Talk:Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Medical Variant edit
@Seanjoseph11: I reverted your changes to this page and the pages for Cody and Point Loma regarding the Flight II EPF. It looks like you confused the flight II EPF with Austal USA's EPF Medical Variant (which is a proposed replacement for the US Navy's hospital ships). Flight II begins with Cody (T-EPF-14), but the Medical Variant, if adopted, will not be any sooner than EPF-17. See The Navy’s First Medical Ship In 35 Years Will Be Unlike Any Before It and Austal envisions smaller, more agile hospital ships to replace Navy legends. —RP88 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Contextualization Needed edit
The cost of this experimental vessel is 214 million dollars. It displaces less than 2000 tons. To judge whether this is pork or not, US readers will need to have some context. How much do small merchant vessels that can move this sort of cargo cost on the commercial market? We also would need to know why there is a new 44 million dollar unmanned package on this class that is being installed without plans by the navy to use it. The bottom line, there is a lot of missing context in the article, and I suggest some serious rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.43.236.5 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)