Talk:Virginia-class submarine

Updated Ships in class section is now different compared to before

Why was the ships in class section changed so drastically? It’s much more messy now and dosent show the block groupings

The old layout was simpler to read and easier differentiate the ship blocks Northstar2770 (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It does "show the block groupings"... look at the third column.

The old layout has issues and is being changed across the project. - wolf 02:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Complete lack of objectivity in outline

The first two paragraphs of the article read like they're straight out of a General Dynamics sales brochure. Any objections to editing that to make it more descriptive? NordicRest (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to WP:FIXIT. - wolf 17:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The costs seem wrong they're not consistent

Reading the section that lists the cost of the Virginia class it look like it costs $2.8B. But in the text it states the cost is below $1.8B.

I agree this article needs some serious review. Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The $2.8B is 2019 dollars, while the $1.8B is from 2009. - wolf 15:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

deployment to lifespan ratio, is that normal?

OK, the history section mentions that subs of this class are expected to have a 33 year service life span, and to make 14-15 deployments during that period. I don't know a thing about US navy operational doctrines, but having attack subs that will see less than one deployment (I guess about 3 months given how much supplies can be carried to feed and support the crew) every other year seems like commissioning a stable of white elephants... I mean, it seems like giving those boats really little use given the cost they have, and while I could understand it if a given crew could not stand more than one deployment a year, given the specifics of submarine service, multiple crews for a given boat might be a thing.

So, is the page actually correct and is that normal navy habits? Svartalf (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for dicussing the article's content, not our opinions on the subject. Posting a lengthy commentary about the cost of these boats vs. the amount of service they'll see in their lifetime, then tacking on a brief "gee, is the article right?" at the end to justify your post is still basically soapboxing. As for the article's info, (like all content), it's not "right" or "wrong", it's either properly supported or it's not. The particluar line you referred to is indeed sourced, which is sufficent for our purposes, (unless you wish to dispute the source, in which case RSN is right over →here). - \\'cԼF 03:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I AM discussing page content, since I was pointing out a possible inexactitude in the page text you busybody, and I notice that your response is neither factual, nor productive. So I may have been a bit wordy in my explanation, but that doesn't change the basic fact Svartalf (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

If you disagree, just say so. There is no need for any insults. Habe a nice day. - \\'cԼF 08:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

To clear up the point of confusion, because it is buried elsewhere in the article, a deployment is 6 months long, out of every 18-24 months, the rest being training, routine maintenance, shore time for the crew et al. From the sourced article, a Virginia Class is operational for 96 months before needing to go in for a major refit in drydock, so about every 4-5 deployments, and it will have 3 major refits within its 33-year lifecycle. (Both of these being improvements to operational percentage over predecessors, one of the ways they worked to keep costs down)

It might be worthwhile to change that sentence's verbiage to say "14-15 six-month deployments over its 33-year service life." to avoid confusion, but I'd also be in favor of that sentence being turned into its own paragraph about the reduced drydock time, since I don't see any mention of it currently in the article. 63.124.6.16 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)