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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Good catch, Robdumas. It looks like the Lead paragraph was accidentally deleted here when the infobox was converted from a table to a template. Your version of the Lead is actually better in the first few sentences, so I just tacked the old Lead on to the end of yours, as it was written as a transition to the next paragraph. In fact, it might be better workied in to the second paragraph, if someone else wants to tweak it. - BillCJ (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have removed a sentence stating『The Sturgeon class (SCB 188A) was built with the Flasher-type hull as part of their SUBSAFE redesign, along with an even larger sail. [Friedman, pp. 143–46]』The source does not in fact say this, it merely states "the design [indicating the Thresher and/or Flasher design] was then completely revised to become the Sturgeon class. [p. 143]" Friedman goes on to (correctly) say that the Sturgeon was a significant redesign. The confusion about the "Flasher-type hull" likely stems from the fact that the Flasher and Sturgeon were exactly the same length, 292'6". One example of the difference between the hulls are the toroconical transitions between the cone and full-diameter hull, evident in the drawing on p. 149.
In fact, the decision to lengthen the Flasher, Gato, and Greenling (laid down as repeat Threshers with the same 278'6" length) came after the dimensions were set for the FY63 SSN, which became the Sturgeon. The FY63 SSN preliminary design summary is dated 25 October 1962 and a memorandum titled "SS(N) 613, 614, and 615; Lack of adequate margin to accomplish the Submarine Safety Program on" is dated 24 November 1963. The latter states, "it is recommended that these ships be lengthened 13'-9" [5 frames]..." Both documents can be found in Box 72, Entry P62 (Item S-13), RG-19, NARA, College Park, Md.
Normally I would not go into this amount of detail for a simple edit, but given that other edits that I have done have been reverted, I thought this prudent. Vepr157 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
