Jump to content

Talk:Ohio-class submarine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Targeting

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

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

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

Epopt, you're an old-boat guy? How long ago? I respect your territory, but things are different now. Also, there are no PALs on Tridents, nor is there the need to download target packages. I went through BESS and never heard the term Ohio, and was scolded a few times on the boat as a NUB for using the term Boomer. ..I will look for citations for you. I suppose the alternative is to be straight, by-the-book. I need some more time to clean the errors off of this page. --Greg.krsak@gbrx.com 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC), MT2 (SS)

Boat listing/Homeports

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

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

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

The list sorted by homeports did add a couple of bits of information.
Would it be worth putting in a table, showing the number, name, launching (or commissioning) year, current status? Anything else?
—wwoods 05:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Collated information is good, but out-of-date information is bad. Beginning-of-life dates won't change, but data like homeports does. I just don't want someone to come along twenty years from now and see "USS Ohio (SSBN-726) is conducting strategic deterrent patrols, defending all that is right and holy, from her home port of Bangor, Washington." (Cf many of the Sturgeon boats' DANFS entries.) --the Epopt 14:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

The first eight boats were homeported in Bangor WA to replaces the A3 carrying submarines that were being decomissioned. The remaining ten boats were originally homeported in King's Bay GA, replacing the Atlantic based Posiedon and Trident Backfit submarines.
After the first four hulls were converted to SSGNs, two boats were shifted from KB to BA. Further shifts are occuring

Elde 03:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Deterrence force - ohio subs

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia exists to describe the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. The fact is that the LG-118A missile is named "Peacekeeper." Wikipedia does not have the authority to rename them. It is also a fact perhaps worth mentioning that no war has been started over the Peacekeepers (or by them), so perhaps their name is perfectly accurate. ➥the Epopt 15:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The concept of "deterrance" is specifically with regard to nuclear warfare, not conventional. I suggest you leave your POV out of this, Mir. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:50, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Actually Joseph, deterrence as a concept is also used for conventional forces. (Again, see Mahan - specifically the concept of a 'fleet in being'.) In the context of Ohio class boats and in the mind of the public it's applied mostly to nuclear warefare, but that's again a product of the difference between popular usage and technical usage. Elde 17:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Interesting, Epopt. Also, the now-ex Peacekeeper is LGM, as opposed to LG. Trident sailors go to sea with the impression that they are a deterrent force. With CTM, this may change; who knows? --Greg.krsak@gbrx.com 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Destructive Force

"A single submarine can wield the destructive power of more than nine times the total Allied ordnance dropped in the European theater in World War II." Destructive power is quite ambiguous. An Ohio class submarine can contain 8 warheads in each of its 24 missiles. That is 192 warheads each of a possible 475 kt. That is more than 20 times as powerful as "Little Boy" for each warhead. Detonating these warheads above several large cities would cause destuction on an entirely different scale than world war 2 strategic city bombings. What forms the basis for the statement "9 times more destructive(...)"? How is it calculated? Pietas 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

you need to re-check your facts on the number of warheads the latest tridents can carry. 8 is not correct

If no one disagrees, I will remove the statement: "A single submarine can wield the destructive power of more than nine times the total Allied ordnance dropped in the European theater in World War II." Pietas 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Erased: "A single submarine can wield the destructive power of more than nine times the total Allied ordnance dropped in the European theater in World War II." Pietas 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The megatonnage of a boat with a missile split as of 2005 is in excess of 25MT. --Greg.krsak@gbrx.com 20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism Problems

I happened to read the fas.org link in the links section after reading the article, and noticed that several sentences in the intro are copied directly from this source, and need to be removed or changed. Unfortunately, I don't have the time now to check through the whole article for copied sentences. I will do it later if no one else does first, but it may be a couple months. Blazotron 07:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, typical "minimal rewrite" from fas.org in the finest traditions of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia: "The Ohio-class submarines were specifically designed for extended deterrence patrols. Each submarine is complemented by two crews, Blue and Gold, with each crew operating on a 100-day interval. To decrease the time in port for crew turnover and replenishment, three large logistics hatches are fitted to provide large diameter resupply and repair openings. These hatches allow sailors to rapidly transfer supply pallets, equipment replacement modules and machinery components, significantly reducing the time required for replenishment and maintenance."

Wikipedia article: "The Ohio-class submarines are specifically designed for extended deterrent patrols. To increase the time in port for crew turnover and replenishment, three large logistics hatches are fitted to provide large diameter resupply and repair openings. These hatches allow sailors to rapidly transfer supply pallets, equipment replacement modules and machinery components, significantly reducing the time required for replenishment and maintenance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.22 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider revision.75.112.134.2 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

let me add to the section. as for putting the data on the submarines' fictional involvement on Sum and DoH, they might get buried somewhere in the books' plot premise, which could attract the overly excessive template if every last bit of what happened is written in. Eaglestorm 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of notability and popular culture? This is not supposed to be a detailed list of every appearence by an Ohio-class boat. Just those in which a sub played a major or notable role, or in which the apprearance is especially notable or well-known. The full details of each appearance, even the notable ones, are unnecessary. I'd rather not get into a revert war here, so please stop reverting me, and let me help to make the article better. If you don't, someone else may come along and remove the entire section per WP:TRIV. - BillCJ 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact Checking

I'm not entirely sure, but it states that the subs carry about 50% of the total strategic nuclear arsenal of the United States, while in the page on Nuclear Weapons and the United states, it states that the US maintains over 5000 nuclear warheads. 24 times 14 doesn't come close to 2,500...

I think you forgot to multiply the number of warheads per missile. I'm not certain how many warheads a D5 carries, but I believe its about 8. 8x24x14=2688. Close enough for you? = BillCJ 09:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Bill you are under the assumtion that each ship carries a full load of warheads and that each missile has a full load of warheads. Onboard the ship only a short list of personnel know what missiles have warheads if any. -SubSailor

Been looking for verification but, the Ohio Class was originally built with 20 missiles in mind. The proof is in the frame bays on the submarines, the number system for the bays stops counting up and adds letters for 4 tubes and then continues on. Rumor is that when in construction the Ohio was ment to have 20 and then the Typhoon was found to have 20 so. They stretch the ship and add 4 tubes making the count 24. -SubSailor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Boats or Ships?

I see a number of references in this article to the Ohio class being "ships" and not "boats" like I believed. I realise www.navy.mil uses ships, but is it right? Mark5677 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, they are ships. But submariners like to call them "boats". Jigen III (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass?

This line in the first paragraph or so bothers me: "(the new Russian Borei class submarine has more mass when submerged but not when surfaced)." How does Russia manage to negate mass in a submarine? One would think it would be constant, though the weight or displacement might vary. 192.28.2.6 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever wonder how a submarine submerges? They have big empty ballast tanks that they fill with water to increase their weight and take them under. To come up they use compressed air to force the water back out, reducing the mass and bringing them back up. The surfaced mass is the mass of the boat itself; the submerged mass is the boat plus the mass of the water in the ballast tanks. BobThePirate (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather of the opinion that the sentence still ought to be revised, as it is somewhat confusing to someone not immediately familiar with the workings of submarines, but it is certainly correct as-is.--24.19.113.220 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Preceded by/Succeeded by

In the info box, at the top right side of the page, it lists the Ohio class as being preceded by the Los Angeles class and Succeeded by the Seawolf class. I think this is incorrect since, while it is chronologically correct, neither of those classes are ballistic missile submarines. They're designed to fill a different role. It seems to me, that the correct predecessor would be the Benjamin Franklin Class of ballistic missile submarines and there wouldn’t be a successor as the Ohio is still state-of-the-art in the US Navy (unless someone else has seen info about the Navy developing a replacement ballistic missile sub). -Colecoman1982 12.32.89.121 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacement

We in the UK are begining a debate on the replacement for 2030/2040s of our Tridents (D-5)and Vanguard (SSBNs), just out of intrest is there anything up for discussion to replace the Ohio's and the D5's in the States ??? Pickle 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • There is some preliminary work being done on a smaller and shorter ranged missile to eventually replace the D5/Ohio class system. Realistically, the shorter range is a consequence of the desired to use a Virginia (approx 10 meter diameter) hull in place of the larger and expensive Ohio (approx 14 meter diameter) hull. <makes note to self to start page later this weekend on the new missile.> Elde 00:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for that, its a real big issue over here the concept of a replacing the nuclear deterrent, with people's memories of the expensive cost of building the trident (vanguard subs with trident D5s) and the CND campaigns in the 1980s. Realistically we'll buy whatever you do or go some sort of TALM-N, ALCM, or even free fall nukes. Pickle 21:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No we wont end up using free fall ones. They were abandoned years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.186.73 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some information I found on a new class with a cited reference. Feel free to improve it but I believe it is relevant to maintain especially when we approach the end of this class's life.AH-64 Longbow (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen brief mentions of something called SSBN-X (now Ohio Replacement Submarine), but apparently little progress has been made. It appears laying-down will be after 2020, according to the Wiki article. RobDuch (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Prop design now public?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003859908_satellite30.html

Here's a quote of the story:

"This month, a photograph appeared on the Internet of the propeller on an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine at Trident Submarine Base in Bangor. A key to the submarine's ability to deploy and remain undetected, propeller designs have been kept under wraps for years, literally. When out of the water, the propellers typically are draped with tarps."

Is this the same submarine? I don't know anything about subs, but it sounds relevant to the page, I'll let more knowledgable people decide if this is correct/worthy of inclusion. Champion sound remix 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Its another easy journalsitic story following on from many that have come before about "secrecy" and the wonders of google earth and other such services. One can see area 51, numerous missles bases, etc aroudn the world. panic not ;), if you've too much time on your hands investigte the infamous http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan-turnbull/SECRET-BASES/ site Pickle 21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Article and picture on the front page of the online edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. John Dalton 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to be a big deal to cover up the screws on our submarines, but since f***ing Toshiba sold the Russians the computer-controlled milling equipment to make their own ultra-quiet with the software for Trident & 688 screws installed, it's a moot point now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.36.202 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sum of All Fears?

Quote: "Two Tom Clancy novels also focus heavily on Ohio-class submarines: The Sum of All Fears and Debt of Honor."

I don't know about Debt of Honor, but I don't recall any subs in The Sum of All Fears. SeriousWorm (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a prominent plot thread featuring the Captain of an Ohio class whose boat is damaged during a military crisis, revealing its position to a Russian sub. Due to misunderstandings the two end up firing on one another, sinking the Ohio. It's a fairly central plot to the book. BobThePirate (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this image be added

Is it redundant and unnecessary to add this to the Ohio article given that it is available by clicking on the Trident missile link. Or is it relevant to show the Ohio performing it's primary mission, after deterrence that is. AH-64 Longbow (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Posture Review 2010

It seems like it might be a neato idea to incorporate comments and information from the new Nuclear Posture Review produced by the DoD, particularly as it relates to corroborating other information already in place within the article, but from less official sources.

find the article on this page --Asday85 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Akula is not a fictional submarine

Akula is a Russian nuclear powered attact submarine that were first commisioned around 1984. Very quiet and deady. 98.230.41.45 (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you've misinterpreted the sentence. "For example, the fictional Akula-class submarine Admiral Lunin attacks" – fictional is referring to the fact that ship is named Admiral Lunin, not the Akula-class submarine. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Life support

There are life support issues that need to be addressed with ships (boats?) that stay underwater from 60-90 days straight. Maybe not quite as essential as International_Space_Station#Life_support since a satellite can't re-enter or be easily resupplied, but something between nothing and the Space Station would be about right. While subs have always needed underwater sustainability, it was never as crucial as it is with FBMs. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you breaking the talk-pages-are-not-fora-for-general-discussion-of-the-article's-subject rule? Or, am I not understanding the purpose of your post? And, it's boats. --Trappist the monk (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The intent of the post seems to be about improving the article. Though in a general sense Life support is covered at Submarine#Life support systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I imagine submarine is linked in the article. This doesn't seem to really answer the article's (really a boomer article, since other nations have them) need for a special subsection on life support. For example, everyone stinks after 6 weeks on American boomers. The stink persists until after several weeks ashore. Esters/perfumes etc. are banned because they persist in the sub's atmosphere. These pollutants are tracked assiduously by the crew to ensure that the crew is not "poisoned!" Student7 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The Ohio-class article does not need a life support section. Boomers and fast-attacks both come to snorkel depth periodically for a variety of reasons. When they do, they often gulp in fresh air, though sometimes they get the wind just right and the diesel exhaust gets sucked into the boat by the main induction fans. Talk about esters. Yeah, we had a certain "scent" that, I think, was primarily caused by the Monoethanolamine used to remove CO2 -- I never stuck my head in an amine tank to find out. Boomers have showers - these boats are relative pleasure yachts compared to the diesel boats of yore. So, no life support section - the reference that Fnlayson provided is adequate. --Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Snorkels would indeed remove any necessity for a life support subsection. I am shocked to hear that boomers do this since satellites would spot them at that depth. What is the point of boomers anyway? Depth is their only defense. I was told by another former boomer crewman that this did not happen except in emergencies. This made sense to me.
BTW, you lost me on the "diesel exhaust." What are diesels doing on a nuclear sub (except as backup maybe)? Student7 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood what the other sailor said. Or I wasn't clear. The diesel I refer to drives a generator. Very necessary when the reactor is off-line. --Trappist the monk (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my notes are the result of a presentation made by a former submariner.
Maybe what is needed (at a higher level) is a history that reports that when boomers were really counted on, that they stayed at depth (and not just "snorkel-depth") and out of touch (from the sub) for 60-90 days without even their own Navy knowing exactly where they were; that life-support systems were then quite critical; that current use is to try to keep the crews trained in the event that they are ever needed as a threat in the future since they are not operating that way today. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Just no. Almost all of that post is wrong. Boomers are counted on just as much now as then; they snorkel just as much now as then; they are "out of touch" (rarely) just as much now as then; the Navy knows where the boats are just as much now as then; life support systems are just as important now as then; crews train just as much now then; and the boats operate today much the same now as then. A "history" that says otherwise would be wrong and not supported by the facts. --Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Are we discussing nuclear-powered subs here? This article claims much the same operational capability for Soviet Foxtrot subs of 1950s design. Submerge for a week or so, then rise for snorkeling. The subs that seem to be discussed here don't seem that much more advanced in life support technology or operational capability. 00:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've been talking about nuclear subs. This talk page isn't the place to compare Foxtrot-class submarines with Ohio-class submarines. Nothing in what you've said has convinced me that we should be adding a life support section to this article as that topic is already discussed elsewhere. So I guess I don't understand what it is that you don't understand. --Trappist the monk (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize it when I started, but this is about strategic use of boomers. Question: 1) Can a sub be detected at snorkel depth by military satellites (deployed for that purpose BTW)? 2) Can a sub be detected at "shallow" depths by airplanes deployed with magnetic gear (for the purpose of detecting submarines). 3) Does a boomer sub have any weapons suitable for defending ITSELF against destruction, other than deep diving? and 4) If a sub can be detected at shallow depths AND it is essential to the defense/offense of the controlling nation, why is it revealing its position when it doesn't have to? Student7 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Those questions, not being related to your original life support section proposition, nor being related to the article's primary topic (Ohio-class submarines as a class), will have to go unanswered. --Trappist the monk (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation style

On 27 September 2011, in keeping with WP:CITEVAR, I edited the article for uniformity of citation style. Now comes User:Fnlayson who, counter to WP:CITEVAR, changes the {{Citation}} format to "Make cite template wrap to save space". I undid that change as the "space-saving" argument is nonsense — there is no need to "save space" in the edit window; we aren't trying to fit all of the text and markup onto one side of a post-it note.

Not liking that, Fnlayson undid my edit with this edit summary: "Revert, both layouts are valid for templates. See the template documentation for examples." Fnlayson is correct that both template styles are valid. Personal preference isn't sufficient reason to have made the change.

So, I have yet again restored the reference style to what it was; I have fixed date formats for the accessdate parameters; I have changed <ref Name=.../> to <ref name=.../> so that all such ref tags are the same.

Fnlayson, leave the style alone please.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The {{cite web}} and other documentation presents the templates in both horizontal and vertical layouts. I did not remove any of the cite templates, only changed them to a horizontal layout. Putting the cite templates in horizontal or vertical layout does not affect their appearance in the References section. So my edit did not change the citation style and did not violate WP:CITEVAR. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Harpoon missiles no longer carried (assuming they ever were)

I deleted the part at the top about carrying Harpoon to fire from the torpedo tubes. Sub Harpoon is long out of service. Also changed the entry on the Tomahawks' warheads on the same line to state that only conventional warheads are now carried. Many thanks. Chris Werb, Orkney, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I undid your changes because you didn't provide a sources to support your changes. Yeah, I know, the existing text isn't sourced either ...
--Trappist the monk (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft Accuracy?

Just browsing pages and I noticed that the height of the Triton II (D5) is 13m but the submarine draft is only 10.8-12m (depending on model). Perhaps the SLBM's increase in height after leaving the tubes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.48.203 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC) No... the Submarine is not like the Tardis, bigger on the inside. You are confusing "draft" with height overall. The draft of the vessel is the depth from it's waterline when surfaced, to the bottom of the hull. Naturally you got a few meters there that is above and out of the water. The total distance from the top of the hull to the bottom is more than enough to house the Trident Missile, Obviously. 74.197.151.81 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Displacement

Does anyone know if the conversion from SSBN to SSGN affected the displacement of the first four boats of the class? Thanks - theWOLFchild 17:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ohio-class submarine. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ohio-class_submarine/Archive_1&oldid=1074098561"