Talk:San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge with USS San Antonio article

I propose that this article be merged with USS San Antonio (LPD-17). -Amatulic 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, why? It's not like this is a one-ship class. —wwoods 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Or one can merge the other article here. Either way, both are generally about the lead ship in the class, and any information about the class also applies to the lead ship. There's a bunch of redundant information that isn't necessary to maintain in two articles. If the articles aren't merged, then the class-specific information should at least be moved here, and the ship-specific information left in the ship article. -Amatulic 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible way to go.

—wwoods 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep it as separate articles, but anything that applies to the class as a whole should go here. That's the way the other naval ship articles are arranged. While USS San Antonio (LPD-17) as a newly commissioned ship does not at present have much independent material, as it goes on tours, it will accumulate such details. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Caerwine. Keep the articles seperate. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The standard layout for Wikipedia articles on a class of ships is to have a article on the class as a whole (which covers the design of the ships, their introduction into service, the performance of the design, etc) and individual articles on each of the ships of the class (which covers these ships individual characteristics and activities). --Nick Dowling 02:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as per Wikiproject Ships, we should have a ship class page giving an overview of the class, it's history and the ships in it, and a page for each ship with more specific details (deployments, mottos, modifications, history, etc.) Emoscopes ^Talk 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As the consensus is clearly against merging I have removed the merge notices from the two pages. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I originally proposed the merge, and I've been meaning to remove the merge tags. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll go through both articles and move some content around if needed, so that the ship-specific stuff is in the ship article, and the class stuff is in the class article. -Amatulic 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Design and development section

I've just tagged this section as not being neutral. It's a bit odd that this section highlights only the positive aspects of the design and doesn't go into the major - and widely reported - faults which several (all?) of the ships in this class have suffered from since commissioning. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Add a section -- criticisms -- and tell us what these widely reported faults are. Thanks. --S. Rich 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A dedicated section is not needed for that. Those type sections generally serve as magnets for unreferenced biased additions. Cover the good and the bad. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

useful story for this section. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Led to this article by a desire to generally understand the ship class, and being a layman in world of ships & military hardware.. I have to say that after reading the discussion about neutrality & the defect article, "That's it??". Hardly the basis for NPOV, imo.

Have any of these ships suffered catastrophic or debilitating engine failures at sea? I suppose oil contamination exacerbated by bad initial build, poor maintenance training, and a badly specified oil filter could be a 'design defect' due to the scope of the build, but I wouldn't do so unless this article had equally in-depth discussions of the other systems.

Analogous to researching & adding any known first build problems and subsequent variant builds (like in the Model T article) I suppose, which I might do if this all leads to a design change. Jd4x4 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So the lead ship had faults reported, but what is their significance, (especially if since corrected). The lead ship of any ship class is always the worst. "X" number of starred INSURV trial card items or "Y" dollars in a subsequent (already planned) post shakedown availability, or "Z" days late, may seem encyclopedic, but a better assessment might include whether work items were considered negligible, minor, moderate, excessive, unacceptable, less/more or about equal to usual amounts? Also, see reference http://www.coltoncompany.com/newsandcomment/news/LPD%2017%20INSURV.pdf 144.183.224.2 (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I question the judgment in terming the problems of the San Antonio as "major - and widely reported - faults." As far as I can see, the problems of the San Antonio are problems of crew training, and relatively minor mistakes that might have occurred in construction, but that went undetected by the inexperienced crew. This allowed metal shavings to get into the oil system and damage the bearings. Of course damage to the bearings essentially 'blew the engine' and it has needed major overhaul. However, had people with proper training maintained the ship properly, they would have detected the metal shavings, changed the oil, and avoided the damage. Problem solved. This certainly doesn't seem to be a "major fault" to me. "Major faults" seems to imply some problem with the design or function of the ship class, whereas this is clearly human error starting with quality control in construction and extending through inexperienced and untrained ship mechanics and operators. This type of problem is likely to occur on any new major design. I therefore disagree with the need to add information to the article about this supposedly 'major fault' when the article is about the entire ship class. Some of these problems may have occurred in several of these ships, before the navy learned, but that isn't a 'class' failure. Now, if you want to go put that information under the HISTORY heading concerning the San Antonio itself, then that would probably be appropriate. FCivish (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more information on the problems and commentary from a well-regarded naval blog. Admiral John Harvey, commander of United States Fleet Forces Command, has initiated a JAG investigation into the lead ship's situation. He has commented that "every time we think we get to a point where we think that problem is solved, we find some deeper one," and the Navy Times has described the ship's problems as "including inadequate workmanship, poor quality control during construction, [and] shortcomings in the ship’s design." "Galrahn," a respected naval blogger, concluded (while also referencing the shipyard responsible for the class's construction), in a post entitled "Built as 25,000 Tons of sCrap," that "the LPD has had problems across the entire class, and the quite frankly there are no positive examples to point towards that give an observer any confidence." --98.204.140.83 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How Many ships & new LSD(x)

Does the Navy’s proposed five-year (FY2011-FY2015) shipbuilding plan still include all (12) ships? I have seen some updates that even the 11th might be in question, with up to (10) new LSD-53 class coming - some day. If plans change, does that count as a cancellation, or does it have to actually be "ordered" first? 144.183.224.2 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

survivability

the san antonio class cannot survive attack in an all out war this was reported by united states navy so update the information about the class of ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.240.23 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source for this? Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article itself: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-28/northrop-navy-ships-not-survivable-in-combat-u-s-defense-official-says.html

The way this works out in wartime is that the Chinese launch ASBMs at the American taskforce, the CVNs and DDGs pull a Bull Halsey run out of there at 30+ knots and USS New York is left behind at ground zero. Hcobb (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The way I understand it is that these ships are for non or lightly contested shore-landings only, and are unlikely to be caught in the situation you described.. They're not amphibious assault ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.80.147 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not just SA herself stinks

The entire class to date has suffered from massive problems so please don't sweep that under the rug. Hcobb (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Portland

Apparently LPD-27 will be named Portland. Found it after browsing around a bit. tom991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The most survivable amphibious vessels ever put to sea

I've got a source for this, but I fear they've simply copied the term from us.

The gullible site?

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=78815

Hcobb (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the quote can be supported from somewhere, but without some explanation of how "survivability" is being calculated, the quote is marketing-speak and should be treated as such. (Something like: "According to $source, "The San Antonios are designed...".) In comparison, the DOT&E source provides the explanation: "Navy test data indicated the vessels demonstrated an inability to 'maintain or rapidly recover mission capability' after being hit by 'the variety of weapons likely to be encountered,' the testing office said."--198.14.245.36 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That line has apparently existed in its uncited state since 2003. I found quite a few Google hits, all of which appeared to be derived from this article, so I took it out.--198.14.245.36 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of "History"

The first three paragraphs read like an advertisement, including things like: "The San Antonios are designed to be the most survivable amphibious ships ever put to sea.", completely uncited and directly contradicted by a verifiable source in the fourth paragraph. Additionally, the referenced "fact sheet" does not currently include details like the ships' radar system and distinctive profile.--198.14.245.36 (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the article from sources and removed the npov template.--198.14.245.36 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

12th ship (LPD-28) to be added to San Antonio-class

Partial funding for 12th San Antonio-class ship (LPD-28) included in FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act "...The money for LPD 28 won’t buy the entire vessel — the total cost is expected to be nearly $1.9 billion — but the 2015 Defense Authorization Act provided incremental funding authority for the ship, expected to be built at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi. In addition to $243 million provided in the 2014 spending act, another $640 million will be needed over the next two years to pay for the ship..." http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141212/DEFREG/312120029/Navy-Gains-Ship-15-Growlers-Defense-Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerDirtDart (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge from LX(R)-class amphibious warfare ship?

The U.S. Navy has announced that the forthcoming LX(R)-class amphibious warfare ship, the replacement for the current Whidbey Island-class and Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ships, will be designated as San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock Flight II. Merge discussion is at Talk:LX(R)-class amphibious warfare ship#Merge discussion. —RP88 ^(talk) 02:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Decisions, decisions....

There is still an open merge request with the LX(R) page, and now that the Flight II is announced, will that just be added to this page or should it have it's own page? Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 20:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with LX(R)-class amphibious warfare ship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawing I am going to withdraw this for the time being. Safiel (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---

With today's announcement regarding the naming of the USS Harrisburg, Flight II is clearly going to be an extension of the San Antonio-class, not a new class, article should be merged accordingly, previous merge discussion ended in a no consensus, but now we have new information not available in the previous discusion. Safiel (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note The previous discussion is located on the other article's talk page. Safiel (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2019 (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.

Apologies

Hello all, I made a mistake with my editing earlier today (20/11/21). I am aware of this thanks to Thewolfchild. I don't think this effects the look of the page but may effect other editing the page. I apologize for this mistake and will work on my editing skills for next time. Regards OliApollo OliApollo (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. See your talk page for more info. - wolf 23:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)