President Jimmy Carter" - what is the 2nd ship??? Seems to be an unintentional meaning due to an edit? A casual NPOV observer of US presidential history, and "JC" himself (Matt 20:16) may conclude that - the first will be the last. 144.183.224.2 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how ignorant Americans can be of their own country's history, myself included. However, USS George Washington (1798) was the first ship to be named for any U.S. president, and one who was still alive at the time. USS John Adams (1799) was the first USN ship to be named for a president while he was serving in office, and remained in commission for several years afterwards. They beat Ronald Reagan by about 200 years. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Boat or ship?
I believe that all US Navy Submarines are boats and not ships as stated int his article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.66.68 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Officially a submarine is a ship; however, by long-standing tradition a submarine is also informally and often called a boat. I write as a submariner and a former Naval officer (since 1961). DocRushing (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 'USS' Jimmy Carter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ship. The bluejacket's manual says something to the effect that the naval term 'ship' describes any vessel capable of making repeated unassisted trans-oceanic voyages.216.96.229.206 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that correctly describes the difference between a ship and what's ordinarily called a boat.


 * Nonetheless, as I explained above, by long-standing tradition – from the beginning of the Submarine Service of the US Navy – a submarine is also informally and often called a boat.


 * DocRushing (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ALWAYS referred to as a 'boat' - period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Presidential Unit Citation
According to the wiki page for the Presidential Unit Citation it states under the "Other Actions" section the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) was awarded the PUC sometime in 2012. The source is the US Navy which lists the award of the PUC but gives no details.

https://awards.navy.mil/awards/webapp01.nsf/(frmQUnitName)?OpenForm&Search=%3CUName%3EJimmy%3C/UName%3E%3CType%3EKeyword%3C/Type%3E%3CAType%3E%3C/AType%3E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4600:6585:35FB:D050:920E:F138 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Template
- First, we don't debate edits via edit summaries using reverts or dummy edits. This is what the article talk page is for. With that said, the   template is a supplemental infobox used on BLP related articles, it is not used on ship articles. You can see this for yourself on the other articles about ships named for US Presidents. Furthermore, this article already has the   template, which is a navbox added to the bottom of the page, same as the on the page you noted in your edit summary; "because? see USS George H.W. Bush". Even then, the inclusion of that template is not the norm for these articles, and that issue has been raised at WT:SHIPS. - wolf  12:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)