Talk:Air-cushioned landing craft

Getting started

Looks like this is to be a general AC landing craft article. Any idea on where to find more info? -Fnlayson 22:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. I don't know where to get more info right off, but we should be able to find something. - BillCJ 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation

@BilCat:I have added citation at your request. By the way, I request you to make edits or revert other edits only after getting proper knowledge and not by saying "It doesn't look like that to me".M.srihari (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

No, I won't stop removing unsourced additions that appear to be incorrect, especially if added by you. What I actually said was, " the ICG hovercraft don't appear to be landing craft but SAR - please provide a verifiable reliable source for them being LCAC." While I understand Indian English may somewhat flexible in its use of words, Coast Guards generally don't have an amphibious landing role, which is what LCACs are used for. The link you gave was also bad. This correct link says absolutely nothing about its use by the Indian Coast Guard in a LCAC role. As such, I've removed it again. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat:Warning. You have openly declared that you will revert whatsoever works made by me. It is a personal attack. It is also open declaration of an Edit war. Air cushioned Landing Craft are systems used for amphibious assault. They are air cushioned, Armed and are technically mid-sized hovercrafts. The citation provided from me is from the original manufacturer's website and moreover the page in wikipedia relating to that hovercraft also state this information. If you wish to make edits, Then please (verify and) correct that with "verifiable citations" and then make edits in this page. For your claim that the link says nothing about its use as Air cushioned Landing Craft, The Griffon 2000TD hovercraft also doesn't have any such information and it is added just because its capabilities fall under this category. And for the slightly racist comments (about Indian English), If you continue such phrases, then I would report you to an administrator. M.srihari (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

• • My apologies if you took my comments as racism. In fact I meant quite the opposite. I was simply acknowledging that there are differences between American and Indian Englishes, and that the term LCAC might be used differently in India, such as for all armed hovercraft. It does appear that you do fully understand the use of the term, which was unclear before. Again, my apologies. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat:Added another citation added which states that Marine commandos and Indian Coast guard together have a joint exercise. And this is what the US Navy does with US Marines by sharing their equipment such as LCAC's. The LCAC's are used for covert amphibious operations and the exact equipment used by MARCOS and the their level of cooperation with other branches of Indian armed forces are still unknown. If you could prove certainly that MARCOS never had and will never use the GRSE hovercraft of ICG to be used as LCAC,then you revert it.M.srihari (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I'm ignoring all the other flim-flam (on both sides - the fix for the link URL is obvious and claiming this makes it unsourced is itself unconstructive). However I still can't see a source that says the Indian Coast Guard (which I don't see as having an obvious role in amphibious assault) have bought these vessels as landing craft. They have bought them, the type is usable for such – but does the Indian Coast Guard really plan to use them as landing craft specifically, not merely as general transport vessels? There's a hint on the (awful) Griffon US website, that they have a page specifically about the Indian craft, but I can't find it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"The craft will undertake various tasks such as surveillance, interdiction, search and rescue and assisting small fishing boats at sea." – nothing about amphibious landings. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:Yes, I agree that the Indian Coast Guard has not stated that it is intended for Amphibious assault. As for as Indian Armed forces are concerned, covert Amphibious operations are done by MARCOS and their joint operations with other branches of Armed forces are classified. I have provided another link that states about a joint exercise involving Marine Commandos and Indian Coast Guard. In my view, this information is sufficient to add this hovercraft under LCAC category.Regards-M.srihari (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I don't believe the current content is adequately sourced. The claim is that landing craft "are used by" various nations. Now India might own them, but I see no indication that this is why they're owned. If this was reworded to tone it down to "India has bought craft that could be used in the amphibious landing role", that would be sourced and an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Any hovercraft could be used in a landing role in an emergency, or on an ad-hoc basis, but if they aren't specifically fitted for such operations, i.e. armor, etc. they won't last long. We can't list every nation that has hovercraft as operators of LCAC-types just because they can be used in that role. From the sources provided to this point, it's not clear that India has used or intends to use its Coast Guard hovercraft in such roles. Per WP:VERIFY and WP:SYNTHESIS, we can't make assumptions without specific sources that verify the claims being made here. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat:The hovercraft included fits under LCAC category but the issue here is the operational doctrine of Indian Coast Guard. Not all nations have Hovercrafts that fits under this category. Indian Coast Guard doensn't undertake such missions but MARCOS does. But the MARCOS's operations are classified and they are allowed to use equipment from all the branches of the forces.M.srihari (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Unless we have a verifiable reliable source that says MARCOS uses ICG hovercraft as landing craft, we can't list it here. If they do, but it's classified, then we have to wait until it's declassified. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Operators

I have created a seperate operators list and added fact tags to them all, please provide reliable sources that each of these operators has or does operate Air-cushioned landing craft. This will give some time to provide reliable sources before the entries are removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Landing Craft Air Cushion

I believe these are the same topic? Happy to be wrong about this. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• You are wrong. DexDor ^(talk) 05:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@DexDor: Albeit a compelling argument, mind providing some context? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Read the articles - one is about a US class of LCACs, the other is about LCACs in general (including the US, Russian etc classes). It might be a bit clearer if the US one was renamed to something like "Textron LCAC" or "LCAC class" (or even "LCAC-class LCAC"!), but any rename would have to follow the rules of COMMONNAME, standard naming conventions etc. DexDor ^(talk) 06:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Concur, and oppose merge. There are even hatnotes at the top of each article to explain that there is a difference between the topics. - BilCat (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

strongly oppose merge. These are very different things. This article talks about them general. The other talks about the US version. Jkd4855 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)