Talk:USS Oklahoma (SSN-802)

Block classification

 * USS Oklahoma

I’m not sure why everyone keeps changing the description and specifications as if it has a Virginia payload module. It does not. Even the description of the block five submarines on Wikipedia says that the Virginia payload model starts with the second block five submarine. You keep reverting the edits as if the Oklahoma will be built or is being built with a Virginia payload module with all the larger specifications that come with that. It is the size and shape of a block for because it does not include the Virginia payload module! Galt2112 (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're seeking to request a change in content, then post it here in a "please change 'X' to 'Y'" format and ensure you add reliable sources to support your request.
 * Also, in the future, ensure you post commemts regarding article content on the relevant article's talk page, not a user talk page. Thank you - w o lf  06:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of... in searching out sources for "USS Oklahoma SSN-802", "Block IV", "Block V" and "Virginia Payload Module VPM"... I found numerous sources that all say the same thing: that Oklahoma is the first boat of the Block V order, and that she will be built with a VPM. Curiously, all almost all sources state that the contract called for 9 boats over 5 years, with an option for a 10th (and that has since been ordered as well). Some of the sources state that in the initial contract, 8 of the 9 (9 of 10) boats will include a VPM, meaning one won't, but like the option for a 10th boat, there is apparently an option for a VPM on the remaining boat, though I didn't find any more info on that. Only one source states that the first of the Block V boats, Oklahoma, is the boat that will not include a VPM. I wonder if this is what has you pushing to change Oklahoma to Block IV? Anyway, AFAIC, we should leave things as is... for now, with Oklahoma as a Block V, VPM boat. Until we have more sourcing providing a clearer picture. "As is" is also what the majority of reliable sourcing is telling is right now. (see:, , , , , , , , , , & ) I'll check back in a little while to see what sources are reporting at that point, and if there is enough to justify a change, then we'll make that happen. But then, just like now, we can't change anything based on a single source when we have multiple sources all saying our current info is correct. -  w o lf  11:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)