Talk:Surface combatant

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Ships

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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Merge into Warship?[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.

Closed as No consensus - A 14-month-old merge proposal, with minimal discussion on the 2 non-target articles. - BilCat (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this being more than a dictionary definition, and would benefit from the context of the Warship article. 82.3.242.144 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surface combatant is Navy-speak for "escort". Warships would include LPDs, SSNs, CVNs, etc, but the surface combatants exist mainly to keep the small stuff from bothering the power projection ships as they operate aircraft, LCACs and EFVs. Hcobb (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mine-layers as surface combatant[edit]

Mine sweepers are not surface combatants and of course that makes sense. Mine-layers seem to fit the definition of surface combatant because they deploy weapons from their ships for the purpose of engaging other ships. Therefore I think mine laying ships should be included in the list of surface combatant ships. XXVII (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Freedom (LCS-1) is a surface combatant and a part time minesweeper. Hcobb (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Surface combatant. 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/20070203214934/http://www.onr.navy.mil/ctto/docs/naval_transform_roadmap.pdf to http://www.onr.navy.mil/ctto/docs/naval_transform_roadmap.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]