Talk:Sea Control Ship

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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Ships

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 articles

I don't accept that sea control vessel is the same as an amphibious assault vessel. They have two different purposes, although they are physically similiar. If noone objects I will rewrite this article to reflect that point of point. 145.253.108.22 15:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why the HMS Ocean is listed as a sea control vessel, from my reading it was built on the Invincible class hull design but deliberately without a ski so it would be unable to operate fighters. No fighters no sea control ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.11.114 (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing HMS Ocean from the article, the insertion is uncited and the article defines a sea control ship as one able to deploy both ASW and CAP assets, without the combat air patrol it is an ASW carrier or helicopter carrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.11.114 (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no documentation calling a UXV Combatant a SCS, UAV's may not be helicopters but they are also not fighters. So does anyone else think that the UXV Combatant + UAV's is a SCS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.11.114 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yak-141 would never have been employed on Kiev class ships as their elevators are/were too small to accommodate the aircraft. It was instead intended for operation on new ships of the Varyag class which were intended to replace the Kiev class (at least in the air defence role, they might have remained operational carrying only helicopters). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.35.66 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phalanx 20mm CIWS in 1970?[edit]

The "General Characteristics" block seems odd for an on-paper 'concept' that was never built; it seems like more of a wish list. I don't understand how even the 1970's evaluation test ship USS Guam LPH-9 could have had Phalanx CIWS Mk 15 (at that time), a system which was not deployed on USN ships until 1980's. Are all the SCS characteristics then just transferred fron USS Guam LPH-9, or from another ship, if so which ship/timeframe, or from actual US navy plans/concepts? Is it typical for a concept ship to be imagined as consisting of as-yet undeveloped conceptual or next generation systems? 144.183.224.2 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SCS concept was first tested at sea with the USS Guam LPH-9 an existing amphibious assault ship, but the actual SCS design was never produced for the US navy, the SCS term was recycled for use of LHA and LHD ships retasked for air and ASW patrol. The blueprints were eventually sold to Spain, modified with a ski-jump, and built as the Spanish aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.29.214 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of recent edits[edit]

Explaining the present rollback: the extra data doesn't really add much to this article, rather is stuff that should be (already is?) in the class articles for those ships, I think. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the UK ships, but the Kiev class says almost nothing about the ships except an incorrect claim that the Yak-141 would have been embarked. I will wait a day or two for response and then fix the Kiev section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.29.214 (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. How does defining it as "STOVL fighter protected light ASW helicopter carriers" help? A massive mouthful that clarifies nothing. 85.112.147.118 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]