Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 7 October 2008

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States A‑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 A This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale. 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 Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review.

Ships A‑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 A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Errors corrected

I corrected a couple gramatical errors on this page on 8/7/08. Also, the last section "Recent Developments" suggests the possibility that the Iowa and Wisconsin may be returned to the naval register. While technically this is true in principle, have their been any inklings from congress or the navy that this is even a remote possibility? I feel like this is conjecture and false hope more than anything else. Clearly the author of this page loves battleships (as do I), but I honestly dont see it happening. -EO 8/7/08

The odds of this are astronomically slim, but if congress wants to uphold the law it passed it will demand the Navy either get a new program togather for NGS or put the defunt programs back in action asap if they want the battleships to remain of the NVR, otherwise, me thinks they would be legally obligated to demand the navy reinstated the battleships during the reassessment phase. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between them being put back on the register and the current plan to turn them into museum ships? Based on congress's request that nothing be permanently modified that would impede their reactivation, it seems like, if the navy ever wanted to recommission the BBs, getting rid of tour groups and exhibits would be the least of their worries. With the cost of all the other upgrades that would be required, it would seem to me there is virtually no difference between having them on or off the register. They're going to be preserved either way. I guess having them back on the register would give us a bit more hope of seeing them on the open seas again. -EO 8/8/8

If they are listed on the register it means the navy has to shell out the cash to keep the ships operational, where as turning the ships into museums means the group that gets the battleship will be paying for the mainteince and all that other stuff. Thats the key difference. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any difference in the standard they will be maintained to though? -EO 8/8/8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.170.234 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On the NVR they would be maintained as Category B assessts, meaning they would recieve maintience and service on an as needed basis. Off the NVR they will not recieve any maintence and service, so the odds are that off the NVR their conditions will deteriate some. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

copy-edit of top

Tom, sorry I've littered it with inline comments; seemed the quickest, easiest way. On one level, the writing is lovely; but I still find lots of issues. It's not as easy as usual to characterise them. I think they concern ambiguity and lack of clarity. Can you get someone fresh to sift through it in detail? Tony (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it. Thanks for the input Tony, I knew I could count on you. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Netfires?

Can we have a section about the use of the LCS Netfires Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System for support of ground forces?

Historically the most effective Naval Fire Support has come from the smaller platforms that were able to operate closer to the beaches. See for example Omaha Beach.

Hcobb (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this wouldn't be a good candidate for inclusion here, as the article's subject content is more the role of the gun in the modern navy. I will look into it though to see if it should be in here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well The Navy (does Earth have more than one real Navy?) has renamed the concept to Naval Surface Fire Support so perhaps we should rename our page with perhaps a historical footnote to those long ago days when ships supported the troops only with guns.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao95160.htm Naval Surface Fire Support: Navy's Near-Term Plan Is Not Based on Sufficient Analysis (Letter Report, 05/19/95, GAO/NSIAD-95-160).

BTW, was there ever such a day? I seem to recall hearing the phrase "The rockets' red glare" in a song about a long ago event...

Hcobb (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking about a much more radical move: renaming and moving the page to cover a more international view of the debate. According to ALR, this is not merely a U.S. issue; if we can confirm it exists elsewhere, then I think the best thing to do would be to move the page to reflect the internation issue rather than just the U.S. issue and drop the FAC as a result of the transfer. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Naval fires is a standard military and naval activity. It's just that the US have held onto an anachronism far longer than is sensible. The debate died for most countries a few years ago as the requirement changed to a need for more accurate fire, using specific effect munitions, rather than just large volumes of HE. From a UK perspective the discipline is described as Naval Fires, which includes direct and indirect gunnery, commando gunnery, surface or submarine launched cruise missiles, illumination of PGM or delivery of air launched munitions from deck launched a/c. That is all in the context of associated military or amphibious operations in the littoral.

I think it's fair just to reflect the current debate in the US as a specific article, although I'll confess that one of my WP bugbears is that many articles have a couple of handfuls of useful content, then interminable lists of how different countries approach the topic.

With respect to the point above, unless the specific Netfires solution is directly associated with the debate, then it probably doesn't have a place in the article.

ALR (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Overplaying the thesis

Reading through the article I have a mild concern about POV, what I'm lifting from the text is a bias towards retaining the capability rather than an impartial overview of the debate. I think the main contribution to this is the significant proportion devoted to the work by the Engineer Col. It's not clear whether this was a student submission as part of his college course, or whether he is faculty. I'd assume from the following point about it being best thesis then it's a student submission. Having played the military education game myself I've got some concerns about how meaningful this actually is; selecting and supporting a contentious position gets some profile at the end of the course which helps with promotion and posting negotiations. I'm concerned enough that I'd remove the point about it being best thesis, it doesn't offer anything to this topic and it implies an authority that a student paper doesn't really have.

Of course I say all this from the position of agreeing with the USN view, that retaining these old hulls isn't cost effective and they're an anachronism in modern littorial warfare.

ALR (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing to remeber here is that this article was spun off from the Iowa class battleship article, so it is going to be bias to greater or lesser degrees toward the retention of the battleships. I have tried to tone down the bias a little since this article became independent in its own right, but I have seen the same material for over a year now and thus find that I can not always find the POV becuase I am use to reading it a certain way. I will disclose that I side more with the pro battleship camp, I think the ships could be put back into service, but I recognize that this would be a drain in funds and that the shells used would need to be modernized for any recomissioning attempt since a PGM can do the same job. In a sense, thats why I need people like you ALR: you are counterbalancing my view here and its helping us locate POV-ish material, so thanks for the help :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so much just the direct drain in funding, but the increased manpower requirement in a military that is struggling to recruit, the increased legacy training requirement, doctrinal development in modern warfare etc.

I think as it stands the article is a fair reflection, but the thesis does appear to have a bit too much weight.

ALR (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am nearing the end of a 15 minute break online here, so I want to confirm one thing for the next time I get on: When you say "the theis", are you refering to the paper by Shawn W., the army corps of engineers full bird? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from the surrounding material it looks like he was a student at the time.

ALR (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinking battleships with aircraft has what to do with NSFS?

NSFS is all about the application of firepower from the sea to the shore. The ability to sink ships with aircraft does not speak to the ability to replace surface ships with aircraft for the land support mission.

For example a surface ship can float offshore for days or weeks while a heavier than air aircraft has a much shorter time on station. Also it has generally been easier to intercept manned aircraft than a shell or unmanned missile and the loss of a manned aircraft can cause political concerns with respect to the pilot and advanced technology of the aircraft.

Hcobb (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• A-Class military history articles
• A-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• A-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• A-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• A-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• A-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Successful requests for military history A-Class review
• A-Class Ships articles
• All WikiProject Ships pages