Talk:Seawolf-class submarine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Needs disambiguation. Both the SSN 575 and SSN 21 classes are "Seawolf Class Submarines" Elde 00:49, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

True, tho it should be noted that the total number of SSN-575-class ships was less than two. SSN-575 was unique, thank the good Lord Neptune.--the Epopt 01:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is why the Navy generally uses type hullnumber Class, to avoid the ambiguities that can arise using name Class. (Though arguably, the submarine ID scheme is so hosed no matter what system you use, that any potential confusion over Seawolf is a minor matter indeed.) I rearranged the order you created though, and modified the TOC levels to produce something a bit more logical.
Elde 06:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Meters or Feet

This page is inconsistent with meters and feet? Should I go ahead and convert them to meters? I don't want to mess things up. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcm (talk • contribs) 20:59, 06 April 2004 (UTC)

The US Navy uses the English measurement system so it's probably not appropriate to update everything to meters. Even tactical data is in yards and feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.27.63 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the US military uses the metric system. - ^theWOLFchild 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The metric system is the international, scientific standard, to which encyclopedic articles should comply. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's WP:UNIT guidelines, both measuerments should be used. As this is a topic about a US subject, US Customary measurements come first. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Both should be used, but metric should come first. Metrication_in_the_United_States#Military - thewolfchild 02:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Propulsion inconsistency

"Propulsion: S6W reactor manufactured by General Electric"

Looking at the S6G reactor page, an S6W reactor is manufacuted by Westinghouse, whereas this page lists General Electric as the manufacturer. I would like to fix the error, but don't know the correct infomration. Thankyou to anyone who can fix it. --Commander Keane 12:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grrr. Well, [1], [2], and [3] all say S6W, though the last says, "a GE PWR S6W reactor system".

—wwoods 09:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is in fact manufactured by Westinghouse and not General Electric. The S1G through S9G reactor plants are made by General Electric. --SovBob 04:42, 8 Oct 2006 (EST)

I was told by a co-worker that jetski technology would not work on a submarine because of the trail of air bubbles.173.86.3.69 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheaper?

The article says "...led to the design of the smaller and cheaper Virginia-class submarine". But the Virginia class submarine article says that Seawolfs cost $2 billion, and Virginias cost $2.6 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.2.90 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrected. CP/M 23:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Realize that the 2.6 billion figure is after 10 years of inflation and includes R&D costs. The costs are also inflated by the fact that NNS hadn't build a sub since the end of the 688's production run. Once more Virginias are built, the cost per unit will be lower than a Seawolf once adjusted for inflation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.172.240 (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Electric Boat and PSNS charge more for virginnias but are cheaper for them to make. only two companys who make US nuc boats gotta keep them in buissness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.34.245 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Date of decommision ?

??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.27.215.167 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Info on speed and max depth

Where is the source that Seawolf crush depth or NED(never exceed depth) is 2000ft? BTW, Seawolf can go faster than 35, so we should put 35+ --ProdigySportsman 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Federation of American Scientists quotes a 2000 ft figure from Jane's Fighting Ships. -- Pslide (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone needs sources for the widely-quoted, unofficial 35-knot submerged top speed:

• Center for Defense Information: Lists 35 knots, citing Jane's Fighting Ships, 1996-1997.
• Federation of American Scientists: Lists 35 knots.
• The Naval Institute guide to the ships and aircraft of the U.S. fleet: Claims that the "maximum submerged speed has been officially stated to be 35 knots". I haven't come across any other sources confirming this as an official number, or confirming Admiral Bruce DeMars' alleged press conference statement that "the Seawolf had gone faster than any previous U.S. submarine".
• Time Magazine: "Murky Waters for the Supersub": Lists 35 knots.
• The Complete Idiot's Guide to Submarines: Lists 38 knots.
• Encyclopedia of military technology and innovation: Lists 39 knots.

-- Pslide (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The speeds reported here for L.A. class and Seawolf class vessels are preposterously low. 35+ knots is such an underestimation of performance it is laughable. Try 50+ knots to lend some credibility to the content here. Oceangoing freighters are able to attain 30+ knots today. Give me a break.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.137.233 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No VLS

This was suppose to replace the LA-class, but it lacks VLS tubes. Was there a reason to omit VLS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.26 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The VLS system was added in half way through the LA class. This I think was done first to the USS Providence in 1985. This was done despite strong opposition from Admiral Rickover since he was advocating a new cruise missile class. There was a need to have a cruise missile sub, there was no funding for a new class, so it was decided to fit 12 launchers in the foreward ballast tank of the LA. 31 ships of the 62 ship class had the VLS. There was also a redesign the torpedo spaces to enable increased stowage of missiles for tube launching. They went from 8 to 20, plus the 12 in the VLS. The last 23 of the 31 VLS LA's were designated 688improved because of further mods like under ice capability, minelaying and further quieting. To answer your question the VLS was omitted because of the 8 tubes verses only 4 for the LA, plus the quick reload rate. Also the Seawolf is primarily an ASW sub intended to operated under the Arctic ice engaging soviet SSBN's at a prodigious rate. Missile attacks were considered only a minor role, hence the VLS omission.121.79.16.217 (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the Seawolf was not intended to replaced the LAs as standard general purpose fast attacks, but to supplement them as specialized attack submarines meant for operations under the ice and in the [Soviet] bastions. This is why LA production continued even as -21's were being built and why -21's were canceled with the fall of the wall but LA production continued. And also why no VLS on Seawolf. 24.16.177.215 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The contracts for the Seawolf and SSN-773 (last 688 Class) were both awarded both in 1989. SSN-773 was scheduled to be commissioned prior to Seawolf, but Seawolf was delivered ahead of schedule. SSN-23 was not commissioned until 2004, many years after SSN-773. Seawolf Class was the successor to the LA's, they were intended to become the backbone of the service as the LA's retired (starting in 1995). Seawolf Class boats are large (9100 tons) and were replaced by the smaller and less expensive Virginia Class (7900 tons) boats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.54.98 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Torpedo tubes?

The infobox claims "8x762 mm torpedo tube, 8X26 in tubes..." The text says "have twice as many torpedo tubes for a total of 8..."

So the infobox claims sixteen torpedo tubes, the text 8. The infobox claims a mix of 30 inch and 26 inch tubes!

The website fas.org claims eight 660-mm (26 inch) torpedo tubes for the seawolf, as does http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/seawolf/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobThePirate (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

They have 8 Large Diameter Tubes Sleeved for 26" weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.34.245 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

tomahawk missile

There is no VLS, you are right. However, these submarines can still fire tomahawks through their 26" tts —Preceding unsigned comment added by GAU-8 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlimited range ?

Does it's reactor work with magic ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaang (talk • contribs) 04:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When referring to a ship's "range" we are usually talking about the distance it can travel on a single load of fuel. Since the Seawolf, (along with all other nuke powered ships,) can go around the world without needing to refuel, the range is considered to be unlimited. By simple math we could put it's range at something around 9,000,000 nautical miles without refueling, but that's not a very useful number. (That's a completely wild guess on my part based on 35 knots for 30 years before refueling.) For practical purposes, it does not have a fuel-limited range. Sperril (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

basically speaking, they have to have the range to 'survive' a nuclear exchange with the Russian Federation - or less-likely Red China - after that, nothing much matters HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Test Depth seems very wrong!

The following source places the Seawolf with a test depth of >300m with an incidental depth of 360 meters.

I noticed this made no sense when I was looking at the Israeli Dolphin class sub, with a test depth of 200 metres. The Virgina class sub has a test depth of 244 metres. 610 metres doesn't even seem possible. Now, 610 feet would be > 185 metres which is right in line with other higher end combat submarines. 300 Metres listed in the other source would be 984 feet.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-21.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by N1lqj (talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

-- VChapman (talk) 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by N1lqj (talk • contribs)

Apparently I logged in with an old account, I should delete that account as I don't use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by VChapman (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Repair

Regarding this edit;

The exact diving depth of this class of boats is classified; most reputable sources vary from 1,600–2,000 feet as a likely test depth, and from 2,400–3,200 feet for collapse depth. These figures are consistent with their original design parameters and not unlikely.

Would ZDanimal, or anyone else with the enough interest and knowledge in the subject mind fixing it up? - thewolfchild 02:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Noise graph

The Acoustic stealth comparison graph is indefensible. Without a scale it tells us nothing, for instance it could be linear or logarithmic or zero could be way below the bottom of the Y axis so the entire Y range might be 1%. As it is this is just a pretty picture. As it contains no information I propose that it is removed. I am saying the same for all 3 uses of this image. Mtpaley (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Crests

@BilCat: I don't know. I just know that all of the tables for active USN ships had them removed. I removed them from the last couple tables I came across. This seems to be the last one (so don't blame the IP editor for removing them). But if you want to keep them, I suppose you'll have to take that up at WT:SHIPS. Now, can we bring this table up to date? (Even if for just the time being) - wolf 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I blame the IP for an unexplained deletion, and you haven't given one either. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)