Talk:USS Independence (LCS-2)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Independence (LCS-2) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Ships C‑class

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Photo

Can someone upload the photo which appears here...:

http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/GDfinalconcept.jpg

...to this article?

Sorry, I don't don't know how to upload photos here.

Key West Photo

Excellent aerial shot of rear deck from stern port-side quarter in U.S. Navy Photo taken by Petty Officer 2nd Class Nicholas Kontodiakos appears here, illustrates the shape of the vessel more clearly in conjunction with existing photograph of the bow. U.S. Navy photographs may be used if fully credited as " U.S. Navy photo by [service member name] " as per the Navy's official guidelines. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Influence

The hull design looks, from the picture, to be very similiar to the trimarran built and tested in Britian. i.e a long centre hull and half length side hulls. Is this true or am I reading too much into it? 145.253.108.22 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed it looks very different to the Australia cats I have seen ( but what does that prove ). 217.7.209.108 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's called a trimaran

Why 57mm?

Why is the 57mm cannon chosen for both LCS designs? That is a rather small caliber, which is somewhat popular in WARPAC arsenal (light air defence role), but unheard of in the NATO. The NATO standard is the 76mm OTO-Melara rapidfire turret, which is in widespread use and has proven to be quite effective against both air and surface targets. The 76mm OTO Melara turret was fitted successfully to very small warships, like the Tucumcari/Sparviero class of hydrofoils, about 1/3rd the lenght of the LCS and 1/20th the tonnage.

It would be nice if the article explained the reasons behind LCS's 57mm choice. We have a lot of old 57mm L/60 caliber AA / light anti-tank guns here in Hungary and informed opinion is they are best used for greeting salutes, cause they can't destroy anything important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.226.227.153 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Canadian Halifax-class frigates are fitted with the same weapon.

The only modern use for a gun is to shoot at aircraft, shore targets, or shots across the bow. Large caliber is not needed in any of these roles and no 76mm can match the fire rate or endurance of a 57mm. No one with modern naval experience seriously proposes their use in the anti-ship capacity. If the LCS really needs to take out another ship, it calls for help using the USN's data network, and a harpoon arrives from another ship in the half hour it takes for the foreign ship to get from the horizon to oto-76mm range. A larger gun would also weigh more which is generally a bad thing; especially in a ship built for speed.ANTIcarrot 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 76mm gun is fine against a ship or an air target, but a larger calibre gun would be more useful in the shore bombardment role, as the British and Australian frigates provided during the Al Faw operation in Iraq in 2003. Chwyatt 10:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a 57mm gun being used against shore targets is ridiculous. The damn thing would be able to hurt anything of value. The US Army (pretty much every army in the world, in fact) has given up on non-infantry (mortar) artillery smaller than 105mm. The sole use of a gun that small would be to shoot at/scare of littoral pirates in civilian speed-boats... The Next Generation of Warfare, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.37.254 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 57mm machine gun spewing out airburst rounds with smart fuses. Any target that needs more that a dusting with shrapnel is greeted by PAM. Hcobb (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VLS

The weapons section on the left states that the LCS-2 design has 2 x 32 VLS and two quad Harpoon launchers as well as torpedo launchers. I cannot find any other source that confirms this, where did this information come from?

Somebody seems to be confused by the brochure that General Dynamics has released for its Multi Mission Combatant, which is a based on the LCS. However the LCS lacks alot of MMC features somebody should probably correct it. For more on the MMC here is the link http://www.gdlcs.com/mmc/index.html 65.182.231.20 04:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual link for MMC seems to be: http://www.gdlcs.com/gd-lcs-solution/international-variant Hcobb (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

PCU, not USS? Freedom class?

This source says PCU Independence at the bottom and that, if I interpret correctly, it's Freedom class. Given it's a US Navy website, should the article be changed to reflect such? - JVG (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article conforms to the naming conventions of wikipedia. As such, we have named all articles about ships as though they were commissioned for ease of navigation. For a more in-depth Q&A section, see this page, since that ship also should be PCU. As for classes, I'll have to investigate. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10'000 nautical miles != 20'000 km —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.131.130 (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the draft of LCS 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.246.104.100 (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

There are some misleading statements in this article which should likely be removed or edited for the time being.

1. The Stryker vehicle has not been approved for use on LCS 2, and at the time there are no plans to accomodate them or their crews. The same is true of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

2. The H-53 helicopter has not yet been approved for use on the LCS 2 flight deck. Deck analysis will have to be completed and structural enhancements may be necessary.

In the future these facts may change as the design matures and other missions are investigated. I am not an expert at editing these pages, so I'm not going to change the main page, but I thought I would throw that out there.

--71.255.219.110 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who uses Verizon DSL in Severn, Maryland, all I can say is that's what the GD brochure says. Do you have a source that shows that GD is not a reliable source for their former products? Hcobb (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, those are claims that GD has put in their brochure. For a helicopter to be used on a Navy ship, it first must be approved for use by a number of technical entities within the Navy. This is to verify adequacy of ship structure for both landing and traversing on the flight deck. Support services also have to be considered. Depending on the level of ship integration, spares for helo maintenance may be required. A helicopter handling system for moving the helicopter would also need to be integrated into ship systems. None of that has been done for the H-53 because it is not a requirement for the LCS program. I would suggest visiting this website to learn more about LCS. Click on specifications and scroll down to requirements. This site is pretty close to the truth. It does say the GD ship has the flight deck capability of one H-53. If that means that the footprint will fit on the flight deck, that is true, but nothing else has yet been verified.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcs-program.htm

A company can make claims that have not yet been proven or tested. That doesnt mean that the ship will not have that capability at some point in time. The same is true of the other vehicles mentioned.--138.162.0.42 (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of MK 44 30mm guns

The 30mm guns are placed on top of the superstructure just ahead of the RAM/SeaRAM system for both the USS Freedom/Independence respectively.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=525&ct=2 < Offical site detailing their presence http://www.spacewar.com/reports/First_Gun_Mission_Module_Installed_Aboard_LCS_2_999.html < report on their installation on the USS Independence http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/40809-uss-freedom-reaches-major-milestone-towards-maiden-deployment-2.html <pictures showing them on USS FreedomPraetorianD 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraetorianD (talk • contribs)

Class article?

As it looks like both LCS designs will be green-lit, would it be an idea to split this article into a class article Independence class littoral combat ship (which currently redirects here) and an article on the ship itself (at this title)? -- saberwyn 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for Congress to vote please. Hcobb (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support We don't need to worry about what Congress does to decide on splitting articles, especially as we've no idea how long it will take them to make such decisions. There's enough info in the main ship articles, and at Littoral combat ship, to create both Freedom class littoral combat ship and Independence class littoral combat ship articles, with the LCS article becoming mainly an overview of the term, like the articles on Destroyers and Frigates. - BilCat (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independence class is up, although I haven't removed any duplicate information from this article yet. -- saberwyn 10:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]