Talk:Ohio-class submarine

Targeting

Where did the idea come from that SSBNs went to sea with no pre-assigned targets? (They do, and the targets are stored in fire control, not the missiles. The data is transferred to the birds during the launch countdown.) Elde 09:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're a geezer, Elde. You're right that in our day, we loaded the target package in port, then went to sea ready to deliver hot and fresh to downtown Moscow. These punk kids today, though, can't be trusted, and so have a much more restrictive set of PALs and whatnot. They really don't have target packages on-board; they have to download them before they can launch. In my day we were real sailors ... we didn't bother with a jacking gear; we turned the shaft by hand, let me tell you.... --the Epopt 04:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<g> I remember carrying target packages to the boat, uphill both ways in six feet of snow... </g> Elde 22:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boat listing/Homeports

Why are these boats listed by homeport rather than by the more traditional by hull number? Elde 20:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Be bold. I nuked the homeport listing and went with the template. --the Epopt 04:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm an import from E2, this being bold thing is still new to me.  :) Elde

The list sorted by homeports did add a couple of bits of information.

Would it be worth putting in a table, showing the number, name, launching (or commissioning) year, current status? Anything else?

—wwoods 05:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Collated information is good, but out-of-date information is bad. Beginning-of-life dates won't change, but data like homeports does. I just don't want someone to come along twenty years from now and see "USS Ohio (SSBN-726) is conducting strategic deterrent patrols, defending all that is right and holy, from her home port of Bangor, Washington." (Cf many of the Sturgeon boats' DANFS entries.) --the Epopt 14:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The history of homeports is important because it reflects the changing strategies of the strategic forces. We need something like:

The first eight boats were homeported in Bangor WA to replaces the A3 carrying submarines that were being decomissioned. The remaining ten boats were originally homeported in King's Bay GA, replacing the Atlantic based Posiedon and Trident Backfit submarines.

After the first four hulls were converted to SSGNs, two boats were shifted from KB to BA. Further shifts are occuring

Elde 03:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not that you need my approval, but I like that. --the Epopt 13:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the new information on the homeports is on the main article page, along with some refactoring of the page to make it flow better. Elde 16:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deterrence force - ohio subs

They can be used offensively and deffensively. They are classified under term detterance force by the military and I am fine with using that term, if there is some explanation. The US nuclear weapons (tactical) could have been potentially used offensively in Vietnam, even though they maintain nukes for "deterrance". I can see the other point of view too, the US is unlikely to use trident missiles offensively, but perhaps some convention should be made about POV US miltary terms, such as detterance force, or "Peacekeeper" missles. Mir 05:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are not POV terms, but precise technical terms. Deterrence implies by it's very nature that the force in question is capable of both offensive and defensive usage. (The essential concept behind this in strategic terms was first codified with the development of the doctrine of the 'fleet in being' by Mahan in the 1890's.) Don't confuse the common usage of the term with the professional usage, in this field or any other. Elde 06:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From what I understand, the "detterance" label is based on the foreign policy of the country, for example the no-first strike policy of the US during the Cold War. With the current state of foreign policy in the US, perhaps the label isn't very accurate in some cases. Although in case of nuclear arsenal I would agree that the term deterrance is accurate. Mir 06:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking if anything could be done about misleading terms used by militaries (not just US i think) like "Peacekeeper" nukes or "Operation Iraqi Freedom" etc. Kind of like double-speak from Orwell, huh. Mir 06:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to describe the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. The fact is that the LG-118A missile is named "Peacekeeper." Wikipedia does not have the authority to rename them. It is also a fact perhaps worth mentioning that no war has been started over the Peacekeepers (or by them), so perhaps their name is perfectly accurate. ➥the Epopt 15:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The concept of "deterrance" is specifically with regard to nuclear warfare, not conventional. I suggest you leave your POV out of this, Mir. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:50, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about conventional forces. But you are right Epopt, they are a detterance force right now, I didn't think about it enough. Mir 06:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)