Talk:Landing platform helicopter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Non-USN Ships

Inclusion of non-USA ships is based on their own wikipedia entries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.116.206 (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what an LPH actually is. In most reliable sources, they are defined as amphibious assault ships. This is not the same thing as an helicopter carrier, yet you have included such in your recent additions. LPHs are a type of helicopter carrier, but not all helicopter carriers are LPHs. There is currently a huge discussion at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer about what exactly the Hyūga is, but no one there has ever suggested it's an LPH! Could it be used as an LPH? Sure, in a pinch, but that is not what it's designed for. I've also removed the NAeL Minas Gerais for the same reason. I've found no evidence that it was used for the amphibious assault role, but rather as an ASW ship. This article deals with ships that were designed or converted to operate as amphibious assault ships as a primary role. As far as I can tell, all the other ships you have added are indeed LPHs by that standard, and their addition to the article was needed. We might also include the current Ark Royal, which was refitted to operate as an LPH while the new Ocean is undergoing its refit. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bill. It's important to note that a LPH is a specialised ship designed to carry large numbers of combat troops and land them in hostile situations. Any large ship with a flight deck can technically do this, but they're not classified as LPH's unless they're specialised for this role. The amount of work needed to convert a carrier to a LPH is significant - Ark Royal was out of service for well over a year during her conversion and in the 1970s the Australian Government decided not to go ahead with a proposal to convert HMAS Sydney (R17) to a LPH as this was too costly, despite Sydney having been built as an aircraft carrier and converted to a fast troop transport! Nick Dowling (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite clear on the subject, NAeL Minas Gerais ASW carrier was never converted for boat handling, but troops were bunked in the hangars and other spaces on several excercises where helicopter assaults were made, I belive this was noted in the article and even cited. Interestingly and I wish I were able to find a citeable note the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) was employed as in impromptu LPH during the Falklands invasion. What is important is that many carriers even without major modifications such as was the case with Thesius and Ocean have been forced into that role, the modifications to allow troops are mostly for comfort. FS Arromanches was never converted but saw use by the French army equilevant of Marines on excercises. Curious that the mention of the new USS America (LHA-6) being similar to a LPH (no well deck, air assault only) was removed, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.100.90 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Still does not mean they should be listed here, as Nick and I both explained. Both the USN and RN have operated airfields painted as carrier decks for testing and training, but we don't list them as aircraft carriers! The LHA-6 entry was not cited (IIRC), and so is OR, and its also appreciably larger than any LPH. Btw, one of the USN supercarriers was used for helicopter assaults (actual operations, not exercises!) during the Afghan operations in 2003 or 04, and there are probably are other examples too. Given that there is a general Amphibious assault ship article (not the even more-general Amphibious warfare ship page, which is different in scope), it might be something that can be mentioned in the text (not listed), provided there are proper sources.

Btw, given that you make so many edits, it would be helpful if you would register. Everytime you edit, you are being assigned a differnt IP, which makes contacting you directly difficult. I note your IPs are located in Israel; if you are registered on the Hebrew language wiki (I don't know if this is available yet for the other languages in that region as yet), you should be able to use the Unified Login feature. Otherwise, I can only try to post messages on the article talk pages, which is not very efficient. Just a suggestion. - BillCJ (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Important to note that the H in LPH refers to the ship's hospital facility, not the embarked helicopter squadron! Additionally, there is no such thing as a "Landing Platform, Helicopter" according to SECNAVINST 5030.8 which governs Navy hull classifications. It simply stands for "Amphibious Assault Ship." Therefore LPH is a specific type of Amphibious Assault Ship but that type is not "Landing Platform, Helicopter" it is simply "LPH." --Jaiotu (talk) 05:59, 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 5030.8instead 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiotu (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean you should move it to a non-standard article name format. Read article naming conventions first please. I suggest also that you wait for your comments on WP:Ships to bear fruit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I did jump the gun. Sorry. However, renaming the article back to "Landing Platform Helicopter" does not address the issue since USN LPHs are not Landing Platform Helicopter ships. They are Amphibious Assault Ships. The article is written with a bias toward the USN. Unless the first section is rewritten to be more inclusive of world navies, leaving the title as "Landing Platform Helicopter" perpetuates this error. If the article is supposed to be about LPH ships in general, then perhaps leaving the title as Landing Platform Helicopter is justified. When the first sentence reads "LPH is the United States Navy hull classification symbol for the amphibious assault ships of the Iwo Jima class and three converted Essex class aircraft carriers" then it would be reasonable to follow the naming standards recorded by the United States Navy. I don't think that's the best answer... I think rewriting the article to follow a multinational scope would be justifiable. --Jaiotu (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Recommend for deletion!

The leading paragraph identifies LPH Amphibious Assault Ships as the hull designation for Iwo Jima class and three converted Essex class aircraft carriers. The article then includes ships of the Royal Navy and one ship of the S. Korean Navy while none of these ships are Iwo Jima or converted Essex class aircraft carriers. This is a major conflict!

Additionally, while the ROKS Dokdo (LPH 6111) does have a hull designation of LPH, the ships of the Royal Navy do not... therefore making them not an "LPH" in any sense at all.

Furthermore, LPH does not, according the SECNAVINST 5030.8 stand for "Landing Platform Helicopter." There is no such thing! LPH stands for "Amphibious Assault Ship." Therefore the title for the page is inaccurate. Recommend this page be merged with the page for "Amphibious Assault Ships," deleted and a new page be created specifically for those ships hull designated LPH in the United States Navy.--Jaiotu (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

LPH does stand for "Landing Platform Helicopter" in the RN ref here and the IISS [1]. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

LPH may stand for "Landing Platform Helicopter" in the RN, but it does not in the USN. The article is as written is prejudicial toward the USA. If we are going to define "LPH" as a hull classification in the United States Navy then it should it should reflect that. Otherwise we need to remove the bias toward the USA. I would suggest a complete rewrite of the main section of the article to refer to LPHs in general and include specific information regarding how the various navies refer to them in their own section.----Jaiotu (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Further definitions and origins differ over time LST seems to be used for "Tank Landing Ship", its origin is "Landing Ship, Tank" (cf Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI) GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with rewriting it to be more international in scope. LPH might be the better article title to be more neutral, and explain the NATO, RN and USN definitions in the text, with citations. - BilCat (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Other options include one or more of folding this article into the more general helicopter carrier, creating a LPH (hull classification) or LPH (United State Navy) (depending on views on disamibguation if needed) article to cover the USN application of the "symbol" over the years, and/or other ideas. Also LPH is currently a disambiguation page.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, LPH is a DAB page - I realized that after writing here. SSN (hull classification symbol) already exists, so LPH (hull classification symbol) would be another option. SInce the RN calls the Ocean an LPH, I've no porblem covering more than just the USN here. - BilCat (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have three competing references: The Royal Navy, NATO STANAG and the US Navy. All three sources provide different classifications for the meaning of "LPH." The article as it has been rewritten is a big improvement, but still defaults to the Royal Navy term of "Landing Platform Helicopter." I would suggest going with the NATO STANAG terminology or changing the title to LPH (hull classification symbol). Either of these would be more multinational and inclusive. --Jaiotu (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave the word "symbol" out because to the average reader "LPH" is not a symbol and as I understand the article, the symbol is the combination of the letters and the number. So "CVE-121" is a symbol, made up of a hull classification code CVE and the 121. A different disambiguator could be used eg LPH (warship classification) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since both the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy are part of NATO... and NATO's standardization lists LPH as "Amphibious Assault Ship, Helicopter" I suggest the article title be changed to the NATO terminology, a new article on Hull Classifications based on STANAG be created and all warships using hull codes found in STANAG be classified according to that standard regardless of the ship's classification within it's own Navy. This would give Wikipedia better standardization. --Jaiotu (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to be standardized as such if the articles are clear about what they cover. If you create an article about the STANAG classification of hull types, then what you should be including in it is is the history of the classification, how it's agreed and what its used for - and the article would be at "STANAG xxxxx". Including a list of the codes and what they mean would go against the wikipedia policy and be pointless as the document could be linked to. On the other hand writing an article under LPH or Amphibious Assault Ship, Helicopter would not be taking an encylopaedic view of the subject, other nations outside NATO may have similar or related ships or the naming or code may have changed over time, better to have quality content at amphibious warfare ship and or helicopter carrier that covers (and contrasts) the designs and use of these ships with a note saying "under STANAG xxx, since 19xx NATO forces identify these vessels as 'Amphibious Warfare ship, helicopter' using the short code 'LPH'. The nnnn Navy uses the term ' etc. The phrase 'Landing Platform Helicopter' is used in Jane's Fighting Ships and other sources as well as popular works on the subject". Actually it would be very useful to know what Jane's refers to this sort of vessel as now as well as in the past. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is pointless to have a separate article for STANAG hull classifications, than isn't it just as pointless to have the article for U.S. Navy hull classifications that is linked to in this article? Should we gut that article and just put up a link to SECNAVINST 5030.8A? Additionally, I'm not sure how having an article titled "Landing Platform Helicopter" is any more or less encyclopedic than having one titled "LPH" or "Amphibious Assault Ship, Helicopter." I'll have to make a trip to the local library to check their copy of Jane's Fighting Ships to see how they refer to LPHs. They have a copy dated 1977 which should cover the LPH class... I'm a DoD contractor, so I can access the Maxwell AFB's Air University library for a more updated copy if necessary. I'm sure they have a more up-to-date copy. The issue here is standardization. Currently, almost every article on U.S. Navy LPHs classifies them as "Landing Platform Helicopter." Why? What source is the "standard" for classifying warships? SECNAV 5030.8A, STANAG? Jane's, the RN? Wikipedia should either classify ships based on what the ship's nation classifies them as or pick a single standard for all warships regardless of nation of origin. --Jaiotu (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landing Platform Helicopter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920083826/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/assault-ships/hms-ocean/history/index.htm to http://royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/assault-ships/hms-ocean/history/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1