Talk:Wasp-class amphibious assault ship/Archive 1

2000 Marines
What are those almost 2000 marines doing aboard those ships? I mean they must be bored to death, cramped space onboard, nothing to pass time with during months of cruise, unlike sailors who have their daily duites. I must seriously doubt all 2000 of marines are stowed onboard all the time. 195.70.32.136 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe it. And trust me; they keep you plenty busy with maintenance on gear, standing watch, and a dozen other things.
 * Do we know they're always there? Marines could be attached to the ship, or it could just be treated as a transport ship carrying troops when needed. --Howdybob 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Displacement mistake
The displacement listed is incorrect. A metric tonne is about 2,200 pounds, a standard US ton is 2,000 pounds. The metric-to-english conversion is incorrect, basically. Anybody know the proper numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispos42 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 21 June 2006


 * Displacement of naval vessels is measured in long tons, of 2240 pounds = 1.016 tonnes. (God knows why.) —wwoods 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems fairly clear from the article on long tons, it is historical from 1920s and 1930s international treaties from the days when the UK and Commonwealth used long tons rather than metric--Doctormonkey 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Still wrong, suggest you have a look again, its pretty simple 1 metric ton is 1,000kg, a short ton as used by the US and Canada is 907kg (also known as the short ton) and 1 ton in the UK is 1,016kg known as the Long Ton, or the US Ton is 2,000 pounds making a metric ton 2204.6 pounds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Landing Crafts
How many landing crafts can a ship carry? Does anyone know? Jak722 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cost per unit
Does anyone know how much, on average these ships cost in terms of construction, and operation? Wikiphyte 05:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Carriers
Can the class be considered technically "aircraft carriers"? The former Soviet Kiev class carried VSTOL aircraft and helicopters and were considered aircraft carriers. best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While American LHDs/LHAs are of comparable size and tonnage to other nation's aircraft carriers, their primary mission is to deploy a Marine amphibious force (including troops, amphibious craft, aircraft and land vehicles) rather than specifically aircraft. Though the Kiev had multipurpose capabilities, aircraft deployment remained its primary mission. Kaalel (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

LHD vs. LHA
Does anyone know why the Navy invented the new "hull classification symbol" LHD for the Wasp class ships instead of numbering them as LHA's? In Ships & Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet (18th ed., 2005, page 184) Norman Polmar wrote that they should be LHA's, but did not explain why they are not.Wjwtk (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LHD stands for Landing Helicopter Dock, which indicates that it features a well deck that allows for amphibious vehicle deployment. LHA stands for Landing Helicopter Assault, which focuses on helicopter deployment. The LHD/LHA distinction signifies the U.S. Navy's intention to fork the amphibious assault ship-type, with half the vessels retaining their seaborne assault capabilities, and the others focusing on the more commonly-used air assault capabilities. Furthermore for this reason, and the fact that the Wasp-class vessels are intended to be replaced by the future LH(X)-class, it is inaccurate to say that the LHA America-class will be replacing the LHD Wasp-class. They serve similar but different roles. Kaalel (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing te America-class from the infobox. The field is not just limited to direct replacements, which is still an unknown at this point, as nothing has been ordered yet. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gallery
There must be thousands of articles with galleries containing pictures from Commons. Should we remove them all? I don't think so, articles in Wikipedia should stand on their own, not relying on external sources for images. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is short and the additional images provide more information. Why is this a bad thing? Gerardw (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, Gerard, as I hadn't considered that. In most cases, however, a gallery is redundant to Commons. - BilCat (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per IG: However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. The gallery tag is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons.  - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IG However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. So rather than delete the images can we improve their incorporation into the article. Gerardw (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not without crowding the text. As you said, the article is short. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the gallery. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not considered that the part you deleted might provide additional information? Isn't that something you should consider before making these kind of changes?


 * All pictures offer pretty different views on the ship (Port quarter view, well deck, starting Harrier, gate marriage). This is not an indiscriminate pile of pictures dumped here from Commons. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacement
Are the Wasps gonna be replaced by the Americas anytime soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.21.77 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hospital
Article incorrectly states "Each Wasp-class ship has a hospital with 600 patient beds and six operating rooms" a Wasp class nor the America Class does not have a hospital with 600 patient beds. A Wasp Class has the following facilities: Medical Capabilities:

Operating Rooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Aviation Examination Room. . . . . . . . . 1

Surgical Dressing Room/Main BDS. . . . . . 1

Clinical Lab

Blood Bank

Post Operative Recovery/Intensive Care. . . 1 . . . . 17 beds

Isolation Ward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . 6 beds

Primary Care Ward. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . 41 beds

Overflow Casualty Ward. . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . .536 beds

TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .600 beds

The overflow of 536 beds is only in emergency situations, and set up on the vehicle decks, it is not a permanent fixture of the ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ships in the class
A new user deleted the list of ships in of the Wasp-class, which is one of the key informations about any ships class. I reverted the article back to that version. noclador (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

size of well deck
Sources conflict on the size of the well deck of the wasp class. www.forecastinternational.com lists it at 98.1 m by 15.2 m, www.military-today.com has it at 81 m x 15.2 m.  Anyone know a definitive source for this info? Bonewah (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"two steam boilers"
perhaps I'm a bit dense but are they oil fired or what? Gjxj (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Marine contigent
Sources vary as to how many troops this class can carry. Nayy.mil says 1,687 troops (plus 184 surge), miltary-today says 2000, and fas says 1894. Im just going to go with navy.mil unless there is a better source. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020
Change Active from 8 to 7 and Inactive from 0 to 1 as a result of the USS Bonhomme Richard Fire. This would also accurately reflect inactive status given to the USS Bonhome Richard in the list shown below in the article. MrGobo (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the change to "inactive status" in the table was vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)