Talk:Ballistic missile submarine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jin class in service?

Ive removed the jin class from the in service list since there is no reference that i can find to it being in service. Especially since it was only last week that it was first spotted afloat i assume it is still undergoing tests and wont be in service for quiet some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistpiglet (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Operation is estimated to begin by 2010 or earlier[1]. Shawnc 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction

Someone wrote, "SSBN is not an acronym," in the article but this is incorrect. In fact it IS an acronym and stands for Submersible Ship Ballistic Nuclear, hence SSBN. Even the source cited actually explains this, though admittedly it's scattered throughout the document. I'm removing the incorrect statement. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 10:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

US Navy Hull type designations are NOT acronyms. It is a common misconception even bought into by many otherwise credible sources because it is one of those things retold often enough even though wrong, that it gains the weight of truth. You see the same thing happen with Frigates (FF) when they are referred to as "Fast Frigates". But if true... then what does the second D and B stand for in the designation for Destroyers (DD) and Battleship (BB)? BB simply means Battleship (Not Big Battleship) And DD simply means Destroyers (Not Dangerous Destroyer)

Likewise, FF simply means Frigate, not Fast Frigate, and SS means Submarines, not Ship, Submersible.

There are a number of things wrong, that told often enough.. appear true even to those who should know better. Even to this day you will find people, even sailors IN the USN, who will refer to an Aegis Class Cruiser, despite the fact that Aegis is a combat information system and not a class of cruiser. The Class name of the cruiser is Ticonderoga.

It is the same with SS and FF. It is a CODE, Not an ACRONYM. It simply means Frigate and Submarine. Not Fast Frigate and Ship, Submersible.

If it truly is an ACRONYM as you insist. then explain to me what the double consonants DD and BB stand for. Or admit you're wrong.

But what do I know. I was only an Electronic Warfare Systems Tech (EW) in the US Navy.

Cg23sailor (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

The item about submarines being the only naval vessels called "boats" is incorrect. Many smaller vessels are also called boats, including a captain's gig, an admiral's barge, various utility boats, tugboats, PT boats, and the YP class of training vessels at the US Naval Academy. When I served aboard a large naval vessel, I was the officer in charge of (i.e. responsible for) "ship's boats" of which this ship had several. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Two Crews Per Boat

Does this mean that each sub carries twice what it needs to operate and each crew works in opposite shifts or that there are two crews assigned to each boat and that one is aboard and one is ashore (home base) for each cruise? Axeman (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the USN blue and gold crews, each crew goes out for about six weeks. When they return. the sub stays for about 2-4 weeks, then the other crew goes out. So they aren't on the sub at the same time. I assume the other navies do the same thing. The text doesn't explain this, but an SSBN spends almost all of its patrol time underwater, which is hard on the crews. By rotating entire crews, the SSBNs can spend more time on patrol. I'll see if I can find a sources to cite that explains this, as the text is very vague. - BillCJ (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 3 days

Due to escalating IP involvement in the edit war, the page has been semi-protected for the next three days.

Please stop edit warring on the article and take discussions to the article talk page here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

. . . and the edit war has broken out again.

I am knowingly walking into a minefield, but based on AP and Reuters articles (which I've used as cites in the nuclear triad article) on the Arihant's launch three things are clear: 1) It is (or is meant to be, in some fashion at least) definitely a SSBN. 2) It is still under development (it doesn't even have a reactor yet, for heaven's sake). 3) It does not yet have any ballistic missiles to fire. Thus, Arihant clearly belongs in the Under Development subsection. If you want to argue these points, you'd better have good cites. YLee (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article suffers from far too much pushing of the Arihant as though it's in service. There are doubts over whether it is a ballistic missile submarine. Space25689 (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Model Launch Depths

Earliest models of SSBN submarines carried the Polaris A1, A2, and A3 missiles. From the beginning, missiles did not have to be launched from the surface. Maximum launch depth for all three models of Polaris was 100 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.70.114 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Classes under development

I've added tags to each class under development. I hope this helps clarify their stage of development. I oppose having two sections for classes under development as this seems POV. I read the source regarding an Arihant follow on class but couldn't find any mention of such a class. Many countries with SSBNs have plans to replace their current SSBNs, such as the USA and UK have plans to do so, but those planned classes are not mentioned in the article because their just plans so far rather than already under development. Space25689 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be POV? Can you answer that. The objective is clarity when you say certain submarines are undergoing sea trials and some are planned. Is removing this POV or not? If you have not seen it, then you must read it again. I'm asking you what's the objective of Wikipedia. To provide information or to hide it. If there is proper information about plans for a new generation of Nuclear subs with sources then why not add it. Is it not a POV hiding this information from readers?

I don't have any objection to the list with proper information of the stage of development of the submarine like sea trials etc. Is the Type 096 in planning stage or has started production? Also add the Follow on to the Arihant in planning stage.Bcs09 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for multiple sections for SSBNs under development. They are all under development, whether at different stages of development or not. Any important information, such as that regarding stages of development, is noted in the section. There's only one section for SSBNs in service, and there should be only one section for SSBNs under development for the same reason. It is POV to have multiple sections for SSBNs under development in order to exaggerate those near completion over those which are in the early stages of development. It is also POV to include future classes of SSBNs without supporting reliable sources. The US Navy and Royal Navy have planned future SSBNs but there is no mention of these in the article because they are still speculation. Future SSBNs without academic sources should not be added to the article as that would be wp:original research. Also remember, Wikipedia is not a wp:crystal ball. Only reliable academic information should be published on articles. Space25689 (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is asking for separate sections for development and planned ones if the information can be fit into one that's development with clarification of stages. Earlier you removed details like sea trials for the reason best known to you. Now it seems all right except for you having problem with the inclusion of follow on class to the Arihant class. First you did not read the article. Sad. Anyhow, I'm pasting the sections for you to read. Hope that helps.[2]"In 2005, the UPA Government gave an in-principle clearance for building a follow-on series of larger ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), costing nearly Rs 8,000 crore a piece or nearly twice that of the current series of ATVs and another line of nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSNs) to escort them. "Bcs09 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I stated earlier both the US and UK plan to replace their SSBN classes with new ones but these new classes are not included in the article because they're only speculation. Adding such speculated future classes is far too crystal ball for Wikipedia. Space25689 (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war so I've decided to include all planned classes and allow the section to be split into two in that case. Space25689 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I never thought of things beyond what is being approved or may be in design stage. Your foresight to bring in the all the planned subs was really informative. Never knew about the U.S program and the British Sub program (except for the Trident replacement issues) But I dislike the way you removed approved from the list of Arihant class sub. I also request your help to create a page for Follow on to the Arihant class submarine.Bcs09 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay maybe we could expand some nuclear submarine articles and the articles on their missiles which are stubs. If you have any websites with info on them it could help. Space25689 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, which articles need improvement?Bcs09 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

'Keel depth'; 'Purpose'

The third sentence of the article names phrase 'keel depth'. One, you do not define it. Hence, no reader other than those with, evidently, a knowledge about submarines or ships to begin with, can understand this article. An invalid premise.

Two, the hyperlink on the word 'keel' has problems:

- Any link here should be a definition of 'keel depth'. Hence 'keel depth', not 'keel' alone, should be the link.

- The link points to article 'Keel'. But a text search on 'keel depth' there turns up nothing.

- For that matter, why are readers directed to an article about keels? The last time I looked at a submarine, I didn't see a keel on it.

- Hence article 'Keel' is invalid as well. If 'keel depth' is a legitimate and useful term, then you would think that article would explain it, by way of listing all major uses of the word 'keel'. Hence someone ought to fix it too.

While I'm at it, paragraph 'Purpose' must be rewritten. You start out, as so many Wiki articles drearily do, by stating what an SSBN is not. You begin by describing not only one, but two other kinds of submarine, attack and cruise missile submarines.

Do not write, or at least do not begin, an article on a subject by telling us what it is not.

Begin by describing the subject, period. Then, and only then, you may tell us how the subject differs from one or more other subjects.

Additionally, sentences in Wikipedia often give their confused purpose away through their punctuation. The first sentence under 'Purpose' is three separate sentences strung together into one. One, remove the semi-colon and begin a new sentence. Two, break up the remainder into two sentences, one about attack and one about cruise missile, subs.

Also, notice how the second paragraph under 'Purpose' is more important than the first paragraph. This is typical of the inverted writing seen in Wikipedia. Once you invert your first sentence (the long run-on one with the semi-colon), inversions then cascade until the entire section is written backwards. So consider putting that nuclear-triad para. first. --Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep depth is a standard term of art in submarine design and operations, and it's used extensively in Wikipedia, but had no explanation or definition here. Fixed ( Keep depth article now exists).

I'm too busy to rewrite the Purpose section right now, though I agree that it's poorly written. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese SSBN ?

How can these be listed as SSBNs if they carry no missiles? The submarine ballistic missile page states that neither the JL-1 nor the JL-2 are operational missiles. The only Chinese submarine apparently persistently associated with a submarine launched ballistic missile is the about 50 year old single Golf Class.Moryak (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And the answer? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Strategy?

Is there some "strategy" article that applies to these subs? It turns out that Ohio type subs no longer sail well-submerged, but travel instead at a "go ahead and hit me" depth which totally vitiates the concept of strategic defense as well as the capability of staying "at depth" for 60 to 90 days, which once was important to the US. Maybe part of some treaty? Or unwritten agreement between the US and Russia (and other countries)? Or maybe it no longer does any good to stay way down, so why bother? Student7 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

PLARB

This acronym doesn't correspond to the Russian words it supposedly stands for - it should presumably read 'PLABR', since the word for 'ballistic' precedes the word for 'rockets' (missiles). Doesn't sound so snappy, but it must be wrong.188.203.49.105 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dolphin-class submarines and SLBMs

As far as I can tell, the Dolphin-class submarine does not, and cannot, carry submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which is what defines a ballistic missile submarine. Please don't readd them and Israel to the article without providing verifiable reliable sources that specifically state that they carry SLBMs, and getting a consensus here to readd them. The Dolphins can carry Submarine-launched cruise missiles such as the UGM-84 Harpoon, but cruise missiles are not ballistic missiles. - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS this week (two Trident II missile test launchings)

Are the latest US Navy missiles (Trident II) mentioned?

Headline-1: Navy launches second test missile off Southern California coast

• http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-second-missile-launch-pentagon-20151109-story.html

QUOTE: "The U.S. Navy said it launched a second -- and final -- missile in a planned exercise Monday afternoon from a submarine off the Southern California coast.

The second test launch of the Trident II (D5) missile from a ballistic submarine in the Pacific Ocean took place Monday afternoon, the Navy said. The blast-off took place to far less fanfare than Saturday night’s launch, which provoked residents from San Francisco to Mexico to take to social media, posting photos of an eerie-looking bluish-green plume smeared above the Pacific." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Primary sources: [3] and [4] Geomartin (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Do a search to find 14 hits for 'Trident' and one for 'Trident II'; yes, it is mentioned. How about this testing? -- AstroU (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Globalize Tag

I have tagged the history section as requiring globalization as it only describes the history of ballistic missile submarines developed and used by the USSR and the USA. Both France and the UK developed, built and had in service, ballistic submarines both before and after the cold war era and at the very least these should be included. 101.180.16.7 (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

S5 class

Hey @Thewolfchild:, Sorry I did not see the India Today reference. The other 2 references are considered WP:SPS atleast on Indian military articles and thus not permissible. I also double checked on the Future of the Indian Navy page and we are using the same India Today reference there which states 3 planned (and was actually added by me on that page quite some time ago). Please let me know if you have any questions on this update. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: You can save your explanations about the sources as it has nothing to do with me. The main question is why did you use a revert of my edit to remove all that content? I didn't add it. My last edit, which was also the last edit to the page before yours, was to revert an edit that had removed a single word. My edit was +8 bytes, but then you revert me, and yet somehow remove almost 1600 bytes, so clearly something is off. Please check your edits more carefully before making them. Also, you should figure out who added that content and take up any sourcing issues with them. Thank you - wolf 01:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Please have a look at what I did more closely. You revert was an undo of another editor. What I did was reverted back to a version before the unsourced additions were made which in fact retained your edits. All that your revert did was to re-add poorly sourced content back. The end result of your edit [5] where you reinstate the United States Navy was maintained in my revert here [6]. There was absolutely no need for your revert of my edit unless you wanted to add the WP:SPS back which is what I assumed and thus the explanation. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Now you're talking about the edit I made after your edit that started this mess. Yes, I reverted you, because as I just explained above, your edit made no sense, so I had no confidence that it was in any way correct. And, since it didn't actually involve any content that I had added or changed, I felt it wasn't up to me to sort through it all and figure out what should stay and what should go, so I decided to revert it all back and let you sort it out. Seems only fair, right? - wolf 02:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I am not reverting to your revert of my revert. I am referring to the edit which was 8 bytes. Please have a look at the links I posted above. My original revert went back to November 1 which removed the vandalism Nov 23 and your subsequent revert of it (the 8 byte one). All that I am saying is that, I have been editing for about 3 years and I knew what I was doing (still less experience than you but I am not a noob) with reverting your revert but ensuring that the changes you made were not affected in the end sum. Happy to provide more explanation if it is still unclear to you what happened. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: No, I'm quite clear on what you did. What I'm saying is, don't do it. People find it annoying when they get notifications about their edits edit being reverted when they actually weren't. Sometimes you have to do things manually Adam. A little copying & pasting sometimes won't kill ya. - wolf 02:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will keep that in mind for the future. Sorry for the trouble. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate/wrong description of "significant difference" between US and Soviet SLBM

[EDIT: see reply below, regarding another solid fuel SLBM in Soviet service.]

Preface: it has been a long time since I've done anything but correcting spelling or grammar, and I've decided to try and address all points relevant to the question at hand. I don't think I will make the correction without input from someone else.

Why am I throwing up a wall of text: Under History > SSBN Origins, the following is stated: "A significant difference between US and Soviet SLBMs was the fuel type; all US SLBMs have been solid fueled while all Soviet and Russian SLBMs were liquid fueled except for the Russian RSM-56 Bulava, which entered service in 2014."

However, the article on the R-39 Rif missile, as deployed on the Soviet Typhoon class submarines, describes that missile as using a "Three-stage Solid-fuel rocket", with citation. The source cited for the R-39's propulsion exists only on the Wayback Machine, so may have been rendered obsolete by newer information about that weapon. The claim of significant difference made in this article does not have a citation indicated, suggesting (to me) that the cited claim about the R-39 should have precedence. The significant difference would have existed, but only until 1979 (first flight of R-39), or at the latest, 1983 (deployment of R-39).

In case the citation given in the article on the R-39 is not considered reliable, physics would suggest that the R-39 relied on solid rocket fuel.

To whit: Solid fuel rockets are usually significantly less efficient than liquid fuel rockets, with a significantly lower specific impulse. To accelerate a given throw-weight to a given speed, the necessary solid fuel rocket is bigger and heavier than the necessary liquid fuel rocket. This is probably one of the reasons why the USSR chose to use liquid fuel missiles on most of their ballistic missile submarine classes, due to the inherent limits to an SLBM's size and weight.

Comparing the R-39 with one solid fuel and one liquid fuel SLBM illustrates the issue: The R-39 is longer, wider, and heavier, than the definitely solid-fuel Trident II, while carrying fewer warheads (R-39: 10x 100~200kt vs. Trident II: up to 12x 475 kt or up to 14x 100kt), over a lesser range (R-39: 8,300 km vs. Trident II > 12,000 km). The Trident II is a newer design than the R-39, designed with the benefit of previous experience in solid-fuel SLBM design, which the R-39's designers lacked, so greater performance at lesser size is to be expected. However, the Soviets had extensive experience in designing liquid fuel SLBM. That they should design a liquid fueled missile that is larger (~2.6 meters longer, 0.29m greater diameter) and heavier (84 tons vs. 59t) then a confirmed solid-fuel missile, while carrying a significantly smaller warload over a significantly shorter distance, appears unlikely.

Contemporary-ish to the R-39 was the R-29RM. While performance data on that appears fuzzy, the successor, the R-29RMU, has the same dimensions and mass as the R-29RM. In rocketry, this suggests similar physical performance in throw-weight and range (at least not vastly different). The R-29RMU with maximum warload, which appears to have been 10x 100kt, had the same operational range as the R-39. At less than half the R-39's mass, lighter than the Trident II even, at 40.3 tons. Furthermore, the R-39's warheads are described in some sources, such as the German article, or here, or here, as having a 100kt yield, matching the R-29RM.

Even if the R-39 carried 10x 200kt, doubling the yield of a hydrogen bomb does not require doubling its total mass. The R-29RM first flew four years after the R-39's first test. Yet the designers of the R-29RM would have been able to calculate much of its performance in advance. If the R-39 had been liquid fueled, a clean sheet design at more than twice the weight of a missile that may well have matched it for performance (if the R-39 with 10x 100kt is to be believed), it seems unlikely that such an apparently inferior design would have been further pursued. If, however, the R-39 was the Soviet's first solid fuel SLBM, the mass penalty having been accepted in return for a solid fuel missile's advantages would not seem so unlikely.

In the balance of probabilities, the R-39 does not appear to have used liquid fuel in its boost stages.

And one final paragraph, because I expect the question of a liquid fuel "bus", or "post boost stage", or "post boost vehicle" may come up: Such a device is necessary to put MIRV warheads onto the individual trajectories towards their individual targets. The I in MIRV literally does not work without such a device (yes, it's for "independently targeted", not individual, but that wouldn't work without a post boost vehicle, either). Launching from an arbitrary position within a patrol area, the trajectory alteration made before each warhead release would require duration and intensity of thrust to be calculated then, would not have been predictable during the missile's manufacture. Seeing how solid rocket motors are noted for their inflexibility once lit, the possibility of achieving the post boost vehicle's purpose with solid rockets can at best only be considered highly speculative. If US missiles with liquid fuel post boost vehicles count as being "solid fueled" for the purpose of the statement I question, an R-39 with solid fuel boost stages and a liquid fuel post-boost vehicle would qualify likewise.

So yeah. I think that statement about all Soviet SLBM having been liquid fueled, it needs adjusting. DerGolgoAgain (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If you don't get any replies, you can try posting a request for responses at WT:MILHIST & WT:SHIPS. (fyi) - wolf 19:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears that there were in fact two solid fuel SLBM in Soviet navy service. The R-31, although only deployed on a single submarine, came three years before the R-39. Multiple sources in the R-31 article describe it as having solid fuel/solid propellant. Link, link.Seeing this additional, sourced description of a solid propellant SLBM in Soviet service before the Bulava, I will edit the article. DerGolgoAgain (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

DerGolgoAgain, "Why am I throwing up a wall of text" was a good question. Sorry, but I'm not reading it. And please thread these talk page posts properly, thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)