Talk:Littoral combat ship/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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)
Aren't some AEGIS Cruisers commanded by Commanders eventhough that's meant for a Captain?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

LCS v corvette

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

Austal?

What's the story with the Austal proposal?

72.255.49.1 17:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Israel Version?

Should the Israel version be a subsection of this page or another page that's linked from here?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/LCS_Lockheed_Israel_Variant_Brochure.pdf Hcobb (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve more than a sentence - it's just a proposal and a few studies so far. And that sentence should go into USS_Freedom_(LCS-1) because it only refers to that ship class Spejic (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

69.115.223.105 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)7/16/09 The current article says that Israel abandoned the porject in favor of a locally built ship funded by the us. However, the sourc cited states "Unlike most major military acquisitions, which are based on U.S.-built platforms and funded through U.S. military grant aid, Israel will have to fund the bulk of the estimated $600 million program on its own." see [1]

Top Heavy?

This is the most concrete mention of the top-heavy problem, but it's still not quite solid enough, so I'm looking for some primary sources on this.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/better-ships-please/ "Further, I now understand that the LCS is so heavy it cannot accommodate all the mission modules without becoming unstable in heavy seas." Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember the Spartans

One of the big points in the LCS program is the use of unmanned vehicles and yet "USV" appears nowhere. Shall I make a section that lists out the sort of stuff in each module or split off each module to its own page. Hcobb (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Development and Classes

This section looks awful, it's just a timeline. Can anyone with a little expertise rewrite this into prose from the terrible timeline-list that it's currently on?

Secondly, there are two photos of two very different looking ships in the article. The article mentions that there are two classes of LCS ships, and that Lockheed makes one and GD makes the other, but there is no other discussion of the differences. It doesn't need to be in depth, but as a non-expert reader I was very confused. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Aussie boat is larger, faster and more fuel efficient, but not enough beer cans have been recycled to bring the cost down. Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, fair enough. I'm not really looking for a "which one is better", because that tends to draw plenty of flack, but really a design comparison.. why is one a monohull and one a tri-hull? Do they have similar systems? Similar mission bay size? Etc. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to Hull speed, small ships are slow ships. These two designs attempt to overcome this is in two different ways. Lockmart went for Planing (sailing) while GD went for Wave-piercing. Hcobb (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

this is a suggestion to improve. in case it finds support, further sources (no time anymore just now) could be added from the current text:

Ships built for Development and Testing The United States Navy launched its first testbed, Sea Fighter, in 2003. Sea Fighter used a SWATH type hull and was designated as Fast Sea Frame or FSF-1.[2] The ship was put into service in 2005 and is used to test mission modules.[3]. In 2004, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon submitted designs to the Navy of their proposed littoral combat ships. It was decided in 2004 to produce two vessels each (Flight 0) of a design submitted by Lockheed Martin (LCS-1 and LCS-3) and of a desing by General Dynamics (LCS-2 and LCS-4). Experience with these ships was to guide further development and procurement decisions. Injecting some kind of competion, it was hoped, would help to keep costs down. As of March 2010 LCS 1 and LCS2 are commissioned, LCS3 and LCS4 are in production.

Cost Issues and Power Struggles Both programs experienced hugh cost increases and FY2010 budget documents put the total costs of the two lead ships to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.[4]. Severe concerns about cost control went on as "Freedom" (LCS1) [5] and "Independence" (LCS2) were built, beginning in June 2005. As early as 2007 it was announced that only one ship each would be bouilt. [6][7]. Abandoning one of the desings early on was hoped to reduce costs. But in 2009 both (LCS 3) and (LCS4) were ordered according to original plans. Citing complemantary features the Navy even rejected plans to abandon any of the desings for cost reasons. Both industry and the Navy answered political pressure by members of congress, presidential candidate McCain, and retired high ranking navy members by stressing the advantages of the designs and improvements in cost control. With USS Fort Worth (LCS3) and USS Coronado (LCS4) secured the Navy anounced in September 2009 that they would downselect one design and order 10 ships with a fixed price contract in 2010, thereby invalidating earlier claims of complementarity and ending up with the very procurement and evaluation process they aimed at from the beginnning.

Delays of LCS-development and Fleet Strength In June 2009, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services that the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates and minesweepers were too worn out to continue in service to cover the gap if the LCS development process suffered further delays.[8]. It has also been suggested to put LCS1 and LCS2 to real use in the fight against piracy to remedy current shortcomings and to cash in on supposed possibilities to save costs.

"Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems released a study that showed that seven LCS can more efficiently perform anti-piracy patrols in the Western Indian Ocean than a fleet of 20 conventional ships for a quarter of the cost.[31]" is just silly. The study compares one wrong set of ships against another. The major improvement then comes from better use of new air assets. Ships like the Danish patrol frigates (one helicopter, one gun, good radar, small crew) are much better suited for this role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.206.228 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4160683
  2. ^ http://www.nicholsboats.com/x-craft.htm
  3. ^ http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=19463
  4. ^ New LCS prices to be revealed
  5. ^ "Keel Laid for First Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom." Naval Sea Systems Command Public Affairs. 3 June 2005
  6. ^ "Navy Cancels Lockheed Ship Deal" (Press release). Washington Post. 2007-04-13. Retrieved 2007-07-22.
  7. ^ "U.S.Navy Press Release No. 1269-07" (Press release). 2007-11-01. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  8. ^ Navy has few FFG options to fill LCS gap

Roomba?

The reference to the Roomba is silly and irrelevant to LCS in any case. The Navy bought some Roombas to clean offices--the sentence in the article seems to imply we are going to have armed Roombas roaming the seas.

Royal Malaysian Navy

Query: If this should become a generic ship type article, shall the scope of this article be broadened so as to include the Malaysian "Littoral combat ships" or are they to be "See Also"s? Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Focused Mission Vessel Study

Add this in?

From the Kockums article:

"Kockums worked with Northrop Grumman and HDW to offer a Visby class corvette derivative in the American Focused Mission Vessel Study, a precursor to the Littoral Combat Ship program. It competed with several other concepts including Norway's Skjold class (part of a Raytheon led group)." Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If ROW doesn't understand it, then how can anybody else?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/02/navy-bob-work-says-optimal-manning-went-too-far-020611w/ LCS “is one of the most misunderstood ships in the history of the Navy,” Work said. “We are not exactly sure of how it will finally operate in the fleet.”

Seems a bit harsh to include? Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

VLS

Am I to understand that other then the 57mm gun these ships will have no surface-to-surface capability? The XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System program has been cancelled. Independence appears to have a slot for a VLS launch tubes, but no tubes are fitted (Key West photo). Freedom does not appear to have any VLS at all. Will AGM-84 Harpoons be fitted the these vessels? What is the surface-to-air capability of these vessels? The 57mm, RAM, and Phlanx? As far as the article goes, it seems the ships are designed to be over priced targets with limited fighting abilities but focus more on minor amphibious operations. Has anyone else come to this conclusion as well?67.172.179.96 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a gunboat. The only missile system on board is the RAM, but it carries 1x57mm, 2x30mm and 4x12.7mm guns. Think of it as a lightly defended helicopter platform that can cut and run faster than any wild turkey. Hcobb (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for "Give me a fast ship for I intend to take her into Harm's Way." ~ American Captain John Paul Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.179.96 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The VLS is back, but is the Griffin connected to the DORNA or SAFIRE? Hcobb (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose so, no?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/10/21/01.xml&headline=U.S.%20Navy%20Seeks%20To%20Improve%20On%20LCS%20Designs “Increment 1 does not have quite the range, the capability NLOS has,” Murdoch says. “It does not have over-the-horizon range. You need to be laser-designated.”

So who's lazing who? Hcobb (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

LCS will burn to the waterline if hit

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/13/opinion/13opchartimg.html?ref=opinion

Not including this because the physics are wrong. Hcobb (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mothership to support LCS

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17311 Commander Nelson: We can easily work with the LCS, especially with her different mission capabilities. And if she needs to change out mission capabilities, we have the cargo space to fulfill her mission.

I do not think this is quite solid enough to include yet. Also, how exactly would they move mission modules between the two ships at sea? Hcobb (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Proseline

Folks you have merely been adding to the prose-line while that tag has been sitting on the article for 2 years, we have to start fixing this, it isn't to Wiki standards.Tirronan (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

After working with this for awhile it has become obvious that the mishmash of timeline factoids just can't be consolidated into a good article. I'm going to rewrite the last of the section into a one paragraph overall statement supported by the report to congress. I don't want to upset anyone but guys this is a bleeding mess and it really needs to be pruned down into something readable.Tirronan (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted because the article was tagged for prose-line conversion, should there be a wish to include additional information please do so in paragraph format and not simply revert to prose-line again.Tirronan (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing terminology: "Freedom, Independence-class" to "Freedom, Independence-variants"

I would like to submit a suggestion to the editorial team regarding how the different LCS types are referred to in this entry. In the leading LCS description on Wikipedia, authors refer to the different variants of the ship as "Freedom-class" and "Independence-class". The Navy (source: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1650&ct=4) refers to this differently; they cite "Freedom-variant" and "Independence-variant" and LCS is actually the class. An example phrase: "The nation's third littoral combat ship, the future USS Fort Worth, is the second ship of LCS program's Freedom variant". RoundRobin82 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Littoral combat ship program manager fired

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/navy-littoral-combat-ship-program-manager-fired-012712w/

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

LCS-I

Article linked does not say that Germany promised to fund the Israeli frigate procurement, or that they went back on their promise and pulled out. End of the article maintains the possibility of purchase. That's the rationale. 174.113.134.157 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll put in new refs. Hcobb (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

List of LCS ships

If we switch to two column layout this will automagically group the variants into different columns. Hcobb (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Access and Allies

Seems to be a slight wrinkle in that the LCS can never do the only job it was designed to perform story.

http://www.businessinsider.com/lcs-wont-survive-a-shootout-with-china-2012-4 Adm. Greenert revealed he wouldn't intend to send a Littoral Combat Ship to an anti-access area — not on its own anyway. He said the LCS would likely sail in groups of two to three to sweep mines under the protection of a more combat-suitable vessel such as an Aegis destroyer.

I'm still looking for the exact quote on this. So please either provide a pointer or just mindlessly rollback as usual. Hcobb (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And where the fnord is the Anti-Access article? The best I've found is Sea denial which is getting close to a century out of date. Hcobb (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

https://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2012-04-06/?26712

We just got the annual update and I'm reading through it. I've already spotted module schedule and equipment changes to make. Also some interesting slides on "speed is armor". Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Fabey vs the LCS narrative

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A3b351f5d-18c1-44fa-b5db-b73c98735665

I'm reluctant to add, because he has the DDG at a third of the real price. Hcobb (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly include the quotes from RADM McKnight, anti-piracy is one of the LCS' primary missions, and here's someone who commanded exactly that mission saying these things are underpowered "fuzz busters" whatever that is. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to by saying he's quoting the ddgs at 1/3rd their real price, I assume it's where he says the $537 Billion LCS + $133 billion is comperable to a $680 Bn + 1,100Bn DDG, well, the DDG has capabilities... Like top of the line sonar, the Aegis radar, 96 filled missile cells, a five inch gun, torpedo tubes, two helicopters, and two LM2500s. The LCS sidesteps those costs by having missiles that have less range than it's gun, a gun 56mm gun that doesn't fit the navy's need for a gun that's effective against patrol boats that could easily have... like... 76 mm guns... or ship to ship missiles that have been a great threat since the 60s. I'm already mid rant here, but it's underequipped for a 275 ton patrol boat. So it is kinda reasonable to compare a $670Bn 3,000 ton ship that's underequipped for a 275 ton patrol boat to a 9,200 ton ddg that doesn't have two turbines, two props, or 56mm guns, or missiles with a range of 4 miles. You have an admiral saying that it probably wouldn't survive on the coast of lebanon, it's underpowered, and compared to the absolon class, it's just lacking.TeeTylerToe (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

LCS Upgrades

Adm. Copeman's "operational issue" is that the LCS is useless in a fight and so is operationally constrained to operating only as part of a task force with real warships. How is this not clear? Hcobb (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the grammatically incorrect sentence you added did not convey that. "Needed firepower" was not previously established in the section, and the main point of your addition regarded potential future upgrades, which are not an operational issue, but rather a future development. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyber attacks

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/littoral-combat-ship-network-can-be-hacked-navy-finds.html The computer network on the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship is vulnerable to hacking, according to findings by Navy cybersecurity specialists.

So what is the problem with that ref? Has bloomberg suddenly become an unreliable source over the weekend or does the article not talk enough about cyber warfare issues? Hcobb (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


Austal cannot compete on price

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=813

The takeaway from the ref is that Austal is begging to not have to compete on price, but LockMart is fine with that. However this is at an OR level, so I'm still digging. Hcobb (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I took away. Each company wants the Navy to acknowledge the differences in the variants and that they might be suited to different markets, to make it easier to sell to foreign states. If the US Navy says A is better than B here or there, that goes a long way to selling to nations that happen to be here or there. But the Navy is only acknowledging the features that each ship has in common, and refuses to contrast them or even admit they're effectively separate classes of ships (they call then "variants" of the LCS "class"). --Sam (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Orders for Austal and LM TGCP (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Program sunk by Congress

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130902/DEFREG02/309020018

Not quite enough to list yet? Hcobb (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've got some more on balancing the shock trial issue, but it's a blog. http://nextnavy.com/the-shocking-strategy-that-dooms-the-littoral-combat-ship-lcs/ Hcobb (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of Congressional Research Service report

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Littoral_combat_ship&oldid=597990204&diff=prev

The CRS is pointing out that previous Navy studies have supported the LCS program and that Hagel has produced no studies that show the need for his change. Hcobb (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WP is not news, even if what you added said that, which it didn't. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

From page 17 of the document linked to:

"The Navy selected the LCS program as the most cost-effective program for filling the fleet’s requirement for additional capability for countering mines, small boats, and diesel submarines in littoral waters. Has DOD conducted a formal analysis that demonstrates that there is a more cost-effective way to address these capability gaps?"

Hcobb (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

How is the fact that they're asking the question relevant without an answer? And is the CRS itself going to make any decisions based on the answer? Still seems newsy to me, but I'm open to outside opinions on this. - BilCat (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the previous version of the linked document by the same author is currently ref #19 in this article. Hcobb (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make your current attempted use relevant. BilCat asked some key questions. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

File:USS Independence LCS-2 at pierce (cropped).jpg

Is there any way to get a better photo of the Independence? At first glance the pier is of similar-enough color to look like a flight deck. Given that this is a cropped and fairly small picture I think there is room for confusion. 207.250.87.252 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Coverage of LCS module incremental approach

This article doesn't seem to cover the incremental approach the navy has taken with the LCS modules. The surface warfare package, for instance, has been scheduled to have 4 increments, starting with 2 Mk. 46 30mm guns and a MH-60R, adding a maritime security module with small boats with the second increment, Vertical UAVs and a surface to surface missile with the third, and an improved, longer range s2s missile for the fourth. The navy has given each of these increments different performance requirements.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

there are no frigates planned in the Navy's five-year shipbuilding plan

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1300&ct=4

Is the USN an unreliable source as to their own plans? Hcobb (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Otherwise it's just cruft, as this article isn't about Frigates. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Now this article is all about Frigates.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/us-navy-ships-idUSKBN0KO22X20150115

Hcobb (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So the reliable USN source from two months ago is already out of date? LOL! Also, what is being reclassified is the Small Surface Combatant, not the Littoral combat ships themselves, if the new source is accurate/up-to-date. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I reread the source, and it looks like some of the LCSs will be reclassified if/when they are upgraded. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
A recent source indicates that the last 20 of the 52-LCS ship procurement will be redesigned and labeled as frigates right out of the gate. The other LCSs, specifically #25 to 32 will have significant upgrades and it seems they could likely be designated as frigates as well. - theWOLFchild 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

FF or FFG?

I see that SECNAV Mabus stated they would switch "from LCS to FF", but will this actually be the case? Surely it will actually be FFG, no? I can't picture these later beefed up redesigns as not having guided missile capability. I also ask because I'm curious as to which hull code number scheme they will follow; will they start at 'FFG-62' after the last Perry class? Or 'FF-1099' after the last Garcia class? - theWOLFchild 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A note...

@Fnlayson: - Good morning. I see that with this edit, you moved a paragraph of text based on the ref date. I just wanted to say that the paragraph was written as a follow-on to the preceding qparagraph. Even though the second ref was older, the info is still current therefore the move was not needed. I didn't want to revert you before letting you know. (reverts seem to upset everyone these days). Thanks. - theWOLFchild 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That text is about studies that predate the RFI and the proposals; all the options except for the F-100 were proposed. Based on that, it seems out of place/out of order where it was placed. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm ok with where you put it now. Once you added the year, it helped make more sense. A little more copy-editing was needed but I think it's looks ok now. (I'm glad we could do this without reverting each other. So rare nowadays) - theWOLFchild 19:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest fleet cut notable?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/12/16/littoral-combat-ship-lcs-navy-budget-fighter-super-hornet-joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin-fincantieri-austal/77452734/ Pentagon Cuts LCS to 40 Ships, 1 Shipbuilder

Hcobb (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Some related articles may need some minor edits to reflect the change, but overall this is hardly surprising. We knew they were only going to 32 ships with the two current classes, but for the last 20 ships (now 8), there hadn't been any decisions made yet anyway. They're looking at several options, as discussed in the article. (my money is on the National Patrol Frigate from HII.) - theWOLFchild 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, upon further reading, it's not clear if this reduction will affect the last 20 ships of the 52-ship procurement. The article states that production is to be reduced to 1 ship per year from 2017 to 2020, and then 2 ships in 2021. It also states that with 6 already active, 14 are in various stages of construction and another 6 are under contract. We need more sources to clarify just how this will impact the LCS program. Will this affect the current 26 ships the navy is committed to? Will this affect the remaining 6 of the first 32? Will it affect the last 20(or 8)? Or will it be spread across these numbers? With up to 12 to 14 already in various stages on construction during the next 5 years that this slow down in production is being imposed, it's hard to say. We also don't know how the SecDef demand that the LCS be "downselected to a single variant by 2019" will affect the program.
Basically, what I'm suggesting is that before we make any significant changes to any LCS (or USN) related pages regarding this story, we find more info first. - theWOLFchild 15:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

LCS reductions

@Fnlayson:, @America789: - regarding this latest report of possible cuts to the program; while there are now 2 sources, they are both reporting on the same memo. And while that memo calls for a reduction of hulls by 12, there is basically no other info (as in, where will the cuts come from?) The navy has at least a dozen contracts over the same period that SecDef wants the cuts. We don't know if they'll the reduce the last of the Block 0 (18), or any of the Block 1 (8), or if the cuts will come from the proposed FF (20). And as for the "downselect to a single variant", will that come down between Lockheed and Austral, or will it be whoever is to provide the new FF? (like HII, for example) Should we perhaps wait until there is more info before adding any lengthy additions to the article about this? Apparently there is going to be a lot of push-back against this memo from the navy as well as from some members of congress. These cuts may not even go through. - theWOLFchild 21:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good summation, and I agree we need to wait for more information.--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It is notable, for now, since the total ship requirement has been reduced. If it gets defeated or the decision changes, it could always be shortened to a footnote later just saying SecDef tried to reduce the number. Nothing so far says which Flight versions will be cut (obviously ones already under construction and ordered are going through, and right now those are Flight 0), so unnecessary to speculate until someone confirms. As for the single hull, improved LCS hulls were picked to be the new FFs, so either one of the current contractors will be downselected. America789 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
since the total ship requirement has been reduced - but has it though? Right now it's just a memo from SecDef saying he wants a reduction. But the navy has contracts in place over the time period that SecDef has directed the cuts. It's yet to be seen if these proposed cuts will stand. The more detailed the info, the questions it raises. There is already a brief mention of the potential reductions in the lead, will that suffice for now? - theWOLFchild 00:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is The 'Propulsion' Section?

In fact, where is the 'General Characteristics' section? Just asking.Twobells (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That should be covered under the 'Design features' section. Basic ship info should probably be there. Specifics on each type are at Independence-class littoral combat ship and Freedom-class littoral combat ship. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Littoral combat ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

LCS reduction numbers

The article page states: "In 2013 and 2014, the Navy's LCS requirement was progressively cut from 55 to 32 vessels in favor of a proposed frigate, more capable of high intensity combat.[5] In late 2014, the Navy proceeded with a procurement plan for enhanced versions of the LCS and upgraded older ships to meet the program's 52-ship requirement;[6] the modified LCS will be redesignated as FF[7] or frigate.[8] In December 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the Navy to reduce the planned LCS/FF procurement from 52 to 40, and downselect to one variant by FY 2019." Based on the numbers listed shouldn't the first sentence read "progressively cut from 55 to 52 vessels" rather than "progressively cut from 55 to 32 vessels"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.16.182.132 (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Both numbers are correct in context. The first sentence is specifically referring to the LCS numbers, not the derivative FF. The second is referring to the combined LCS/FF procurement, as it uses "LCS/FF". - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The text seemed clear enough to me. I did adjust the wording to avoid using the slash based on relevant MoS section. More polishing might be needed for the wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Littoral combat ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

RAS Syndrome

'LCS Ship' is redundant and appears all over the article, but I'm unsure of how to fix it in a few places. Ranzear (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Littoral combat ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Littoral combat ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Littoral combat ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Littoral_combat_ship/Archive_1&oldid=1174963593"