::The USN even posts a summary of the locations of its major ships at: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146 The summary was much more detailed before September 11, however. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 23:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
::The USN even posts a summary of the locations of its major ships at: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146 The summary was much more detailed before September 11, however. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 23:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:::So it was the Eisenhower. Thanks for the help! [[User:75.75.110.235|75.75.110.235]] 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:48, 16 July 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aircraft carrier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Aircraft carrier has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.
Aircraft carrier received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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
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
How do you define the first designed aircraft carrier? HMS Ark Royal and HMS Furious were both partially built before being changed to aircraft carriers. HMS Argus was only laid down before being built as an aircraft carrier. HMS Hermes was designed and launched before Hosho was even conceived. The delay to Hermes was more to do with the Royal Navy wanting to cut spending that testing problems.
For my money HMS Argus was the first purpose built aircraft carrier although there is an argument for HMS Hermes. I think the senctence should be reworded as
The first ship to be designed specifically as an aircraft carrier was the HMS Hermes, launched in September 1919, although a 5 year delay in commissioning means that the Japanese Hosho was commissioned first.
CW 5 Oct 2005
The IJN Hosho was designed in 1918 (Taisho 7), more than a year before the HSM Hermes launch, and laid down in 1919, the year HSM Hermes was actually launched. Hosho was indeed the first purpose-designed aircraft carrier to be commissionned. PHG00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This comes back to the definition of "built". Just because IJN Hosho was the first to have the shrink wrap taken off the steering wheel doesn't make her first. Searching the net I am having difficulty finding any page that states Hosho was the first. Some links that state HMS Hermes:
"World War Two Warships" by D.J. Lyon (ISBN 0525700579) states: "The Japanese had acquired a great experience with aircraft carriers: the Hosho, their first unit, was laid down after the British HMS Hermes, but was completed before her, and thus became the first aircraft carrier to have been conceived as such." Doesn't sum it up rather well? Regards PHG12:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It sums up the authors opinion very well. Although, aside from the web links above, every book I have read on the subject states HMS Hermes as the first. As I say it comes down to your definition and as Hosho was effectively modelled on Hermes and Hermes was launched in 1919 then Hermes comes before Hosho.
At best this is a moot point but I would like to see a more realistic appraisal of the situation than the article currently states.
CW 6 Oct 2005
I think I have this book somewhere but I missed that contradiction. Anyway, I don't like absurd pissing-up-the wall contests - personally I think the article is pretty clear on the history of this development. Wiki-Ed07:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to Haze Gray & Underway Hosho was initially designed as a tanker ship but redesigned during construction as a carrier and officially designated as an aircraft depot ship. -annonymous 12/01/06
According to Norman Polmar [Aircraft Carriers: A History of Carrier Aviation and its Influence on World Events, Volume 1, 1909-1945], Hermes and Hosho were the first ships designed as aircraft carriers, Hermes being laid down first and Hosho being the first in commission. However, the following sources dispute the origins of the Hosho:
Note the contradictory information at the globalsecurity link. Also, neither site gives their sources, and I can only assume they have acces to hard-to-get Japanese sources (yet Polmar seems to have more access to Japanese sources than anybody, yet doesn't raise this issue). --Dukefan7311:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seaplane tenders
I have removed the statement about them being phased out in the 20's, as it was inaccurate. If they had been phased out in the 20's then the Langley would not have been converted to one in 1937. [1] The Japanese had a few in their fleet, and even some floatplane fighters like the A6M2-N "Rufe"Nakajima A6M2-N.----anynobdy 04 January 2007
Actually, it said they fell out of frontline use , which is not the same thing as being phased out. I assume that satement came from a source somewhere, but it's not cited, so it makes it difficult to source. But as written, it does appear factual to me. - BillCJ00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added links to DANFS with info regarding Avocet and Langley. BillCJ, "out of frontline use" sounded to me like they were not being built/converted and not used for combat operations. If I misunderstood you I apologize, but seaplane tenders were being used for combat operations. Here is a link to a Naval Historical Center page of photos regarding just small seaplane tenders AVP. [2] Though they don't have photos for all of them, you can see by how many there are and their dates of service.
Deletion of images without justification (edit summary or discussion) crosses the line into vandalism. Repeated deletion of images on several aircraft carrier articles appear to be work of same individual operating from a series of IP addresses starting with 144.138.xx.xxx. Warnings have been placed on these addresses, but they have not been heeded. HJ15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that LHD LHA are defined before the acronyms are used. Common practice is to use the full proper name and then put the appropriate acronym in brackets, afterwards the acronym should be used there after. --131.137.245.19818:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LHAs and LHDs shouldn't even be mentioned in the article. They are ships that can carry aircraft, but they are not aircraft carriers, and there is a distinction. --Dukefan7305:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would depend on one's definition of "aircraft carrier".The article states: An aircraft carrier is a warship designed to deploy and recover aircraft — in effect acting as a sea-going airbase. I would add that it also carries a fairly large number of aircraft (at least more that 5), and that carrying aircraft is its primary mission.
By both those definitions, LPHs, LHAs, and LHDs qualify as carriers. (Yes, helicopters are aircraft too.) They are the direct descendants of the escort carrier, and the first LPH was a converted CVE (USS Thetis Bay', CVE-90, vonverted to LPH-6). Two Essex carriers were also converted as LPHs while the Iwo Jima class LPHs were being built.
Yes, the LHAs and LHDs also carry landing craft, but the LPHs did not. The LHAs were designed to rectify that mistake, as helicopters couldn't fly in extreme weather. In addition, the LHAs and LHDs carry Harriers on a regular basis. So, as carrying Hariers and helicopters is the primary role of the LHAs and LHDs, I'd say they qualify as aircraft carriers. - BillCJ23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that helicopters are aircraft (simply a matter of rotary-wing versus fixed-wing). However, going by the article's definition, then the Vittorio Veneto (C550), Johan De Witt (L801), Rotterdam (L800), and numerous other ships would therefore be called aircraft carriers. The primary role of the LHAs and LHDs are to put Marines ashore, and the aircraft are a means to that end. Therefor, they are rightfully classified as amphibious assault ships, and not aircraft carriers. However, I fully understand the point you're trying to make. I would also argue that LPHs, LHAs, and LHDs are not descended from CVEs in any manner except for the fact that the first LPH was a converted CVE. CVEs were designed to provide air support for convoys and air support for amphibious invasions, freeing up the fleet carriers for other duties. --Dukefan7304:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The LHAs and LHDs are hybrid - both amphibious assualt ships AND aircraft carriers, hence the term "amphibious assualt carriers" is often used. They primarily use aircraft to put Marines ashore (tho they have other means such as landing craft, but those are primarily as back-up). They also provide air support (Harriers and Cobras) for amphibious landings, and it's one of there primary missions. In wartime, they are capable of carrying Harriers as air superiority, and ASW helicopters in an ASW role, and could be used to escort convoys. Because of all this, I believe they warrant some coverage in this article.
As to the other types you metioned, they are usually classed as LPDs to my knowledge; while they have flight decks (usually half-length or smaller), operating aircraft is not their primary role. - BillCJ04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary purpose of a LHA, LHD, LSD, LPH, etc, is to transport troops, vehicles, and equipment. The fact that they carry helicopters is but a means to the end of putting those troops, vehicles, and equipment ashore. The landing craft carried by these ships are not a secondary or back-up means of doing this; they are just as important as the airborne means, especially for the bulk of the vehicles and equipment which cannot be lifted by helicopters. If Tarawa and Wasp are aircraft carriers, then surely the Whidbey Island and HMS Ocean are also. Furthermore, any reputable warships reference book such as Jane's Fighting Ships or Combat Fleets of the World list do NOT list any of these ships under "aircraft carriers", they are listed under amphibious warfare forces or the like. If the USN, Jane's, A.D. Baker, and other very reputable sources don't list them nor view them as aircraft carriers, then I think that speaks for itself. The Wikipedia article should not contradict far more reputable sources that do not consider these ships as aircraft carriers. They should have a seperate article.--Dukefan7313:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They DO have a separate article, Amphibious assualt ships. Their coverage here in this article is minimal at best, and given the fact that LHAs and LHDs are larger than the carriers of all aother nations other than the US, Russia, and France, warrants at least a mention here. It's not very good as yet, and could use lots of improvement. The HMS Ocean (L12) page lists the ship as an LPH/helicopter carrier, while USS Whidbey Island (LSD-41) is an LSD, a different type of ship. An LPH (and LHA/LHD) has a full-length flight deck; LSDs do not. In fact, the RN's HMS Ocean page describes her as a "Amphibious Helicopter Carrier". So I stand by my interpretation that LHA/LHD/LPH ships are hybrids - both carriers and amhibious assault ships. If you want to remove all mention to these ships from this article, you'll to have a consensus to do, and I don't believe you'll get it. - BillCJ17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for you to mention full-length flight decks. Now you're simply making the argument that if it looks like an aircraft carrier, it must be an aircraft carrier. But let's look at something you mentioned previously. An aircraft carrier is a warship designed to deploy and recover aircraft — in effect acting as a sea-going airbase. I would add that it also carries a fairly large number of aircraft (at least more that 5), and that carrying aircraft is its primary mission."
If you want to stick by your own argument, then the LHAs and LHDs are not aircraft carriers. Their primary mission is to put amhibious troops, their vehicles, and equipment ashore. Their primary mission is NOT to perform power projection or fleet defense, which is what aircraft carriers do. An aircraft carrier is defined just as much by its role as it is by the fact that it carries aircraft (whether fixed or rotary-wing). Just to further my argument, under the heading of Aircraft Carriers Today, the article states: "Nine countries maintain a total of 25 aircraft carriers". If LHAs and LHDs are aircraft carriers, then why are they not included in that total? I don't necessarily want to remove all mention of them from the article, I just want it made clear that LHAs and LHDs are not aircraft carriers in the presently or historically accepted sense of the term.--Dukefan7302:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please write the Royal navy, and inform them they are mistake to call the Ocean a helicopter carrier, as you yorself stated above that it is not a carrier. They'll be glad for the correction. I'm finished arguing with you. Are LHAs or KHDs fleet carriers? of course not, but to blanketly state that no one considers them to be cairriers of any kind is also wrong. It is a matter of dispute, not a cut-and-dried issue. If you want to add sources to the article that state they are not carriers, fine. I will then add sources which do consider them to be carriers, and we can let the readers decide. - BillCJ03:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this exchange to be a debate/discussion, not an argument. I never said HMS Ocean wasn't a helicopter carrier. I also don't recall making a blanket statement that nobody considers the LHAs or LHDs to be aircraft carriers, as obviously you and some other people do consider them. I'm not demeaning your perspective on the matter, and believe it or not I fully understand the logic of your argument. I would like to know your sources that classify them as aircraft carriers, I'll probably buy the books and read them for myself. However, I stand by my previous statement that if the USN, Jane's Fighting Ships, Combat Fleets of the World, etc, do not classify them as aircraft carriers, then that's what I go with. I really can't think of any more reputable sources. I'm eagerly awaiting the realease of Norman Polmar's second volume on aircraft carriers. It covers the period 1946-2006, and I'll see what he has to say about it, as he is the foremost authority on the subject IMHO (with the possible exception of Norman Friedman).--Dukefan7311:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I don't have to write the RN. I decided to start with their home page and go from there. I went to the Surface Fleet link, then the Aircraft Carriers link. Nothing about HMS Ocean. Backing up, I clicked on the Assault Ships link, and there she is. Interesting, don't you think? Maybe I'll ask her crew how they feel, she's been here in Norfolk for about a week now, and if she's still here maybe I can get their opinion. It would be interesting to get their perspective.--Dukefan7311:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read what I write? The RN's HMS Ocean page describes her as a "Amphibious Helicopter Carrier". That is the page I was referring to, and what needs to be changed, as you have "clearly" proven she is not a carrier of any kind. Hopefully the webmaster is on that ship, and you can straighten him/her out right there! - BillCJ14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do read what you write. I went the long way as I described to the link you provided. I NEVER stated she wasn't a "carrier of any kind". I agree that HMS Ocean is a helicopter carrier (which does not make her an aircraft carrier, because now you're making the distinction between rotary and fixed wing). Once again, I'll ask you for a list of your sources that classify the amhibious assault ships as aircraft carriers. Simply the ISBN numbers will do. That way I can read the material and get a better grasp of your perspective.--Dukefan7321:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my bad; sorry. As we already discussed, helicopters are aircraft. Really this is a semantics issue. To me, all "carriers" are "aircraft carriers", because, fixed- or rotary-wing, they are all aircraft, and that's what the ships are designed to carry. They aren't ballon- or blimp- or airship- carriers, but carry heavier-than-air vehicles (aircraft). Yes, the term "aircraft carrier" is usually used in the limited scope of meaning fleet, light, or super-carriers, but the other type of carriers also carry "aircraft", and the term is used broadly in that sense also. It's wrong to ingore the broader sense outright, but also worng to ignore that the limited sense is genuine also. Second, the term "amphibious assault ship" is broader than just LHAs and LHDs, and usually includes all types of amphibious operational support ships.
Given the limited coverage of other type of carriers in this article, I'm not really sure what you're objecting to, in relation to the article itself. If it's the big pic at the top woth the five "carriers" (incl. and LHA/D), the fact that 4 of the 5 carry Harriers, and the LHA/Ds larger size over the others, warrants its inclusion on that basis alone. If you feel the title needs tweaking, fine, lets discuss that in another section, and hope other editors will contribute.
As to the books, sorry, I guess I didn't read you carefully! :( - My bad, I just missed it. One of my primary sources is Carrier Aviation: Air Power Directory, ISBN 1-880588-42-0. It has detailed coverage of all major aircraft carriers and carrier aircraft since 1950, including the US LPHs, LHA's and LHDs. Interestingly, the current HMS Ocean is not covered, but the national sections are separate, written by different people. The term "amphibious assault ship" and "amphibious assault carrier" are used interchangably for LHAs/LHDs. It's a fairly recent book (2001), and a great resource for an overview of carrier history. - BillCJ00:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got lucky and found a used copy of your book on Amazon for $5.50! Already ordered it. I wasn't trying to give you the impression that I have tunnel vision and am unable to see the broader sense of the term. I asked my father (a retired USN BMCS with 28 years AD) his opinion, since he served in USS Intrepid, USS Independence, USS America, USS John F Kennedy, USS Franklin D Roosevelt, USS Nimitz, USS Saratoga, USS Forrestal, USS Eisenhower, and USS Saipan, what he thought about it. He stated he never considered the Saipan an aircraft carrier, as her design and mission was very different from that of the 9 carriers he served in during his carreer. He allowed that he could understand where somebody could take the viewpoint that the LHAs and LHDs are aircraft carriers, (primarily due to the visual aspect) but he agreed with me that it wouldn't follow with the accepted usage of the term. Just a viewpoint from somebody who's been there (I've actually spent a day on the Eisenhower, and spent 5 days at sea on the Saipan myself).
Funny you should mention the picture, because that probably bothers me more than anything. I believe the Wiki article titled "Aircraft Carriers" should be about aircraft carriers as the term is commonly used, going along with standard references such as Jane's Fighting Ships and Combat Fleets of the World. I've probably given you the impression that I'm being overzealous, I didn't mean to come across that way, I just jumped into our discussion a bit quickly.
I thought the pic might might have been the keey here. But whatever you consider the Wasp', a pic like that is a photo-op, as ships hardly ever sail tht close together. Someone considered the ships worthy of a pic, and it does give a good comparison of the ships in questions. - BillCJ17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having viewed the Helicopter Carrier, Anti-submarine warfare carrier, and Amphibious assault ships articles, I think there's some real problems here. Here's a qoute from the Amphibious assault ships articles you should find interesting:
"The Tarawa and Wasp types and their Iwo Jima class forebears resemble aircraft carriers. However, the role of an amphibious assault ship is fundamentally different to that of an aircraft carrier. Its aviation facilities are not to support strike or air defence aircraft, but for hosting helicopters to support forces ashore."
This falls in line with my position. It clearly defines the ships by their roles and not their appearence or secondary abilities. Since the Amphibious assault ships article is so clear on this, then shouldn't the effort be made to make sure that there's nothing in the Aircraft Carriers article to contradict this? Otherwise somebody using the Wiki articles to educate themselves on the subject would be a bit flummoxed by the contradiction, IMHO. Then the Helicopter Carrier article brings up my previous argument of including the LPHs and similar ships with the LHAs and LHDs as aircraft carriers as you postulate. The qoute from the article:
"Helicopter carriers can either have a full-length aircraft deck like HMS Ocean, or have a large helicopter deck, usually aft, as in the Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto or HMS Albion ."
So, if Vittorio Veneto with an aft flight deck for helicopters is a helicopter carrier, like the Saipan, and if the Saipan is an "aircraft carrier" because she operates fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, then it goes to follow that Vittorio Veneto is also an aircraft carrier. This is where I diverge from your broader definition of "aircraft carrier", because I simply cannot consider Vittorio Veneto, Albion, Whidbey Island, etc as "aircraft carriers". In other words, I don't want there to be a misleading linear connection between these ships, as they all have different roles, functions, and capabilites.
I seem to be rambling on here, as I just got off work a couple of hours ago and it's early in the morning. Sorry if this has been a bit disjointed! Maybe I should simply agree to disagree, but I think the discussion has been pretty stimulating so far.--Dukefan7310:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The LHA/D has a dual mission and the support of its embarked Marines with its aerial assets is a primary one. The LHD's were recently used purely to support Harriers in OIF, as there was no need for assault support. The notion that a helicopter carrier cannot also be an aircraft carrier is absurd. One is a specialization of the other.--Mmx100:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Providing air support for amphibious troops is part of the primary role of getting them ashore. I've never said a helicopter carrier couldn't be an aircraft carrier. Going by the actual two word terminology (simply, *aircraft carrier*), then it not only can be but it is. That's my whole point, the term has a much greater connotation than simply "a ship that carries aircraft". That goes back to my whole point of the difference between a CV and an LHA is their primary role. Amphibs don't do power projection, and you're in trouble if you're using a handful of Harriers for fleet air defense (the RN know this from experience).--Dukefan7310:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it really is an issue of definition and semantics, and where one draws the line between "aircraft carrier" and "aircraft-carrying ship". FFs, DDS, and CGs carry helicopters, but no one considers them "helicopter carriers". It does have to do wtih role, and amount of aircraft carried. If the LHA/Ds are considered "helicopter carriers", but not "aircraft carriers", does that make Harriers helicopters? Again, there is a difference between a CV and a LHA, of course they aren't the same thing by role. But is the term "aircraft carreir" exclusively resevered for CV/CVL/CVS/CVNs? In the narrow sense, yes, but in the broader sense, no. The broader sense is usually just termed "carrier", but it's obvious that "aircraft" is in mind here - they don't carry cattle, or oil, or so on. :) - BillCJ17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we are in agreement then. Using the commonly accepted definition of the term, an LHA/D is not an aircraft carrier. However, in the broader sense of the simple two word terminology *aircraft carrier*, then it is. My primary point was using the proper terminology as determined by their role. A LHA/D *could* be an aircraft carrier in a *limited* sense of the accepted connotation of the term. In other words, we're probably splitting some hairs.
One more thing to consider: THe Ark Royal is just coming out of refit, and will be filling in for the Ocean while she undergoes refit. As such, the Ark will be acting as a LPH, and part of her refit was for this role. Does that mean the HMS Ark Royal is no longer an aircraft carrier during the time she fills in for HMS Ocean? - BillCJ17:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for you to mention that. There have been rare occasions where USN aircraft carriers have operated in a role similar to what the LHA/Ds do everyday. However, I certainly wouldn't begin to call them "amphibious assault ships" or "helicopter carriers". This brings us back to the whole point about the ships' primary role. Here's where my argument becomes crystal clear. The primary role of a Nimitz class ship is that of aircraft carrier. It *can* perform in the amphibious assault ship role, but it is limited in that role as that is not a primary function. The primary role of a Tarawa/Wasp class ship is that of amphibious assault ship. They *can* perform in the aircraft carrier role, but it is very limited in that role, as it is not a primary function of that class. Which is why they are distinguished as seperate type ships in every reputable reference source.
We can keep going round and round but the past few exchanges leads me to think that we're on pretty much the same page, with a clear view and understanding of each others perspective. I'd also like to mention that I don't like the large paragraph on seaplanes under the World War II developments heading. It's superfluous as it has nothing to do with aircraft carrier design or roles, during or after the war. Just another point to ponder I suppose.--Dukefan7309:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garbage Pictures
When I load this article, I expect to see Nimitz-class aircraft carriers featured prominently, instead the pictures are all of second-rate carriers such as British, French and Spanish ones - the only American carriers featured first are amphibious-class carriers. Is this a joke or what? I say remove that garbage picture at the top of the article and replace it with a Nimitz-class carrier's image. If anyone one cares to know that say, Russia, has an aircraft carrier, they are welcome to read the rest of the article. It would speak volumes for clarity if we saw the USS Ronald Regan, for example, as the first image in the article - instead of the useless picture we have now. Scott 11006:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed two things about your observation which are flawed. 1) There are at least three Nimitz class ships in the pictures, the Lincoln, Truman, and Stennis. 2) The article is about aircraft carriers in general, which means that other countries carriers need to be mentioned as well as historical carriers. If you have some pictures of Nimitz class ships appropriate for the article, please feel free to upload them. Anynobody06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we used to have one of a Nimitz class ship with another smaller carrier at the top of the page, but the image file quit working. Because the article is about ships of other nations, I felt it appropriate to use the current lead pic in that position. If someone were to upload a more recent pic of several types of carriers, including a Nimitz, I would welcome it. By the way, the Forrestal, which is in the lead pic, never was an amphibious carrier. As the world's first supercarrier, I think it's appopriate to lead off the article with her in the pic. - BillCJ06:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact checking
The following line from the first section looks very very wrong to me.
"even on the large Admiral Kuznetsov, lightly-loaded Su-33 'Flanker-D' air superiority fighters require almost the entire length of the deck to take off"
As the Kuznetsov uses an arrested start system to launch her airplanes, and numerous videos show lightly loaded Su-33s taking off using that system, and the island is in the way for at least half of the avalible angle for an aircraft to take off using the entire deck, I see no way this could be fact. The arrested start system is like a drop gate for downhill mountian bike races, where a little drop down chalk holds the wheels of the plane in place long enough for the engines to power up, and then drop and it takes off with more power, and without these the Su-33 is not capable of taking off, and they are only installed on the forward section. So I believe this line should be removed, as it does not seem like fact, only an assumption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.144.253 (talk • contribs).
It definitely needs a source. I'll add a {{fact}} tag to the item. If no one has found a source by then in a couple of weeks, then we can remove it. - BillCJ19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the shoe-horning of the ski-jump into the landing section of Posst-war innovations for several reasons. First, it seems odd to discuss take off and landing in the same section. Two, the landing system was developed in the early 50s, while the ski-jump was in the 70s. Fourth, the first three innovations were critical to successful operations of carrier jet aircraft in the 50s - shoe-horning the ski-jump in here is anachronistic. Fifth, the ski-jump would fit more naturally afote rthe section on helicopter carriers, as they are are the type most often fitted with the ramps. - BillCJ16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We might add something on the ski-jump's use in the Soviet Union/Russia for STOBAR launches in place of traditional CATOBAR, and its adoption in India for its new carriers. Also, the fact that the ski-jump takes up usuable deck-parking space needs to be mentioned, with suitable sourcing. - BillCJ15:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many pictures or they are too big
BillCJ you are correct about what the WP:MOS says, but please note that it says in most cases. We are possibly not complying with another MOS image issue regarding images interfering with the format of the article and "stacking up" on the right side of the article. If you don't approve of the resize option, we need to either explore creating a gallery or removing some pictures (which I'd rather not do). Anynobody22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could delete out pics that aren't necessary to illustrate the items being discussed. or are redundant. I think too many pics have been added of late, and maybe some need to be cut back. A gallery illustrating the major types of carriers, and the nations operating carriers, might help to alleviate the conjestion in the latter part of the article, where there is not much text for some entries. But as a rule, the sizing needs to be left alone so personal preference sttings will work. - BillCJ01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're deleting some images, which I acknowledge is necessary, could we also reorganize the way the article is laid out? As it is the article jumps around a bit, for example the Flight deck section (1)discusses modern flight decks only so it seems more appropriate under section 7 Aircraft carriers today. I'd suggest an order like:
That looks good to me. As the primary feateures of the carrier evolved slowly over time, arranging the article in roughly chronological order makes sense. Some other editors may have some suggestions, but if there are no objections in the next few days, we can go ahead and implement it. I would add an "Entering the Jet Age" seciton just after WWII, and put the first three PW developments there with the Korean war, and the other develpments later, possibly with the rest of the Post-war conflicts. We might even separate the post war sections a bit more, with a late 50's-Vietnam section covering the CVA/CVS ships of the USN, plus the RN's carrier to the East-of-Suez aftermath,a post-VN section covering the multi-role CV/CVN concept, and the V/STOL carriers along with the Falklands. We could also thin out the flight deck materialn to what's absolutley crititcal to the historical context of that section, and move the rest to the Flight deck article. - BillCJ07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised outline
(Not an attempt to list definitive sections headings, only section content)
I think the revised outline works logically. My only concern is the summary of types being at the beginning is going to mention CVNs and LHDs before discussing them more in depth, which could confuse some readers. Is suggest moving it to just before the Future aircraft carriers.
While looking over the article outline, I noticed scant coverage of ASW carrier, which was important in the fifties and sixties. It was an outgrowth of the CVE, as was the amphibious assault carrier. I'll try to collect my sources to add something soon, but if we can make some space in the outline for it, that would be good. - BillCJ07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add them where you feel appropriate (I'm guessing in the postwar timeframe), the list is simply how I feel what we have now should be ordered. I've also wanted to discuss the SovietKiev class and it's missile/carrier nature so that might be a good section for it. I had hoped that perhaps a section for unique planned aircraft carriers/concepts that never were (like the Soviet supercarrier, or the British Pykrete concept) after the reorganization of course. Anynobody07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I forgot about the Kievs. The definitely could go in with the British V/Stol developmetn, since both designs (ship and aircraft) were different approaches to the same solutions.
I was also thinking we might make a section to list all the types of carriers, either at the top (preferably) or bottom of the page, with a brief summary on each type, and details in the main historical sections. I think the planned carrier classes would be best covered in the relevant histories. - BillCJ08:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed it, there's nothing in the article about the different carrier design philosophies of the RN and USN. The primary one being the adapaption of the "armored box" philosophy wherein the flight deck was the primary strength deck in RN carriers, and the "open hangar" design of the USN, wherein the hangar deck was the primary strength deck and the flight deck was essentially a superstructure built atop the hangar deck. It's been debated over the years as to which design was better, and had an impact on carrier operations during WII, which I think warrants some mentioning. Which leads me to the hurrican bow section. The hurricane bow was a necessary design feature of the armored box carriers of the RN, and I'm not really sure that it was an innovation in and of itself. The paragraph is confusing in that it mentions that the hurricane bow "became standard for British and American carriers". This wasn't true of USN carriers until long after the war, as the Forrestals were the first carriers in the USN designed with a hurricane bow, the Essex class carriers didn't get them unless they underwent the SCB-125 conversion, and the Midways didn't get them until they underwent the SCB-110 conversion, none of which didn't happen until the mid-late 50s. --Dukefan7311:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hurricane Bow section needs to be fleshed out then. The hurricane bow wasn't an innovation in and of itself (at least I've never read of any evidence that it was), it was a result of the RN including the flight deck as part of the hull girder, therefore giving you the enclosed hangar and hurricane bow, as opposed to the open hangar and open bow of USN ships. There were several reasons for this, and they're not covered much or at all in either the Hurricane Bow section or the seperate Flight Deck article. --Dukefan7312:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have verifiable sources to cite, then by all means go for it. THe extensive treatment would be better in the Flight deck article, whith a brief sourced summary here. - BillCJ18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft Carriers Today
The following statement is found in this section: The United States has the majority of aircraft carriers with a dozen in service and a dozen in reserve, and its aircraft carriers are a cornerstone of American power projection capability. This statement isn't true. There are only 11 active carriers, and only CV-67 could be considered in reserve. All other carriers have been stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. --Dukefan7310:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the following statement: Nine countries maintain a total of 25 aircraft carriers: United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Italy, India, Spain, Brazil, and Thailand. This isn't true either. Using the handy embedded link, you'll count only 20 in active service, and I'm not counting Cavour, which is still under construction, and HMS Ocean (if you count her, why not the LHAs and LHDs?). Therefore, I'm planning on changing the statement to reflect reality. --Dukefan7310:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common Types/World War II developments
The entire paragraph on seaplanes in this section has nothing to do with aircraft carriers or their development. It should be removed in its entirety. --Dukefan7311:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seplane tenders and seaplane carriers were an important step in the evolution of the modern aircraft carrier. Given that the article is as much, if not more, about the history of the carrier as its modern form, it is entirely relevant. If the article were striclty about modern carriers, you would have a point. But it's not. - BillCJ18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the paragraph in question has nothing to do with either seaplane tenders or seaplane carriers. It simply rambles on about the evolution of seaplanes fighters during WWII and has nothing to do with the evolution of aircraft carriers whatsoever, whether historically or in a modern sense. To include this in the article yet have the development of open/close hangars mentioned in a seperate article makes absolutely no sense. --Dukefan7321:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. It would be better in the seaplane or seaplane carrier article. With sources, of course. - BillCJ22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However it could be a good idea to briefly discuss why seaplanes couldn't do the same job as conventional aircraft for those who don't understand the dynamics of how performance suffers with floats and fuselage's designed for operation on water. Anynobody01:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then that would be more appropriate under the early development of through deck carriers that used aircraft with wheeled undercarriages. The performance of float planes is irrelevent to the development of aircraft carriers, the emphasis should be made on how it was far more efficient to operate planes that could take off and land from a flight deck as opposed to those that operated from water. If somebody doesn't understand the performance penalty that floatplanes suffer, then they need to learn far more about aircraft in general than falls within the scope of this article. In my opinion, of course. --Dukefan7314:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The brief discussion would serve to show why the development shifted to conventional aircraft carriers. A reader who doesn't know anything about carriers or their aircraft could wonder why so much time and effort was spent creating floating airfields when a seaplane can take off and land near the ship instead of on it. Anynobody00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm confused as to how it's determined what should be included in the article and what should be left to a seperate article. I think it's far more important to discuss the closed hangar versus open hangar practice than it would be to devote space to discussing seaplanes and their performance. If a person is intelligent enough to understand the basics of powered flight, then surely they can see the logic in landing on what is essentially a floating airfiled, as opposed to landing on the water and having to lift the plane aboard via a crane. If you wanted to make a mention of it in an evolutionary sense under History and Milestones, then I feel it would be appropriate there. Actually, I've always wondered why that section isn't the first section in the article. --Dukefan7302:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should definitely concentrate on the ships themselves, but some mention of the aircraft in general terms is necessary too. For example, when discussing the flight deck's evolution one must mention the aircraft because their changes are what spurred the new deck changes.
You are giving the general public too much credit for knowledge of powered flight. Even intelligent people like brain surgeons may not know about how significant the increased drag of a seaplane hampers performance. To cite a related example, have you ever seen the movie Top Gun? The entire movie is rife with major errors, but the most egregious was the concept of both engines of an F-14 failing due to passing through another aircraft's exhaust, and then somehow losing enough forward momentum to enter a flat spin followed by a highly improbable malfunction of an ACES II ejection system.
People I would've expected to know better thought the series of events depicted was entirely plausible. (I say I would've expected to know better because they are people who I have been to airshows with featuring the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels flying formations which would be impossible had the movie been correct.)
The point is before there were flat deck carriers there were seaplane tenders, people unfamiliar with aviation concepts won't necessarily understand the differences between a seaplane and conventional aircraft.
Also, there's nothing saying the seaplane issue and the open deck issue can't both be discussed. (Not at the same time obviously.) Anynobody03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor renaming
I noticed the attempted change to Royal Navy, and agree with BillCJ the title is Brit-centric. However I realized the term that was originally there doesn't work either. I could see British Navy or Royal Navy (UK), I chose the latter and formatted the French navy to match. Anynobody23:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawing a 3d model of the Lexington and it dawned on me, the class had hurricane bows. The British innovation section was unreferenced, so I replaced it with chronological fact. Anynobody07:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS feel free to mention British hurricane bows, I removed the section because I assume whoever put it in will reword it better than I could. Anynobody08:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I was referring to why the section on the new carreir was deleted some time ago, not the current carrier, but included it for context. Is the Kuznetsov covered in an earlier section? If not, we should move this part up. - BillCJ06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no biggie, I tend to be liberal with my copy/paste selections too. Doesn't look like Kuznetsov is mentioned specifically. The text currently under the future Russian program looks familiar (the generalities of the Russian program that is, I'm not alleging plagiarism). Do you happen to know where it's from? Anynobody06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about what is there now, then I wrote this the same day that the article appeared on Lenta.Ru. There isn't any copy/paste, it was all written from scratch. If the last paragraph looks familiar, it's just because everybody uses the same language when talking about Russian shipbuilding programs. ^_^ I was considering the necessity of that paragraph myself, so feel free to delete it. And thanks for fixing the references, anyway. - Khathi12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he meant the phrasing of the section from before you added your material. You did everything the right way, from what I can tell; we just added a few English sources and translation links for the Russian pages. Thanks for finding and adding the Lenta RU piece - it was a timely addition, and well-appreciated. THat's the beauty of Wikipedia - editors working together to improve an article! - BillCJ15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SYSTRAN (IIRC the stuff Google uses) is a mighty strange piece of code, but whatever... Some people in the Navy tends to dismiss these statements as a PR trick anyway. You see, the funds required aren't yet appropriated -- there's no government decree, nothing, and Masorin's contract wasn't prolonged this year -- he's due to step down by fall, so many speculate that he just tries to impress the people enough to keep his job. - Khathi09:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with them, building 3 - 4 carriers is awfully expensive. Besides the ships themselves, more Naval fighters/bombers need to be built or developed too. Then, once built, comes maintenance for it all which is also pricey.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a Russian supercarrier program. I just think it'd be smarter to develop Typhoon classSSGNs similar to what the US did with the first four Ohio class boats. Anynobody02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that smarter?
-G
Which carrier did I see?
I was just in Norfolk, VA this afternoon (just got back) and seeing an aircraft carrier (or any warship) is a special thing for me. I saw a carrier at the Navy base and I would like to know exactly which carrier I saw. I couldn't make out the hull number, though. I am almost sure the first number was 6 but I couldn't make out the second number. I thought it was 63 (The Kittyhawk), but it could have been 65 or 69. Anyway, is there an online resource that could verify which carrier(s) was/were in Norfolk today, or is that a security risk? 75.75.110.23523:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had to have been the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, CVN-69. The USS Enterprise, CVN-65, deployed last weekend, and the "IKE" is the only other carrier with a hull number starting with 6 that's stationed in Norfolk. I know, I live in Norfolk. Oh, and no, it's not a security risk. Contrary to those that watch too many movies, the comings and goings of surface ships are pretty well known, especially if you live in a large navy town like Norfolk. --Dukefan7311:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
to what BillCJ said; The Google translator had some issues but it does give an English reader a good idea of what the articles say.