Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Merger proposal

I see no need for separate articles on Illinois and Kentucky when neither ship was actually completed. The bulk of their articles cover details about their construction and possible plans for conversions as well as their fates which can be easily dealt with in a couple of sections of the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. You are talking about adding 18 kb and 20 kb of text, refs and images to this article which is already too big at 98 kb. I think the two uncompleted battleships deserve their own articles. No need to merge. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The class article needs serious work of its own and will be cut. There will be plenty of room for both when all is said and done.
    • Support. Arguments here have swayed me. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, there is room to cut in this class article, and much of the information is duplicated between this article and these daughter articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - while neither ship was completed, both had significant work done on them, and IIRC Kentucky hung on for quite awhile while there was talk about what to do with her, including potential guided-missile conversions. For her, at least, I don't believe that a merger should be done - and therefore, Illinois should be kept as well to "complete the set" as it were. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a couple of paragraphs at best that aren't duplicates from the class article. Illinois was only 21% complete when suspended and Kentucky was only completed far enough to be launched. Neither is significant in any way. Take a look at Stalingrad class battlecruiser or Sovietsky Soyuz class battleship for examples on how incomplete ships should be handled, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Both Illinois and Kentucky articles are in horrible condition. Kentucky already lost its featured status and Illinois won't be far behind. This is endangering the featured topic status of all Iowa articles. Anyone that wants Illinois and Kentucky to remain separate better get busy and restore their featured status. Brad (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I tend to support. The ships were just pieces of metal, never carried on the US Naval Register, never commissioned. They really had no history. History of welding? Riveting? Spare parts cache? Not exactly what we are looking for in Military History IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge - unfinished ships typically do not get articles, unless something particularly notable happened to the incomplete hull. Take Japanese battleship Tosa for one notable exception. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. mostly unfinished ships, and non-existent ships should be merged into their ship-class articles if they have a class, unless something particularly notable happened to them. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment BB-66 and BB-65 refer to two different ships, the originally ordered Montana class battleships and the as started Iowa class battleships, should we add hatnotes to this article, or create disambiguation pages? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Opposition Who will benefit from a merger that will result in one day, the articles on Kentucky and Illinois becoming mearly a single sentence in some future revision? The Editors? or the Public at large. From where I set, the Editors will be the only ones who benefit. Thus, I deeply oppose merging this article. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment After going back and reading both articles on Kentucky and Illinois, I want to increase my opposition to the strongest Opposition possible. It looks like people worked very hard on the articles Kentucky and Illinois, so that the Public, can enjoy them Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Background

The second section, "Background" is rather long and quite difficult to follow. One obvious question that it doesn't answer, is that the original proposal seemed to be for 12 16 inch guns or 9 18 inch guns. So at what point in that long convoluted process did they downsize to 9 16 inch guns ? 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE this from the article on the SACRAMENTO-class AOE ships

NOTE: This from the article on the SACRAMENTO-class AOE ships.
Note that a lot of this information was missing from the article about the Iowa-class.

"The AOEs were also designed to be much faster than previous auxiliaries at 26 knots, giving them the ability to operate in company with a carrier battle group rather than in a separate, slower replenishment group. The speed was obtained by giving each ship one-half of the power plants removed from the unfinished Iowa-class battleships USS Illinois and USS Kentucky.

The use of the power plants from the Illinois wasn't even mentioned until I put it into the present article

The same information was available from references such as Jane's Fighting Ships.98.81.2.31 (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Outboard vs inboard screws

This seems wrong, they can't both be outboard:

"the outer pair consisting of two four-bladed propellers roughly 18 feet (5.5 m) in diameter and the outboard screws that have five blades and are roughly 17.5 feet (5.3 m) in diameter." Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cost to run needs work:

The claims of Iowa class battleship being so costly to run or refit are not based in fact but are instead based in US naval propaganda because of wanting to phase them out for inferior ships because of their technology. Which the technology packed in them has now been proving itself to make an inferior fighting platforms that cannot handle today's challenges in the global scene.

It is a matter of congressional fact that reactivation of an Iowa class would cost $75 million and to operate it $40 million yearly. As it is also a matter of fact that it costs more then $40 million a year to run nearly all ships commissioned as a result of the navy of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. What we call the modern navy. When the US navy got caught by congress lying about these facts, it tried to claim a ship mothballed during the mid 1990's for the last time it was, had no one alive who knew how to operate the guns, a total crock.

These are things that need to be addressed and are not. This article looks like it was written by the US department of the navy's propaganda office. Its complete propaganda with the talk of cost, not a speck of fact in it, and the point of Wikipedia is to provide facts as best as possible.

I'd bet this page was written by someone in the department of the navy ordered to do so and promote the fallacy the navy has tried with congress. If Richard Stallman will do the propaganda thing to promote his fallacy of creating Linux and Torvalds did the smallest part in creating the kernel, the heart of any OS, which he's been caught out here doing it by his IP address, then you can sure believe the navy would. Especially so when the department of defense does have propaganda officers who do exactly what I am talking about. The mainstream media covered this fact of propaganda officers tasked by the DOD to color the truth and lie in order to shape opinions and views regarding the US military. This is along with promote its views and agendas as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.94.77 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've never worked in or with the United States Navy, and the information here is not based on fact, it is based on verifiability. If the sources so x, then the article is written to reflect x. If you can provide sources that say y, then the article will be amended to include information to reflect y. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Size comparison / info

I'm not a fan of the 'longest battleship' wording that had been in the article's Lead. The Lead should only summarize the body of the article, not introduce new info. But some info on class's size compared to other battleship classes might be a good idea for the Design section. Just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

we could do that, but it would have to be done carefully since comparisons of this class and that class are what lead to a months long edit war in the article the last time that this was tried, even accounting for the citations (or lack thereof) for the information provided in the past. Understandably, based on the lessons of the past, I'm a little hesitant to begin adding comparisons to the article again, although I grant that the decision to remove the comparison information in the article in the first place was based on consensus at the time, and consensus can change over time, so I'd be open to revisiting in the issue again if others feel that the time is right to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I thought some comparisons of length and width would be OK, but I can understand that could lead to useless edit battles/wars. I had a little trouble finding the size info in the Design section at first, but it is mainly worked in with Propulsion. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Generally a comparison of the length and width with regard to preceding class from which the current class is devised is considered acceptable, as it shows the growth of a battleship class (or any class of ship really) as they relate to their predecessors, so as long as you stick with US battleships in the comparison it should be good. The powder keg, such as it were, doesn't appear until you start comparing ships from one nation to the ships from someone else's nation, which is where the edit warring last time came in. In the case of latter, you'd have to make an expressed point to really site all the information meticulously if you want to compare across international borders, and even then it definitely should not be in the intro. If you want to be WP:BOLD and go for it then feel free to do so, just be forewarned that if it turns out that the information is controversial and threatens to restart the edit waring it'll need to be removed or reworked to stay in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Plural Form of Ship Names

Using an "s" for the plural form of a ship's name is awkward and sloppy (e.g., Iowas). Referring to "class" or "-class ships" is a preferred usage. Still further, the "s" usage is not employed consistently on Wikipedia. For example, the New York-class article does not refer to New Yorks. Now that the effort has been made to clean up these articles, the better usage should be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.94.46 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen both usages in professional publications. Kindly respect the existing usage rather than your personal preference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Others have noted that the usage is less awkward. Just because someone wrote the article using an awkward, shortened form doesn't mean it should stay that way forever. 2601:0:9680:36:E18D:B068:F2D8:D1ED (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

One person's opinion. I don't believe that it's noted as a major faux pas by any of the major copyediting or style guides, which would give your opinion a lot more weight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Using the plural form is a viable alternative to repeating class over and over again, and so adds some variety to the text. Keep it in. - BilCat (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about the refit in the eighties

Hello! There is a sentence in Iowa_class_battleship#1980s_refit saying that the ships were refitted to burn navy distillate fuel. If there was a need for a refit to make them use this fuel, what did they use before? I cannot imaging that any conventionally powered steamship consuming fuel oil burns something else than heavy fuel oil / Bunker C (with the exception of IJN warships at the close of WW II using something like [light] crude oil). A clarification would be nice. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been told by men in the U.S. Navy that for decades, all of the conventional ships of the Navy have burned a fuel that is identical in all regards to JP - 4 or JP - 5 jet fuel. This includes all such ships that are propelled by steam turbines. Of course, this was extremely convenient in the conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, such as the USS Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America, and John F. Kennedy, in which the ships, their jet planes, and their helicopters (propelled by gas turbines) all burned the same kind of fuel. All conventional ships that have helicopters burn jet fuel in all engines. All ships powered by gas turbines (such as the Spruance class, the Ticonderoga class, the Arleigh Burke class, and the Oliver Hazard Perry class) burn jet fuel, and these all carry helicopters that burn jet fuel, too. All ships of amphibious warfare that carry helicopters and/or AV - 8B Harriers just need that one kind of fuel, no matter if they use steam turbines or gas turbines for propulsion. All of the replenishment ships burn the same kind of fuel that they carry as cargo.

For a long time, the Navy hasn't had any "Black gangs" that burned black fuel oil in the ship's boilers.

You can look up the details on all of this elsewhere if you choose to do so.98.81.2.31 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers need to be re-supplied by tankers that carry just one kind of fuel. Their jet aircraft burn JP - 4 or JP - 5 (You can look up the details.) All of their helicopters (such as Seahawks) are powered by gas turbines that burn the same stuff. Their E-3Cs and C-2s have turboprop engines that burn the same stuff. Those big carriers also have tanks of fuel for their escorting cruisers, destroyers, and frigates when those run low on fuel (before the tankers can arrive). It doesn't matter too much, but all of these warships in the present Navy are powered by gas turbines that run quite happily on JP - 4 or JP - 5. Nowadays, the only warships in the navy that are conventionally-powered and also use steam turbines are amphibious warfare ships, such as the Wasp-class and the USS Pelileu. All of this has been true ever since the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS John F. Kennedy have been retired from service -- and those burned JP - 4 or JP - 5 anyway. Until such time as the USS Zumwalt enters service, ALL of the destroyers of the Navy are from the Arleigh Burke class. All of the cruisers are Ticonderoga class, and all of the frigates are Oliver Hazard Perry class. All but one of the aircraft carriers is of the Nimitz class -- with the USS Enterprise being the only exception. There are only two classes of attack submarines - the one whose main job is to hunt enemy submarines.98.81.2.31 (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No to everything above. With the shift away from heavy fuel oil / Bunker C - vastly reduced soot and maintenance requirements for the boiler. The shift was to Distillate fuel marine (DFM). This is pretty close to diesel fuel in composition - DFM can be used in a diesel engine. Using JP-4 or JP-5 in a diesel engine is acceptable for a limited usage - burn hotter, helps clean out any issues. In the Middle East when a batch of HL-4 or JP-5 would fail the specification test - it was frequently sold as DFM, accepting the slightly lower sale price. When using heavy fuel oil / Bunker C fuel must be preheated, and light-off of the plant was done with a different fuel (such as DFM or JP-4. I thing the steam powered ships from the 1960s were built lacking the preheaters needed for black oil. I expect all of the US Gas Turbine ships (FFG-7, CG47, DDG) have a separate system for JP-5 for helicopters. I remember in the Eadly 1980s have a port call at Rota Spain- and as taking on fuel noticed the residue of heavy fuel oil / Bunker C from the prior refuelling and having to ensure we were about to recieve DFM Wfoj3 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iowa-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/digest-of-greenpeace-documents.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article review

The following was removed from the article for lack of reliable sourcing, but can be restored if a reliable source can be found for the information:

• Steam was normally transmitted to four engine rooms numbered 1 to 4. Each engine room was aft of its associated fire room. In normal steaming four boilers were operated; this was sufficient to power the ships at speeds up to 27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph). For higher speeds, all eight boilers were lit.

• Electricity drove many systems aboard ship, including rotating the turrets and elevating the guns. Each of the four engine rooms had a pair of Ship's Service Turbine Generators (SSTGs) manufactured by Westinghouse. Each SSTG generated 1.25 MW for a total of 10 MW of electricity. The SSTGs were powered by steam from the same boilers that fed the engines. To allow battle-damaged electrical circuits to be repaired or bypassed, the lower decks of the ship had a Casualty Power System whose large three-wire cables and wall outlets (called "biscuits") could be used to re-route power.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iowa-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325002644/http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/warships/slideshow/slideshow_10.html to http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/warships/slideshow/slideshow_10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)