Piling on...
The following was found at:
http://www.coltoncompany.com/
HOW DO THE NAVY'S GREAT MINDS WORK?
I do not understand why the Navy has apparently abandoned the standardized approach to ship type classification. They call the new combatant ships being built by Marinette and Austal littoral combat ships. Why the pretentious littoral and not the straightforward coastal, which the Navy has used for 100 years or so? Do you know anyone who uses littoral rather than coastal in every day speech? There is absolutely no difference in meaning between littoral and coastal: look them up. Then the Navy uses the type classification LCS, as if type names are just abbreviations. And a type classification beginning with an L suggests that it's an amphibious-warfare ship. These ships should be classified as PFs, i.e., patrol frigates, and the numbering should carry on from the last series of PFs, i.e. starting at 109.
Then there are the joint high-speed vessels. Guys, the word joint is not required: it relates to the program, not to the vessel. Over the years we've had lots of boats that were used by both the Navy and the Army - and by the Coast Guard too - and we never needed a J before. And again, type classifications are not just abbreviations. This ship is not a JHSV, or even an HSV: it is an APc, a coastal transport. And because it's going to be operated by MSC or one of its contractors, with a civilian crew, it's actually a T-APc and the numbering should carry on from the last series of APc's, i.e. starting at 116.
And then there's the naming system: the first two PFs have names that are not consistent with the naming system selected for the class, as does the fourth T-APc. Can't they get anything right?
I don't know why I get so steamed up about things like this. But am I wrong?
September 15, 2011.
