Talk:Aircraft carrier

Find sources: "Aircraft carrier" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Japanese carriers

Are the Hyūga-class aircraft carriers to be included with this page? Calling them a hellicopter destroyer is even worse that designating the Invicibles as thru deck cruisers. They even have a full flight deck.151.207.242.4 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Future Australian Carriers

As far as I know Australia should be on the list of Navy's considering a future Carrier vessel.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The RAN is building two Canberra class LHDs based on the Spanish Juan Carlos design. These ships although capable of operating STOVL aircraft will not be equipped with them under current Australian defence planning. Consequently these ships are not currently considered to be aircraft carriers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Link in Reference 3 is dead

Link in Reference 3 is dead. That makes the cited claims about "submarine aircraft carriers" unsupportable. I'm removing, with hope someone will find an alternative source. Njerseyguy (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing should be done last. Add a dead link tag or add an archive.org copy. See WP:Citing sources#Repairing dead links for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What a minute. The current reference 3 in this article is about China building two conventionally aircraft carriers to be launched in 2015 and it already has a dead link tag. Yesterday's reference 3 is Submarine aircraft carriers archived version. The text needed another more reliable reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Length span

What is the range of lengths of the flight deck (runway) in carriers for "ordinary" (not VTOL) aircraft? Around 300 m is seems, but what upper and lower bounds are considered reasonable? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question is rather broad but for post WWII carriere and assuming you mean the length of the flight deck as distinct from the "angle", the British light fleets (the Colossus and Majestics) were about 700', the Audacious class were about 800', for US carrieres they range(d) from the Midawayss at 968' up to the Enterprise at 1123'. The French Foch was 869' and "Charles de Gaulle is 858'. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In most designs, not all the length is required for take off and not all for landing, and if you have a wide deck (for use as an aircraft park) then the design would use a longer hull to improve hull performance, so the limits as to what "works" are probably quite broad. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Table redux

As has been discussed before, the section on current aircraft carries was intended to eventually be a prose section much like that of the future aircraft section. In addition, List of aircraft carriers in service is listed in that section under the heading, and presents the same info in a better table format, so having it here in a table is redundant. Thus removing the table is not "pointless"! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The table looks better. It is shorter and easier to read. Please leave it alone. B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• TBH, the page looks more cluttered with the additional table. It should really be in the List of aircraft carriers in service instead of here where it becomes extraneous and redundant. Can we don't do this double posting of data, please? And leave the table out while we are discussing, its plain rude to be doing while arguing about the merit of having it here in the first place. Knock it off~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask users not to edit war in the article itself on the inclusion or otherwise of the table to this overview article. At the moment two editors have opposed the inclusion of the table so it really needs to gain a consensus before re-adding. If you think that this can not be resolved on this page then can I suggest you can ask for help and other opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. But please do not edit war or change the article until is has been resolved. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, I much prefer the list format rather than the table format. The table imposes too many rendering issues for people with various screen resolutions. Basically, although a table may look very good for those who just happen to use the same screen resolution as the editor who sets up the table, it often looks very clunky for others. There are IMHO very few occasions when the limited advantages of tables outweigh their disadvantages on Wikipedia, and this is not one of them. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - there can be rendering issues (e.g. for users running a 640x480 resolution) and unfortunately there are one or two users who lack the expertise required to set up tables and due to this perceived lack of ability feel compelled to vandalise the work of other, more able, users.
If you are a beginner and are interested in seeing how tables are constructed visit a wonderful example of mine on the Nimitz class aircraft carrier page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And I can make tables that render the same for most people too. Aren't I just the the clever one? What you forget is that most editors do not have the skills to do this and so using a table simply adds another unnescessary maintenance task to the list for those few who can manage this and frankly have better things to do than watch out for less skilled editors mucking about with tables. To the uninitiated when editing a table it looks like an absolute mess and is very confusing - in what way does this enhance wikipedia (making it harder for others to edit)? Secondly, if you want to use a table here, I suggest you need to provide some actual justification for what benefits it offers to this page. Just because you think it looks better is not really a very persuasive argument. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Nick T. As to this comment by BFb:"unfortunately there are one or two users who lack the expertise required to set up tables and due to this perceived lack of ability feel compelled to vandalise the work of other, more able, users." I'm sorry to hear vandalism of tables by inexperienced users has been a problem. There are several admins who watch this page who would be able to take care of such problems. Fortunately, such vandalisms of tables haven't been a problem in this article so far, per WP:VAND, which excludes botched edits, content-related disputes, reverts, and even edit wars, from being called vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I put the table on Nimitz class aircraft carrier? Jhbuk (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ User:B. Fairbairn has again decided to implement the table format for the "Current carriers" section, and I have again reverted his changes as being against consensus. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on BilCat, you do not own this page. Also, a concensus involves more than just you and a couple of your friends.

Maybe what is required here is an opinion from a higher authority.

Tell you what I will do. In a spirit of compromise I am willing, difficult though it may be, to teach you how to use tables! That's right, how to create them, how to modify them, and not just how to destroy them.

And that's not all. I am also offering to teach you how to accept change and move forward, free of charge.

B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? Sorry, insulting people (again) isn't going to help your caes any. Try actually working to build a consensus to support your changes, then make them. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn, you're running perilously close to violating Wikikpedia's civility policy. Your tone is derrogatory, condescending and frankly very rude. You are the one here who is out of step. There is an established consensus here about the way this information should be presented and you are clearly out of line with that consensus. If you really want to use a table in this way in the article then first you should build a consensus for it here. Talking down to people not only does you no good, it is actually harmful to your cause. I am going revert your change back to the consensus position. I very strongly recommend that you leave it that way until and unless you can change the consensus view. Further outbursts against other editors here is likely to earn you a report to the Wikiquette alerts board. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What rubbish! Can you not take a joke? Have you no sense of humour? And my comments are not insulting - you merely read them that way. Come on boys, please try to act in a mature manner. B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys - I have done some research by looking through the wiki policies and guidelines and at other pages, and have come to the conclusion that you are right. BilCat's all-time favourite list should be left as is. There are not enough columns to warrant using a table, the list looks fine as it is with the country as a heading and the quantity in brackets.

It has taught me to look a bit more closely before I try to improve what I think needs improvement. Thanks for your help guys. I will stand down for now. Not because of Nick's thinly veiled threat, but because I realise I was in the wrong. B. Fairbairn (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the mea culpa. It's appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies. You know it's really weird - for a long time I just could not see the forest for the trees...! B. Fairbairn (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Only ships ?

In the first line its says that "an aircraft carrier is a warship ... However is this so ? , in the FICON project, aircraft were used, and I would think that an "aircraft carrier", in the strict sense, can also mean this (although, admittedly, it's less common).

If so, perhaps the definition can be changed (ie to "an aicraft carrier is a carrier vehicle for aircraft, ...) Also, the text/headlines, ... would need to be changed to also include the FICON project.

91.182.11.95 (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IP editor, I'm sorry to break it to you this way but the FICON project has been dead for umpteen years, but the term aircraft carrier and the instrument itself is still alive and kicking if I might add. (P.S.: get over it!) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 07:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fleet carrier

Fleet carrier currently redirects to this article, but the term itself describes a type of aircraft carrier, and its role. Seems like an article is missing. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, this is the fleet carrier article. I'm not sure a significant article on fleet carriers can exist without being redundant to what is already here. However, if someone wants to work one up on userspace to see what they can produce, we could see if the redundancy can be limited and still have something more than a stub. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be possible to work the term into the article somewhere. Types of aircraft carriers seems a very thin section. If it were above history and expanded a bit? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref for quickest workup of a carrier fleet?

If we had some sort of ref for a short time from first carrier delivery to effective carrier operations then we could use that to help balance the China section. Hcobb (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The citation being used reads "The ability to develop an effective carrier, it involves a lot of technology and a lot of training, and operational capabilities, that it might take China many years to develop," Nolt says, "if they chose to do so. Even if they had an aircraft carrier, one aircraft carrier would not be significant.". This citation cannot be used to state that it will take years, only that it might take years. In addition, the paragraph in question in the citation is in reference to developing a single effective carrier, not to developing a carrier fleet. - I Am Right And You Are Wrong (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

China

There's all this talk about it being years until China has a carrier, but what about the following:

http://www.minnpost.com/globalpost/2011/04/29/27872/chinas_new_aircraft_carrier_a_menacing_name

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/04/26/2003501725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.135.224 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory articles

This article, List of aircraft carriers in service, and List of aircraft carriers by country all seem to contradict one another on the number of active carriers in service, as well as who has what. Can someone with expertise in this field remedy this? -R. fiend (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)