Talk:USS Honolulu (SSN-718)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

theres 2 surf boards one with enlisted sigs and one with officer sigs. and the boat isnt decom yet still in process

Braindead?

If the Honolulu is newer built than the crah damaged San Francisco, why is it being decomissioned and cut up for SF repairs cannibalization? Logically they should keep the undamaged hawaiian running instead. Makes no sense to me. 82.131.210.162 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco was newly refueled before it hit the wall. The Honolulu was still running on the fumes of the initial reactor load out from when she was first built. Cutting the bow off the Honolulu and putting it on the San Francisco was cheaper than cutting the reactor out of the San Francisco and putting it in the Honolulu. Putting a new bow on a ship is something the Navy has entirely too much practice with but changing out reactor plants like that would have been an entirely new endeavor and therefore risky. ThomasH1966 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy has (or had) zero experience at replacing the entire bow (and all the included systems) of a submarine. According to a friend who worked the project at PSNS, they were literally writing the book as they went along. 2601:600:C87F:C9E6:A970:1CE:8999:1AEC (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

According to the Naval Vessel Register [1] there is no decommission date. I've marked for citations where needed. Especially the dubious being cut up for parts. --Brad (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ship’s Crest

This is the wrong ship’s crest. It was the original design but not the one used for the life of the ship 107.127.14.24 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that confirms that and shows the correct one? - wolf 03:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

history.navy.mil 2600:6C55:6800:1738:B586:CE7:14F2:FC7D (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a website. Do you have link to a specific webpage? - wolf 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]