Talk:USS Truxtun (CGN-35)

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

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Vietnam

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for merger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radagast83 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 November 2007

It is not customary to have a "class" article (Truxtun class cruiser) for a solitary ship. I could see merit in that article being merged into Belknap class cruiser, but I don't think that's a good idea. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While the ship is the only member of her class, not merging the articles provides consistency by having separate articles on individual ships (with information on each ship's history and service career) and their classes (with info on the design and construction of the class itself). From a navigation standpoint, it may be confusing to have a combined ship/class article when people are specifically looking for classes (such as via the guided missile cruiser navigation box, or Category:Cruiser classes. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- look at the articles for Nautilus, Enterprise, Narwhal, etc. This article is a rarity. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was that way in the past, but within the last year, two such ship/class merger proposals were voted down (Long Beach class cruiser and Bainbridge class cruiser). --Kralizec! (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As a member of ships' company, I believe merging the class article with the ship article is not only appropriate, but also accurate since it is the only ship of this class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.208.139.114 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maritime history[edit]

I was a crew member while on the Westpac in July of 70 as the ships barber. After leaving Subic Bay heading for Fremantle, Australia we put on a show for the Russians who were involved in Bangaledish (sp). The Ship traveled from Subic Bay to the Eastern coast of Africa and then turned to fremantle and accomplished this I believe in 10 days creating history in the amount of miles (12,000) in the amount of time (10 days) and were given a mertious unit citation for this accomplishment. Redshirt32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redshirt32 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion[edit]

It would be consistent with other single-vessel-classes to merge the class with teh vessel. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiment as well. If there is only one ship in the class, there is nothing you can say about the class that does not apply to the ship. Busaccsb (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. But why was there only one ship in the class? Why weren't there more "Truxtuns" built? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the advent of Nuclear Power in surface ships other than Carriers there was much to be learned. The first three were the Long Beach, the Bainbridge, and the Truxtun. Each were significantly different from the preceding ship to warrant it's own class and the reason there were no more Long Beaches, Bainbridge's or Truxtun's was because they were all 3 re-purposed conventional ships. Using the lessons learned from the first 3 cruisers the Navy built the first 2 Nuclear Cruisers designed as a Nuc from the keel up as the California class and then the 4 Virginia class Nuclear powered cruisers.

/* 1980s and 1990s */ Delete false sentence about 144 days on station.[edit]

I deleted the sentence, "Due to the ship's ability to operate independently on Nuclear power, Truxtun spent 144 consecutive days on station at sea before arriving at the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) of Diego Garcia for crew liberty and ship maintenance." because it is untrue. The ship in fact made four trips to Diego Garcia, three times for work on a chronically broken air conditioner, and once to tow USS Davidson, which had suffered an engine room fire. Note that the article on USS Constellation (CV-64) has that ship spending "a record-setting 110 days" at sea on this same deployment. I have no sources to cite for Truxtun's activity other than my own memory, so I am limited to deleting the incorrect information. Tms (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted statement that Truxtun entered the Persian Gulf in 1980.[edit]

I deleted the part of the sentence in the first paragraph in the section on the 1980s and 1990s that read, "... eventually serving for an extended period of time in the Persian Gulf during the Iranian Hostage Crisis." Truxtun never entered the Gulf on that deployment; instead she spent most of her time in the North Arabian Sea. I have no printed source, only my own memory of that cruise, so all I can do is delete the incorrect statement. Tms (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]