Talk:USS Arleigh Burke
(Redirected from Talk:USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51))
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Wfoj3 in topic Falklands?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Arleigh Burke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Falklands?
editThis article states: "The Arleigh Burke's designers incorporated many lessons learned by the Royal Navy during the Falklands campaign and from the USS Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers." What possibly did the Burke's designers learn from the RN's experience in the Falklands? Such a claim needs to be supported by some pretty strong evidence. This pro-UK crap was finally weeded from the Arleigh Burke-Class article and should be dropped here as well unless real documentation can be cited. Jmdeur (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Requesting additional sourcing is one thing, but comments like "pro-UK crap" are unnecessary. - theWOLFchild 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- YOUR anti-UK crap can be dropped right now. The Royal Navy has sailed the oceans for centuries, exploring the world, reducing piracy and ending the transportation of slaves. Your repeated commenting in any US article that even mentions the UK is not smart. Ask someone who knows about how the US Navy conducted extensive analysis of the RN's performance during the Falklands War and incorporated the lessons into the US Navy. Much technical know-how has been shared from UK to US over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.99 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Very well then. Exactly what are the "lessons learned" that were incorporated? If you can document them, do provide that documentation. If you cannot, you have no grounds for protest, as the requirement that information on Wikipedia must be supported by valid sources is one of the most fundamental principles of what we do here. Spouting about the Royal Navy does not constitute anything resembling such documentation. At present I see no reason why the offending passage should not be removed.Poihths (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- LATE ADD: Ticonderoga has an aluminum superstructure - Burke has steel. Some think this is a lesson learned from the Falklands campaign; More likely a lesson learned from the US Kennedy (CV-67) and USS Belknap (CG-26) Collision in 1976. Belknap also had a aluminum superstructure. From the heat of the fire aluminum lost strength, then the heavy directional high power radar for missile guidance collapses the superstructure. Wfoj3 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC).
- Very well then. Exactly what are the "lessons learned" that were incorporated? If you can document them, do provide that documentation. If you cannot, you have no grounds for protest, as the requirement that information on Wikipedia must be supported by valid sources is one of the most fundamental principles of what we do here. Spouting about the Royal Navy does not constitute anything resembling such documentation. At present I see no reason why the offending passage should not be removed.Poihths (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Photographs available if desired
editI happen to have a set of six good-quality photographs of the Arleigh Burke during a port visit in Libya in 2006. If anyone thinks they would provide a valuable addition to this article, I would be happy to post them here. Poihths (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)