Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586)/Archive 1

Speed clarification
An anonymous editor boosted the submerged speed to an unreasonable number. I reverted it, since she/he/it couldn't be bothered to cite a reference or change the metric speed value to match. (The highest figure I can find from any credible source is GlobalSecurity's "Surfaced: 27, Submerged: 27.") If M. 68.173.190.61 has a reference, I'll be delighted to discuss it. &#10149;the Epopt 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal from Norfolk Naval Shipyard
I was on the Ex-Triton either in 1991 or 1992 doing radiological surveys; during that time, she was berthed at St. Julians Annex, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, in Portsmouth Virginia. It's obvious there's a mistake in the current date as to when she was transferred to Puget, as it's listing 1986.

BTW, I'm surprised that no mention is made in the article about her later outfitting; the Presidential Seal and state room, fully stocked mahogany bar, etc., were unique assets for any US submarine. It was quite a thrill when I was there to walk down the "Grand Staircase" (another unique feature of the boat) and turn into the Presidential Suite. Thank the maker it was never used, but it's definitely the most interesting bit of the ship, and I wish that somehow they could have turned Triton into a museum just for that feature.

Lastly, Triton was known to be faster surfaced than submerged; Rickover didn't WANT Triton as a submarine, he wanted Triton as a testbed for a dual-reactor, dual screw Cruiser, but couldn't get approval to build a nuclear cruiser of that type at the time; he had full approval to do almost anything he wanted with submarines however, so he took the basic Cruiser designed, modified it to the specs of a submarine, and built it; however, since it wasn't a particularly good submarine, per se, it was obsolete as soon as it proved the concept by completing the shake down cruise around the world; when they tried to justify having the ship at all (it wasn't very suitable as an attack submarine, and it's original DEW line purpose was marginal at best, and unneeded by the time of launch), it was converted to the presidential undersea nuclear bunker. Bill Ward (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strangely, I keep running across articles that talk about Triton s "abortive PLANNED" upgrade to the Presidential Command bunker, but they universally agree that it did not happen; I know that from eyeballs on spaces that it DID occur, as I've personally been in those spaces (1991-1992) while doing that survey. Unfortunately, with nothing to cite, and not having "proof" I can't update the pages to reflect that correction; is there any literature anywhere that someone knows of that can be cited?  The Presidential Suite was on the starboard side, with the front of the compartment area directly beside the "Grand Staircase", which was centerline (a marble inlaid open "circular" (actually U shaped) staircase area that led to the external, sail-enclosed con).  The ship was built prior to SubSafe, and was never fitted for SubSafe at least in those areas; the "Grand Staircase" however was far too ornate to have been original, as well (on a warship, even then, it would have been just an unusual, "residential style" U Shaped staircase").  Fitting for SubSafe would have meant also doing active anti-fire measures, and the Mahogany wood in the Presidential Suite is DEFINITELY not fireproof.Bill Ward (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Inaccuracy WRT Communications Capability
The article reads as follows:

"The Combat Information Center (CIC) provided substantial command-and-control capabilities as did the very-low-frequency (VLF) communication buoy system that could receive and send radio transmissions while submerged."

As a former submarine officer I can positively attest that an SSN does not provide not "substantial" C2 capabilities from a perspective of transmission. Specifically, the article as written implies that TRITON could transmit VLF. While I can not positively disprove this implication, I find it highly unlikely due to the antennae and power requirements to do so. Wikipedia's own page on VLF states "Transmitter sites typically cover great areas (many acres or square kilometers), with transmitted power anywhere from 20 kW to 2 MW."

I have no information concerning the notional use of TRITON in the NECPA program, but C2 would not be an argument in favor.

David Henry 199.82.243.74 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "substantial" C2 capabilities are unique to Triton because she was built with a CIC and an extensive (and like her CIC) unique communications installation to support her originally intended role as a radar picket. Furthermore, the (land based) VLF array's are so large due to their high transmission power and the need to provide long range coverage.  (The same reason a radio station has a multistory antenna and your cellphone doesn't.)  24.16.181.1 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Stamp image removal
I have removed the stamp image File:ANTI1034.jpg because it a non-free image of a stamp that fails WP:NFC which clearly states: "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject', which was the use here, so it may not be used in this article. I am not going to start an edit war but this use is improper and must be removed. You may want to familiarise yourself with the following: WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and this FAQ to better understand the issues. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Feature Article nomination for February 16th
I nominated the article on the USS Triton for the Feature Article of February 16th:

Feature Article nomination - February 16th

I think that I did the nomination correctly, but you may to review and comment.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the article is not a featured article it is ineligible to be the TFA. See your talk page for advice. -MBK004 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rich Richardson's Towing Service
"this underwater towing capability was never used" Was it ever, in fact, developed? On another note, among her stores, how much ice cream was loaded? (Ask a submariner how important that is!) Also, how did they deal with trash & garbage? There obviously wasn't the nightly detail to dump it over the side, usual in WW2. Also, I deleted "risk of grounding or collision" as plain stupid. Unless she's running awful damn close inshore, & her sonar is totally out of commission, neither being likely or true, the risk was zero. And "gyroscopic repeaters experienced severe oscillations, possibly caused by a malfunctioning synchro amplifier, which ceased when shifted to direct gyro input to the helm" is pure technobabble; translation, please? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  07:32, 07:49, 07:55, 08:03, & 08:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class Assessment Review
The archived A-Class Review is here.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Search for original ship's bell
The following are links on this issue:



Marcd30319 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate (FAC) Review
FAC Review Link. Marcd30319 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships Barnstar
Presented to Marcd303019:

Strange lump on the stern casing?
Does anyone know more about the strange lump on the aft casing? It's there in some early photos, but not in others, and seems to have gone after the 1964 refit. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the housing for the towed communications buoy system. Triton was the test-bed for this during the circumnavigation, and the system was used on the Polaris submarines. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Off the mark?
Since I deleted the details on the Mk 37, & since Andy opposes it, let me be clear. I'm not suggesting the ref to the Mk 37 itself be removed; nor would I oppose mention the significance of using a new type of weapon, which it was. I am opposed to the details of what the Mk 37 was & how it worked, as off topic; the details, being about the torpedo, belong on its page, not here. Mention of its innovations there would be perfectly appropriate, as would a mention Triton was the first user (if she was). TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  23:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is been raised at the mil hist project to try and get some fresh eyes on it, but I see that Trekphiler is just repeating the same deletions anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Raised, but not settled, & I'm not the one who originally deleted it. But you're so certain of your own righteousness, & of my inherent guilt in everything that's wrong with this page, you can't even be bothered to look.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Raised and settled there (see Ed17 comments). Marcd30319 (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1956 shipbuilding program
,, and : I protected the page due to the content dispute. Personally, I'm in favor of including the information on the shipbuilding program, as it is useful context for the climate in when Triton was built. That said, I'm always interested in contrary opinions or a compromise solution of a truncated paragraph. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone given a reason why having the information there makes the article worse? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry about how this situation has developed. As background, under General Characteristics in the Design History section, the first paragraph states that Triton was a first-generation nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy, with the other first-gen submarines mentioned by name and function for historical and operational context.  I added the reference to the 1956 shipbuilding program under the Authorization section to provide additional context not only because the first-gen production run had been completely authorized but also that production for the next-generation submarines were authorized to go into the production pipeline.  Finally, mentioning Barbel class as the last non-nuke submarines authorized and that the U.S. Navy would operate only new nuclear submarines completes that contextual circle.  That was my objective in adding the 1956 shipbuilding program to this article. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

From the WikiProject Military history talk page on the now closed discussion topic re: Opinions please on USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the Mark 37 torpedo:
 * Consensus? I don't see a request to stop arguing as "consensus". Moreover, IIRC, the "consensus" edit was the one after the off-topic material was removed, not the one before it. However, since I expect to be in the minority (as usual), you may have whatever the hell you want at Triton‍ '​ page, for I won't be editing it ever again. I am sick of accusations of edit warring. TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In closing, one of the reasons that I do not do much anymore with Wikipedia is crap like this. Yes, I know, this is not a helpful attitude but all of the barnstars in the known universe will not change the fact that this entire site operates less on knowledge or scholarship and more on ego and bureaucratic BS. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Trekphiler and I agree that a request by TheEd17 does not constitute consensus, the meaning of which you appear to interpret differently from my understanding. We also both agree, I believe, that your edits do not appear to follow the sense of WP:OWN, instead repeatedly reverting to sentences seemingly taken directly from United States Navy official releases (regarding the CSGs, at the least). Nevertheless, you are adding good sourced content, and WP:PERFECT allows variation. Thus despite considerable concern, I will take no further action on this. I've tagged Trekphiler so that he may correct my thoughts if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on USS Triton (SSRN-586). 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/20090417152238/http://www.spinax.com:80/Newsletter/Newsletter%2051/Albacore.htm to http://www.spinax.com/Newsletter/Newsletter%2051/Albacore.htm

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 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on USS Triton (SSRN-586). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080612104620/http://www.portofbenton.com:80/minutes.html to http://www.portofbenton.com/minutes.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120229162205/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/progress/story/122474.html to http://www.tri-cityherald.com/progress/story/122474.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120229162516/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/galleries/gallery/765244.html to http://www.tri-cityherald.com/galleries/gallery/765244.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110102163434/http://www.portofbenton.com:80/minutes.html to http://www.portofbenton.com/minutes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on USS Triton (SSRN-586). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313135547/http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao53-68/fy1960-feb60.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao53-68/fy1960-feb60.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716152745/http://web.meganet.net/kman/wjpg3.htm to http://web.meganet.net/kman/wjpg3.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5o6znkdQy?url=http://opd.ans.org/Newsletter_files/Previous/OPDNewsletterFall2002.pdf to http://opd.ans.org/Newsletter_files/Previous/OPDNewsletterFall2002.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prosser.org/media/Port%20of%20Benton%2009Fall.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6ACiqG85h?url=http://www.tri-cityherald.com/kennewick_pasco_richland/story/763200.html to http://www.tri-cityherald.com/kennewick_pasco_richland/story/763200.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717100133/http://www.tricitiesbusinessnews.com/2009/12/nuclear-submarine-sail-lands-at-permanent-dock-in-richland/ to http://www.tricitiesbusinessnews.com/2009/12/nuclear-submarine-sail-lands-at-permanent-dock-in-richland/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131008075128/http://www.sublant.navy.mil/ to http://www.sublant.navy.mil/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130105054714/http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/33083/ to http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/33083/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310084907/http://portofbenton.com/wordpress/news/ to http://portofbenton.com/wordpress/news/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on USS Triton (SSRN-586). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722022750/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/subreview.aspx to http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/subreview.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722022750/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/subreview.aspx to http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/subreview.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722022750/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/subreview.aspx to http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/subreview.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on USS Triton (SSRN-586). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721032742/http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/finding_aids/PDFs/Beach_Edward_Papers.pdf to https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/finding_aids/PDFs/Beach_Edward_Papers.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926081311/http://www.usni.org/store/books/history/silent-victory to http://www.usni.org/store/books/history/silent-victory
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721032742/http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/finding_aids/PDFs/Beach_Edward_Papers.pdf to https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/finding_aids/PDFs/Beach_Edward_Papers.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614061943/http://www.lighthousedepot.com/lite_digest.asp?action=get_article&sk=1323&bhcd2=1268524606 to http://www.lighthousedepot.com/lite_digest.asp?action=get_article&sk=1323&bhcd2=1268524606
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128114556/https://potomac.presswarehouse.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=66790 to https://potomac.presswarehouse.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=66790
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721032742/http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/finding_aids/PDFs/Beach_Edward_Papers.pdf to https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/finding_aids/PDFs/Beach_Edward_Papers.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128114556/https://potomac.presswarehouse.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=66790 to https://potomac.presswarehouse.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=66790

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)