Talk:Sturgeon-class submarine

message: The Narwhal was NOT a sturgeon class submsrine, nor was it an S5W propulsion plant; it was a one-of-a-kind ship with an S5G propulsion plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.247.241.20 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. All of the descriptions of Narwhal in this article are factually incorrect, in fact grossly so. The Glenard P. Lipscomb was based on the Sturgeon-class, aside from the engineering space, and she had the same beam. Narwhal was totally different internally, and had a beam 6 feet larger than the Sturgeon-class. The sail location was different, the ballast tank arrangements were different, the only commonality was with the electronics suite. Narwhal should be mentioned here only to correct the misconceptions in this article.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize you're replying to a post from 2004, made by an ip-user that hasn't posted since 2010? I only mention it in case you're expecting a reply... - wolf 04:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I got a reply from the person I was expecting, even if it was not to the subject. Now that you have replied, could you engage the issue? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For what purpose? From what I can see, the "issue" described above has already been addressed. See:  - wolf 16:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The text on the Narwhal article "very little of her design was based on the contemporary Sturgeon-class submarine. Her power plant, engine room, and forward compartment layout were unlike any other U.S. submarine" is in direct opposition to the text in this article (e.g., "Several Sturgeon boats and related submarines were modifications of the original designs to test ways to reduce noise[:] Narwhal...", and "Two other Navy vessels, both considered one-ship classes, were based on the Sturgeon hull, but were modified for experimental reasons: Narwhal..."). There is no way to sugar-coat it: Narwhal was not related to nor based on the Sturgeon-class, and therefore this article is in error. Citable resources such as Friedman agree. The only truth here is that Narwhal's design and construction was contemporary to the Sturgeon-class, in the same way that Tullibee and Thresher were contemporaries. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you proposing changes to this, and possibly the  page as well? What changes are you considering? And with what refs? (I'm just asking out of curiosity, it's not as if you need my permission to edit). - wolf 04:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm making such a proposal. I do not want these proposed changes to surprise anyone. I would like to get some concurrence on this. BTW, nearly every pre-1970 reference calls Narwhal a Sturgeon (I spent the day on the USNI web site looking them up), while the best later references all say she wasn't. I suspect this pre-1970 documentation was half disinformation and half oversimplification, but it is still quoted. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: OK, I will give it a go. I just am concerned that the line between 'rational explanation' and 'original research' is very thin in this case. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that the Narwhal section be deleted or reduced to a single sentence (something like "The Narwhal was developed at the same time as the Sturgeon class and was broadly similar to the Sturgeon-class forward of the reactor compartment, but was a separate design incorporating...").  The idea that her mistaken identity was due to deliberate obfuscation is not correct.  Here is a Navy press release on the Narwhal dated 28 July 1964: https://i.imgur.com/WnLJSed.jpg.  Note the line "a nuclear powered attack submarine of new design."  In any case, you can use Hanlon's razor. Vepr157 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be kept for the very reasons you seem to take issue with it, in that it explains how Narwhal was considered a Sturgeon-class at one point, but now that thinking has changed. Encyclopaedic and instructive are not mutually exclusive. - wolf 23:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  In any case, I have revised the paragraph to remove the mention of SCB 188M (almost certainly an erroneous number; it does not appear in the Bureau of Ships files at the National Archives) and the unfounded speculation about disinformation. Vepr157 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2004

message: I was wondering if anyone had any info on the "Holystone" modification some subs of this class had and exactly what it entailed system-wise.Lastcharlie 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sturgeon class as Spy Ships 

message: The photo in this article appears to be USS Richard B. Russell (SSN-687), not USS Sturgeon as indicated in the caption.76.166.178.78 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo