Talk:USS Independence (LCS-2)

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

Photo[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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


It is completely different, I have been onboard 2 separate ships of the LCS-2 type, (let me see what is public about it before I say more) it uses primarily a water jet system (I saw the info on the wikipedia page, so clearly it must be public XD), similar design, no it is not based of britan's craft, but the shape IS ideal for littorials, the side ones are just mainly for extending the deck, and work with the water jets.

Forgot to sign XD Kiri621x (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why 57mm?[edit]

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]

PAM of course being entirely fictional at this point. Hcobb (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a youtube video of the ship with details about the variable mission packages. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LFzHhU-Rro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synapse001 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VLS[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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]

The US Navy does not currently certify the LCS 2 class flight capability of operating any H53 variant. It was structurally designed to support the heaviest light rotorcraft (the H60). The only in-service "birds" that are allowed to land (by engineering developed doctrine) are airframe variants the H1, H3, H6, H58, H60, H65, and S330 families. The H47, H53, and V22 dimensions are adequate but structural evaluation has not been made to certify. There is no proposed requirement under review for the 47/53 to interoperate with the tri-hull. Indirectly the V22 is being looked ever since it was looked to to augment the H60 in replacing the H46 for logistic duties. Additionally, H60 failures in AMCM development will see additional motivation in integrating the V22 with the LCS 2. For perspective, up-rating an FFG7 flight deck to spot V22s is known to require an estimated additional 10 tons in steel structure in just the deck (setting aside the extra six-inches in length and different netting design). LCS 2 is a little less than 4 times in deck size and is all-aluminum requiring it to be nearly twice as thick to achieve similar as-welded strengths. Disregarding the "1/3 lighter" argument of aluminum for this reason. Taking this into a back of the napkin estimate, LCS 2 would need to chew up another 40 tons of margin which it is widely known to not have considering that are struggling to shaving single-digit tons from the mission modules to get them under 105 tons. It will take a holistic review of the overall program to enable medium rotorcraft interoperability.<OPNAV INSTRUCTION 3120.35K>

Evidence of MK 44 30mm guns[edit]

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)

lets keep in mind that things may be interchangeable Kiri621x (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class article?[edit]

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]

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

LCS_2 please, not indepandace class, also the ship will likely be only used for coastal defense/ and other operations in the advent of a maritime full-scale war, say, if we were for some reason today to go to war with the bermudas (idk why that was first one i thought of) or for counter smuggling ops Kiri621x (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austal's delusions of adequacy[edit]

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/25510/?SID=1f4b676bdc71b9fca0f58af99871e3c6

So far I only have a primary source that claims they know what they're doing, so I'll keep looking. Hcobb (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laser gunboat[edit]

Does the SeaStar Safire FLIR include the optional "Illuminator" for the Griffin?

http://www.gs.flir.com/products/maritime/starsafireiii.cfm

I bet the Chinese are dying to know. Hcobb (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I can bet on that too Kiri621x (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shipboard Cathodic Protection Systems[edit]

The article states that the ship uses a sacrificial cathodic protection system. While possible I do not believe that is true.

Sacrificial cathodic protection systems are more typically used by civilian vessels where placing a huge hunk of zinc on the hull of the ship is not a problem as this extra drag will slow it down but that is not considered a problem. Actually with the cost of fuel these days I would not be in the least surprised that even civilian vessels use impressed current systems.

I have been out of the field for 40 years so I leave it to a more current individual to comment, but US Warships have long used impressed current cathodic protection (ICCPS)systems. These are small wires that have a current fed to them, typically coated with platinum and palladium to allow them to act as an anode and last very long times and also be small enough to not slow the ship down. The steel hull than acts as a cathode since it has current coming to it and does not lose metal and corrode away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkincy (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This ship does not have a "steel hull". Hcobb (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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/news/news82616.html?WT.mc_id=DN_News
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • 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 11:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to Japan?[edit]

This article has a picture of the USS Independence. Was it just sent to Japan? -- GreenC 17:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on USS Independence (LCS-2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 11:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Independence (LCS-2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on USS Independence (LCS-2). 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) 12:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powerplant[edit]

So the info Box Says which engines power the ship, but not the subvariant or their power. One link, to GE's site, mentions various LM2500 series since the family was in production for a long time (several decades). One source says the LM2500 generates 29,500shp, another gives 40,500shp, but it isn't specified if the ships use higher output engines that are simply governed to a lower output (some helicopter entries DO specify this, since a rotor or transmission might not be able to stand an engines full output). Then for the Diesels, the MTU V20, the output is said in some sources to output 12,200 shp. Some articles came from a long time ago though (early 00's), so it's possible uprated versions might have been fitted after they were published.2603:7080:CB3F:5032:C812:734B:257C:6984 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Independence_(LCS-2)&oldid=1213176457"