Talk:Landing Craft Air Cushion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Redirect here[edit]

The term "Landing Craft, Air Cushion" MUST redirect here! After all, this is the OFFICIAL name for these things for the U.S. Navy. Likewise:
Landing Craft, Tank (LCT)
Landing Craft, Infantry (LCI)
Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnell (LCVP)
Landing Ship, Tank (LST), also called humorously the Large, Slow Target
Landing Platform, Helicopter (LPH)
Landing Platform, Dock (LPD)
Landing Ship, Dock (LSD)
Landing Ship, Infantry (LSI)
Notice the commas in strategic places.
The LPDs include the San Antonio class and the Austin class
The LSDs include the Harpers Ferry class, the Whitby Island class, and the Anchorage class. Some of the ships of these final two classes were named for American cities, including Austin, Anchorage, Cleveland, New Orleans, and San Diego. Some of these cities had already had cruisers of World War II named for them. (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Development info[edit]

I took the text from Navy fact file as a starter and rearranged a bit. Some rewording and clarifying would probably be helpful. --- Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A second pair of eyes and hands is always appreciated, especially on a rush-job. - -- BillCJ (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed this part: LHA, LHD, LSD, and LPD need to be spelled out and/or linked. I think those are all amphibious landing ships. --- Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I just chose "LCAC" as the title as that was the main link used in most of the articles which mentioned it. The interwikiks mostly use some variation of the full name "Landing Craft Air Cushioned". I have no problem if someone thinks this page should be moved to the longer title, but I'm not certain what the naming conventions on Landing craft are. - BillCJ (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "Landing Craft Air Cushioned" seems on the long side to me. You or I could a redirect article for that and leave this one alone. --- Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done! Landing Craft Air Cushioned‎, Landing Craft, Air Cushioned‎, Landing Craft, Air Cushion‎, and Landing Craft Air Cushion‎ all redirect here. - - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

usual covention is to spell out abbreviations in full. I believe this applies to article names too but i'm currently working from a pocket pc and reading the long policy articles is tricky. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe I saw somewhere yesterday (trying to find it again) that USN landing craft hull classification codes -which are not not striclty abbreviations - are not spelled out. However, the landing craft pages mentioned in the Landing craft are not consistent, some being at the hull codes, and others spelled out. If you want to force the issue here, you probably ought to address all the other articles too at WP:SHIPS naming conventions page before trying to apply a broad standard to just one article. - BillCJ (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone on the Talk:Landing craft page mentioned having both a general aritcle for all LCAC-type vehicles at LCAC, and a specific one for the USN type. Perhaps that's worth considering at some point, but such an article doesn't even exist yet. Zubr class LCAC is the only other LCAC article I've been able to find on, and the Landing craft article LCAC section only metions these two types by name. THe whole issue will probqbly have to be dealt with in the future, but no ones seems to be in a hurry to write more article on the subject! - BillCJ (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Good. I think the air cushioned part in the landing craft article will surely cover the subject well enough for now. --- Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This craft's title really includes a comma: Landing Craft, Air Cushioned. That's the US military's way of naming. It puts the more general part first. It could be read "Air Cushioned Landing Craft", I believe. Putting the more general parts like that groups similar items in alphabetical lists. Maybe that was part of the reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know of a proper spec template for a water craft? Template:Infobox Ferry is all I can find so far that seems related. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The military Zubr class LCAC and the civil Mountbatten class hovercraft use no tables, just a list like we made here. Howver, the Tuuli class hovercraft uses the {{Infobox Ship Class}}, which has built-in specs. SO I'm not really sure what's best either. THat's what happens when two WP:AIR guys try to make an article for WP:SHIPS! :) - BillCJ (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Infobox with specs does seem odd. I've worked on a couple ground vehicle article such as Cougar (vehicle) that do that as well. The WP:Air infobox use to be like that too some 3 yrs ago from what I've gathered. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically, hovercraft are aircraft and not ships. They travel above the water, not in the water. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Move article?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was No contest to merge into Landing Craft Air Cushion‎. Have requested admin help with db-move. - BillCJ (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

With the recent edits adding claims that the LCAC is used by the RN (Actually, it uses the LCAC(L), a much smaller hovercraft), perhaps it's time to make this title a DAB page, and move the content to a new title. (Note that the generic article is at Air-cushioned landing craft.) My preference is for Landing Craft Air Cushion‎, as this is simple and straightforward (no commas or "ed"s), per the first sentence on the LCAC U.S. Navy Fact File. The other variations are all used by the USN in various publications, so it does seem to come down to the simplest of the common terms. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Seeems a good title to me. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Don't merge, move![edit]

Rename Landing Craft Air Cushion to Textron Marine Landing Craft Air Cushion and keep Air-cushioned landing craft as a list page. Hcobb (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge - one articleis about a specific class of hovercraft, the otyher is about the generic term. I've no problem with the move to include the company, though it's probably not necessary, and not all hovercraft follow that style, as with SR.N5. - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


When I created this article in 2007, there were aonly a few LCAC pics on Commons, so I added sevearl more from the DOD Image repository. There are now over 600 images on Commons at Landing Craft, Air Cushion! If anyone wants to troll through them and pick out some new images, they are welcom to do so. Images of parts of the LCAC, such as the fans, parking deck, etc. would be good. I'll look myself in the next few days, but since I picked out the ones that are there now, I'm giving saomeone else the opportunity to do so, so we can have someone else's choices of the best pics for a while. - BilCat (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Production numbers[edit]

I don't understand some numbers:

  • "A total of ninety-one LCAC have now been built. The final craft, LCAC 91, was delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2001."
  • "27 were to undergo the SLEP between 2000 and 2007. All 74 are to be completed by 2015."
  • "Operators: United States Navy (74 units)"
91-74=17. Were are they? Who using them if the USN are not?

What is this "74 units"? (I seen the LCAC-91 on a photo.) A faulty number or real? -- (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (Gyantusz)

Military lift spec error?[edit]

What is the meaning of the "Military lift" specification? It states: "Military lift: 24 troops or 1 MBT" Obviously that is not the number of troops it carry, as the article states it can carry 180 fully equipped troops. However the 1 Main Battle Tank is correct. Does that need to be changed? Should it be 24 troops and 1 MBT (ie all at the same time)? --Dan East (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)