Talk:Littoral combat ship

What is a ‘networked’ ship ?

Please? Somebody? 2001:8003:3082:F500:EDAE:4B0E:FFB9:6D7B (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:LMGTFY: ["us navy networked ships"] and this is this first item returned by the search, which is also the answer to your question. - wolf 18:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

LCS classification

Would it not be more accurate to describe the ships as similar to frigates in other navies? LCS are quite a bit larger than most true corvettes. For example, the Russian Steregushchiy-class corvettes are considered frigates by NATO, due to their size; Steregushchiys displace over 1200 tons less than either LCS class. GoldUSA (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Warship classification is more than just size alone, it includes the weapon systems (including the radars, sonars, and combat system) and role.

While in terms of size the LCS are comparable to light frigates (La Fayette, Mogami, etc.), in terms of armament and sensors they are closer to corvettes (Braunschweig, Type 056A, etc.), while their deployments are closer to those of offshore patrol vessels. They do not fit well in the classic corvette-frigate-destroyer-cruiser system (that is already not as consistent as it appears on the surface).

Steregushchiy is a much more heavily armed warship, especially for her size, thus straddles the corvette/frigate line. Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Independence class was aluminum

The article mentions that the Independence class LCS was found to be unsuitable for sailing the Pacific without detailing reason(s)

Maybe because it had an ALUMINUM hull. Which might explain why it cracked on an undisclosed number of occasions (my speculation, admittedly)

here's an article on the hull cracks which were disclosed in 2022 (and which were specifically analyzed in relation to Pacific Ocean sailing conditions):

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/05/10/the-littoral-combat-ships-latest-problem-class-wide-structural-defects-leading-to-hull-cracks/

An aluminum trimaran... seems relevant to the hull cracks. I dont think the article mentions that this class of ship was aluminum anywhere in the article... again, seems relevant. Thanks 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:E99A:4406:BE4D:A1F0 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I used ProPublica.org as a source. --- You wrote, "... need a better source ..."

See: ProPublica.

BilCat,

What is wrong with ProPublica as a source? Please, give some examples of a "better source." Also, why did you delete the ProPublica article's quotation, but kept the ProPublica citation? -- Ooligan (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Have to agree with BilCat's revert, but not because of the source (ProPublica is RS per wp:rsp), but because nicknames are specific and almost always affectionate names openly used and adopted by/for specific ships, not disparaging slurs used to denigrate a entire ship type in private. (imo) - wolf 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Name

Why is c in combat and s in ship not capitalized as Littoral Combat Ship is the proper name of the ship class not Littoral combat shin, Combat and Ship should be capitalized as it is a part of the proper program name and when you look it up on navy.mill combat and ship is capitalized Rabbipika (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The ship classes are Freedom and Independence. These are proper nouns and thus capitalized. The general type or category of ship is "littoral combat ship," which is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized, just like destroyer, aircraft carrier, amphibious assault ship, frigate, corvette, etc. See MOS:MILTERMS.

Also see WP:SSF. Military and business writing is notorious for over-capitalization. Military writing often violates its own style standards and often does not consistently follow any style standard. So, we cannot rely on U.S. Navy writing, or writing by sources that frequently cover U.S. Navy topics, for style guidance.

Also see the "Ships grouped by type" section in the infobox. You can see that "littoral combat ships" are simply one type among many other types, none of which are considered proper nouns.

Also see the articles Freedom-class littoral combat ship and Independence-class littoral combat ship. The proper noun is the name of the class (Freedom or Independence) and the type is "littoral combat ship" (not capitalized and not considered a proper noun). Holy (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a family Friend who works on the LCS program and I asked him about the name and he responded the C and S should be capitalized when referring to the type of ship generically and not specific ship classes like the article here Rabbipika (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia policies require stronger sourcing than unnamed family friends. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh right I forgot thanks for the reminder, Though why doesn't the navy.mil website count as a strong source? Rabbipika (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The navy.mil site can count as a reliable source for the information about the topic, but it is not a reliable source for style and formatting. See WP:SSF. I recently retired from a long Navy career myself and am very familiar with how bad Navy writing is in terms of consistent style and formatting standards. Source documents can be reliable sources to tell us about the subject matter, but we must look to Wikipedia's style standards to determine how to write about that information. That includes typography (which includes capitalization rules), grammar, tone, punctuation, formatting, and other such matters. I have seen Navy documents capitalize all kinds of common nouns, like "physical readiness test" and "generator control unit" and ranks (when not used immediately before a name, or as a form of address) and billets (e.g., commanding officer, operations officer, chief of the boat). We don't copy bad style; we use reliable information and write it according to Wikipedia's style standards. Holy (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the "In a nutshell" paragraph from WP:SSF: "Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines for article layout, content formatting, and page naming. Facts on a subject should be drawn from reliable sources, but how content is styled is a matter for the Wikipedia community, which strongly favors the style found in general-audience works over highly specialized ones, because of the breadth of our audience." If you search for "littoral combat ship," you'll find search results like Lockheed Martin (a defense contractor, prone to business writing errors in style, and prone to over-capitalize words that it deems important, such as the generic name of the ship that it builds—thus we need to look to WP:SSF), navy.mil (as you noted), Military.com, and All Hands Magazine (another navy.mil site), which all capitalize the term. Note that they are ALL prone to the common style errors of "specialists" in the field of military or business reporting. If you look further down the search results at non-specialist newspapers, journals, editorials, magazines, and academic articles, you will see that they almost always use sentence case for littoral combat ship (except, of course, in places like article titles, which usually use title case).Holy (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

unrelated ship should be remove from foreign sales

[ The Royal Malaysian Navy has also built its littoral combat ship based on the Gowind-class design, named Maharaja Lela-class frigate. ]

just because it has the same name does not mean it the same class of ship. this should be remove since it is unrelated to LCS produce or sale by US. 101.127.8.197 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This article is about LCS in general, not just the US ships. - wolf 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild The first sentence of the article would seem to disagree with that notion.

A littoral combat ship (LCS) is either of two classes of relatively small surface vessels designed for operations near shore by the United States Navy.

If the intention of this article is to be about the concept in general of littoral combat ships, basically the entire article needs to be re-written. As it is currently, the article is very clearly and specifically about the US Navy Freedom and Independence classes of ships, and not any others. The only inclusion of info on other ship classes is either done in comparison to these specific two classes or other classes that have been developed from them. Additionally, is there any other navy in the world that classifies any of its ships as "littoral combat ships," or any other classes within the US Navy that are classified as such? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed this article has been about the two LCS ship classes collectively. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Problem is the US basically invented the type, and most, (virtually all) available sourcing is about the USN ships. But other countries are adopting the type for their navies and, the two USN types already have their own articles, for the classes and the individual ships as well. Therefore this page really be more generic, and have info about the type, not specific to any country, (but listing every country that has them, or wants them, or considered them, etc). So basically, I believe the article should move in the opposite direction to that suggested by the OP, hence my disagreement. - wolf 04:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What other countries? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)