Talk:Cruise-missile submarine

US-focused?

If anyone has any non-US info, please add it, as the current article is "ever so slightly" focused on the US. 85.224.199.178 10:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

SSGN scope

Considering that most modern attack submarines can carry cruise missiles, doesn't the SSGN designation somewhat fall out of use? Masterblooregard (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How many modern attack submarines can carry 154 missiles? Yes, modern SSNs do carry anti-ship and and attack missiles (some of which are cruise, some are not), but usually in the range of 1-20 smaller missiles. Soviet/Russian SSGNs carried much larger missles, while the Ohio class SSGNs carry up to 154 missiles. Therefore, the designation still seems useful. - BillCJ (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The "G" simply implies that guided missiles are the primary armament, which is the case for the Russian Oscar class and the converted Ohio class subs. In agreement with the comments above, SSN's can launch cruise missiles, but they're not their main armament. This is similar to the use of "G" in surface ships: FF vs. FFG or DD vs DDG, although the disinction here is best explained by the presence of a significant SAM system, especially in the US navy. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RUMINT has it that the original project name was OMFG (for Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Georgia). It was coined before the acronym was in use for it's current meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:153:4101:9EF0:B50B:AF1:3200:D1B6 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

China cruise missile sub

Adamgerber80 Can you please explain why I cannot include Type 039A submarine as a cruise missile submarine? The submarines in the "Other Navies" section launch cruise missiles from their torpedo tubes which the Type 039A can do as well. Chickenhero (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)chickenhero

I think this required a more detailed discussion on parts of other stakeholders in the page as well. But the meaning of Cruise missile submarine has been distorted overtime by addition of attack submarines which also have capability to fire cruise missile albeit as secondary armament. The discussion right above this one sort of goes in that direction. If one reads the the lead of the article it clearly states, "Many modern attack submarines can launch cruise missiles (and dedicated anti-ship missiles) from their torpedo tubes while some designs also incorporate a small number of VLS canisters, giving some significant overlap between cruise missile submarines and traditional attack submarines. Nonetheless, vessels classified as attack submarines still use torpedoes as their main armament and have a more multi-role mission profile due to their greater speed and maneuverability, in contrast to cruise missile submarines which are typically larger slower boats focused on the long distance surface strike role". This indicates that quite a few number of submarines on this article do not qualify as cruise missile submarines. This includes Akula-class submarine, Kilo-class submarine, Collins-class submarine, Type 039A submarine, Type 093 submarine, Rubis-class submarine, Trafalgar-class submarine, Astute-class submarine and Scorpène-class submarine. The submarines classes which should really be here are Juliett-class submarine, Oscar-class submarine, Soviet submarine K-222, Charlie-class submarine, Echo-class, Yasen-class, Ohio-class and USS Halibut per these references ([1], [2]). Now, regarding your recent edits, I find them disruptive. You have been blocked before for edit warring on this very article for these very edits and instead of discussing them here, you go ahead and add the content and then initiate a discussion which is against WP:STATUSQUO. Moreover, you add some information with a reference which does not even have that information and is completely unsourced. I would highly recommend you to refrain editing the article until this discussion is complete. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Then explain why are these submarines Akula-class submarine, Kilo-class submarine, Collins-class submarine, Rubis-class submarine, Trafalgar-class submarine, Astute-class submarine and Scorpène-class submarine are listed as cruise missile submarines and I can't include Type 039A submarine and Type 093 submarine. Adamgerber80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenhero (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Adamgerber80, I just did a minor clean-up of this article before I reading your comments here. I noticed that some of the sub types/classes you mentioned that should not be listed are in fact listed, under "Russia" and "Other navies". In fairness to Chickenhero, if the Chinese type 39 & 93 needed to be removed, then you should probably review the article and remove the types and classes you've listed here as also not belonging. Perhaps you could also add something to the article to help clarify the distinctions you've made here? (I thought you did a pretty good job with your comments here). Just my 0.02¢ Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

thewolfchild I precisely mentioned those submarines for this reason and it is my clear indication that they should be removed. I just did not want to talk a unilateral action and remove it without discussing this here. On edits done by Chickenhero they are unsourced and were thus removed earlier and should have been removed now as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Fair enough. Now that these boats and the "cruise vs other" discussion has started, know that you have my support if you want to make those changes. If in the next couple days there isn't any specific opposition against it, then I'd say go for it. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)