This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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:
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
They're back
My sourcing says they're coming back to serve in Iran's Gulf.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/03/mil-120316-afps05.htm
There are five patrol craft in the United States, three more coming back to the Navy from the Coast Guard and five in the Persian Gulf, Greenert said
“I want to move toward upgrading the PCs in the United States with Gatling guns and put them in Bahrain, ultimately, and we’ll have 10 [in the Gulf],” the admiral said.
Within a year, most of the capabilities will be in place in region, he said.
So are these boats or ships? The first line of the description says "The Cyclone-class patrol ships are a class of United States Navy coastal patrol boats."
And also the Section
"Development and design"
"The program was stopped at 14 boats, however, as it was realised that the PC was too large for the SEAL delivery role."
The description is vague and ambiguous.
Joedumlao (
talk)
19:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I believe it can be either, as long as the article is consistent with the usage of one over the other. Whichever one is used will likely depend on linked articles or quotes from sources. If both must be used, it should probably be noted that both can be used interchangeably. IMHO -
wolf10:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Decommissioning dates
The two refs don't actually disagree - the Seapower ref. (definitely a high quality, specialist source, says that all the relevant ships (including the 3 Cyclones, but also including other ships, including two LCSs) will be decommissioned by 31 March, while the News4JAX (which appears to be a RS, if more local and less specialist) just talks about the three Cyclones and says they will be decommissioned on 14 January. Note that the News4Jax source is dated 16 November this year while the Seapower is dated 6 July, so the later source may reflect later, more specific information.
Nigel Ish (
talk)
11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Perhaps keep both sources as simply state the boats will be decommissioned in early 2021, for now. Surely as the new year arrives, more sources will give a specific, confirmed date. But the edits I reverted, as they were, conflicted with other articles. -
wolf00:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Maybe use the Seapower ref for the general body of the article - in the operational history - something like - "Three of the Cyclones were planned to be decommissioned by the end FY20-21 as part of a programme of force reduction (i.e. giving the context), while use the News4JAX and the specific date (again - stating that this is a programmed date) in the ships table?
Nigel Ish (
talk)
11:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
That's works. Again, my only concern was swapping out one good ref for another and conflicting info across multiple articles. Cheers. -
wolf17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply