Jump to content

Talk:USS Freedom (LCS-1)

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

How Many Tons?

[edit]

Fact box says 2500 tons, text says 3000 tons. 65.102.218.206 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated dated the Length, Beam and Displacement in the fact box. I used data published at Lockheed's own official website and the Navy Vessel Registry.

http://www.lmlcsteam.com/solution.html http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/LCS1.htm

The NVR states that the light displacement is 2135t, dead weight, 727t and full load displacement 2862 ton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.130.223 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously unsectioned comments

[edit]

The Freedom Class is far from the first surface combat ships built for the US Navy on the Great Lakes in the last century. Most recently the Avenger Class Mine Countermeasures Ships were built by Marietta Marine in Wisconsin in the same shipyards as the USS Fredom. -Ken Keisel

How can the two General Dynamics ships be considered Freedom-class littoral combat ships when even shape of their hulls are different?

-HJC

The Freedom-class is Lockheed Martin's LCS hull type. General Dynamics' version is the Independence-class. The Dark 00:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christening/launch date

[edit]

A navy news article erroneously reported the ship was christened and launched on 24 September 2006 [1]. Multiple sources, including the photograph on that very article, disagree. For example, [2]. --Durin 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Nit?

[edit]

The factbox gives the speed of the ship as 45 knots, but the range is given for a speed of 50 knots. Which is it?

Depends when the performance was estimated. In the course of its design the boat has got a lot bigger, in fact it is so heavy now there is a good chance it won't plane at all (it was originally a semi-planing hull, hence the high speed). Greglocock 06:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be some confusion between knots and MPH. The article states a top speed of 40kts/50MPH, perhaps the range should be at that speed. --J Clear (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the speed and range to use the figures from the Navy's LCS page and cited same. The page feels out of date, but at least there's a citation now. --J Clear (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something is fishy here.

[edit]

This ship is 115 meters long with a max. crew of 75 people. This is no go. For any warship less than 100 meters long, crew size is non-issue, since they sink if hit by anti-shipping missile. Ships longer than 100 meters have a good chance to survive, because most air/sea-to-sea missiles are not big enough to sink them with a single hit. However, at least 250-300 people / every 100 meters sized crew is needed there to have enough hands onboard for all urgent, emergency work to stop a havaria and save the ship. US Navy would be stupid to send a 115 meters long, clearly survivable ship to combat with a crew less than 1/4th of that needed to solve a havaria situation successfully. A 400 million dollar ship will sink due to lack of hands aboard. 193.226.227.153 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small crew was a major selling point for the LCS. In part, the theory was that not enough chances are taken with existing ships because too many lives are at stake. The strategic idea was to allow LCS to deploy in large numbers so that a fleet could afford to loose a few. Also, smaller ships mean less cost. 65.102.218.206 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article only notes that there are two rotational crews similar to a Trident subs, blue and gold. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the Israeli Saar class quote 85m and a crew of 64, and survived a missile hit. to me a large crew simply makes for uncomfortable quiaters and a lot getting hit in the first blast. large crews did not save RN ships during the falklands war. in any case USN seems to assume that counter measures etc will ensure that these ships are never hit. 217.7.209.108 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the LCS, but the Zumwalts have a lot of automatic damage control systems. 82.3.242.144 (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The survivability of a ship is not dependent on "250-300 people / every 100 meters". That might be true for a very specific ship design, but it ignores many other factors. The design of a ship can reduce overall damage caused by a missile. Material used can affect the damage caused by a missile. The passageways, doors, hatches, etc. can all seriously effect the damage, and ability to perform damage control. If a missile were to strike, there is probability for both flooding and fire, the technology to put out fires and repair holes is a major factor. Training is number one. If everyone on the ship were fully trained for damage control, then response time, and quality of work would be substantially better than a ship where a certain minority of people are well trained. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Since the ship has not yet been commissioned, isn't the article title incorrect? I.e. it isn't a USS yet and never has been, so the USS title is premature by a few months. --J Clear (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're right, but it's Wikipedia convention to refer to USS rather than PCU, as that's what's most "obvious" to the casual reader. See eg USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) 82.3.242.144 (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already in San Diego?

[edit]

A friend sighted what looked an awful lot like the USS Freedom in San Diego Bay on the evening of 6 November. Is is possible that the ship was commissioned or at least left the lakes early? I don't see how it could be back in Wisconsin in time for the ceremony if it is still scheduled to go off on the eighth. Has any one heard anything? HoratioVitero (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger class was built and commissioned in the Great Lakes before Freedom

[edit]

Apparently Chief Mass Communications Specialist Rhonda Burke didn't do her homework. Fourteen ships of the Avenger class mine countermeasures ship were built before USS Freedom. Stevecalloway (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INSURV conflict

[edit]

I have looked at and verified both references to the INSURV inspection. Both sources are well respected agencies of the United States Federal Government. I think each side is cherry picking so I will attempt to find the actual INSURV report. If I can't find it in a few days I'll merge the two comments together in one paragraph. Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (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 Freedom class littoral combat ship (which currently redirects here) and an article on the ship itself (at this title)? -- saberwyn 23:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've knocked something together, but someone with a better understanding of the subject needs to go through and rebalance, the ship, class, and LCS articles. -- saberwyn 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?

[edit]

This article states: "assuming that the United States Congress passes some sort of budget for 2011" This is encyclopedic? Sounds more like some Wiki-idiot's snide commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.133.236 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is expected to be dry docked

[edit]

Can some of these forward looking statements be switched to past tense by some kind editor who isn't arbitrarily rolled back, please?

While you're at it, add a note about the outrage in Congress about the ship.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/224579-mccain-levin-call-for-gao-review-of-littoral-combat-ship

Hcobb (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom's got back

[edit]

Here's some photos about the butt implants.

Before: http://jdwaggoner.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/lcs11.jpg

After: http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcs1/Photos/Freedom_4thFleet.jpg

Not sure if it's really notable enough however. (Unique to this exact ship and will always be a quick means to distinguish her from rest of class.) Hcobb (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about now? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Baby's got new bumps on her back. Look to the left and right of the "pod bay doors" at the far rear of the ship. Other "Freedom Class" ships are longer in the waist rather than bumpy in the back. Hcobb (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try taking this seriously for one second and use actual terminology for whatever the hell you are talking about? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

The workaround selected will be to install external tanks for additional buoyancy.[1] And the Navy states that LCS-1 now meets the damage stability requirement with the addition of the external tanks and that the design of USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) includes additional stability improvements.[2]

These tanks can been seen in the photos above. Observe that the rear of the ship has been extended in those two "bumps" from how the ship appeared after construction. These tanks will NOT be added to any other ships of this class. Therefore as soon as you see a "Freedom Class" ship with these bumps you will know instantly that she is LCS-1 and not LCS-3, 5, 7 or any other prime number.

  • Short hull without bumps: LCS-1 before refit.
  • Short hull with bumps: LCS-1 after refit.
  • Long hull: Other "Freedom Class" ships.

All clear now? Hcobb (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "EXCLUSIVE-Early tests show Lockheed LCS problems-report". Forexyard.com. Retrieved 13 July 2012.
  2. ^ 2010.pdf "Congressional Research Service RL33741 Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs 4 May 2010" (PDF). Retrieved 13 July 2012. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

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/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 11:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant?

[edit]

Matthew M. Burke (July 22, 2013). "Troubled littoral combat ship program takes another hit during Singapore exercise". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved August 23, 2014. SASEBO NAVAL BASE, Japan — The U.S. Navy's beleaguered littoral combat ship program took another hit Saturday when the USS Freedom was forced back to its base in Singapore for maintenance while participating in international exercises. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cost $631 million

[edit]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/02/lcs-gao-report/

Is there a slot in the infobox to add this in? Hcobb (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on USS Freedom (LCS-1). 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 07:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on USS Freedom (LCS-1). 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 08:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Freedom (LCS-1). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on USS Freedom (LCS-1). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is or Was?

[edit]

At what point does the lede change from "is the lead ship" to "was the lead ship?" Decommissioning (as here) or at some other point? PaulinSaudi (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Freedom_(LCS-1)&oldid=1257929827"