Talk:Littoral combat ship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Littoral combat ship article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article lacks a ship infobox. You can help WikiProject Ships by copying the source code into the attached article, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box.

Contents

[edit] The Ship's Captain?

Will this ship be commanded by a Commander (O-5) or a Lt Commander (O-4)? The crew (less than 50) seems kinda small for a full Commander to command. Jigen III 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the Avenger class of mine warfare ships has a crew of 80, and is commanded by Lt Commanders. So if they go by crew size, the LCS may be commanded by O-4s. Jigen III 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, this is a front-line design, which may result in a O-5. Personally, I think it's a coin toss at this point.--Donovan Ravenhull 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LCS v Destroyer v Frigate

Henry... In general, that's a very fine characterization except that I'd also add the missions (like anti-mine warfare) that LCS will be uniquely suited to. RE: size, it isn't that much smaller than a frigate - in fact, at about 120-130 meters, the LCS is roughly the size of Britain's Type 23 frigates that represent the backbone of the Royal Navy. In layman's terms it's the size of a football field WITH the end zones, and significantly larger than Sweden's 72m Visby Class littoral warfare corvette.

I'll add that the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers will remain the backbone of the US Navy for a long, long time to come. Many will serve well into the 2030s and even 2040s. Their AEGIS systems, SM-2 or SM-3 missiles, and Co-operative Engagement Capability give them an anti-air punch that can't be beat, and their ability to launch large numbers of Tomahawk cruise missiles adds a ground attack capability that's pretty much unique among surface combatants out there today. Additional future upgrades to both systems are certainties. I could wish for anti-ship missile improvements over the Harpoon that would match the Russian Sunburns, and if they build that I'm sure retrofits will be possible.

The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, on the other hand, have already seen many retirements and will probably be around for only about another decade. It's probably fair the characterize the LCS as replacing them over the long term - unlike the Europeans, the USA has decided that it doesn't really need frigate-type ships that are really just pocket destroyers. It wants the real thing, or it wants something with unique advantages.

Final note: LCS ships won't just be advance scouts ahead of carrier battle groups - often, they'll work with Expeditionary Strike Groups or international task forces, and it's highly likely that Arleigh Burke Class desroyers will be their most important "big brother backup" providing that extra air-defense, anti-ship, and even land attack punch (for Expeditionary forces, the LHA/LHD ships with Harriers or Joint Strike Fighters will also be big).

-- Awk!

"The LCS will be a variation of the destroyer (DD and DDG types) designed to replace the fleet of frigates currently in use by the Navy, which are slowly being retired from the fleet."

This is way off.

How about instead going with this.

"The LCS is the first class in the Navy's plans for a transformational series of next generation surface combatants. The LCS is smaller than the Frigates currently used by the Navy and sacrifices air defense and a anti-ship gun in exchange for speed, mission module space and a shallow draft that allows this class to operate close to shore in the littorals."

The one person who is most to blame for the LCS isn't mentioned on your page, so please add a note that it is "Limited to (admiral) Clark's term of Service".

-- Henry J. Cobb http://www.io.com/~hcobb/

oh my, GURPS. Haven't seen that in a while. Anyways. Be Bold. Edit if you have a better wording. Thats why we have this fancy intarpedia. I've made the changes. Toodles. Avriette July 7, 2005 03:17 (UTC)

[edit] LCS v corvette

Hmm... would this be the USN's new series of corvettes? Lacking in some offensive features as they are...

[edit] Austal?

What's the story with the Austal proposal?

72.255.49.1 17:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Littoral?

What does "littoral" mean, or where does it come from? 70.20.233.232 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Littoral. I'll work it into the article. Noisy | Talk 09:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ship class

As far as I can determine, the "littoral combat ship" program is pretty much identical to the program to build one particular class. Should this article incorporate the (as yet unwritten) Freedom class littoral combat ship article? Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the program is more complicated than that. It involves building four examples of two types of ships, the Freedom class and the Independence class, finding which is better and then maybe building a bunch of ships of one type. The Freedom class littoral combat ship article should remain seperate, when it is written. And I really don't see a pressing need to write one at the moment, given the lack of information. But I will add a similar link for the Independence class just to make the distinction clearer. Spejic 15:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also section

From initial reports, it looks like there will be no LCS-3 and any further ships will keep their previous numbers. Thus I only deleted that one link. Also, Coastal defence ship are totally different than Littoral Combat Ships - the first stay close to their shores and fight against sea targets and the second go to foreign shores and fight against land targets. I removed that link as well. Spejic 04:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visby class corvette

To what extent did the Visby play a part in this ship's development? If it did, should it not be mentioned? Chwyatt 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Streetfighter

In looking for a reference for the comment that the LCS was a competing response to Rumsfeld's "Streetfighter" idea, everything I found seemed to indicate that the LCS was instead a delayed outgrowth from that abandoned idea. Because of that, I removed the line. Spejic 08:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GDLCS.jpg

Image:GDLCS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)