Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy

Question on pending & possible retirements

The lead text for this article:

The United States Navy has approximately 490 ships in both active service and the reserve fleet, with approximately 90 more in either the planning and ordering stages or under construction...

is misleading. It implies that the active / reserve fleet is going to rise to approximately 580 ships.

Should we add an approximate count of pending & possible retirements to give a clearer picture? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Since you are the only person to mention this, (going back years)... it's obviously not that much of a clear implication. As such, I'm not sure there's a need to include a off-set number of ships potentially retiring. But, if you were to try to add such a figure, what would you base it on? - wolf 04:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The most recent RS press releases on the subject - there is already such information on forthcoming decommissionings in ship Wiki articles, such as "Navy Plans to Retire 48 Ships During 2022-2026":

Chicago is scheduled to be decommissioned, by way of entering the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program sometime in 2024.

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There are 59 ships per the Notes column in the Commissioned and Non-commissioned lists that are scheduled or proposed for decommissioning by 2026. The supporting information is already in this article. I think I would write this up as:

The United States Navy has approximately 490 ships in both active service and the reserve fleet. Approximately 90 new ships are in either the planning and ordering stages or under construction, and approximately 60 existing ships have been proposed or scheduled for retirement by 2026.

I think this gives a more accurate picture of the current naval expansion. Thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure it is necessary, the fact that some ships are on the way in, means some are also on the way out. But if it absolutely needs to be added, I would suggest leaving off the "by 2026". This added line is something that will need to monitored and updated, and if we're not adding a pending date for incoming ships, then we really don't need one for the out-going ships either. (jmho) - wolf 06:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

My thought on this, my motive for this proposal, is that there are people who think that there is no rational basis for defense spending, and that (at worst) there are motives behind it that amount to warmongering. It is possible - though it is unlikely this can be proved - that readers of this article can come away with a one-sided view of the construction program: "some are also on the way out" will not occur to them. I have noticed that Wiki contributors (in fine arts also) tend to underestimate the ways that people can misread facts.

I would suggest leaving off the "by 2026". This added line is something that will need to monitored and update

But we are doing that monitoring and updating in the Notes columns anyway, and the count of ships has to be updated. All that is new is the need to remember that this line of text is tied to the notes, a minor amount of overhead. That is why I added the [A1] footnote in the proposed text stating so, but the footnote will not appear properly on the Talk page for some reason unknown to me (it reads "See Notes columns in the Commissioned and Non-commissioned tables for proposed and scheduled retirements"). Hope this helps. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should avoid edits to hedge against concerns of some reader's fears of bellicosity. But, such reasoning aside, the edit itself is not particularly drastic, so if you think it's an improvement, go for it. I'm good either way. - wolf 15:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is to be done, it seems to me that the counting of proposed- / scheduled-for-decommissioning (commissioned ships) and to-be-taken-out-of-service (non-commissioned ships) should be automated somehow, much like we automate the other counts listed in the lead. To do so will, I think, require the establishment of some sort of standardized something that an automated counter can read – perhaps a couple of templates that accept keywords and dates {{decommission|proposed|2026}} and {{decommission|scheduled|2026}} / {{out of service|proposed|2026}} and {{out of service|scheduled|2026}}. It would be nice to figure out template name and keywords that would apply to both commissioned and non-commissioned ships. The templates would produce standard text similar to the text already used in the note column.

Why is the term 'decommission' used in the non-commissioned-ships table? Can't decommission a ship that was never commissioned so why do we say that in the non-commissioned table?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, automated templates would be helpful, the automated updating you've added to this page has been a great help. As for a single term that could apply to commissioned and non-commissioned ships, a decommissioned ship is basically "out of service", so I don't see a problem using that for both. It is only for template use and not something visibly part of article content anyway (imho). As for the "decommission" dates noted on the non-commissioned list, I have changed them to "end of service". I believe those were added by a single editor, so hopefully he'll take notice for future edits. Cheers - wolf 17:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Two new templates: {{decommission}} and {{end of service}}. Template docs could always use improvement so have a look. The standardized phrasing is in Module:USN fleet totals/data (there because any automated counter will need to know what to look for). I'll think about how to count these in the coming day or so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that is an excellent effort, thank you!

I do see that USS Key West now uses two of these templates. Does that mean this line would be counted twice? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The tool only counts the first template (it does not discriminate between proposed and scheduled). The actual count of {{decommission}} templates in the article is 43 and the actual count of {{end of service}} templates is 17 (60 templates total). At the bottom of List of current ships of the United States Navy § Fleet totals, the count of ships expected to retire is listed as 59.

{{USN fleet totals}} has a new keyword: retire:

{{USN fleet totals|retire}} → 60 (remember that this number is rounded to the nearest value divisible by 5)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I coded and tested, but did not save, this text:

The United States Navy has over 470 ships in both active service and the reserve fleet; approximately 95 new ships are in either the planning and ordering stages or under construction, and approximately 50 existing ships are proposed or scheduled for retirement, according to the Naval Vessel Register and published reports.

Is there a consensus to add this? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That sentnece looks fine to me. And thanks to Ttm for once again helping us improve articles with with your knowledge of coding and templates, etc. Your assistance is always beneficial and appreciated. Cheers - wolf 06:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Revisit / question

While updating a new entry today, I just noticed this addition basically for the first time since it was added. It still seems like it needs some kimd of time window added, nothing drastic, just something like;
"Expected to retire by 2026" (or)

"Expected to retire within the next three years"
(proposed added text in maroon)

Or perhaps something else? As it is, every ship on this list is expected to retire at some point, so we should have a reason why we are counting these particular ships. Tfdavisatsnetnet, Trappist the monk, anyone else... thoughts? - wolf 05:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your are correct, I have added 'by 2026' Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the new addition down in the "Fleet totals" section, that was added after this discussion. Sorry, I should've been clearer about that. - wolf 07:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how 'USN fleet totals' works, so I don't want to touch that. But again, you are correct. Since the projected retirement dates are in the 'decommission' and 'end of service' templates, I wonder if 'USN fleet totals' can be programmed to return the latest date. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. Ttm has apparently made some changes, and each ship in the "Expected to retire" section has the planned retirement year attached. This is better than just an approximated timeframe added to the title. Thanks again to Ttm for his efforts at creating these very helpful solutions. - wolf 16:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but would it not be better if the text I added for '2026' were not hard-coded but rather was picked up from the latest attached year? It is so close to being automated now. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha! now my turn for a never mind! I see it has been done! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ready Reserve Fleet 21 June 2021

A Navy League article Crane Ships, Heavy Lift Ships, Tanker Retired from Sealift Fleet dated June 21, 2021, lists 5 non-commissioned ships as having been removed from the RRF, but they are still on the list in this article. Did this happen? I don't want to edit that list.

PS: I looked at the NVR entry for one of these 5 and saw this: "The Naval Vessel Register no longer tracks vessels of the RRF."

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There's sources for the RRF here, I'll go through them and update the table when I have some time. - wolf 06:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Changing layout of the page

I think that the current formatting of the page is unappealing and quite outdated, as there are just a few large tables with no images or easy sorting. I suggest switching to a layout similar to what has been done for the Russian Navy or Chinese Navy pages. IvtI 09 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to do that, copy the entire article wikitext to a sandbox and make any formatting changes that you want there. You should monitor the live article and incorporate updates in your sandbox as they occur. When you are done making changes to your sandbox, post a note here so that editors can compare the live to the proposed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are my proposed formatting changes in my sandbox. IvtI 09 (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't really see a need to change the layout of the page, and especially so drastically, and don't particularly find the layouts of the pages for the list of PLAN or VMF ships to be an improvement. Given the sheer size of the USN, I believe the current layout of this page is best suited to it. The main difference between this page and the other two, is they have separate tables for each type of ship, whereas all the ship types are included in the same table, where sorting helps readers with all the different columns the ships are divided among. This is not possible when the ships are split up among separate tables. I note the proposing editor is relatively new to the project, with about 200 edits so far, all of which are almost exclusively to either PLAN or VMF ships pages. In time, I sure they will find that what may seem to work for one page, or subject, may not necessarily be the best for others. Trappist the monk makes a good suggestion, that if IvtI wishes to pursue this, they should do so in their sandbox, and go from there. The OP doesn't find this page "appealing"... but it's not unappealing either. As for the formatting being "outdated", the formatting is what's used acosss the project, since the wiki began. What's important is that the layout is informative and functional, given that this is an encyclopaedia and not a fashion magazine. (jmho) - wolf 17:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

@Maritime guy: While the NVR is undoubtedly an important source, one used widely and heavily in USN articles, it is also a primary source. It is important for content on WP to also be supported by secondary sourcing (see primary vs secondary sourcing). On another note, per WP:BRD, once an edit you've made has been reverted, if you disagree with the revert, it is preferred that you go to the talk page and start a discussion, to state your position and seek a resolution, as opposed to reverting again and attemtping a discourse via back-and-forth edit summaries. That is how edit wars are avoided. Thanks - wolf 15:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Just like I noted in the edit summary of USS John H. Dalton, the navalnews.com ref was reproduced simply from USN's pr, and therefore it was unsuitable as a secondary ref when both major contents were totally similar. Maritime guy (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

And about the item, which is a list only, it should keep general information about the vessels and the primary refs that support the information in it, and the readers can go to the relevant article on the enwp to get more information (or refs) on the vessel if they would like to, rather than adding these contents (also including refs) here. Maritime guy (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Where to start. Well, in regards to lists... where does it say that? And if that's your reason for removing it from the list, then why are you also removing it from an article? (And doing so while this discussion is active? Annnd leaving that article with only a primary ref?) Why are you sooo determined to remove this ref? - wolf 19:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason for my removal of the navalnews.com ref I have provided again above, and I'm writing again here, which is because the navalnews.com ref is unsuitable as the secondary source due to it being a simply reproduced USN's pr. About the contents (or refs) in the list article on enwp, I still maintain my points above. Maritime guy (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The navalnews ref is quite suitable as a secondary source. It does what secondary sources do... report news from primary sources, hence the duplication at times. - wolf 21:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The navalnews.com ref doesn't report news from the primary source, and it's just reproduced simply (republished, actually) from the latter as there is absolutely a lack own language in their reproduction. That is the reason why I deemed the navalnews.com here unsuitable as a secondary source. Maritime guy (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Navalnews is used as a source on numerous WP articles, if you want to challange it, RSN is right over ->here. - wolf 04:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to challenge the navalnews.com being a source of articles on enwp, I just feel it's unsuitable as a secondary source of reproduced content from other sites when navalnews.com is republishing the same content from such sites. Maritime guy (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted. If you want to use a different secondary source, that's fine, but swapping secondary sources for primary ones, or just removing secondary sources and only leaving primary ones is... not so fine. The differences between the two and why there is a preference for secondary sourcing is explained in the sourcing guidelines. Have a nice day - wolf 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maritime Guy:... Maybe I spoke too soon? I see you're referring to mid-thread comment in an edit you've made months after. Basically saying "cuz I said so here" is not really a suitable summary. I'll say again: if there is an unresolved issue, it should be addressed on a talk page, not via edit summary. - wolf 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, I wrote in my edit summary that see this of ″my earlier reply in the talk page″ because it was part of the addressed results from a solved issue. (and since you didn't take any further disagreement at your subsequent replies in the topic at that time with the reply, it's you've agreed on the statement and meaning on the reply by default) Maritime guy (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is more of a case of taking note of certain changes, and then even if you disagree with them, deciding whether you want to pursue the issue or not. I will say that nit-picking over sourcing is not necessarily the best use of time, and especially when it comes to primary vs secondary refs. (Even if content in a secondary ref is sourced from a primary ref, it's still beign reported in the secondary ref which satisfies out needs.) In those cases, mass/wholesale changes of sources just to ultimately have a ref support the exact same content, is not really necessary. Lastly, please use edit summaries to simply note straight-forward chanages, and use talk pages for any on-going issues or in place of summaries that may solicit a reply. Thanks for your assistance. - wolf 04:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

USS Miguel Keith typo?

The listed homeport for the USS Miguel Keith is "Saipan, Japan", shouldn't it be "Sasebo, Japan"? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Changed homeport to "Sasebo, Japan" Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Deleted ships

I've just discovered something unsettling. After spending a bit of time to ensure that the additions and deletions to this list are also made in the separate ship type lists, I have found that ships have been removed here - presumably because the ships have been inactivated and sold for scrap - but the ships' articles and ship class articles still state they are in service. The Watson-class vehicle cargo ships are a prime example. What to do? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I found these ships after I sorted the list properly. Emily Latella lives! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Found another example: ex-USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) and ex-USNS Bridge (T-AOE-10) are both listed in reserve at Naval Base Kitsap. Should they be on the reserve list here? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tfdavisatsnetnet: It's just part of the ongoing efforts to keep these dynamic lists up-to-date and co-ordinating the status changes among all these lists and also the individual articles. After I cleaned this list up many years back, I also added all the other articles that have lists of USN ships to the "see also" section, so they could hopefully be kept up to date as well. Between them and the individual articles, I tried keeping them all current for years. Some other editors pitched in as well, and recently MaritimeGuy has been doing alot of that work.

My point is, that it's really just up to any given editor(s) that want to keep on top of changes (by watching USNI, NVR, etc.) and making all the needed edits. One thing that is quite helpful is when someone like Trappist the monk comes along and creates templates to help this effort with some automation. Re: perhaps the "status" parameter of indivudual ship articles can be linked to the "status" columns of these lists, and automatically updated via template? (or some other wiki-magic-code...? I dunno, only Ttm can answer that). Anyway, thanks for your efforts! - wolf 05:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I know firsthand how hard this is! So thanks to all!

Here are a couple of others that can be added: Leeward (YFB-92) and Windward (YFB-93) are both inservice at Guantanamo Bay Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Non-comm date column

@MatthewtheGreatest: I see you added a "year built" column to the "Non-commissioned" table. I can understand the motive, it has room for it as it has less columns than the "Commissioned" table just above, and that table has a column for "Commission date", which tells us when the ship entered service, which the Non-comm table lacked. It's a good idea, but there is problem though, (which is why it's sometimes better to suggest significant changes on the talk page first) ...when exactly is the "year built"?

Is it when the contract was awarded and/or when construction was approved? (Often noted in ship articles and found in the NVR.)

Is it when construction started? (Generally regarded as the date the keel was laid.)

Is it when the ship was delivered? (Usually found in the ship article infobox.)

Or was it when the ship went into service? (Sometimes noted in the ship article.)

All these dates can differ, often times by years. I think we need to be more specific here. - wolf 08:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. It's been just over a week since you made that edit, and while you have edited since, you have, for some reason, chosen not to respond here. (Despite both the ping here, and the notice on your talk page regarding this post.) As such, I have reverted the "year built" column out of the Non-comm table. If you wish to revisit the matter, you may do so at anytime, by simply replying to this thread. This page is on my watchlist so I will be made aware of any posts here. - wolf 06:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

USS John L. Canley

Just wondering if there is a reason as to why this ship hasn't been added to the list as it was comissioned nearly a month ago now? Brandon Downes (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brandon Downs: Hi, you were correct to add the ship to the "commissioned" column as that's what we do with all ships the day they're commissioned. But, for future reference, you forgot to remove it from the "under construction" column. We only list a ship in one section on this page, changing as it progressea to each milestone. But no worries, I got it ;-) Have a nice day - wolf 11:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Could we add images?

I think adding images would be nice. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? - wolf 06:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

i added USS Abraham Lincoln's image IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The edit has been undone. If we were to add an image for that ship, we would have to add images for every ship, bascially necessitating an addition column. The table is not set up for that and isn't likely to be as it is pretty large already. There is a fairly comprehensive image section farther down the page, with every class/type represented with an image. There is a Nimitz-class carrier already included. - wolf 16:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

ohhh ok. yeah I added only Abraham Lincoln's image as a test IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of the United States Navy

Please see the above AFD, which is related to this article. A merge in either direction may be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Future of the United States Navy is an unnecessary content fork that requires editors to maintain two basically identical lists. In my view, that outweighs that this is probably a valid navigational list and a valid list of a discrete class of items. (The fact that similar lists exist for other nations, such as List of future Spanish Navy ships, is not relevant per WP:WAX.) There are two columns in Future of the United States Navy that are not present in this list: "builder" and "status". Those columns can, however, be added to the other sections, and having more relevant information in one section of the list isn't a bad thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Notified editors who participated in the recent AfD for Future of the United States Navy: RadioactiveBoulevardier, Reywas92, Dream Focus, 102Legobrick, RunningTiger123, My very best wishes, Lorstaking, and Walsh90210. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Notified: WP:PMGO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support naturally. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support unless an editor explains why these need to be separate articles, this should be done without objection. If there is an editor who feels there should be additional information on a stand-alone page, I will want to hear them out. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.