Talk:Virginia-class submarine/Archive 1

SSN-780 name?
Can anyone confirm the name of SSN-780? Somehow I got the idea it was USS Massachusetts and was duly corrected. I found a reference from 2 July indicating it was going to be named California later in the month. 

--Dziban303 02:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No name has been published by now. Let us wait until there is an official announcement. --Gunter.krebs 11:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * SSN780 will be the USS Missouri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.92.149 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SSN-780 was named today, June 15, 2016 as the USS Arkansas. http://wtkr.com/2016/06/15/new-navy-sub-will-be-named-uss-arkansas/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ootervon3 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Stats on US Subs
This is pretty typical for stats released on US subs, but they are gross underestimates.  FAS pins the Los Angeles class' submerge speed at about 32 knots, and test depth at 300 meters, but obviously they don't have the "actual" stats on the Virginia class subs. The seawolf seems to have a bit better stats too. It should be quite safe to assume that the Virginia class would at least be as fast and as deep as the Los Angeles class that they're replacing.Submarine depth ratings
 * Pretty much. But all you'll get is "can neither confirm, nor deny" type answers.  Which, honestly, is the way it should be.  Izuko 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

the seawolf class is a far more expensive submarine than the Virginia class and so it is most probabley more capable also slower speeds may mean it doesnt act as a part of a task group. lower speed subs are more stealthy and quite so they are better used hunting other subs instead of babysitting a carrier group.Corustar 15:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I would like to include the information from Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse concerning the Virginia-class submarines. Palast is, in my opinion, quite accurate, but his writing is somewhat breezy and very partisan, so I will ensure that the information presented is straightforward and devoid of the whiff of conspiracy theory that permeates much of his writing. Black Max 7-15-06

In the end.... the VA Class cost just as much as the Sea Wolf Class.... We as a country we stupid to build VA Class... Sea Wolf was a much more capable submarine for all missions....

Ex Submarine Radioman sends.... (still working in the Submarine Force)


 * I say blame the DUMMICAT Bill Clinton to cut the Seawolf class the begin with. As a former submariner I look froward to the day we once again start naming submarines after fish.--Subman758 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Seawolf class lack VLS tubes. I see the VA as more flexible with its VLS. Also, the latest block shares commonality with the OH class; I imagine that makes maintenance cheaper. Jigen III (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody got any information in what way the Seawolf class's is more capable? As Jigen said the weapon's mix of the VAs seems like the better solution for the foreseeable future. More noise? 62.216.219.133 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Seawolfs have double the torpedo capacity of the Virginias, and Tomahawk cruise missiles can easily replace Mk 48 torpedoes on a one for one basis (they're roughly the same size and the Tomahawk was designed from day one to be compatible with 21-inch torpedo tubes). So even without the VLS tubes, a Seawolf can carry more torpedoes and more missiles than a Virginia. And if new Seawolfs were built it'd be easy to add VLS tubes to the design, just like we did with the later Los Angeles class subs. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Seawolf's costs were not as low as you claim, Ex Submarine Radioman. In FY 1997 dollars, the three ships cost $13.185 B. To put that in FY 2014 dollars, that would be $19.146 billion! Furthermore, SSN 779, 780, and 781, cost $6.783 billion in FY 2005 dollars, which is $8.094 billion in FY 2014 dollars, that's a savings of over $11 billion from the Seawolf-class costs for three submarines. Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Littoral?
Do submarines really use the word littoral to describe near shore missions? KP Botany 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Navy describes near shore waters as littoral so yes it is in the lexicon. Tirronan 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a snorkel?
I am working on the Submarine Snorkel article in Wikipedia and would like to know if the Virginia class subs have a small emergency diesel engine and snorkel capability like all previous US nuclear subs. Anybody know -- or how to find out?Tvbanfield 03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia-class subs have diesels and snorkels.--Swt2c (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

no the sybmarines do not have a snorkel, this is because they have crated a system of air filters to clean the deisel exahust. also the snorkel can only be used on or near the surface, the new system provideds emergency power underwater also.


 * The person who told you this clearly has no knowledge of subs and also has no knowledge of virginia class boats. 774 class boats do have an emergency diesel which does take suction through a snorkle mast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.253.65.166 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

However without a snorkel they would have to burn the oxygen stored for other ship functions such as life support and im sure the oxygen generator/scrubbers would not be able to keep up for more than a dozen hours or so if that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.138.141 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Virginias do, in fact have a snorkel. There's a photo of the USS Virginia Diesel Generator Control Panel on the US Navy web site. That photo is linked at the web page of the DGCP designer. If you look in the upper right, valves VH-1, VH-2 and VH-3 are all aligned in the column labeled Snorkel. The designer notes that under the heading 'Photo 344' Buck (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Virginia class doesn't have snorkel.Modern submarines are using chemical reaction, so called electrolysing water, to tear apart water molecules H2O to gases H and O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.97.60 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

All diesel powered subs and all nuclear powered subs have some type of snorkel mast and snorkel valve mechanisms to support outside air induction when the boat is at a depth that allows snorkling operations. Let's define the purpose of snorkling operations. A diesel powered sub snorkels to charge its batteries. A nuclear powered sub snorkels to support starting the reactor. A sub in casualty or distress snorkels to prevent humans inside from suffocating, when air scrubbers are down (another backup is burning O2 candles). The above statement about a 'system of air filters to clean the deisel exahust' is nonsense. The links to my DGCP page (above) is a great example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary84 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Running Out of States
These vessels are named after US states. The Navy wants to build 48 of these. They're going to run out of states...

Already assigned
 * Virginia-class sub (25): AR, CA, CO, DE, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, MA, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR, SD, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA
 * Ohio-class sub (17): AL, AK, FL, GA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, NE, NV, OH, PA, RI, TN, WV, WY
 * Seawolf-class sub (1): CT
 * San Antonio-class (1): NY (state, not city)

Not yet assigned
 * Unassigned (5): AZ, KS, OK, SC, WI

Jigen III (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * More reason to annex the Middle East. --64.180.252.71 (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe they will include territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.100 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * they'll probally start phasing out older submarines as they build new ones, like they do with the aircraft carriers. the territories might be a back up, though thats just an assumption on my part. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that they will name another ship the USS Arizona because I believe its name is still on the Naval Registery. I think that they should name a couple of subs the Puerto Rico and Samoa because they are US Territories and there names haven't been used in many years but it would also be nice to see another USS Oklahoma again. tom991


 * Updated list, Arkansas was assigned today to SSN-800. (Ootervon3) (talk • contribs)


 * Unless a few managed to secede without anyone noticing (didn't work too well last time), it was my impression that we had 50 states. 50 > 48, so we should be safe ? 210.22.142.82 (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Block I/II?
What differences are there between the submarines listed as "Block I" and those listed as "Block II"? The article doesn't say why there's a difference, although it does say what design refinements Block III subs will have. Musashi1600 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added info in the last paragraph of Construction and Controversy on the Block II improvements and a link to the Globalsecurity.com page where I got the information. Axeman (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong in the description of the Block II subs. It says they are $2 billion cheaper than Block I. But Block I only cost a little (well, relatively speaking) over $2 billion to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.133.23 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is now fixed. It should have read as costing $2 billion per boat (down from 2.3), not reducing by $2 billion per boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Astute Class?
Why is the Astute class listed as an improvment of the Virginia class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy MKST (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, no matter how low their IQ! I've removed the note. - BillCJ (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tango Bravo SSN
Does the Tango Bravo SSN go here or in a linked article? Hcobb (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Measurements
Why does this U.S. vessel, which has its specifications reported by the U.S. Navy in U.S. measurements, have its "displacement" stats reported in British/metric units?

Very annoying.

The Virginia class is reported by the Navy as having 7,800 tons of displacement. That's tons ...not "metric tons"...nor "long tons"...nor "short tons" for that matter...just tons, which is widely understood by the high and low tech communities as being 2,000 pounds.

Can I get an amen?


 * The above statement is incorrect. Measurements of all navy vessels are in long tons, always. 1 Lton = 2,240 lbs. I don't need to reference this because I am Virginia class submarine qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.253.65.166 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

70.112.150.168 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * you still need a source, peoples word isnt worth much on the internet sadly. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The US Navy Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Vessels Register states that "Full Displacement is measured in LONG TONS (2240 lbs.) except for the LPD-17 Class, MHC-51 Class, DDX Class and LCS Class which are measured in METRIC TONS (2204.9 lbs.)."

regardless of the units of measure, are the displacement figures given for the sub when surfaced or when submerged? based on a rough comparison to the Los Angeles class article (which specifies both) i'd guess the latter, but a confirmation would be nice. 96.42.144.36 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reason naval ships are not measured in short tons are the Washington Naval Treaty and the subsequent London Naval Treaty which stipulated long tons. Later treaties uses metric tonnes which - for it's intent and purpose are negligibly lighter (32 lbs per ton) than the long ton - conforms to the metric values used internationally. Submarines are always calculated fully submerged as it's their natural state when operating. BP OMowe (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion of merits of metric system

 * The US military has admitted the superiority of the metric system over the imperial, virtually all military measurements are in metric. Essentially its quicker, a lot easier to convert 1Km>1000m>100000cm than however many feet are in a mile with three feet to a yard and 12 inches to a foot, or 0 degrees celsius=frozen and 100 degrees celsius=boiling as opposed to 32 farenheit=freezing and what ever other random number is boiling, what a stupid system. Its also an international standard so that when the US is operating with other countries, the other countries arent confused by your arbitrary units of measurement. And by the way metric is French, the UK only switched from imperial relatively recently 123.243.214.202 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed reply. I'd prefer the metric system given your reasoning.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 10:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the POV comments, but they are not really relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Virginia class submarine GAN
Hi, I notice that this article has been nominated for GA. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do the GA review (nor do I have the specific knowledge required), however, I thought if I gave a couple of quick comments that they might be able to be dealt with prior to someone doing the GA review and this might help the nomination to be successful. These are my comments:
 * the lead might need to be expanded;
 * some of the citations are dead links, these should be rectified before the review;
 * some of the citations are missing publisher and accessdate details;
 * some of the citations are not formatted and are appearing as bare urls, I suggest formatting with the cite web template;
 * some of the Specifications don't appear to be cited;
 * there is a citation needed tag which needs to be dealt with;
 * a number of paragraphs end without a citation, these should be added even if they are just duplications of previous citations;
 * there are a number of single sentence paragraphs, perhaps consider consolidating these or expanding them;
 * the History section consists of only one short paragraph - could this be expanded? Perhaps you could discuss the history of the name "Virginia" in relation to other ships/classes. Also, do you know why the name changed?
 * the image stacking is causing quite a bit of whitespace on my screen (although this might just be because I'm viewing from an old clunker). Perhaps you might consider removing some, or tweaking their placement.

Anyway, I hope these help. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Budget woes sink sub force
http://www.theday.com/article/20110125/NWS09/301259918/1019&amp%3Btown= Stopgap budget creates problems for sub work


 * Too newsy? Hcobb (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you choose "Budget woes sink sub force" as a title for this section? That's not what that link says, nor is it the reality. - 93.97.255.48 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Total number of weapons
Would be good to state the total number of torpedos and Harpoons the sub can carry as with the other SSN pagesOther dictionaries are better (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it already state that in the infobox? "38x torpedoes & missiles" Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  15:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of the acoustic stealth comparison
Is this plot really relevant for an encyclopedia ? The magnitude of the ordinate is not rigorously specified. Besides, the source connot be correctly checked. Moreover, little information is known in general about the acoustic signature of submarine. It can just be, at the best, globally assessed. If one had to talk about acoustic signature, it would be more proper to include the uncertainty on the noise level, which has to be defined more rigorousely. Lastly, how is it possible to assess the acoustic signature of the Severodvinsk class SSN as it is not yet operational? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulcrum-35 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sub-Harpoon
How come Harpoons are not included? Is this source reliable?

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/

Phd8511 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat my claim. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=100&ct=4

Phd8511 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Price-tag
Sorry, but can somebody take a closer look at this ? I see two totally different figures. The text states 1.8 billion, even less, while the table states 2.4 billion dollars. Which one is correct ? 212.61.161.171 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WSJ page A2 on May 28, 2014 says "The US Navy placed a record $17.6 Billion order for 10 new Virginia class submarines from General Dynamics Corp and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc." This indicates the $1.8 B figure is still on track.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304587704579587760991877046?mg=reno64-wsj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjdon67 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This source doesnt state sub-harpoon
http://nns.huntingtoningalls.com/products/subs/virginia/virginia-class-infographic.pdf

Phd8511 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Linux inside
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7789

Too dated to mention? Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs temporal update
Seems to me that parts of this article should be rewritten to show that time has passed since those paragraphs were written. As of for example, it refers to future procurement plans in 2011-12 in future tense. Can any of the main contributors or original editors please help? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Reactor power
The reactor power rating is currently just a conversion of the stated shaft horsepower. Without some discussion of the necessity of the reactor thermal power being much higher than this, it should just say unknown. The idea that a 30MW reactor powers this thing is absurd.50.147.26.108 (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2014 (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/nssn/
 * 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 11:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Virginia-class submarine. 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/20131113065646/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/documents/Submarine%20Road%20Show%20NSL%2017%20Aug%202011%20NSL.ppsx to http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/documents/Submarine%20Road%20Show%20NSL%2017%20Aug%202011%20NSL.ppsx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707133458/http://www.fas.org:80/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssn774_virginia.html to http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/submarines/ssn774_virginia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222101140/http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/csg2/Pages/VARFD.aspx to http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/csg2/Pages/VARFD.aspx

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 22:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nine minutes to load a torpedo
http://www.abqjournal.com/661486/news/the-enemy-below.html

Notable enough for stats? Hcobb (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

whopping big Cite Error on ref 74 on the article main page
please address 98.67.0.13 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - the WOLF  child  23:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Virginia-class submarine. 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/20130910002816/http://www.harpoondatabases.com:80/encyclopedia/entry1383.aspx to http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1383.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713040234/http://insidedefense.com/secure/defense_docnum.asp?f=defense_2002.ask&docnum=NAVY-21-12-4 to http://insidedefense.com/secure/defense_docnum.asp?f=defense_2002.ask&docnum=NAVY-21-12-4

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 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Which block is the specs section for?
VPM changes the specs. Should this be noted? Hcobb (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Vh valves has the exhaust side for the snorkel plus supply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beskept 79 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Virginia-class submarine. 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/20140625012742/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/default.aspx to http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402175120/http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Newswire2011/08SEP11-01.aspx to http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Newswire2011/08SEP11-01.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014043812/http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/STO/Programs/Tango_Bravo.aspx to http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/STO/Programs/Tango_Bravo.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919125701/http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7758 to http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7758
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203084604/https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/2008%20Proceedings%20Documents/ETS%202008/VA%20Class%20ASNE%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf to https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/2008%20Proceedings%20Documents/ETS%202008/VA%20Class%20ASNE%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119163338/http://www.submarinesuppliers.org/programs/index.php to http://www.submarinesuppliers.org/programs/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125120330/http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/default.aspx/ to http://www.navalsubleague.com/NSL/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420055222/https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/hq/Pages/VirginiaClass.aspx to http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/hq/Pages/VirginiaClass.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) 20:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Status changes
According to the Naval vessal Register, 795–798 are all under construction.  Nyth 63  21:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is NAS used in the History section?
The project was originally Centurion, then NSSN (New SSN). It was changed to NAS for a very short time before reverting back to NSSN. Probably because it was pointed out that NSSN is New Attack Submarine, while NAS is New AS or New Submarine Tender.

A SSN is an Attack Submarine in the USN Hull Classification System, while an AS is a Submarine Tender. Using NAS in the History section is inappropriate usage.

The Virginia Class was never referred to as the NAS during the 1997 - 2000 timeframe I was working with the SUBSCHOL at New London. It was always Virginia-class or NSSN Project.

Just wondering if this should be changed to NSSN?

Thanks.

LTJGBeam (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You would need to provide a couple of solid reliable sources for us to switch SSN to NSSN. Otherwise, I think it's likely to stay as is. - the WOLF  child  03:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting changing SSN to NSSN.  I was saying that NAS in the Project History seemed inappropriate, as it wasn't referred to as NAS for any length of time.  The project was originally Called CENTURION, then NSSN, then NAS, and finally changed back to NSSN.  I agree after Virginia was commissioned she was considered an SSN (not NSSN).  I was just referring to the Project Name aspect.  The NAS Project implies "New Submarine Tender", not "New Attack Submarine".  That's why the project reverted to NSSN from NAS.  Or was changed from NAS to NSSN, depending on some sources.


 * Source examples can be found in PROCEEDING OF THE U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE and other works. I found this for example by putting NSSN vs. NAS in google: https://books.google.com/books?id=MUivGFjYUqEC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=NSSN+vs.+NAS&source=bl&ots=81QyWUQ0yf&sig=TiOIlPwG_Ge620aM5gjZDzycdn0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg7u_vtsnYAhVYyYMKHe5dAKUQ6AEINDAC


 * Notice footnote 1.


 * Another source example: https://books.google.com/books?id=aw4PwvuZ1SMC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=NSSN+vs.+NAS&source=bl&ots=Lb8CpiobDM&sig=6obrL6Kn8Buhuba3ZBnQVZSqUsg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg7u_vtsnYAhVYyYMKHe5dAKUQ6AEIOzAE


 * What I am suggesting is that the line:

The class was developed under the codename Centurion, renamed to New Attack Submarine (NAS) later on.


 * Be changed to:

The class was developed under the codename Centurion, renamed to New Attack Submarine (originally NAS and finally becoming known as the NSSN) project.


 * LTJGBeam (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Well, if you want to make a change and you have a reliable source to support it, then go for it. Cheers - the WOLF  child  02:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Running out of names?
This was brought up about 10 years ago, I though I'd bring it up again. The Navy is naming the Virginia-class subs after states. Out of 28 boats named thus far, 26 are states. The Ohio-class (SSBN/GN) is currently using another 17 states as names, one Seawolf (SSN) and one San Antonio (LPD) are using state names as well, for a total of 45. That only leaves 5 states available as names for future Virginia-class boats; Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin. The have a potential 10 boats coming up for Block V (4 of which have been ordered) and another 10 boats in a possible combined Blocks VI & VII. Wonder what they're going to do...? - the WOLF  child  05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We'll find out soon enough. Until then, this isn't a forum. - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aw nuts, I just got pulled over by talk page police... - the WOLF  child  13:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost forgot I posted this. Anyway, I was just curious if anyone had any (sourced) info on this that could be added to the article. (Making this post entirely appropriate). Thanks - wolf  04:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it really isn't appropriate here at all. Again, we'll find out soon enough. You might try WT:SHIPS or MILHIST if it's still keeping you up late at night. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Bil, you made a joke. That's... awesome!. Yeah, I was thinking I might post something at wt:ships, if I didnt get a response here, which is looking to be the case (seriously... you're not slightest bit curious what SSN-807 will be named?). Btw- its mid-day where I am right now, why are you up so late? - wolf  05:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not the least bit curious - US government naming practices tend to change anyway. Subs used to named for fish, but it's been a lot more flexible since then. We'll find out soon enough. - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

We found out: USS Barb (SSN-804), a fish. And we weren't even consulted! Hrmpf. BilCat (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Two more fish now, USS Tang (SSN-805) and USS Wahoo (SSN-806), so we know Barb wasn't a one-time thing. BilCat (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, per this source, they're being named after "past vessels with historic naval legacies", so we may eventually get something other than fish as time goes on. BilCat (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool beans! I like it when ships are named in honor of previous ships (they deserve it!). I hope they do more of that (hint: WW2 carrier names for the Ford class would be good). Cheers - wolf  06:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SSN(X)
USNI article on SSN(X) https://news.usni.org/2018/10/19/analysis-of-navy-shipbuilding-plan-hints-at-return-to-blue-sea-great-power-competition. Could be relevant for the SSN(X) section, or a whole new article. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding to the "SSN(X)/Improved Virginia" section for now. If that section becomes to large, we can then look at splitting off to it's own page. - wolf  02:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine.Sammartinlai (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

reactor core means the whole reactor or an great "repair" without no energy will be produced even with nuclear fuel or only the fuel?
Hi,

I know its no forum but I couldn't find that answer more or less quick with a word search. For people who can't read/speak good English like me maybe a clear. I know there is a basic wikipedia but I think we don't need to discuss the quality of it vs the real one. Average or estimated 33 years for fuel only sounds a lot, I don't think a submarine with that reactor (or one very similiar to it?!) is or was already driving for 33 years but I know (a bit older) number of the estimated time until new uranium is needed in 1 (out of many, I think we have this on the Nimitz or the coming G-Ford-Class aircraft carriers, multi-reactors...) civilian electricity generating reactor it needs ~15 years until one reactor needs a transport of the old waste away and a fresh load into the reactor, but new isotops or higher efficiency could increase it and also I think the demand when not cruising around is low as I guess even quite small boats use their propulsion of course only outside the naval bases and in that bases I think most defensive and I guess all offensive weapons system are off and the propulsion and water clearing (done in naval bases in regions with bad water quality like africa or asia)

Maybe something can be answered or put into the article a bit more easy or so, thanks and greetings from Berlin Kilon22 (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Reactor power number quite incorrect
It seems that the reactor power is the thermal power output from the reactor. But the turbine systems typically have something like 35-50% efficiency, meaning the actual useful power output is less than half of the thermal power output. --Hkultala (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * can you provide a reliable source with the correct information? -  wolf  17:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)