Talk:Hull classification symbol/Archive 1

Archive 1

General Comments

Any reason for the ordering within categories? - UtherSRG 02:04, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was alphabetical, but in the yard craft it seems like there might be some hidden scheme - a little Googling might turn up a Navy page. I would just rearrange to alpha, trying to follow bureaucrat logic will hurt people's brains. :-) Stan 04:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'll try and dig around and find a page, but the existing scheme as shown in the article is pretty much the 'standard' listing IIRC. Elde 04:06, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Links to the symbols are going to be a deadend BTW, since almost every one of those is ambiguous with random other things in WP, and sooner or later someone will come along and replace these link with their idea of something unambiguous. Instead, the "expansions" should have appropriate articles, as is the case for some already. In other cases, it would be better to redirect to an aggregate article that discusses several together - for instance, US aircraft carrier hull symbols could elucidate the short and sordid lives of the "CVA" and "CVB" designations, instead of having rather thin weak articles a la SSBN. An explanatory section at the end of this article would also work, since most of the symbols, such as CL, are completely obvious and the light cruiser link explains the general concept. Stan 04:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of aggreating the major ship types (CA, CV, SS, I.E. the two-letter level) with a general explanation there of the sub-types.

Frankly however, most of the material at [light cruiser] belongs in a CL page (as it's about US light cruisers, rather than covering the concept of light cruisers). Elde 05:52, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's mostly because I didn't know much about other navies' light cruisers. :-) (I'm more of a sailing era specialist.) One of the things that works better in practice is to develop material breadth-first than depth-first - in other words, develop cruiser until it gets unwieldy or complicated, then split off light cruiser, protected cruiser, etc, then go from there to United States light cruisers, and so on. Depth-first tends to end up with isolated articles not connected to anything else, and it's exhausting to write all the material that sets context. But, the most important thing is to work on material that is energizing and interesting. Stan 07:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply) For better or for worse, projects like E2 and the Wikipedia emphasise depth first writing. Partially, as you point out, because of the difficulty of writing all the material that sets context, and because most folks that have deep knowledge don't generally think breadth wise. (And most of the folks that do think breadth wise are academics or professionals.)

Anyhow, I'm working on an article on Radar Picket Submarines, which I'll point SSR and SSRN to, Then I'll do the same with Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSB/SSBN). This brings some of the little stubs up full article status. Elde 06:44, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why V?

On the issue of the Carrier hull symbols, doesn't the "V" in e.g. CV or CVN stand for "Vessel"? One source for this: A factbook @ http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mppr/ indicates CVN = Carrier Vessel Nuclear powered.
Rackham 23:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, all the other types are vessels too. Since aircraft squadrons are V*, I guess CV stands for Carrier, Aircraft. Now why V stands for aircraft...

—wwoods 02:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The V comes from Aviation (cf. AVB Aviation Logistics Support Ship). Interestingly, the RN (and most European navies?) use R instead of CV to designate carriers, because they use a single letter system and C=Cruiser. Journeyman 02:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, and according to this site: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm, the V comes from the designation for heavier-than-air craft (lighter-than-air craft had the letter Z). The site also mentions a pretty credible source, United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations which I would trust. I'm not changing anything on the page until I get a confirm on this though. Elisson 18:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, "V" refers to "heavier than air", to distinguish from "Z" (LTA; Zeppelin?). Trekphiler 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

V comes from the French "Voler" which means "to fly." lemursjlr —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This site (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/hydrodynamics/q0226.shtml) explains that at the time the designation was needed, they wanted to make it "Cruiser, Aviation". The designation CA was already in use for heavy cruisers, so they used the second letter in aviation, thus making it CV.Lest69 (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This statement: 'The "V" designation for heavier-than-air craft comes from the French verb voler (to fly).[5]' is not correct for two reasons. First if the reference is United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16: US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations , read again p.265 where it is said that "no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter 'V' was chosen. It is generally believed the 'V' was in reference to the French word volplane." Again volplane and not voler. Then voler is the French verb for to fly, but volplane does not exist in the French vocabulary. This is neither a verb, nor a noun such as written in Appendix 16. By the way ... I am half French, and fluent both in English and French ! I also read volplane means gliding, which is wrong as well. Soaring must be translated by planer and flying without any mechanical help may be translated faire un vol plané. I guess I should pay a visit to the NHHC to explain ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.2.235.164 (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there does not exist any clear evidence of exactly what the V stands for. There are anecdotes claiming that it stood for "Voler", "Volplane", "aViation", or something completely different. It could just be a letter picked out of the air with a lesser used letter so as not to collide with any other forms of cruisers. However, given that most sources I've seen list it as an "aviation cruiser", that would be my guess, but frankly I don't think we have enough evidence (and we probably never will) to say conclusively as to what it is. As such, I think the page should say as much. Currently, it says "Contrary to popular belief, the "CV" hull classification symbol does not stand for "carrier vessel". "CV" derives from the cruiser designation, with the v for French voler, "to fly", which does not show any doubt in the term. Additionally, there is some evidence supporting "voler", or some french origin of the name, as the first Seaplane Tender, La Foudre, which the Hull Classification Symbol for is AV, which was adopted before the term CV. If it is indeed "volplane", the inconsistency with modern language, and it's absence from the dictionary could be due to the fact that at the time, it would have been a new term that may not have caught on. Voler can be defined as "wing", so it could be saying that it's a Cruiser that carries Winged aircraft (as opposed to lighter-than-air craft), and volplane could be a weird form of the word, giving you winged-plane? If you think about it, airplane doesn't make much sense either, without context, trying to break the word down. I suggest that we change it (possibly add a section on it) to list the possibilities, but also explain the lack of firm, definitive evidence on the topic. I'm too new to feel comfortable making such a change, so if someone would like to decide what the best course of action (if any) would be, that would be great.--Chemputer (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Missing symbol

Resolved

 – The missing symbols (CVA/CVS/AV) have all already been added, save for two that are types of naval aircraft squadrons (VA/VF), which do not appear to fit with the article as it contains only naval ships.--Chemputer (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Symbol "AV" is missing from the article. Gdr 21:57, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

As a former US Navy Air Controller I can accurately state that the "V" in any area of aviation weather on hull classification or squadron designation stands for "Fixed Wing".

CVA=Carrier Fixed Wing Attack CVS=Carrier Fixed Wing Antisubarine Warfare VF=Fixed Wing Fighter Squadron VA=Fixed Wing Attack Squadron etc.

Coast Guard?

 Done: Updated the article to include the ships that User:Journeyman listed and linked to, as well as cited the archive of the now dead link. The USCG portion of the article now contains transcluded portions from United_States_Coast_Guard_Cutter, as well as additional sections for the small boats. Chemputer (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Should symbols used by the United States Coast Guard be integrated into this article? Do they play by the same book? I'm just wondering, because I wanted to add WLB (seagoing buoy tender), but wasn't sure if it goes here or not. —User:Mulad (talk) 02:02, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The USCG has its own system it seems. All Hull symbols begin with a 'W' - similar to the US Military Sealift Command which designates it's ships with a leading 'T'. Some USCG ships (eg. Icebreakers) have a regular designation trailing the leading 'W', others such as Cutters do not occur in the general system summarised in the article.

Here is a list of Hull classification symbols from the USCG's site:

• 420' Icebreaker (WAGB)
• 399' Polar Class Icebreaker (WAGB)
• 378' High Endurance Cutter (WHEC)
• 290' Inland Icebreaker (WAGB)
• 295' Training Barque Eagle (WIX)
• 282' Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC)
• 270' Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC)
• 230' Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC)
• 225' Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB)
• 213' Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC)
• 210' Medium Endurance Cutter (WMEC)
• 180' Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB) Updated indicator
• 175' Coastal Buoy Tender (WLM)
• 160' Inland Construction Tender (WLIC)
• 140' Icebreaking Tug (WTGB)
• 123' Patrol Boat (WPB)
• 110' Patrol Boat (WPB)
• 100' Inland Buoy Tender (WLI)
• 100' Inland Construction Tender (WLIC)
• 87' Coastal Patrol Boat (WPB)
• 75' River Buoy Tender (WLR)
• 75' Inland Construction Tender (WLIC)
• 65' River Buoy Tender (WLR)
• 65' Inland Buoy Tender (WLI)
• 65' Small Harbor Tug (WYTL)
• 52' Motor Life Boat (MLB)
• 47' Motor Life Boat (MLB)
• 44' Motor Life Boat (MLB)
• 41' Utility Boat (UTB)
• 38' Deployable Pursuit Boat (DPB)
• 21'-64' Aids to Navigation Boats
• 25' Transportable Port Security Boat (TPSB)
• Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHI)

Journeyman 02:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since this page isn't specific to the US Navy, the USCG seems fine to me. It does take up quite a bit of space, so eventually it might be wise to split them off, but for now it seems fine to integrate any ships of the USA with class symbols. I updated the page with additonal info, and formatted it to the best of my ability. Additional ships and classes can and should be added. --Chemputer (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Still in use

Shouldn't we compile a list of hull class symbols still in use? A lot are retired, and it's hard to find what are still used. 68.98.162.253 18:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The US Coast Guard portion of the page is organized in current (at least as of 2006, that's the last valid capture of the site with the list I could find) and retired ships. The vast majority of ships in the page are marked [retired], so if someone would like to, it should be fairly easy (though a lot of work) to organize the ships in each section into retired and not retired. That said, the lack of a [retired] tag on a ship doesn't guarantee it isn't retired, but it would get most of them. I don't think it would be a bad idea.

I.E. You could format it like so:

Submarines

Current

• Sub 1
• Sub 2
• Sub 3

...

Retired

• Sub 4
• Sub 5
• Sub 6

...

And so on, with different ship classes. --Chemputer (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge with List of hull classifications

It has been suggested that these two articles be merged. Seems reasonable to me. One is in alphabetical order, and one is grouped by function. Both sequences are useful, and any merging should retain both. Lou Sander 12:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about moving the function sequence to List of Hull Classification and keep Hull classification symbol as a definition and redirect page? --Harlsbottom 12:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Lou Sander 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is much more useful. Trekphiler 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Resolved

I gave it an "NA" because this article should be a list.--Looper5920 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what this page is: List_of_hull_classifications while this page is more in-depth, explaining the background, history, etc. --Chemputer (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Submarine Types

The list of submarine types has many errors.

SS - still very much in use. SS is the USN designator for diesel-electric attack submarines (Romeo, Song, Ming, 209, Kilo, etc). SSK is a British term that is only used colloquially by the US Navy and should not be included in a list of USN terms except for explanatory reasons.

SSA - Russia still has D-E SSA's in service.

SSB/SSG - Several nations still have conventional ballistic and guided missile subs in their OOB's.

SSC/SSM - needs a designator noting that SSC is 150+ tons, while SSM is under 150 tons. Both are D-E.

SSP/SSI - SSP is the USN official designator for AIP submarines, while SSI is a largely British term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemursjlr (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SSK was used by the US Navy back in the '60s.... 66.232.240.121 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

BBCV

Weren't the Ise class battleships of the IJN classed as BBCV for being hybrid carrier/battleships? 172.209.205.230 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. It's complicated, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. There are a few problems that make it fuzzy, as she was never really used as a battlecarrier, she launched her aircraft (as far as I can tell), one time in combat, on the October 14 1944, along with her sister ship the Hyūga, between the two of them they had 9 dive dombers, and 12 recon floatplanes. With that force, they attacked Task Force 38, did very little damage, and suffered heavy losses. Additionally, she had a dozen catapult launched dive bombers, and a 2-3 reconisance planes (her total capacity was 22-24 aircraft, storing them in the hanger, on the deck, and on the catapults), however, the dive bombers were unable to land on the Ise, and had to either land on a tradtional airfield, or a CV. The reconisance planes could land in the water, and be lifted back on board by a crane. Many BB/CA/CL had similar recon aircraft they could launch via catapult and recover from the water. If she operated alone (as in, without a CV, but with an escort), she may be too far from an airbase or CV that could allow the bombers to land, forcing them to ditch near the Ise and recover the pilot (hopefully), but not the plane.

So, she could have maybe been a BBCV had she been able to recover her bombers, or, as some people have suggested, load up entirely with fighters (that she could recover and restock), and provide the CAP for a traditional carrier strike group, allowing the carriers to focus entirely on the strike, as in addition to the cover from the fighters, the Ise (and Hyuga) could provide extremely intense AA fire. Sadly, the vast majority of her converted career was spent as a very heavily armed cargo ship (forgoing the planes for cargo), and a troop transport ship.

This is a quote from Battle off Cape Enago:

On the morning of 25 October, Ise was positioned astern of the carriers Zuikaku and Zuihō to protect them with her anti-aircraft guns. Her radar picked up American aircraft at a range of 125 nautical miles (232 km; 144 mi) at 07:39. The first attack began at 08:20, with the battleship engaging enemy aircraft with San Shiki anti-aircraft shells from her main guns with unknown effect. She was not heavily attacked, but two bombs fell nearby. The second wave of aircraft attacked at 10:05 and the ship's gunners claimed to have shot down five of the ten dive bombers. Ise was near missed eight times, although one small bomb struck No. 2 turret. The third wave was detected by her radar at 12:28, but it did not attack the battleship, sinking the damaged Zuikaku and Zuihō instead. Ise rescued 98 survivors from Zuihō before the next attack began around 17:26. She was the primary focus of this wave and was attacked by about 85 dive bombers and at least 11 torpedo bombers.[12] Saved by heavy anti-aircraft fire and expert manoeuvring,[29] the battleship dodged all the torpedoes, and was struck by only one bomb, near the port catapult. Roughly 34 near misses damaged her hull plating near the waterline and started a small leak that contaminated a small oil tank and caused minor damage to the port boiler rooms. Splinters from the near misses and the single hit killed 5 crewmen and wounded 71.

Now, imagine if she also had a squadron of fighters she could launch. While she couldn't take evasive action while launching planes, she could have come into the battle with a CAP, and prevented any damage, and allowed the CVs to successfully hit their targets.

In my opinion, a BBCV should have the ability to both launch, and recover their squadrons, on the deck. There are plenty of BB/CA/CL that can launch and recover float planes, and there are also AVs, Seaplane Carriers, so the ability to launch ~6-12 dive bombers for a single strike, is that really worth removing the rear guns for? She could be an excellent BBAA (not an actual class, but there is a CLAA, however this is counterproductive to the purpose of a BB, which is firepower), as she was loaded up with basically as many AA guns as they could physically fit on the ship.

The fact that she can't recover her attack squadrons is the deal breaker for me. Regardless, she wasn't used as a BBCV, and neither was Hyuga. They tried once, failed horribly, and became cargo ships. They even removed the catapults later on, to expand the range of the guns, making the hanger and deck essentially cargo space. --Chemputer (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

K for Corvette

Is there actually any reference for the snigle-letter designation K being used for corvettes? I've certainly never heard of it, although I admit it's not really in my field. —Chris Buckey (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion with the flag superior of pennant numbered British corvettes and frigates? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so this is more complicated than I initially thought. I initially found two sources to the contrary, both from navy.mil websites. [history.navy.mil = 'DDC' or 'Cor.'] and [nvr.navy.mil = 'DDC'], so it looked like DDC is the answer. It makes senese, given that a frigate is DL.

Additionally, I found this quote about the new LCS corvettes:

The concept behind the littoral combat ship, as described by former Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, is to "create a small, fast, maneuverable and relatively inexpensive member of the DD(X) family of ships."

That X could certainly be the C, but I think the idea there was that it can be configured for various tasks, such as a DDG if needed.

However, I then found the Navy Vessel Register, which shows you all the ships, and their classifications, unambigiously, as well as a PDF document on the new ship classes. The answer now, is LCS. Here's the quote from the PDF:

b. Surface Combatant. Surface ships that are designed primarily to engage in attacks against airborne, surface, subsurface, and shore targets.

(1) Cruisers. Guided missile cruiser (CG).
(2) Destroyers. Guided missile destroyer (DDG).
(3) Frigates. Frigate (FF).
(4) Littoral Combat Ships. Littoral combat ship (LCS).

They've replaced the corvette with the LCS.

According to both Wikipedia (and the list of Hull classifications) and military.wikia.org, corvettes are FS, while the military sites linked above both state DDC.

My guess is they've changed it a lot over the years, and people haven't caught up with the current symbols. I would put my money on DDC, just given that it is on the list of Old Classes on the Navy Vessel Register site.

Should the page be updated? LCS is specific to the US, but technically so are all of these symbols. And it's not that LCS is a corvette, it's the LCS is replacing the corvette.

Article should spell out the acronyms

E. g. SSBN: Ballistic Missile Submarine (Nuclear-Powered).

OK, but what does SSBN actually spell out? As far as I know it's "Ship Submersible Ballistic Nuclear", but the article should specify this and not leave the reader guessing. Thanks. Maikel (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is they don't actually "spell out" anything. "SS" is only for "submarine" since in lieu of a modifier, the first letter is doubled (BB, DD, etc). The original US designator was just "S," as in the S-boats. This carried over so that when modifiers were added the initial doubled letter was maintained for simplicity and continuity. Additional modifiers are just added as needed, so SS gets you to SSN then to SSBN as a series of modifiers because non-diesel-electric propulsion is always placed last. Regardless of the order the modifiers occur, SSBN only means "ballistic missile submarine.68.50.198.192 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate name?

Hi All. This article refers exclusively to the US Navy hull classification symbols; but other navies also use them (some similar, some not). Shouldn't it be better renamed as (for example) Hull classification symbol (US Navy), to allow other similar articles to be created for other navies and/or (even better!) for a "general" article about hull symbols?
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't need to be DABbed for a specific country unless there are other articles with the exact same titles, and none are the primary topic. This tiltle is what the USN uses for the terms, and other countries probably use different terms. The first sentence makes it clear what nation the article is referring to, so there's no need to change the title just yet. - BillCJ (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi BillCJ! Sounds reasonable, however I believe this name is quite "generic" in itself, althoug the text is very much focused in the US. Maybe it just needs expansion... Cheers, DPdH (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That also sounds reasonable. If at some point the article needs to be split, then I'd be OK with splitting off the USN section. I did discover that there is a Hull classification symbol (Canada) article, but as it is completely unsourced, I don't know if this is a generic title, or what Canada actually calls the system. ALso, NATO uses Pennant numbers, which is a different system that can look similar to the US Navy's system. We need to make sure which term, if either, other navies actualy use. Perhaps a new article on both hull classifications and pennant numbers is needed (Hull code perhaps?) We would probably need to take that up at WT:SHIPS for greater input. - BillCJ (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

CVG - Battle Carrier

While reading this article I noticed that the symbol CVG refers to a "battle carrier". Wikipedia has no article of this name and my Google searches only seem to find articles on fictional starships. Perhaps a further definition is required. I am mainly wondering because of a book I am writing which features the Britannia-class battle carrier, and I believed I had invented a new term for an aircraft carrier with a higher focus on offensive capabilities. IndridCold13 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"CVG" is the NATO ship code for "aircraft carrier, guided missile", and would include ships such as the Russian Kiev and Kuzetznov classes. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Common mistake repeated here

There is a common mistake found all over the internet and repeated in this article regarding Amphibious Assault Ships. The assumption is that:

LHD = Landing Helicopter Dock

LHA = Landing Helicopter Assault

LPH = Landing Platform Helicopter

This is a mistake. None of these ships are Helicopters! Think about it!

The "H" in the hull classification symbol refers to HOSPITAL and refers to the ship's ability to treat a fairly large number of injured service members. If memory serves the Iwo Jima class LPHs had a 15 bed emergency room and 200 bed overflow.

These ships not only had the ability to act as a landing platform for helicopters but for other VTOL aircraft as well. I remember getting underway with a compliment of Harrier jets (LPH might as well have stood for Landing Platform Harrier in that case!)

Per the Navy History and Heritage Command: "It is important to understand that hull number letter prefixes are not acronyms, and should not be carelessly treated as abbreviations of ship type classifications."

Thus "LPH" does NOT stand for "Landing Platform Helicopter" any more than it does for "Landing Platform Hosptial." LPH stands for "Amphibious Assault Ship." LHA stands for "Amphibious Assault Ship (General Purpose)" and LHD stands for "Amphibious Assault Ship (Multi Purpose.)"

I haven't checked to see if this list has other errors for ships of other classes, but in all cases Wikipedia should refer to Naval ship hull classifications as they are listed in SECNAV INSTRUCTION 5030.8 instead of making the error of trying to churn out an acronym based off the classification symbol where none exists or was intended.

Sadly, this mistake is repeated on wikipedia. What a mess.

--Jaiotu (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a real mess! I'm trying to figure out the best way to go about fixing this across Wikipedia. Every mention of any ship in the LPH, LHD and LHA hull types they are inaccurately referred to! --Jaiotu (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to bring this up at WT:SHIPS, the talk pae for the WP:SHIPS pproject, and try to work out a solution there, rhather than attempting to "correct" this on your own. Also, the link to SECNAV INSTRUCTION 5030.8 shows up as a dead link, at least on my computer/browser. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The correct link is here. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems may be that NATO uses the same codes, but may interpret them differently. This is covered in Stanag 1166, but I can't access any copies on line. There is info here that is supposedly based on Stanag 1166. Interestingly, it lists an LPH as "Amphibious assault ship, helicopter", and clearly lists "H" as standing for "helicopter/VSTOL" in other codes such as CVH. Obviously it doesn't mean that these ships are helicopters! - BilCat (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This article from an RAN publication discsses NATO codes and designations in STANAG 1166, and states: "H – a unit equipped with a helicopter, or capable of operating a helicopter or vertical or short take-off and landing aircraft." - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I found a copy of STANAG 1166 MAROPS (EDITION 7) on an Albanian military site. You can access it here. According to NATO standardization, and LPH is a "Amphibious Assault Ship, Helicopter." --Jaiotu (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. When I get home I'll rummage through some of my old memorabilia from the USS New Orleans (LPH-11) I specifically remember a line from the welcome aboard package noting that the "H" refers to the ship's capability as a Hospital Ship. --Jaiotu (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It may well have meant "Hospital" then, but been changed at a later date. "AH" does still mean "Hospital" ship. - BilCat (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hrm... so, for example, if we are talking about LPHs in general we might call them "Amphibious Assault Ship, Helicopter" in keeping with STANAG 1166. However, if we are talking about LPHs in the U.S. Navy we would refer to them as "Amphibious Assault Ship" per the Navy History and Heritage Command. But in no case would you refer to an LPH as "Landing Platform, Helicopter?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiotu (talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That is slightly off. The US Navy Naval Vessel Register classifies LHD = Amphibious assault ship (multi-purpose), LHA = Amphibious assault ship (general-purpose) and LPH = Amphibious assault ship (helicopter). Furthermore Jane's Fighting Ships has a classification-system that slightly deviates from the STANAG convention (but not really changing anything from here. In Jane's LHD = Amphibious assault ship which can operate VSTOL aircraft and helicopters, LHA = Amphibious assault ship general purpose with flooded well and LPH = Amphibious assault ship, helicopter. However to the best of my knowledge the only time where H means hospital and not helicopter (or in the case of US Navy High-speed) is in the AH designation. --Heb (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to address the issue at hand here is to have the types articles at the titles of LPH (hull classification symbol), LHA (hull classification symbol), and LHD (hull classification symbol), to be more neutral to cover all the varying definitions. Also, I doubt we need a separate article for the Hull classification symbol of NATO and the USN, since they are mostly identical, but just point out the differences in the text. List of hull classifications is somewhat redundant, bus is an alpah list rather than by ship type. In the end, we may end up with 2 or 3 articles to cover the USN separately. - BilCat (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

At the very beginning of this article it states: "This article is about the U.S. Navy system. For the similar system used by Canadian Forces, see Hull classification symbol (Canada)."

If this article is specific to the United States Navy then it should reflect U.S. Navy terminology, not NATO or Royal Navy.--Jaiotu (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your bloody idiotic "ClueBot NG" has a serious problem. This article contains the following sentence fragment: "it was used in a similar to today's system". Obviously nonsensical, and missing a word. I fixed it to read "similar manner". Your idiot "ClueBot" immediately reverted it, and essentially accused me of vandalism. Fuck that noise. I'm never again going to try to improve your idiot's encyclopedia. It's YOUR project, you fix it's fuck-ups yourselves. This sort of thing is why I always tell everyone that cites your website that Wikipedia is grossly unreliable, and shouldn't be used as a citation. OK, I have to edit this and include the following from the IP number user page: I restored your change to Hull classification symbol. ClueBot can be a pain sometimes, but it removed thousands of vandal edits per day. Feel free to remove the ClueBot warning (and anything else) from your talk page as it is yours. I also reported the "false positive". Thank you for your contributions and again, sorry for the mess. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC) OK, maybe your ClueBot sucks, but maybe you also have competent real people fixing it's fuck-ups. I withdraw (most of) my complaint.

CVL

== CVL is not "Light aircraft carrier." It's "Aircraft Carrier, Small." See Glossary of US Naval Abbreviations page 20 at Hathi Trust and/or Naval History and Heritage Command. 2620:0:5080:80:6C1A:B8A2:8BD6:AFF9 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

== Would someone please cite contemporary sources showing that the US Navy officially used CVL as "light aircraft carrier?" The official uses I've found, from its inception in 1943 through 1957, are "small." I suspect that "light aircraft carrier" initiated with an assumption that the "L" signifies light, as used for light cruisers, compounded by the fact that the first CVLs were converted from light cruisers. The resulting exponential repetition appears to be accepted as fact, or "common knowledge." Wikipedia is going to require significant housekeeping to correct its errors if "light" can't be documented. 2620:0:5080:80:6C1A:B8A2:8BD6:AFF9 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

NESWAP

@MrDolomite: Regarding "Never end a sentence with preposition" (NESWAP), see Common English usage misconceptions#Grammar (first item in list). As Churchill may not have said, "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put". There's no need to rewrite sentences to avoid common, and correct, English grammar just to avoid offending a few hyper-correctionists. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: While I may have used NESWAP as a shorthand in my edit comments, the fact is that this sentence is awkward and its structure was the justification for my edits. Even while reading an article with ~51K characters on a mobile device, the original sentence below jumped out at me as poorly worded and a minor improvement seemed warranted.

Numerous other U.S. Navy vessels were launched with a temporary, or nominal, designation, such as YMS or PC, since it could not be determined, at time of construction, what they should be used for.

— original sentence

Numerous other U.S. Navy vessels were launched with a temporary, or nominal, designation, such as YMS or PC, since it could not be determined what they should be used for at the time of their construction.

— proposed revised sentence

Keeping the original 2011 edit, merely because it already exists in the article, does not seem logical when another editor, in WP:GOODFAITH tried to improve, however minor, the content of Wikipedia for others.

Some may say that based on [your edits to the article], with 75% being reversions, there may be some WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Regardless, an WP:EDITWAR is not worth my efforts is something to which I will not enter in. <--- For you and Sir Winston. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)