Talk:USS Belknap (CG-26)

message: "This fire and the resultant damage and deaths, which would have been preventable had Belknap's superstructure been made of steel, drove the US Navy's decision to pursue all-steel construction in its next major class of surface combatants, the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer." The fact that the Ticonderoga class cruiser wasn't ordered until 1978 would seem to conflict with this statement since its superstructure is also aluminum. And yes I know they were based on the Spruance hull, but if there was that big of a problem, one would think that some other method would have been selected for that "major class of surface combatant." --Dual Freq (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, the USS Oliver Hazard Perry was laid down the same year as the Belknap accident. This is pertinent in that the "Fig-7" class also had aluminum superstructures, and the near sinking of the USS Stark was chronologically closer to the decision to cease using Aluminum for U.S. Navy warships. User:70.189.161.147 23:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See NYT article on aluminum cracking that led to the switch. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticonderoga class cruiser were ordered in 1978 

message: I've seen that trivia sections are frowned upon, so I removed the below text. I don't even understand why people would care that this particular ship was mentioned as back history of a character in a book.
"Popular Fiction
In Clear and Present Danger, a novel by Tom Clancy, the character Vice Admiral James Cutter is said to be a past commander of Belknap."
75.95.47.110 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One piece of trivia that should be included is that the "collision" between the Belknap and the JFK was not a typical collision. When the Belknap came along side of the JFK, the telephone size antenna were still in the horizontal position (the normal position during flight ops) which effectivley "clotheslined" the superstructure of the Belknap, where most of the underway refueling nozels and lines are located.  23:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Removed 

message: As I come here today - I find it lacking - almost all IRT the collision, very limited on other activity of her career. next I note she was decommissioned 1 month after the accident and remain such for 5 years. If you read a quantity of articles on older US ships - they had frequent decomissionings - for repair work and etc. The USN stopped that for some reason. Note the recent Overhaul and refueling of USS George Washington (CVN-73) from August 2017 to May 2023. Many sailor would have had their life improved (and Navy career if inclined) improved if she had been decommissioned in the time frame.  Wfoj3 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "" - Not sure this opinion is something that should, or could,/ be discussed in an individual ship article. That said, the Navy would never base the decision to decommission a capital ship, especially the class of the capital ships, the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, on such a factor as the crew's careers or making their lives better. I also don't believe congress would allow it, nor would the law. The US Code states the Navy must have a minimum number of carriers in service. - wolf 07:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Talk