The contents of the HSV-X1 Joint Venture page were merged into HSC Manannan on May 25, 2012 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States This redirect 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 Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Ships This redirect 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 Australia HSV-X1 Joint Venture is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian What's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Is this a wave peircing craft? -- Gbleem 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I am suggesting that HSV-X1 Joint Venture and HSC Manannan be merged into a single article, as they are both about the same vessel, at the moment large sections of content overlap between the two, and I cannot see the combined operational histories being of such size that separate articles are warranted. However, I am not sure which name the ship should be merged to, and am open to suggestions. -- saberwyn 05:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well I don’t know what the best move is. But I do know this is not the only duplicate article about an Incant that has had military and civilian service, and a page for each. Example: HMAS Jervis Bay (AKR 45) and HSC SpeedOne Some would argue that her military service is more notable, so it should go under her serving name. But then on the other hand others say it should go under its current operating name. Personally I don’t know, what does the Wiki ships guide lines say in this instance? Mbruce1 ( talk) 12:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The examples you give were merged at one point under the Jervis Bay name, but the HSC SpeedOne artice was restored by an IP editor six months later. I've re-proposed that merge.

As for preferred name, the naming convention guideline says "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name". -- saberwyn 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The article should be under her build name - the most used name within the shipping community - Incat 050, with all other names redirecting i.e. Devil Cat, Top Cat, Mannanin should redirect to Incat 050(no-one seems to have picked up on her life as Top Cat yet...) She did actually spend some time in service as Incat 050 To have two articles on the same ship is a nonsense. There COULD be a case for a second article describing her military service life - if enough data could be found for it. Maybe a better idea would be an article on "Military experimental use of high-speed multi-hulled craft" linking to this vessel, HSC Spearhead (Incat 060) Jervis Bay (Incat 045) and HSV 2 Swift Those latter articles should also be retitled under their Incat names with redirects from the other names There could be a case for also linking in the UK-built HMS Triton trimaran, though that really is a different animal, being a pure experimental craft, not a converted ferry. Olddemdike ( talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

If this is still open, I would oppose the merger. In similar cases, when a ship has significantly different careers (major conversion, major change of use, civilian to military) then two articles are better. It simplifies the infobox, and the categories, to do it that way, and as a merger still leaves two pages (the merged article and a re-direct, there's no saving their either. and it saves the dilemma of which of the two fairly uneventful careeers is the "best-known". I'd agree if they stayed separate the overlap would need trimming, though. And the various civilian incarnations should probably all be on the same page. Xyl 54 ( talk) 05:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

PS Some examples of separate articles, where there was a major change of use; SS Roma (1926) became Italian aircraft carrier Aquila, SS Normandie became USS Lafayette (AP-53). Xyl 54 ( talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I would support a merger. A single article can adequately cover a ship with military and civilian roles. See the HMS Activity (D94) article for an example of this. Mjroots ( talk) 05:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I would oppose the merger. Incat050 was significantly modified for her military role, both structurally and in mode of operation: normal operation for vessels like these is a several-hundred mile passage during the day, followed by alongside machinery maintenance every night. I believe the total *operating* crew is four -- Captain, Navigator, Chief Engineer, and a roving fire watch.

By contrast the Navy (and I presume the Army) ran her continuously at sea for considerable periods, requiring what turned out to be an operating crew of ~35 as well as grappling with the need for underway maintenance and housing and feeding the operating staff and permanent military detachment.

However I disagree that her military deployment was "fairly uneventful." Completely aside from her active wartime deployment, her entire career with the military -- certainly the Navy; I don't have direct knowledge of what the Army did with her -- was both groundbreaking from the standing of operating such a vessel continuously at sea, and of great military importance both to the US military and to that of allied countries, as she experimented with and demonstrated capacities for mechanized/infantry transport, ability to load and discharge with minimal shore support, seakeeping and weather-avoidance capabilities (she is rated IIRC for operation in maximum five-meter seas, and indeed when I was familiar with her there were visible stress ripples in the skin somewhat forward of amidships), helo operations, underway deployment and recovery of various RIB and other fast small-boats for various missions, minesweeping, combined fleet operations, littoral operations and so forth. None of this was previously known and nothing about her operation was routine in any normal sense.

My brother, who was her skipper during her two periods of Navy operations, might be willing if invited to write a non-classified article on her operations under his command, and might be able to provide some photographs from his considerable collection. Incidentally I *believe* he was driving when the lead photograph was taken, though I can't be certain without seeing what's outside the frame to the left. If so, she was sweeping to port after having overtaken and passed between an Australian and a New Zealand warship. A stylized version of that sweeping turn (minus the warships) became the embroidered device on the ship's baseball caps and I believe the photo was used by Incat for promotional purposes. Dbeierl ( talk) 07:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

then the obvious thing is two have two articles: one discussing the vessels history in general terms, with a second evaluating the military career experience and lessons learnt while she was under military orders. As you say, it was a ground breaking event and deserves recognition in its own right (at least as far as the requirements of security allow). If your brother could be prevailed upon to write this, I'm sure it woudl be welcomed. Was he involved with Spearhead and Swift as well? An article combining the experiences of all three would be very illuminating Olddemdike ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I've re-jigged the article to trim the overlap with the Manannan page. I've also tried to put the civilian stuff over there and keep the military stuff here. Xyl 54 ( talk) 06:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I corrected an error in deployment history, i.e. the Navy and Army each had her twice for several months at a time. Navy first and third, Army second and fourth. My brother was the Navy skipper. Dbeierl ( talk) 06:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply