Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hurricane Katrina

Does anybody agree with me that the fact Katrina damages two being constructed is significent. I would like a second opinion before I add it. --Lionheart Omega 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Revamping all ships tables of the class

Alright, I may get some of the info wrong so feel free to edit the templates that will be used for the ship tables. Thank you.
Here's the list of the templates.
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer displacement I
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer displacement II
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer displacement IIA
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer length I
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer length IIA
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer beam
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer draft
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer speed
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer range
Template:Arleigh Burke class destroyer complement
Like I said, feel free to edit these templates if some of them are wrong. I'll be watching this discussion page. ViriiK 07:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

South Korea

Is the type of the Korean D991 King Sejong a derivative of the Arleigh Burke class ? There are striking similarities. Rama 11:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the above question is answered in King Sejong the Great class destroyer, which I hadn't spotted. Rama 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of GD Template

I don't think it's correct to include a General Dynamics template on this page since the DDG-51 class is built by both Northrup Grumman and GD. I think a link is appropriate, but the inclusion of the template is a bit much. Hydrant 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S.S. Cole

I'm deleting the bit about the U.S.S. Cole in the bottom. It's totally irrelavant to the article. If people want to find out about the Cole attack, go to the article about the Cole! The article is about the Arleigh Burke destroyer in general, not specific ships of the class. (Panzer-Kavalier 02:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Encircle?

How does one ship 'encircle' anything? Bckirkup (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Production restart

I don't see anything in the current article about the issues with the production restart so I'll reorg a little bit so it comes after the refits. Hcobb (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Restarting production is mentioned at the bottom of the Ships section now. Moving to the Modernization might be better though, as the new ships will include new features. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of options floating around, such as the AGS, but it seems that they will at least be Flight IIA standard with COTS. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3655903 Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph on steel construction ...

Based on this FAQ http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7 and another US Navy FAQ (which I can't re-locate) that says the same thing, I have removed the paragraph discusing the use of steel as a construction material due to Falklands experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.136.228 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That link supports all the paragraph except for the Falklands War part. Removing the whole paragraph because of a small inaccurate part is not helpful. It's been restored with corrected wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What possibly did the U.S. learn from the RN and the Falklands War that was incorporated in the Arleigh Burkes? There's not one, but two unsupported references to the Falklands in this article - the above reference makes it pretty clear that going all steel had nothing whatsoever to do with the Brits - looks like just some more imaginative editing by the pro-UK Wiki brigade. As for capabilities, can't see where the Brits' experience would be much good either.Jmdeur (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The all-steel construction paragraph was corrected weeks ago. But the previous paragraph similarly mentioned the RN and Falklands War. That was either missed then or something. In any event, that's been fixed too. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What influence did the Falklands have on ship design, I don't know, maybe 1. The Broadsword/Coventry incident proved the need for VLS, which was incorporated into Ticonderogas from then on (the first few still used obsolete launcher arms). 2. The Sheffield having RADAR and missiles incapable of tracking and engaging sea-skimming targets, with no secondary protection - hence ships needed AEGIS and better missiles and Phalanx for extra protection (something the USS Stark didn't have), not to mention the RADAR cross-section reduction design. There's 2 things - looks like just some more imaginative editing by the pro-USA Wiki brigade.

I like the line "In July 2010, BAE Systems announced that they had been awarded a contract to modernise 11 ships.", so it seems that the US Navy needs to employ the Brits' knowledge - "can't see where the Brits' experience would be much good either" doesn't really stand up as a sensible comment when the US Navy learned a LOT from the Falklands, having conducted their own extensive investigation into that conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.175 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BAE bought UD who made things like the Mk41 launchers, although BAE's artillery division includes elements from Vickers and others. The US Navy did learn a lot from the Falklands - see Lessons of the Falklands (PDF) - but steel construction was not one of them (see page 60), that decision had already been made after the Bellknap fire and in any case it's not clear that making the T21s of steel would have helped much. VLS was already happening - the early version of Sea Wolf was VLS back in 1968 before the RN ditched it; VLS was already being revived for "new Sea Wolf" in 1982. 82.26.208.252 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

1986 BBC Horizon programme "In the Wake of HMS Sheffield" here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Harpoon Removal?

The article discusses how the latest flight have had their Harpoon launchers removed. Does anyone have any specifics on what the Arleighs are using for ASuW capability now? Does it all rest on the SM-2s? TheSwordandScales (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

yes nowadays I think the USNavy hates the Harpoon. Google around and there are sources explaining the removal.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sentences don't match

The Arleigh Burke class are among the most powerful destroyers ever built in the United States.[citation needed] Only the Spruance class destroyers were larger (563 feet)--one is about power the other sizeOther dictionaries are better (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevlar

These ships are armored

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt1.htm

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not armored with Kevlar in the traditional "armored warship" sense. This isn't an armor belt. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And globalsecurity.org is no longer considered a reliable source, per the discussions here. - BilCat (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another source:

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg90/pages/specs.aspx In the ARLEIGH BURKE Class, all-steel construction is used. Extensive top-side armor is placed around vital combat systems and machinery spaces. The bulkheads are constructed of steel from the waterline to the pilot house. The bulkheads are designed with double-spaced plate construction for fragment protection. The frontal plate causes fragments to break up and the backup plate stops the fragments from causing further damage to the interior of the ship. Other Aegis combat system equipment rooms are protected by Kevlar shielding. And, topside weight is reduced by incorporating an aluminum mast.

These are about the best armored surface combatants of our times. Hcobb (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is armor, but that doesn't make them "armored" - splinter protection is pretty common these days, it's not enough to make a big deal of IMHO. They're still pretty puny compared to a Long Beach or a Suffren, and ton for ton a Udaloy is probably better protected. 82.26.208.252 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DDG-113 — DDG-116

The construction contracts for these hull numbers have recently been awarded. Brad (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Aegis radar

Aegis radar is dumb. There ain't no such thing, and there isn't an article about it in the Wikipedia. The Aegis Combat System is a very sophisticated combination of computers, radars, missiles, and man-machine interfaces. Get rid of "Aegis radar".
98.67.108.12 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Multirole destroyers

These are multirole destroyers, not multi-role destroyers.
For many decades now "multianything" has not been hyphenated, except by people from certain countries who are too dim to catch up, and they aren't Americans. Here are some examples of the use of "multi":

multibranched, multicolored, multifactored, multimode, multinational, multipurpose, multiracial, multiregional, multisensory, multistage, multistory, multitalented, multitonal, multitudinous, multivariable, multiverse, multiyear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.108.12 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Take it up with the US Navy or the defense contractors. Sources says "multi-"whatever. [2] Same thing for SPY-3 [3] [4] [5] ViriiK (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, English grammar does not allow compound words to be created, unlike German. Hence 'multi-role' is correct, as it is two words with no pause between them when spoken, the hyphen indicating this. The same goes for company names such as Rolls-Royce, the hyphen indicating that it is pronounced as one word.

This is to prevent convoluted words such as thisonewheretheseperatewordsallrunintooneanother, which although often seen in written German, is not acceptable in proper English. This is also why words like 'co-operation' are also properly hyphenated otherwise written 'cooperation' it looks like something to do with barrel making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Superseded, eh (or huh)?

Succeeded by: Zoomwalt-class - not. "What had once been seen as the backbone of the navy's future surface fleet with a planned production run of 32, has since been replaced by destroyer production reverting to the Arleigh Burke class after ordering (a measly) 3 Zumwalters" Perhaps the article should revert to superseded by None, and the Zumwalt-class articles updated to read superseded by A. Burkes.

Agreed. It's esp. true now that they're restarting AB production. Will update the article. -Oosh (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@BilCat:, I believe you're misinterpreting what Succeeded means in this context and draw you attention to Infobox ship class overview:

Class after

• Used to indicate the succeeding class in cases where there is a direct design or type lineage across classes.
• Alternately, used to indicate the ships that have/will replace this class.

Please describe how the Zumwalt meets either of those clauses? It's as big as a cruiser, vastly different in design, intended to fulfil a role closer to that of a battleship, and is not replacing the AB. -Oosh (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• See description in the Navy destroyer fact file, especially the part about the Zumwalt class (DDG 1000) being "next-generation" destroyer and was to replace the DDG 51 until 2008. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (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/burke

  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 11:45, 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 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Interview on Flight III

Lots of detail here in an interview with the DDG-51 program manager if anyone wants to incorporate it.86.23.80.112 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Flight IIA landing deck

They have a "bubble" like those in aircraft carriers ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.113.211 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Armament

Who added that Bullcrap about 1 or 2 127mm lightweight guns? It has a single DP 127mm Mark 45 Mod 4 gun, not 2, I am immediately removing that stupid edit.

Have a great day --Luis Santos24 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen or en dash?

I believe the use of the class name preceding the class makes "Arleigh Burke-class" a compound modifier, and per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, it should be hyphenated (as the article name already is). The use of an en dash in "Arleigh Burke–class" in the infobox and a few other places is inconsistent with the rest of the article.180.93.253.88 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Crew size?

Word "crew" appears just once in the article, re USS Cole. What is the nominal size of the crew for normal operations? Shouldn't this be listed in the infobox, as a sort of "basic fact" of what it takes to operate one of these things? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DDG-121

Please see discussion here regarding the new name for this ship. - ^theWOLFchild 19:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source for claim on DDG-125?

Claims for 124 and 125 to each be "the" first Flight III need better sourcing. For example we've got this:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/adding-arleigh-burkes-northrop-grumman-underway-06007/

• both FY 2017 ships (DDG 124-125), will “incorporate Flight III capability,” but not the new radars themselves.

So can we withdraw the claim for now and give the refs time to clarify? Hcobb (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to cite real sources instead of your own personal twitter, which you did not even link to, as you did in your edit summary, then sure. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I was removing my personal math when a closer check on the sources didn't back it up. If you want to keep the claim that DDG-125 is the first Flight III then please provide a source for this. Hcobb (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please respond to what people actually say to you. The issue is you making edits, and citing your own personal twitter as a source. Are you going to respond showing that you know that is not acceptable? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the format for a ref that doesn't exist? I adjusted a number by calculation from the existing information listed here then found that it didn't line up. I went on Twitter to ask the author of the referenced article and he reported he didn't know either. At that point I went back and removed the unsupported claim. Twitter isn't the source of information here nor is it a confirmation of the negative. It's simply one of the places I went to search. Hcobb (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You claimed in your edit summary that your twitter was the source. Put what you just said in your edit summary next time (or better yet, don't do personal calculations that are essentially WP:SYNTH) in the first place). If you come here and just say "look at my twitter" in your edit summary, you will be reverted. You made no mention of all of the rest of this, your own calculations, or anything, and you STILL haven't linked to your twitter for us to see all of this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the author of the reference on the subject:

https://twitter.com/samlagrone/status/727590869843496963 Sam LaGrone ‏@samlagrone @henrycobb The additional DDG in 16 complicates the math. Until the NAVSEA puts it out, we're not going to hang a number on it.

So can we withdraw the claim about DDG-125 for now? (DDG-124 and DDG-126 have their own references, but I'm the only person who prematurely fingered DDG-125.) Hcobb (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Had you not synthesized a number not in your source to begin with, this would not be a problem. Yes, you can withdraw the claim, but have you learned anything from this about not making up numbers and not using your own twitter as a cited source for your edits? Can you answer anything asked of you? This circle has been getting danced for YEARS, you never seem to respond to the criticism levied at your editing behavior. Will it take bringing in administrators? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Suddenly twitter becomes a source (sarcasm)Cantab1985 (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect primary mission for SM-3

The SM-3s primary mission is ballistic missile defense(BMD), not anti-aircraft warfare (AAW). SM-2 and SM-6 are the primary Area Air Defense weapons, with the SM-6 supplanting, but not fully replacing the SM-2 in service as it is produced in numbers. SM-6 is also capable of a secondary Anti Surface Warfare (SUW) mission.

I propose correcting the article from:

Their AEGIS Combat System differs from a traditional rotating radar that mechanically rotates 360 degrees for each sweep scan of the airspace. Instead, Aegis uses a passive electronically scanned arrays, which allow continual tracking of targets simultaneous with area scans. The system's computer control also allows centralization of the previously separate tracking and targeting functions. The system is also resistant to electronic counter-measures. Their standalone Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers give them an anti-ship capability with a range in excess of 64 nautical miles (119 km; 74 mi).[9] With the retirement of the Tomahawk anti-ship missile variant, only Arleigh Burke-class ships before Flight IIA versions are well-equipped for anti-surface warfare with Harpoon launchers. Others are not, but are loaded with SM-2 missiles in their vertical launch cells capable of an anti-ship mode, though they have limited range and damage potential.[19] "The 5-inch/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, in conjunction with the Mark 34 Gun Weapon System, is an anti-ship weapon which can also be used for close-in air contacts or to support forces ashore with Naval Gun-Fire Support (NGF), with a range of up to 20 miles (32 km) and capable of firing 20 rounds per minute." The class's RIM-7 Sea Sparrow/RIM-162 ESSM missiles provide point defense against missiles and aircraft while the Standard Missile-3 provides area anti-aircraft defense. Additionally the ship has an electronics warfare suite that provides passive detection and decoy countermeasures.[9]

to

Their AEGIS Combat System differs from a traditional rotating radar that mechanically rotates 360 degrees for each sweep scan of the airspace. Instead, Aegis uses a passive electronically scanned arrays, which allow continual tracking of targets simultaneous with area scans. The system's computer control also allows centralization of the previously separate tracking and targeting functions. The system is also resistant to electronic counter-measures. Their standalone Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers give them an anti-ship capability with a range in excess of 64 nautical miles (119 km; 74 mi). With the retirement of the Tomahawk anti-ship missile variant, only Arleigh Burke-class ships before Flight IIA versions are well-equipped for anti-surface warfare with Harpoon launchers. Others are not, but are loaded with SM-2 missiles in their vertical launch cells capable of an anti-ship mode, though they have limited range and damage potential. "The 5-inch/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, in conjunction with the Mark 34 Gun Weapon System, is an anti-ship weapon which can also be used for close-in air contacts or to support forces ashore with Naval Gun-Fire Support (NGF), with a range of up to 20 miles (32 km) and capable of firing 20 rounds per minute." The class's RIM-7 Sea Sparrow/RIM-162 ESSM missiles provide point defense against missiles and aircraft while the Standard Missile-2 and 6 provide area anti-aircraft defense and the SM-6 provides over the horizon missile defense. Standard Missile 3 and 6 also provide Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD). Additionally the ship has an electronics warfare suite that provides passive detection and decoy countermeasures. Calvinstrikesagain (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Article name

@DocWatson42: You recently renamed this article from "Arleigh Burke-class destroyer" to "Arleigh Burke–class destroyer" (with an en-dash) with the suggestion that this was done to comply with MOS:PUNCT. I think the original was correct, ship class names should should use a hyphen. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming_articles_about_ship_classes. I reverted your change. You also changed some of the uses of "Arleigh Burke-class" in the text. I changed some of them back as well, but I may not have gotten them all. Please feel free to revert my changes if you think I've misinterpreted the guidelines, but all of the other U.S. ship class articles have adopted the style from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). —RP88 ^(talk) 08:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@RP88: Aw, foo. I'm sorry—I was not familiar with that specific rule, and was following the general usage of punctuation, in which en dashes are used a "super hyphens" for compound terms. See, for instance, The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, 6.80 "En dashes with compound adjectives".—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I am happy to see that we are now on the same page. —RP88 ^(talk) 09:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Flights

A table outlining the differences between the different flight configurations would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

crew / complement

The crew and complement figures are redundant and disagreeing. This article violates wikipedia's own definition of complement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement by mentioning the officers as part of the complement. And then it mentions a larger crew than complement, whereas according to the definition complement = crew + officers. I also have to say that at least coloquially and in many books crew = complement. So something is messed up in this ship class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.39.46 (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK... well, feel free to go ahead and fix it. - ^theWOLFchild 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

list order

With the latest update, DDG-125 & 126 will be the start of the new Flight III, but contracted separately, DDG-127 will still be a Flight IIA. The Flight III line will continue with DDG-128. As the table is now, the ships are (and will be) in the following order;

• DDG-123
• DDG-124
• DDG-127
• DDG-125
• DDG-126
• DDG-128
• DDG-129

I propose a slight change whereby we add an extra column break with a note, and keep the list in numerical and chronological order, to avoid any possible confusion (and edits from those trying to "fix" it). I made the change briefly then reverted, so that I could post an actual example, please see here and let me know what you think. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it'd better/maybe easier to add a separate column for the Flight number (config) and list them all by hull number. (This is not exactly what your edit did.) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding a new column would waste a lot of space and be very repetitive (as some of the section titles are more than just a flight number, e.g. "Flight IIA: 5"/62, one 20mm CIWS variant"). —RP88 ^(talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I like the general structure of your proposed solution. The table section title "DDG-127 contracted separately as a single Flight IIA build" is a bit wordy, but I admit I can't immediately think of a good title that is terser. If we adopt your solution and also keep the longer wording I think "approved separately" is better than "contracted separately". While it is true that adding DDG-127 as flight IIA was approved by Congress under separate legislation from the legislation that approved the modification of the FY13-FY17 MYP contract (N00024-13-C-2305) to add DDG-125 and DDG-126 as flight III, looking at the contract announcement I think DDG-127 was also a modification to that same contract rather than a separate contract. —RP88 ^(talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This text can go in the Status column (maybe on a 2nd line) if it is kept short enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in any way picky about the details. You guys can work out what wording you think best. I'm really just looking to have the list in sequential order. That ddg-127 just looks out of place right now. Thanks for the replies. - ^theWOLFchild 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you both have good ideas, so let's combine them. We can use the suggested wording by RP88, and also add much additional info as we like, (even include a links or a ref), but add it to a note. This way, the column break is kept brief as Fnlayson advised, in fact it'll be a single line. What do you guys think? - ^theWOLFchild 13:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

YDone - I've made the change (it's been almost 2 weeks). To keep the column-break/header clean and uncluttered, I kept the title simple and uniform, and added a detailed refnote at the bottom of the list, that includes a cite to the source regarding the contract details. Any concerns or questions, let me know. This page is on my watchlist - ^theWOLFchild 08:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 22:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to speedy fail this GA nomination as substantial amounts of work are needed for the article to meet GA criteria 2 and 3:

• Criterion 2: Several sections of the article are not referenced at all ('Contractors', 'Ships in class' - which has a large amount of content and 'In popular culture')
• Criterion 3: The 'Operational history' section is greatly inadequate, as it covers only two incidents in the long history of this class of ship. Their use in multiple wars, how their deployment has changed over time, various notable accidents (collisions, etc) and other incidents and uses of the ships are not covered. There is also no discussion at all of the derivative variants of this class used by Japan and South Korea, and other derivatives (eg, the so-called 'baby Burke' design proposed for Australia). Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of current vessels in class

The third para of the intro states that there are currently 62 ships in service in the class with another 42 "envisioned", yet the sidebar states that as of April 2020 only 89 are planned but there are 68 active. It seems that some cross checking here has not been done.

I apologise that I do not have access to primary sources so I don't which set of figures is correct, maybe someone better informed then me can help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.36.208 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Flights

The flights are mentioned but never explained. Context needed. Toddst1 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I always understood them to be the equivalent of sub-classes, blocks, tranches, etc, ie. groups of ships of a similar build standard. I don't know if it's ever explained in a source anywhere or not. And for the life of me, I don't know why they used "flights" for ships! (The contemporary Virginia-class submarines use "blocks".) BilCat (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Found it: From the US Navy fact file of the class: "...and comprises four separate variants or 'Flights.'" No explanation of why "flights" instead of "blocks" though. BilCat (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @BilCat:. I've added a subsection explaining the flights. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

USS Mason missile attacks

Is the overall incident major enough to add to the "Accidents and major incidents" section? In October 2016, in the Red Sea, USS Mason was attacked by anti-ship missiles on three separate occasions: October 9, 12, and 15. The ship came out unharmed, but it could be seen as "major" because this was the first time any warship fired SAMs and deployed decoys to successfully neutralize incoming vampires in actual self-defense. (In the 1991 USS Missouri incident, the only other incident involving intercepting anti-ship missiles in actual combat, Missouri was not the one who defended herself; it was a nearby Type 42 destroyer.) Findingmoney100 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not "major" is used as a descriptor, this incident should be included in the article. (imo) - wolf 06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on it under "Operational history." Since there's no dedicated wiki page on the incident it's a quite in-depth paragraph but can obviously be condensed if seen fit Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a combat type event, it belongs in a section such as the Operational history section, not in an Accidents type section. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead an added a paragraph on it. It's long but I wanted to keep it as one paragraph for consistency (it can obviously be condensed if seen fit) Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Alternative notes

Name	Hull no.	Flight	Builder	Laid down	Launched	Commissioned	Home port	Status
Oscar Austin	DDG-79	IIA	Bath Iron Works	9 October 1997	7 November 1998	19 August 2000	Norfolk, Virginia	Active
Roosevelt	DDG-80	IIA	Ingalls Shipbuilding	15 December 1997	10 January 1999	14 October 2000	Rota, Spain	Active
Winston S. Churchill	DDG-81	IIA	Bath Iron Works	7 May 1998	17 April 1999	10 March 2001	Mayport, Florida	Active
Lassen	DDG-82	IIA	Ingalls Shipbuilding	24 August 1998	16 October 1999	21 April 2001	Mayport, Florida	Active
Howard	DDG-83	IIA	Bath Iron Works	9 December 1998	20 November 1999	20 October 2001	Yokosuka, Japan	Active
McCampbell	DDG-85	IIA	Bath Iron Works	15 July 1999	2 July 2000	17 August 2002	Everett, Washington	Active
Shoup	DDG-86	IIA	Ingalls Shipbuilding	13 December 1999	22 November 2000	22 June 2002	San Diego, California	Active
Mason	DDG-87	IIA	Bath Iron Works	19 January 2000	23 June 2001	12 April 2003	Norfolk, Virginia	Active
Patrick Gallagher	DDG-127	IIA Technology Insertion	Bath Iron Works	30 March 2022		2023 est.		Keel laid

• Department of Defense (28 September 2017). "DoD Contracts". defense.gov. Archived from the original on 14 March 2018. Retrieved 27 March 2018.
• Ewing, Philip (16 September 2008). "Analyst: DDGs without CIWS vulnerable". Navy Times. Archived from the original on 27 May 2012.

This is a demo for Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets#Problem... or not?. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Derivatives

Thoughts on briefly mentioning there are destroyer classes modeled on the Arleigh Burke class (like which section it would be appropriate to discuss them, or if this deserves its own section)? The Kongō, Atago, Maya, and Sejong the Great classes are currently only ever mentioned as "related classes" in the template at the bottom. The lack of their discussion was apparently one of the reasons this article speedy failed its GA review back in 2018. Findingmoney100 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this deserves its own heading section. I'll add something brief under the Ships in class section; it can be refined later. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Refinement

Been thinking about giving this article another shot at GA status, but I'm reaching a point I'm not sure what major works still needs to be done. I think it's good references-wise (unless we still need more citations in the Ships in class section?). Size is sitting at 135 KB right now, compared to 95 KB back in 2020. Of course the templates eat up the size, so I think splitting is still not warranted. The Operational history section finally has stuff in it, and I still intend to add maybe a bit more to that section.

Unless I'm missing something major, I think this article at least won't be speedy failed. It's definitely improved a lot since 2018. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Findingmoney100 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Went ahead and nominated for GA to get some critique of the article. If it still doesn't meet GA criteria at least we'll get helpful comments Findingmoney100 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Weapons

The US Navy plans to procure and fit a Mk38 Mod 4 30mm (made by MS International) to the Flight II and Flight III Arleigh Burke DDGs in lieu of the Mk38 Mod 2/3 (25mm) fitted to-date. Sjhedger (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, wasn't sure if it was worth mentioning but I'll go ahead and add it. I'll just copy some info I wrote in Mark 38 25 mm machine gun system into Modernization. Please feel free to optimize it further.

And I think overall refinement of Modernization is still necessary. It's long and doesn't flow the best (imo). We also have to be careful about adding new information into that section which is why I didn't add Mk 38 Mod 4 originally. Findingmoney100 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sjhedger and Findingmoney100:, you guys have a source for this info? - wolf 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The Rapid Prototyping, Experimentation & Dem ref from the DoD says:

"The MK 38 MOD 4 30mm gun weapon system (GWS) will provide surface ship defense capability addressing unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and high speed maneuverable unmanned surface vehicle (USV) threats. This is a Maritime Accelerated Acquisition (MAA) starting in FY19 and will field an Initial Capability (IC) in FY22 on DDG-51 ship class with AEGIS Baseline 9 combat system."

Though it doesn't mention specific Flights, just ships with Baseline 9 (pre-Flight III). Given that it's already 2023 I'm trying to find a more current source on the status of the Mk 38 Mod 4 program to see if Flight III are really planned to get Mod 4. Findingmoney100 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

From 4m 30secs onwards MSI state that the Mk38 Mod4 is planned to be rolled out across DDGs (Flight II and Flight III) initially but ultimatley there are plans for a fleet-wide roll-out. Other NAVSEA documents I have seen refer to the initial roll-our being for Flight IIA and Flight III https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90BV0Wzsndk

FY 2023 E5006 MINOR CALIBER GUN MODS 2.1.13) MK 38 MOD 4 GWS INSTALL PLANNING: Increase from FY22 to FY23 due to conducting installation planning to field MK 38 MOD 4 GWS on DDG51 ships. Installation planning includes development of installation drawings and topside analysis. This cost element funds all efforts required to plan the installations of the gun systems on their respective ships.This includes development of a ship installation drawing package, which is required to start 22 months before installation and takes 7.5 months to develop, since it involves ship checks and extensive safety andengineering analysis. This effort supports fielding of critical C-UAS and C-USV capability to five (5) DDG 51 ships. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/23pres/WPN_Book.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhedger (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

YT is not considered a reliable source so we can't cite really the vid.

But that NAVSEA doc is great, thank you for that. I'll add in info citing that doc later today (or you can now if you want). Findingmoney100 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem - I am glad to try and help but have never contributed to Wikipedia before so I am just finding my way around and trying to understand how to correctly make comments and the right etiquette etc! I would be interested to know if you are aware of whether the Mk38 Mod4 is linked to the AEGIS Baseline 9 upgrade (AN=APY-6 radar in particular) as perhaps that will inform the roll-out of this weapon i.e. each Flight IIA as it comes in for midlife upgrade? I assume all new Flight III's starting with Jack H Lucas will have the Mk38 Mod4 fitted although the photos of it from Dec 2022 sea trials seemed to show them not fitted and no Phalanx either?

Sjhedger (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, ships with SPY-6 (Flight IIIs with SPY-6(V)1 and Flight IIAs upgraded with SPY-6(V)4 during modernization periods) will have Aegis Baseline 10, not 9.

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/27/top-level-requirements-for-large-surface-combatant-in-development-planned-spy-6-backfit-effort-in-flux

https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2021/SAS2021-AEGIS_and_Forge.pdf

Production ships are definitely still getting a Phalanx on Mount 22, and there's no sources that suggest the Navy plans otherwise:

https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1603812306068115456

I think production ships get Mk 38 later on (like after delivery to the Navy), but I wouldn't be able to give you a source for this.

Anyway getting off topic as talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback much appreciated. Sjhedger (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It would also be good to start a dedicated page for the Mk38 Mod4 to sit alongside the pages for the DS-30B and DS-30M that are already created. I would have a go myself but as I say im very new to this currently but look forward to more indept contributions going forward once I get familiar with how all the editing works. Sjhedger (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Digressing here but I myself created the Mark 38 25 mm machine gun system article not too long ago (not the best since I'm also new to this) that has a brief paragraph on Mk 38 Mod 4. If you want to discuss this further we should move to its talk page. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Another Wiki article is not needed to cover a newer version of a weapon or other system unless possibly if major changes are involved. This has been the approach for WP:Air and WP:Mil History articles that I've helped with. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback - the Mk38 Mod4 has a Bushmaster cannon (30mm) hence the Mk38 25mm machine gun system heading in itself is no longer applicable or needs to be amended if referring to the Mk28 Mod 4. I dont want to create work, its just that the DS30B and DS30M already have their own Wiki sections so I assumed this would too? Sjhedger (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, in the future it would likely need to be moved (renamed) to something like "Mark 38 machine gun system" to account for the Mod 4. Again, we're still in the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer talk page so if you would like to continue talking about this, start a topic in Mark 38's talk page. Findingmoney100 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Unit list

If anyone finds a reliable unit list source to replace that globalsecurity.org external link, that would be great (I guess the alternative being citing every single ship in Ships in class). Findingmoney100 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe we need a source, just to have a list of the ships. They each exist and have their own sourced articles to support that. In fact, I don't recall ever having to have a source to support any list, especially when every entry on that list has it's own article. I wouldn't put to much worry or effort into this. We have the globalsecurity ref, but if that gets removed at some point, I don't believe it would put the article in any sort of peril. Anyway, we always the NVR that can be used as a source. (jmho) - wolf 05:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh that's good to know. In that case I think the article is adequately cited with reliable sources (except one Fox News citation (varying reliability), but I don't have any reason to believe it needs to be changed) Findingmoney100 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Norman Friedman

Kind of surprised nobody's cited anything Friedman has to say on this topic from his book US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History (Revised ed.).

I myself don't have access to it; if anyone does then could you look through his discussion of the Arleigh Burke class and find anything noteworthy not covered in this article/fact check this article? Thanks. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this article. Comments to follow. Mark83 (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments in "Prose comments and queries" heading below. My detailed queries and comments answered promptly and fully by Findingmoney100 at section below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some minor comments on lead that I'll pick up elsewhere. Now all resolved.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A few references not properly formatted, e.g. 203, 204,205. 26 is a strange one, STUDENT GUIDE might be the title of the webpage, but not the actual content of the web page if that makes sense. Also is this not a USN document 'hosted' by fas?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'll admit to only doing a skim of this and some sample checks. Maybe look at replacing 218 - looks like a bit of a fan site?
	2c. it contains no original research.	The only concern I have in the whole article is this: Laser weapon systems are likely to become more prominent to engage threats without using missiles that may cost more than the target. Less expensive weapon systems may help keep the destroyer class from becoming too expensive. - All just a bit too loose and vague, and no reference. Now resolved. Mark83 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I can't think of major omissions. I have some minor comments which will be picked up in general queries about prose.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, I have some minor comments which will be picked up in general queries about prose.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All media appropriate and tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Personally I would trim a few images - some sections are really bunched up with images. And could move some around, e.g. move USS Jack H. Lucas up to Production restarted and further development. The Zumwalt image could go (not saying it must go). And LM2500 gas turbine image a bit of a tangent in a very busy part of the article. Interested readers can go that article? All just comments for consideration, happy to pass this criteria as-is.
	7. Overall assessment.	This was a really strong article. Thank you to User:Findingmoney100 for the prompt and constructive work addressing my queries. Mark83 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments and queries

• TLAM describe in multiple places as a strategic weapon. It's tactical.
  • Changed.
• Later versions of the class no longer have the Harpoon missile launchers, and some ships of the class do not have towed array sonar. this feels a bit rambling in the lead. I suggest it's taken out, this specific detail covered in article.
  • Removed.
• (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II, 34 of Flight IIA, 3 of Flight IIA Restart, and 10 of Flight IIA Technology Insertion) again, too much detail for lead. And some readers won't have a clue about flights - this is defined later and is potentially confusing.
  • Removed as well as the following sentence on Flight III.
• For Variants subsection, consider formatting like this:
  • Flight I - DDFs 51-71
  • Flight II - DDGs 72-78... (This will just be clearer and more consistent)
    • Good idea. Done. (Maybe use colons instead of hyphens so it doesn't get overwhelming?)
    • Yes, colons probably clearer. Mark83 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• An earlier generation had combined a steel hull with a superstructure made of lighter aluminum to reduce top weight, - I assume we're talking about a specific class here? Then identify it, why be vague?
  • Identified as the Ticonderogas.
• AShM - is this an accepted abbreviation. I am more familiar with ASuW - but maybe that's because I'm European so maybe AShM is an American term (and concious of course that this is an American subject).
  • Honestly I just used that abbreviation straight from Anti-ship missile, though interestingly that abbreviation is marked as needing a citation. "ASM" could be confused with "air-to-surface missile". Keeping it as "AShM" for now unless you really think it can be changed to "ASM".
    • This NATO glossary says ASM is air-to-surface and there is no mention of AShM or ASuW. Rather it uses ASSM for anti-surface ship missile. Mark83 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Interesting. If I'm being nit-picky myself, that source defines "anti-surface ship missile" as ASSM but makes no mention of just "anti-ship missile" as this wiki article does. Logically it wouldn't make sense to change to "anti-ship missile (ASSM)". "anti-surface ship missile" is just an overly confusing term for layman readers (imo), so I don't think changing all instances of "anti-ship missile" to "anti-surface ship missile" is warranted either. I don't know. Still keeping as "AShM" for now unless you have further suggestions.
• Prose in '"Passive defenses" section made my head hurt. And repeated later on?
  • (Hopefully) won't give readers a headache now.
  • Sorry, what do you mean by "repeated later on"? If you're talking about SLQ-32 being mentioned later under Modernization... I think the discussion of SLQ-32 under Passive defenses covers its role in, well, passive defense. I thought it would be appropriate for (V)6 to be mentioned again in Modernization to highlight the ongoing program to replace old SLQ-32 variants with these new ones.
    • No headache this time :) Happy with your comments on modernization. One quick query - should Arleigh Burke destroyers are equipped with AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare (EW) suites that provide passive detection and intelligence not be rounded off with "passive detection and intelligence of...." (I think it's airborne threats?) Mark83 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

      Well, EW suites pick up emissions regardless of it's an aircraft or not. "Arleigh Burke destroyers are equipped with AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare (EW) suites that provide passive detection and intelligence of airborne and surface threats." sounds like a mouthful (imo). Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

      Actually I agree with you that the sentence feels like it's missing something at the end. I'm thinking of just changing it to "Arleigh Burke destroyers are equipped with AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare (EW) suites that provide electronic support." Benefit of this is would be the reader knowing what electronic support is when it's mentioned a second time in Modernization (unfamiliar term link). Findingmoney100 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• "For defeating incoming torpedoes, the class features? "Has" would be better.
  • Changed.
• EMP should be defined, not just linked.
  • Expanded a bit; check to see if it suffices.
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear. I just meant "Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP)"Mark83 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh okay (cannot find anything suggesting there should be a hyphen, so used "electromagnetic pulse")
      • Yes, sorry Electro-Magnetic Pulse just a bit clumbsy from me. You're correct. Mark83 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• The Arleigh Burke class is a set of multi-mission ships > The Arleigh Burke class are multi-mission ships
  • Changed.
• Missiles are stored and fired from > Missiles are stored in and fired from
  • Changed.
• the Arleigh Burkes are considered more armed > "Considered" a bit vague - it should be a fact or not.
  • Removed "considered".
• The 5 inch gun can engage missiles??
  • Interesting point. Can't find any reliable sources that explicitly say it can. Removed it. Removed that sentence on the 5-inch; as you note later, it's been explained to death throughout the article.
• Their main radar differs from traditional rotating radars that mechanically rotate 360 degrees for each sweep scan of the airspace... Their main radar differs from traditional mechanically rotating radars..
  • Changed.
• The paragraph beginning Flight IIA and III destroyers carry RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs) goes on to say "They are also capable of targeting other ships." but is that not just confusing? That is explained later on.
  • Good catch; "They" was supposed to refer to ESSM but yeah it grammatically would refer to the ships themselves. Changed it to "ESSM".
• So vital has the Aegis BMD role of the class become that all ships of the class are being updated with BMD capability > So vital has the Aegis BMD role become that all ships of the class are being updated with BMD capability
  • Changed.
• I am unclear about the Tamohawk Va/Vb description - please make clearer.
  • Expanded on descriptions.
• all existing Block IV Tomahawks carried will be converted to the Block V version to become dual-role missiles - when? Is it done?
  • I appear to have hit a roadblock. The conversion program is definitely still underway (and probably will be for some time), but I cannot find anything resembling a projected schedule or timeframe. If you find it necessary, I can just remove the mention that all existing Block IV Tomahawks carried will be converted to the Block V.
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Arleigh Burke-class ships feature the Navy's latest AN/SQQ-89 ASW combat system, which is integrated with Aegis. It encompasses the AN/SQS-53C bow-mounted sonar and the AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS) or TB-37U Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA), though several Flight IIA ships do not have a towed array sonar - I feel a bit exahusted after reading that, and it's all a bit unclear.
  • I think I tuned it... check to see if that paragraph is clear now.
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine now. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Refs 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 all at end of one sentence. All needed?
  • Unfortunately there's no one source that mentions all the ships with SeaRAM. Think it would be better to move the refs after each respective ship?
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Paragraph starting Located on the forward deck is the 5-inch (127 mm) Mark 45 gun goes on to explain the Mk 45 again and again. Be more succint.
  • Removed info from that paragraph mentioned elsewhere. Also went just ahead and removed the 5-inch mention from Weapon systems opening paragraph. (also found out the 680 figure on ammo was wrong; changed to 600)
• stowed away > stowed.
  • Changed.
• ISR not explained.
  • Honestly I think if I just expand the acronym into what it stands for, it will be self-explanatory. Went ahead and did that.
    • Sorry, again I wasn't clear. I just meant expand the acronym. Mark83 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Then should be fine as that's exactly what I did.

That is as far as "development". More to follow. This is a good article, just tweaks needed for promotion. Mark83 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Also regarding your comment on lasers, I just went ahead and deleted the text in concern. Maybe a "brute force" solution, but I'll just let people read the main DDG(X) article, which should cover the specifics better

And once you do the Copyvio check, just a heads up that a lot of sites have copied text from this article (like seaforces.org), personal experience from having run this through Copyvio myself several times while working on this article Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Political restraints aren't really explained. I don't feel this would bar GA promotion, but just interesting. Why did politicians get involved with specifications in this way?
  • Will try to find reliable sources that talk about the political impact on the development of the class. I do remember Friedman writing something about Congress thinking shore bombardment was a lesser important role after Vietnam, leading to the originally-planned 76 mm main gun (but in the grand scheme of things this is a such minor detail I don't think I'll bother mentioning it). Quick web searches to determine how difficult a task it will be to find more info tell me this won't be a straightforward task. Worst case scenario, won't find anything.
• The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, > The total cost of the first ship was US$1.1 billion
  • Changed.
• Radar cross-section was reduced through various signature-reduction methods. is repetition of the previous section.
  • Removed.
• the designers upgraded the originally-planned 80,000 shaft horsepower (shp) LM2500 gas turbines to 100,000 shp sorry to be pedantic, but the ship designers didn't upgrade the turbines. GE would have. Maybe just To compensate for the limited length, the originally-planned 80,000 shaft horsepower (shp) LM2500 gas turbines were upgraded to 100,000 shp.
  • Changed. (funny enough I originally wrote that, but later changed it to try to convert it to active voice, guess it backfired)
• The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke ships feature several changes, including both the addition and removal of systems. - is that not redundant? Just say The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke ships feature several changes. Then go on to list the additions/subtractions.
  • Changed.
• and DDG-89 onwards bury the exhaust funnels within the superstructure feels like repetition again. And (again pedantic) but the funnels are buried, the ships don't bury the funnels.
  • Fixed. Also removed mention of that from Structure.
• Systems omitted from Flight IIA include the Harpoon missile launchers - do we have a rationale for why the launchers were deleted?
  • One book says they were removed to save weight; another says they were removed to save costs (I'll have to look back to see which book said what). I thought it would take up too much space addressing both but I can if it will improve the article.
  • Figured it out, added a note addressing the removal of the Harpoon launchers.
• Corporations are singular, so BAE Systems announced they should be "announced it.." Same with Lockheed Martin - their > its.
  • Changed.
• Similarly should In 2016, the Navy announced they would begin be announced it would begin?
  • Changed.
• Sam LaGrone reported.. - strange prominence. I had no idea who or what this was. I think it should read USNI News reported..
  • Changed.
• Littoral combat is mentioned a few times. Being interest in the subject matter I know what it is. Will the average reader?
  • This comment motivated me to add a Notes section to explain/expand upon things that would otherwise be awkward to explain in the text itself. Not sure why it took me this long to add notes :/
• In March 2018, the Navy announced the HED would complete installation onto USS Truxtun (DDG-103) to test the technology suggested tweak to "In March 2018, the Navy announced the HED would be installed on USS Truxtun (DDG-103) to test the technology"
  • Changed.
• Also in 2016, four destroyers patrolling with the U.S. 6th Fleet > Also in 2016, four destroyers of the U.S. 6th Fleet?
  • Changed.
• The section on C-HGB - any update?
  • I did some looking up and unfortunately couldn't find anything new of worth from reliable sources regarding the Burkes and C-HGB. Anything need to be done with the existing paragraph on C-HGB?
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• air breathing targets - will everyone understand this?
  • Simplified to "air targets". (still valid to say this)
• with fewer (24 vs. 37) radar module assemblies again, will people understand?
  • Added note.
• Consistency of $m/$million and $b/$billion
  • Changed all to million/billion.
• Flight III proper will begin with the third ship procured in 2016,[129] USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG-125). could/should this be past tense now?
  • Changed to "began".
• offers a 15 dB improved sensitivity compared to SPY-1 - most readers won't have a clue. The end of the sentence gives context I know, but just consider this. (not saying it's wrong to keep it)
  • Added note.
• The first "Future replacement" paragraph is a bit rambling about plans, long lead item contracts, financial years etc. Consider a trim/tidyup.
  • Eliminated that entire first paragraph unrelated to Future replacement by moving that to more relevant locations.
• Should the section not be "Replacement" - Future replacement is redundant?
  • Changed.
• Don't like No hull design or shape has been speculated yet. - better off saying nothing than being so vague?
  • Removed.
• The Future Surface Combatant section ends The Future Surface Combatant has evolved into the Large Surface Combatant, which became the DDG(X) - so the section should be titled DDG(X) then?
  • Changed. Removed that Sub-heading due to the removal of the first paragraph. I'll keep the heading as "Replacement" unless you think it should be changed to "DDG(X)".
• Russia has threatened to quit the New START treaty over this deployment, calling it a threat to their nuclear deterrent This was last updated in 2014. At the very least change the tense. Russia didn't abandon the treaty.
  • Removed "has". (does this suffice?)
• close to a dozen sailors were given non-judicial punishment how many?
  • No luck finding a number. Not even the main USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision article gives a number, only saying "close to a dozen". If necessary for this article to be of GA quality, I can just remove In addition, close to a dozen sailors were given non-judicial punishment for losing situational awareness.
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Link Chaff (countermeasure).
  • Done.
• I think all refs are formatted now (though lots without access dates), but point out anything I missed. Honestly had no idea how to fix that STUDENT GUIDE ref so I just changed it to a citation for Wertheim's book, which conveniently mentions the Prairie-Masker Findingmoney100 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Sadly can't find a reliable source for USS John Paul Jones being featured in Battleship. The most "reliable" source IMO is imdb, which is considered unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. I obviously don't want to remove the mention. Dunno if anything can be done. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Scratch that, after several combinations of exact match searches on Google, I finally stumbled upon this.

  The John Paul Jones was featured prominently in the film "Battleship."

  Works for me! Findingmoney100 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Structure of article

Consider if Development should be ahead of Characteristics? Would make more sense chronologically?

• Not sure about this. Development makes a lot of references to stuff first mentioned/explained under Characteristics (e.g., Flights, weapons, sensors). Findingmoney100 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • This is a matter of opinion, so I wouldn't let this block promotion. I welcome the conversation however; it feels strange chronologically- we go into loads of present day detail for the first section (Characteristics) then in the next section we rewind to what happened in the 1970s and 1980s. Why not tell the story of development first, then go into the detail about the characteristics of the class that was a result of the development? Mark83 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

    Good points. And I concede from looking at other ship class GAs/FAs, they do indeed tend to discuss development first and then flow into characteristics. But I do note those are for older ships (mostly WW2 era). IMO, most readers click on an article for a modern ship class for info on present-day detail and not a history lesson on development like they might for an older ship class.

    Unfortunately there's not many modern ship-related GAs (I think actually the only one being Nimitz-class aircraft carrier) and zero modern ship-related FAs (at least on the English Wikipedia; dunno how the Russians already have an FA Arleigh Burke class article) to compare with. Looking at the Nimitz class article, they made a Description section that sort of clumps together everything related to chararcteristics and development. I don't think that would work well for this simply due to the sheer size of our Development section.

    But a good counter-example is Type 45 destroyer (though it's not a GA so probably not the best one to compare with). It does indeed have Development first and then Characteristics. But again, our Development section is just so long that moving it first would result in readers only interested in current detail having to scroll down on a scavenger hunt.

    Just some personal thoughts on this. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

    Just found a modern/active destroyer class GA we can compare to: Kolkata-class destroyer. Notice how its "Design" section (equivalent to our "Characteristics" section) is first, followed by "Development". Findingmoney100 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

    • I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. I feel strongly that logically and chronologically a subject's early life/development should come first, then the specifics of the subject should come after. However this is just me voicing my preference. A GA reviewer should never allow that to influence their decision on promoting an article and of course I won't. Let's leave the article as is in this respect. It might come up in any future FA review. Mark83 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

      Yeah if only there was a modern ship FA, I would have been happy to follow its structure. Findingmoney100 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

      Off topic but couldn't help but notice you were the one who added the two sections in this edit back in 2007, putting Characteristics before Development :) Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

      @Findingmoney100: This is both a bit a failed attempt at a 'gotcha' and also irrelevant - the concern I raised during the GA review was that the current layout goes into loads of detail on the class then backtracks to development. On the diff you shared the Characteristics section is a paragraph with a large proportion of historical information. Both sections are unrecognisable from their current form. If you are going to make a habit of spending so much time going back through page histories back as far as 2007 I hope you land a punch next time. Mark83 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

    • Ticonderoga-class cruiser is development > characteristics. Same for Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. But there are examples to the contrary as you have found. Off topic but I checked Los Angeles-class submarine to see - and that article's coverage of the class' development is almost non-existent! Might add that to my list. Mark83 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)