This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Will this ship be commanded by a Commander (O-5) or a Lt Commander (O-4)? The crew (less than 50) seems kinda small for a full Commander to command. Jigen III 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Henry... In general, that's a very fine characterization except that I'd also add the missions (like anti-mine warfare) that LCS will be uniquely suited to. RE: size, it isn't that much smaller than a frigate - in fact, at about 120-130 meters, the LCS is roughly the size of Britain's Type 23 frigates that represent the backbone of the Royal Navy. In layman's terms it's the size of a football field WITH the end zones, and significantly larger than Sweden's 72m Visby Class littoral warfare corvette.
I'll add that the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers will remain the backbone of the US Navy for a long, long time to come. Many will serve well into the 2030s and even 2040s. Their AEGIS systems, SM-2 or SM-3 missiles, and Co-operative Engagement Capability give them an anti-air punch that can't be beat, and their ability to launch large numbers of Tomahawk cruise missiles adds a ground attack capability that's pretty much unique among surface combatants out there today. Additional future upgrades to both systems are certainties. I could wish for anti-ship missile improvements over the Harpoon that would match the Russian Sunburns, and if they build that I'm sure retrofits will be possible.
The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, on the other hand, have already seen many retirements and will probably be around for only about another decade. It's probably fair the characterize the LCS as replacing them over the long term - unlike the Europeans, the USA has decided that it doesn't really need frigate-type ships that are really just pocket destroyers. It wants the real thing, or it wants something with unique advantages.
Final note: LCS ships won't just be advance scouts ahead of carrier battle groups - often, they'll work with Expeditionary Strike Groups or international task forces, and it's highly likely that Arleigh Burke Class desroyers will be their most important "big brother backup" providing that extra air-defense, anti-ship, and even land attack punch (for Expeditionary forces, the LHA/LHD ships with Harriers or Joint Strike Fighters will also be big).
-- Awk!
"The LCS will be a variation of the destroyer (DD and DDG types) designed to replace the fleet of frigates currently in use by the Navy, which are slowly being retired from the fleet."
This is way off.
How about instead going with this.
"The LCS is the first class in the Navy's plans for a transformational series of next generation surface combatants. The LCS is smaller than the Frigates currently used by the Navy and sacrifices air defense and a anti-ship gun in exchange for speed, mission module space and a shallow draft that allows this class to operate close to shore in the littorals."
The one person who is most to blame for the LCS isn't mentioned on your page, so please add a note that it is "Limited to (admiral) Clark's term of Service".
-- Henry J. Cobb http://www.io.com/~hcobb/
Hmm... would this be the USN's new series of corvettes? Lacking in some offensive features as they are...
What's the story with the Austal proposal?
What does "littoral" mean, or where does it come from? 70.20.233.232 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, the "littoral combat ship" program is pretty much identical to the program to build one particular class. Should this article incorporate the (as yet unwritten) Freedom class littoral combat ship article? Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
From initial reports, it looks like there will be no LCS-3 and any further ships will keep their previous numbers. Thus I only deleted that one link. Also, Coastal defence ship are totally different than Littoral Combat Ships - the first stay close to their shores and fight against sea targets and the second go to foreign shores and fight against land targets. I removed that link as well. Spejic 04:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To what extent did the Visby play a part in this ship's development? If it did, should it not be mentioned? Chwyatt 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In looking for a reference for the comment that the LCS was a competing response to Rumsfeld's "Streetfighter" idea, everything I found seemed to indicate that the LCS was instead a delayed outgrowth from that abandoned idea. Because of that, I removed the line. Spejic 08:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:GDLCS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the Israel version be a subsection of this page or another page that's linked from here?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/LCS_Lockheed_Israel_Variant_Brochure.pdf Hcobb (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
69.115.223.105 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)7/16/09 The current article says that Israel abandoned the porject in favor of a locally built ship funded by the us. However, the sourc cited states "Unlike most major military acquisitions, which are based on U.S.-built platforms and funded through U.S. military grant aid, Israel will have to fund the bulk of the estimated $600 million program on its own." see [1]
This is the most concrete mention of the top-heavy problem, but it's still not quite solid enough, so I'm looking for some primary sources on this.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/better-ships-please/ "Further, I now understand that the LCS is so heavy it cannot accommodate all the mission modules without becoming unstable in heavy seas." Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the big points in the LCS program is the use of unmanned vehicles and yet "USV" appears nowhere. Shall I make a section that lists out the sort of stuff in each module or split off each module to its own page. Hcobb (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This section looks awful, it's just a timeline. Can anyone with a little expertise rewrite this into prose from the terrible timeline-list that it's currently on?
Secondly, there are two photos of two very different looking ships in the article. The article mentions that there are two classes of LCS ships, and that Lockheed makes one and GD makes the other, but there is no other discussion of the differences. It doesn't need to be in depth, but as a non-expert reader I was very confused. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
this is a suggestion to improve. in case it finds support, further sources (no time anymore just now) could be added from the current text:
Ships built for Development and Testing The United States Navy launched its first testbed, Sea Fighter, in 2003. Sea Fighter used a SWATH type hull and was designated as Fast Sea Frame or FSF-1.[2] The ship was put into service in 2005 and is used to test mission modules.[3]. In 2004, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon submitted designs to the Navy of their proposed littoral combat ships. It was decided in 2004 to produce two vessels each (Flight 0) of a design submitted by Lockheed Martin (LCS-1 and LCS-3) and of a desing by General Dynamics (LCS-2 and LCS-4). Experience with these ships was to guide further development and procurement decisions. Injecting some kind of competion, it was hoped, would help to keep costs down. As of March 2010 LCS 1 and LCS2 are commissioned, LCS3 and LCS4 are in production.
Cost Issues and Power Struggles Both programs experienced hugh cost increases and FY2010 budget documents put the total costs of the two lead ships to $637 million for Freedom and $704 million for Independence.[4]. Severe concerns about cost control went on as "Freedom" (LCS1) [5] and "Independence" (LCS2) were built, beginning in June 2005. As early as 2007 it was announced that only one ship each would be bouilt. [6][7]. Abandoning one of the desings early on was hoped to reduce costs. But in 2009 both (LCS 3) and (LCS4) were ordered according to original plans. Citing complemantary features the Navy even rejected plans to abandon any of the desings for cost reasons. Both industry and the Navy answered political pressure by members of congress, presidential candidate McCain, and retired high ranking navy members by stressing the advantages of the designs and improvements in cost control. With USS Fort Worth (LCS3) and USS Coronado (LCS4) secured the Navy anounced in September 2009 that they would downselect one design and order 10 ships with a fixed price contract in 2010, thereby invalidating earlier claims of complementarity and ending up with the very procurement and evaluation process they aimed at from the beginnning.
Delays of LCS-development and Fleet Strength In June 2009, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services that the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates and minesweepers were too worn out to continue in service to cover the gap if the LCS development process suffered further delays.[8]. It has also been suggested to put LCS1 and LCS2 to real use in the fight against piracy to remedy current shortcomings and to cash in on supposed possibilities to save costs.
"Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems released a study that showed that seven LCS can more efficiently perform anti-piracy patrols in the Western Indian Ocean than a fleet of 20 conventional ships for a quarter of the cost.[31]" is just silly. The study compares one wrong set of ships against another. The major improvement then comes from better use of new air assets. Ships like the Danish patrol frigates (one helicopter, one gun, good radar, small crew) are much better suited for this role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.206.228 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The reference to the Roomba is silly and irrelevant to LCS in any case. The Navy bought some Roombas to clean offices--the sentence in the article seems to imply we are going to have armed Roombas roaming the seas.
Query: If this should become a generic ship type article, shall the scope of this article be broadened so as to include the Malaysian "Littoral combat ships" or are they to be "See Also"s? Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Add this in?
From the Kockums article:
"Kockums worked with Northrop Grumman and HDW to offer a Visby class corvette derivative in the American Focused Mission Vessel Study, a precursor to the Littoral Combat Ship program. It competed with several other concepts including Norway's Skjold class (part of a Raytheon led group)." Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/02/navy-bob-work-says-optimal-manning-went-too-far-020611w/ LCS “is one of the most misunderstood ships in the history of the Navy,” Work said. “We are not exactly sure of how it will finally operate in the fleet.”
Am I to understand that other then the 57mm gun these ships will have no surface-to-surface capability? The XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System program has been cancelled. Independence appears to have a slot for a VLS launch tubes, but no tubes are fitted (Key West photo). Freedom does not appear to have any VLS at all. Will AGM-84 Harpoons be fitted the these vessels? What is the surface-to-air capability of these vessels? The 57mm, RAM, and Phlanx? As far as the article goes, it seems the ships are designed to be over priced targets with limited fighting abilities but focus more on minor amphibious operations. Has anyone else come to this conclusion as well?67.172.179.96 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So much for "Give me a fast ship for I intend to take her into Harm's Way." ~ American Captain John Paul Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.179.96 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/10/21/01.xml&headline=U.S.%20Navy%20Seeks%20To%20Improve%20On%20LCS%20Designs “Increment 1 does not have quite the range, the capability NLOS has,” Murdoch says. “It does not have over-the-horizon range. You need to be laser-designated.”
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/13/opinion/13opchartimg.html?ref=opinion
Not including this because the physics are wrong. Hcobb (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17311 Commander Nelson: We can easily work with the LCS, especially with her different mission capabilities. And if she needs to change out mission capabilities, we have the cargo space to fulfill her mission.
Folks you have merely been adding to the prose-line while that tag has been sitting on the article for 2 years, we have to start fixing this, it isn't to Wiki standards.Tirronan (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to submit a suggestion to the editorial team regarding how the different LCS types are referred to in this entry. In the leading LCS description on Wikipedia, authors refer to the different variants of the ship as "Freedom-class" and "Independence-class". The Navy (source: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1650&ct=4) refers to this differently; they cite "Freedom-variant" and "Independence-variant" and LCS is actually the class. An example phrase: "The nation's third littoral combat ship, the future USS Fort Worth, is the second ship of LCS program's Freedom variant". RoundRobin82 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/navy-littoral-combat-ship-program-manager-fired-012712w/
Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Article linked does not say that Germany promised to fund the Israeli frigate procurement, or that they went back on their promise and pulled out. End of the article maintains the possibility of purchase. That's the rationale. 174.113.134.157 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
If we switch to two column layout this will automagically group the variants into different columns. Hcobb (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a slight wrinkle in that the LCS can never do the only job it was designed to perform story.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lcs-wont-survive-a-shootout-with-china-2012-4 Adm. Greenert revealed he wouldn't intend to send a Littoral Combat Ship to an anti-access area — not on its own anyway. He said the LCS would likely sail in groups of two to three to sweep mines under the protection of a more combat-suitable vessel such as an Aegis destroyer.
I'm still looking for the exact quote on this. So please either provide a pointer or just mindlessly rollback as usual. Hcobb (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
https://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2012-04-06/?26712
We just got the annual update and I'm reading through it. I've already spotted module schedule and equipment changes to make. Also some interesting slides on "speed is armor". Hcobb (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to add, because he has the DDG at a third of the real price. Hcobb (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Adm. Copeman's "operational issue" is that the LCS is useless in a fight and so is operationally constrained to operating only as part of a task force with real warships. How is this not clear? Hcobb (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/littoral-combat-ship-network-can-be-hacked-navy-finds.html The computer network on the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship is vulnerable to hacking, according to findings by Navy cybersecurity specialists.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=813
The takeaway from the ref is that Austal is begging to not have to compete on price, but LockMart is fine with that. However this is at an OR level, so I'm still digging. Hcobb (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130902/DEFREG02/309020018
Not quite enough to list yet? Hcobb (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Littoral_combat_ship&oldid=597990204&diff=prev
The CRS is pointing out that previous Navy studies have supported the LCS program and that Hagel has produced no studies that show the need for his change. Hcobb (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
From page 17 of the document linked to:
"The Navy selected the LCS program as the most cost-effective program for filling the fleet’s requirement for additional capability for countering mines, small boats, and diesel submarines in littoral waters. Has DOD conducted a formal analysis that demonstrates that there is a more cost-effective way to address these capability gaps?"
Hcobb (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that the previous version of the linked document by the same author is currently ref #19 in this article. Hcobb (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there any way to get a better photo of the Independence? At first glance the pier is of similar-enough color to look like a flight deck. Given that this is a cropped and fairly small picture I think there is room for confusion. 207.250.87.252 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to cover the incremental approach the navy has taken with the LCS modules. The surface warfare package, for instance, has been scheduled to have 4 increments, starting with 2 Mk. 46 30mm guns and a MH-60R, adding a maritime security module with small boats with the second increment, Vertical UAVs and a surface to surface missile with the third, and an improved, longer range s2s missile for the fourth. The navy has given each of these increments different performance requirements.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1300&ct=4
Is the USN an unreliable source as to their own plans? Hcobb (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/us-navy-ships-idUSKBN0KO22X20150115
Hcobb (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that SECNAV Mabus stated they would switch "from LCS to FF", but will this actually be the case? Surely it will actually be FFG, no? I can't picture these later beefed up redesigns as not having guided missile capability. I also ask because I'm curious as to which hull code number scheme they will follow; will they start at 'FFG-62' after the last Perry class? Or 'FF-1099' after the last Garcia class? - theWOLFchild 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: - Good morning. I see that with this edit, you moved a paragraph of text based on the ref date. I just wanted to say that the paragraph was written as a follow-on to the preceding qparagraph. Even though the second ref was older, the info is still current therefore the move was not needed. I didn't want to revert you before letting you know. (reverts seem to upset everyone these days). Thanks. - theWOLFchild 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/12/16/littoral-combat-ship-lcs-navy-budget-fighter-super-hornet-joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin-fincantieri-austal/77452734/ Pentagon Cuts LCS to 40 Ships, 1 Shipbuilder
Hcobb (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Fnlayson:, @America789: - regarding this latest report of possible cuts to the program; while there are now 2 sources, they are both reporting on the same memo. And while that memo calls for a reduction of hulls by 12, there is basically no other info (as in, where will the cuts come from?) The navy has at least a dozen contracts over the same period that SecDef wants the cuts. We don't know if they'll the reduce the last of the Block 0 (18), or any of the Block 1 (8), or if the cuts will come from the proposed FF (20). And as for the "downselect to a single variant", will that come down between Lockheed and Austral, or will it be whoever is to provide the new FF? (like HII, for example) Should we perhaps wait until there is more info before adding any lengthy additions to the article about this? Apparently there is going to be a lot of push-back against this memo from the navy as well as from some members of congress. These cuts may not even go through. - theWOLFchild 21:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
since the total ship requirement has been reduced- but has it though? Right now it's just a memo from SecDef saying he wants a reduction. But the navy has contracts in place over the time period that SecDef has directed the cuts. It's yet to be seen if these proposed cuts will stand. The more detailed the info, the questions it raises. There is already a brief mention of the potential reductions in the lead, will that suffice for now? - theWOLFchild 00:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In fact, where is the 'General Characteristics' section? Just asking.Twobells (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Littoral combat ship. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article page states: "In 2013 and 2014, the Navy's LCS requirement was progressively cut from 55 to 32 vessels in favor of a proposed frigate, more capable of high intensity combat.[5] In late 2014, the Navy proceeded with a procurement plan for enhanced versions of the LCS and upgraded older ships to meet the program's 52-ship requirement;[6] the modified LCS will be redesignated as FF[7] or frigate.[8] In December 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the Navy to reduce the planned LCS/FF procurement from 52 to 40, and downselect to one variant by FY 2019." Based on the numbers listed shouldn't the first sentence read "progressively cut from 55 to 52 vessels" rather than "progressively cut from 55 to 32 vessels"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.16.182.132 (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Littoral combat ship. 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:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Navy-Undersecretary-Discusses-Future-of-the-Surface-Combat-Fleet/10737430842-1/{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.stripes.com/littoral-combat-ships-see-new-delivery-delays-navy-says-1.220267{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.stripes.com/littoral-combat-ships-lack-firepower-navy-commander-warns-1.213909{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17903&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
totrue
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
'LCS Ship' is redundant and appears all over the article, but I'm unsure of how to fix it in a few places. Ranzear (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Littoral combat ship. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Littoral combat ship. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Littoral combat ship. 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:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://inform.com/business/navy-revises-littoral-combat-ship-buying-plan-672135a{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1035When 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)