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.
I just wanted to be clear that I'm suggesting a simple reference only for some of the types I listed, perhaps a linked reference. This would help trim the list, as is being discussed now. This is just an example, feel free to comment or re-write;
Throughout the 20th century, there have been various types and configurations of ships that were capable of carrying aircraft. Some merely carried weather balloons and others were retrofitted with catapults to carry a single spotter plane. The idea of having aircraft on board has evolved to the point where it is now included in the design of virtually every warship capable of fitting a deck of some size for aircraft. While there are presently several classes of ships that have partial decks for helicopters, UAV/UCAV and even VTOL aircraft, this article will focus primarily on warships with full-decks, such aircraft carriers and STOVL-capable amphibious assault ships.
Again, it's just a simple mention that they exist - thewolfchild 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Another item to bring up is totals. Part of the debate over what is and is not an aircraft carriers, has been over totals numbers listed. Some editors here feel that amphibs should not be counted, while others do. This has led to SteelP's proposal containing the comment; "Not all sources regard all these types as true aircraft carriers". While there are some sources that would put the current USN carrier total at 10, there are other sources that would put it at 19. This is an issue that should probably be resolved (even by compromise), before moving forward with any revisions. This could be as simple as adding (somewhere);
"It should be noted that while some sources consider amphibious assault ships, especially STOVL capable ones, as aircraft carriers, other sources do not. This has led to discrepancies in various published fleet totals."
As usual, this is just a suggestion, feel free to comment. - thewolfchild 19:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that phrases such as "it should be noted..." should not be used on WP. It does need to be rephrased another way. Also, statements such as "some sources"/"other sources" seem a bit clunky. I don't know of another way to say it, but we sould be able to find some guidance in the MOS somewhere.
Also, another editor has been making major changes to the article. I've reverted his last batch of changes, and left a note for him to make suggestions here for consideration. - BilCat (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we really including amphibious assault ships with helicopter only aviation in our totals now, put me down for disagree. Maybe just junk the helicopters only section and list Narubet and Illustrious as STOVL with existing description? Solomon(for now)109.64.149.135 (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course we're going to include helicopter-only ships - they fit the basic definition in the Lead: "a warship with a full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase". Helicopters are aircraft, and it's part of the compromise that was agreed to in #Draft proposal. And that basic definition does include the Hyūga-class as a type of ASW carrier, and we'll add the follow-on Izumo-class when it's commissioned. - BilCat (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the lead explains that definitions vary. This article is the portal, as it were, to all the others so it needs to introduce all the various types which meet the basic/widest definition. I would suggest that any total given should be explicit about the classes of carrier included, there will probably even be places where comparable totals for different selections of classes would be useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The WP article on the Hyuga has mention of it being referred to as an 'aircraft carrier', as well as noting the possibility of carrying V/STOL fighters like the F-35. It should be included on this page. Also, Solomon, I read the article you cited and I wanted to ask you; Do you think the reference to the "Korean media" was a typo? They meant Japanese media, right? - thewolfchild 15:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be a Korean article, so I'd say "Korean media" is correct. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah... I didn't realize that. Thanks. - thewolfchild 09:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
how about this intro for listing the heli-carriers?: Helicopter carriers have a similar appearance to carriers with fixed wing operations. Some are designed for addition of a ski jump ramp for future STOVL operations or may even have an unused ski jump installed possibly from before retirement of STOVL fighters. Currently the majority of helicopter carriers are classified as amphibious assault ships. Solomon(for now)79.180.108.137 (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. - thewolfchild 13:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Totals
What are and aren't we including? For example, the overall total for the USN is 19, correct? - thewolfchild 16:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
People can add for themselves. Just state 10 supercarriers and 9 STOVL amphibious assault ships. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but there are some situations where overall totals are being calculated. Some sources such as globalsecurity.org, state that the US has 19 carriers. I was just wondering how we were gonna proceed with that here, on WP. - thewolfchild 09:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
GlobalSecurity.org lists the big-deck amphibs on their USN amphib page, not on the USN carrier page, which includes all historical USN carrier classes. So even they are inconsistent in their approach, as you no doubt are aware of. - BilCat (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware, but I'm also aware that there are inconsistencies among most of the sources being used, even Jane's. But, GlobalSec does have a point, and this is basically in line with my position thru-out the debate above, and that is that the USN presently has 19 ships capable of carrying and deploying squadrons of jet fighters. Some of this reasoning is part of why we decided to keep the amphibs included in the article, with a broader definition of what an aircraft carrier is. That said, I just felt that this should somehow be reflected in the overall totals. - thewolfchild 13:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If it's needed somewhere, then say "the USN presently has 19 ships capable of carrying and deploying squadrons of jet fighters". That seems to be Solomon-for-now's definition of "aircraft carrier", and why he objected to my additions of the helicopter-only types. Note that given the article's now-expanded scope, if the USN operated an HMS Ocean- or Dokdo-type ship, one without the capabilities for operating/deploying Harriers, it would be included in the totals. - BilCat (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's not so easy for some articles with tables, such as List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Numbers_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country. Right now it says '10' for the US, but it should be '19'. As for your concerns about Solomon, he did explain himself and I see it was limited to this discussion. There is plenty of refs to heli-carriers and they do have their own sub-section. Were you looking for more? Or are you ok with how it is now? (I'm playing a bit of catch-up here). - thewolfchild 00:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
My comments are focused on this article. Other stuff exists, and consensus will vary from page to page. That said, perhaps Solomon's 10+9 solution will work there, with a footnote? - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
What would you think of adding an extra column to the table? (ie: Catobar - 10 / STOVL - 9). Or something like that? Of course, since this is about another article, perhaps we should take discussion on this particular item there. If you care to reply, I will look for it there. - thewolfchild 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW
Bill, in response to these comments;
Explain what? That dictionaries and general interest magazines and newspapers call them carriers, but specialist sources and navies do not? I think WP can do better than pander to ignorance. Aircraft carriers don't have well decks, vehicle parks, troop accomodations, and 600-bed hospitals. Amphibious assault ships do. Perhaps we should also list amphibs on the hospital ship page too? Maybe we already do - I haven't looked. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Dictionaries and newspapers are "ignorant"? Anyway, you have listed the few differences between CV's and LHA'a. How about listing the many similarities? And lastly, if a hospital ship had a full-length big deck, was able to carry, maintain, launch, retrieve, fuel and arm a squadron of aircraft, then they should be listed here as well. As for the hospital ship page, amphibs are not currently mentioned there, but they should be. (maybe I'll take care of that). - thewolfchild 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I added an entire section to the Hospital ship page. Have you had an opportunity to review it? - thewolfchild 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No, and I don't plan on it. All I do is complain, remember? - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I went back several years in the article's history, and we have almost verbatim text back to at least 2009. An earlier revision of the text is seen in this diff from January 2007. The chances are pretty high that the copyvio is by that site copied from WP. - BilCat (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries! :) - BilCat (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Submarine aircraft carrier
I was wondering why under Basic Carrier Types a listing for Submarine Aircraft Carriers has not been added ? Anyone who has study Naval history has surely heard of the Submarine aircraft carriers of Japan. I even think there is a wiki for them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carriers_of_Japan - Rucadulu (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Under Basic types, there is a note with the list of types that states: "not all sources regard all these types as true aircraft carriers". Doesn't this just create the question: "What is a true aircraft carrier?" This word/term is being introduced without any support or explanation, and can lead to confusion. Unless we're prepared to address that question, shouldn't we perhaps re-word this? I'm sure we can find a way that will still get the message across. - thewolfchild 10:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
That phrasing was part of the resolution - see the last white box in the closed discussion (still on this page at the time of writing). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
But it's not carved in stone. It can still be addressed. - thewolfchild 13:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone really want to re-open that can of worms? - Nick Thornetalk 21:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Look, we all agree that under the circumstances, it is appropriate to have some kind of note, or caveat, letting readers know that there are varying opinions as to what is considered an actual (or true) aircraft carrier. I am simply asking that we consider the wording, style and position of this notice. No big deal. - thewolfchild 09:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with having the statement, but agree it could probably be reworded. We'll see if anyone makes a better proposal, but it'll do for now. - BilCat (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I think SteelP should have first crack at it. The wording at least. I still vote it being moved to the bottom, like most other notations. (I also prefer (italics, brackets and smaller text ) ... but those are just preferences) But I think we should use a different word than "true". - thewolfchild 14:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Supercarriers
Would anyone object to having (CV/CVN) after "Supercarrier" in the list of Basic Types? - thewolfchild 12:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. CVN means (C)arrier, fixed wing (V), (N)uclear. Not all supercarriers are CVNs since not all of them are nuclear powered - the Queen Elizabeth class being a case in point. Similarly, not all CVs are supercarriers, for example the Essex class CVs. - Nick Thornetalk 21:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add hull classification symbol symbols to Supercarrier as it is a type of fleet carrier, and there is no unique symbol for supercarriers. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize we had decided it was an "either/ or" scenario. Why not just add CV/CVN as examples of some supercarrier hull classes? (like the others) - thewolfchild 00:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't claiming we decided anything, just stating why I hadn't added it originally. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
TWC, the reason why we should not put these Hull classification symbols in the heading is because it would be misleading. Putting them in the heading would imply that those symbols mean supercarrier which they do not. - Nick Thornetalk 04:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should just do away with the hull letters altogether. They're an American system, but not all these types are American. - thewolfchild 13:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, these classifications are used by a large number of navies around the world. Why do we need to keep having these discussions about things that are apparently outside your area of expertise? Our job here is to build an encyclopaedia, not provide editors with an education. - Nick Thornetalk 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"Why do we need to keep having these discussions about things that are apparently outside your area of expertise? Our job here is to build an encyclopaedia, not provide editors with an education." - Nick Thornetalk 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You're just such a... joy, to collaborate with.
Anyways, these classifications are not used by all the navies of the world. Since WP seeks to have a 'world view' in it's articles, perhaps we should remove them for now. We can always add them when later. Besides, they were added somewhat unilaterally. Considering what has transpired here, perhaps some consensus should/could be reached on their inclusion. Really... do they serve a vital or necessary purpose there? - thewolfchild 09:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
"You're just such a... joy, to collaborate with.." - thewolfchild 09:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
How would you know, have you ever tried collaboration? - Nick Thornetalk 08:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, sure I have. Now, how about you? Show me here, just how you tried to "collaborate"... - thewolfchild 14:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
You should be careful what you remind people of, you just might get hit in the back of the head by the very boomerang you throw. You started this little to and fro with your ad-hominem comments at the end of this edit. Please stop commenting on other editors in your posts and in future concentrate only on content, lest you find yourself somewhere you don't want to go. I am going to disengage now, I recommend you do the same. - Nick Thornetalk 04:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Careful of what? Please, enlighten me. You keep threatening me with your boomerangs... let fly. I did not start this, Nick you did, and if you took the time to actually read some of what you write, maybe you'd see that. I see you managed two threats in one post, warning me about ..."a place you don't want to go" (Australia?). I'm glad you're finally "disengaging". I've been waiting for this for months. - thewolfchild 04:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The hull classification symbols are officially used by NATO, and unofficially by many other navies, and by reliable sources, so they are fairly common. Granted, the symbols weren't added, say, 2 years ago, but no one objected at the time. At this point, yours is the only objection, and you didn't even even object until after the first responses here. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Bill, not all navies use these, and we are trying for a world view here. They are prominently used in other parts of the article. Do you really feel they necessary for this list? - thewolfchild 14:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all navies call their aircraft carriers as such either, so that's a less valid argument. Again, the same editors going around in circles over the same or similar points over and over usually doesn't accomplish much execpt tire the editors of each other very quickly. The only reason I'm bothering to respond is to make sure you don't try to claim a consensus due to a lack of response to your latest points. At some point, you need to learn to let issues drop, especially when you don't get you way. As with this one. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'll just do it your way, and not bother with consensus. Soo... easy come, easy go. - thewolfchild 04:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This has already been discussed, here. No one else has objected to the additions. - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)`
"Already discussed"... ? Where? I must've missed it. I tried initiating a BRD as well, but it was a no go. I guess you just have to have those hull classes there, and it seems you're willing to edit war over it. Well, I'm not - I'd prefer discussing and reaching consensus. Also, I'm not sure what your point is here with your revert summary; "we already discussed this - you lost, move on". Like I said, I missed the discussion, and... "lost" what? Why is it you treat this as a win or lose game? It's not. You don't see me writing "the amphibs stayed in, I win!!" - do you? NO. Because we're supposed to be adults here.
Anyways, if there was a discussion, please point to it. If not, then there should be one. (though perhaps not by us. I think you and nick and I should steer clear of each other for awhile. Perhaps at some point in the future we can work together, but that just isn't happening right now). - thewolfchild 07:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Aircraft carrier vs. Aviation capable ship
aka: Aircraft "carrier" vs Aircraft "carrying"
I am putting this forward for opinions and feedback. In light of the broadest of definitions found in almost all dictionaries, as well as the fact that the lines of what is and is not and aircraft carrier are getting more and more blurred all the time. It is a rough example of an idea for an addition to the article, perhaps at the bottom, to address all the other warships that carry aircraft. (or what I have referred to as 'aviation capable') It could be larger or smaller, still needs polishing, possible additions, rewrites and sources. This isn't something that would have to be added immediately, perhaps down the road. It is just an idea...
Please comment below.
Other aircraft carrying or aviation capable types of naval vessels
Many other naval vessels, aside from the various types of aircraft carriers described here, are also capable of carrying aircraft. For example, a majority of US naval ships have at least a helipad, capable of landing medium-sized helicopters. Many others have decks and even hangars incorporated into the structure of the ship. It has become a standard part of modern ship design to have a deck that supports multiple, heavy large helicopters, as well as being able to house them in a hangar, for protection, maintenance, etc. As of October 2013, the USN currently has 174 commissioned surface vessels, of which 150 carry aircraft. Only two current classes of smaller vessels, those being Mine countermeasures ships and Patrol boats, (with a combined total 24), do not have landing pads or aviation facilities. Though it should be noted that, both the Mine countermeasures ships and Patrol boats are due to be replaced by the new aviation-capable Littoral combat ship program. These ships are as follows;
Along with these types and classes, it should be noted that many of the US navy's non-commissioned ships are aviation capable as well. Also, with the growing technology in UAV's and UCAV's, virtually every ship afloat has, or will soon have, some type of aviation capability.
There are many non-US examples of aviation-capable naval vessel as well, including;
Lemme know what you all think, Thanks - thewolfchild 10:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
"and yes, we all know bill and nick hate this and are completely opposed. thanks anyway". Wolf, why do you keep doing this? It's not helpful or even funny. I don't need you to speak for me, and you should already be aware by this time that Nick likes such snide remarks even less than I do. Such comments have the effect of marginalizing our opinions from the very outset of the conversation, and any attempt to address the comments will take the conversation off-topic. Please strike the comments, apologize, and stop doing this in the future. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This is just my personal view. I think it trivially obvious that many ships have been aircraft-capable at least since the days of the second world war, when capital ships such as the Hood and the Tirpitz carried a catapult-launched floatplane and German U-boats carried a Focke-Achgelis manned rotor kite. I think there might be a fascinating historical story to tell, both technically and operationally, but this article should do no more than link to it from the "See also" section. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC) [corrected 15:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)]
I agree that there is an interesting story to tell, but I do not agree that this article is the place to tell it. A link in the "see also"" section is indeed all that is needed here IMO. - Nick Thornetalk 19:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good start to an article titled Aviation-capable ship, or similar. Such an article is needed, but covering it here to that degree would expand the scope of the article far beyond what most souces accept as the definition of aircraft carrier. I assume Wolf already has reliable sources lined up to support the claims made, or at least knows where to find them. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you Bill... if we were to cover this here to any significant length or degree, it would make the length and scope of this article to unwieldy. But, I do think it important to have some kind of mention/reference to the aircraft carrying capabilities of these ships. - thewolfchild 11:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Although not military such an article could cover the large number of helicopter-capable private yachts which would be outside the scope of this article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a continuous variation all the way from a ship with a spot where cargo can be air dropped by a hovering helicopter, through a ship that can land a helicopter, to a ship that can tie down a helicopter, to a ship that has a hangar, to having repair facilities, one or more elevators, a through deck for SVTOL, a ski jump, and so on?
Also I'd split surface combatants (which carry utility style helicopters to assist with a mission in the water) from the gators (which carry transport and attack helicopters which project power onto the land). I.e., are you carrying aircraft to assist with the mission or is carrying aircraft the mission? Hcobb (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the feedback so far everyone. I suppose the first question to ask is; is the fact that other vessels are capable of carrying aircraft worth mentioning? It would seem to me the answer is yes.
So, do we add something here?
Or do we create an article, and simply reference that article here?
If we opt to add something here, it would have to be somewhat limited - carefully written to have as much info in as little space possible. Or, we create an article. I'm all in favour of that, but, (imo), what I have created here is not enough. If anyone here is willing to pitch in, I'd be happy to contribute as well. - thewolfchild 12:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be four categories of aircraft visited ships:
Aircraft land on the ship, but do not operate from it (JHSV). The ship is not a "base of operations" for the aircraft.
The ship operates aircraft which function to complement the other things the ship itself does (Frigates, DDGs, LCS, etc.)
The ship provides a temporary base of operations for aircraft that are generally attached to other units carried. (The amphibs.)
The ship's primary role is to provide a base of operations for aircraft that do most of their missions from the ship to the target area and then back. (True aircraft carriers.)
Does anybody see any other categories or does that cover it? Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the fact is worth mentioning as such, it's a "sky is blue" observation. Definitely better to create a new article and quietly link to it. However I'd suggest that a problem in classifying ships like this is that there may turn out to be no reliable references for any classification scheme and any attempt may by definition stray into WP:OR. Also, the types of ship and their uses are so diverse I don't think classifying them by degrees of aircraft capability would be helpful anyway. This was one of the thoughts behind my idea of writing it more as a historical account, describing how usage developed technically and telling the notable operational stories. I'd probably call it something like Shipborne aircraft or History of shipborne aircraft and almost treat the present article as a spinoff. There's surely no future in going the List of bulk cargo ships above 1,000 tonnes with elevated foredeck helipads and more than 10 weather balloons route. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [Updated 17:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)]
I'm not sure about the categories either, at least not as they're presented above. But, hey... we're just throwing ideas around. That's a good thing, and the contribution is appreciated. I also think the (potential) article would be limited to naval vessels, so the only bulk cargo ships would be those of the Sealift Comm. - if the article is expanded beyond commissioned ships. As for a title, I was thinking of something more like "Aviation capable naval ships" or vessels. Perhaps the scope should have limitations... ie: fixed helipad as a minimum? or those tht regularly carry aircraft? motorized aircraft only?, uav's of a minimum size/weight?, etc. But the article could also look at design principles, and impact on future doctrine. (What happens if/when the USN lands an F-35 on a San Antonio LPD?) There is potentially a significant amount of interesting content for such an article, not just the present stub that I have initially started with, or the past that SteelP has suggested, but the future also. - thewolfchild 18:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
(note: I only mention the potential use of the F-35, since the navy has already been landing and launching Harriers from LPD's for years, and HII is pushing for even more LPD-17 variants in the future. This opens up a lot of possibilities... - Wolf 19:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC))
Forgive my ignorance, I've never heard of Harriers operating from LPDs on a regular basis. Perhaps in emergencies, but even then I've never heard of it. LPDs don't have full flight decks, and the superstucture is in front of the flight deck, which would make regular operations from LPDs by Harriers difficult. - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. It is easy to make these claims, but naturally we would need to see a reliable source before we include such like in the article. - Nick Thornetalk 23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I found a video on YouTube of a Harrier II taking off from what is claimed to be an LPD in 2006. There are also some photos of the earlier AV-8A on LPDs in the 70s. So it did at least occasionally happen. Whether or not it's a regular practice, and to what extent, I've not found anything on that to this point. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I kept looking and found this article. The key line is, "Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31, from Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Calif., flew Harriers off the USS Green Bay Nov. 11-15 to ensure the ship could support the aircraft in emergency situations." It doesn't give the outcome of the tests, but it did state that if Harriers could not operate from the ships, due to heat on the deck in vertical TOs and landings, that F-35s would not be able to either. - BilCat (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
What? You guys didn't know about this already? A couple of navy guys like you? That surprises me. Anyways, I didn't provide a cite as it was simply a comment on a talk page, not a article contribution. I didn't think I needed one, but no big deal... I first came across this here:
USS Juneau (LPD-10) - "Juneau conducted the first AV-8A Harrier landing on a Pacific Fleet LPD in February 1976".
So... no, Nick - it's not a "claim". Anyways, I Googled it to look a little further, and found all kinds of stuff. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself. (Actually, I would be surprised if you haven't already, just out of self-interest.) There's all kinds of RS mentions of this, as well as some non-rs videos as well. Go have a look... - thewolfchild 06:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there is room for articles about the both the ships (Aviation-cabable ship) and the aircraft (Shipborne aircraft), as we have Aircraft carrier and Carrier-based aircraft also. As to categorization, the simplest and least OR method would probably be: surface combatants, amphibious ships, auxiliaries, submarines, etc, as those are standard delineations within navies. As to covering future developments, we have to be aware of crystal balling, and avoid speculation, so that will limit us to what is actually under development, not what is possible. - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There are already ready-made categories to use, such as ship types & classes, navies, commissioned, non-commissioned, combatant, non-combatant, etc. No need to make up any categories and worry about wp:or. Also, as the article could look at the evolution of ship design as it pertains to aviation capabilities, it could also touch upon the "history of shipborne aircraft". - thewolfchild 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
US classification symbols
What are these doing in the general (i.e. international) list at the top of the page? I see someone has commented in an earlier discussion that "these classifications are used by a large number of navies around the world". But the article describes them as specific to the US. It gives a terrible (and surely unintended) impression of national chauvinism the way it is. Either they need to be presented as a true international system or relegated to some national-related subsection further down. Which do you guys want to do? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I've removed US from the note. Is that sufficient? - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It is for me, assuming these symbols really are used as an international classification scheme. If anybody gets pedantic they might slap a fact tag on it to that effect, but it's not going to be me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess it depends on whether usage by NATO, Australia, Thailand, and South Korea is international. If you're expecting the UN, probably not. - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
As written at the moment Hull classification symbol exclusively addresses US ships, there is not even a hint that other nations use some of the same codes for their own ships. Hull classification symbol (Canada) exists but is more or less unreferenced despite the apparent size of the notes section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
NATO doesn't use hull classification symbol as Pennant numbers, which is the point of that article, but they are used in other contexts by NATO and others. Thailand does use "CVH" s a pennant-type code, however. I wouldn't have an issue including NATO pennant letters, but they are more broad, and aren't usually used to describe ship types in general. The UK has used CV01 and CVF for its carrier programs, not R01 or RF, and refers to Ocean as an "LPH", not an "L". The Italians classify Cavour as a CVH, and the Australians classify the Canberrasas LHDs. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Drifting off here a bit, do we need hull classification article to cover the abbreviations outside the US usage as part of the ship designation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at that Canadian page and the aircraft carrier designations appear to be no longer used. If so then perhaps those codes would be more relevant to a dedicated article on codes than to the present one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as the 'symbols' are concerned, I've already stated my position;
They were not a part of the version accepted by consensus,
I don't see where consensus was sought to add them after the fact,
They are not universal. They are only used by some navies, and this article covers all navies,
To summarise. By "international" I mean "accepted as a global standard by some appropriate body, whether expressly or implicitly", I do not mean a narrow club of nations. We seem to be in a position where four operators - Brazil, India, China and the Russian Federation - do not appear to use the US-originated codes and it has been implied that the UN may not have adopted them either, certainly nobody has offered evidence that they have. On that basis, these codes should be moved to a sub-topic. Does anybody now argue against that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect the UN to sanction the codes, as it's not a military organization as is NATO. We already know that TWC only opposed the codes because Nick and I objected to his suggestion to add CV and CVN to "supercarrier", and that had had we agreed to his suggestion, this would have been a non-issue with him, so his continued objection appears to be petulance. Steel, how would you suggest adding the codes to the article in a way that would not be redundant? I don't see another place to put them where we wouldn't be duplicating ourselves. - BilCat (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Bill... that was completely unnecessary. And juvenile. And pissy. And, as usual, wrong. I simply changed my mind. A concept you should be familiar with, considering just how many times you've flip-flopped on every issue here, ultimately kowtowing to whatever pov your hero is pushing. Your comments were unprovoked, insulting and combative. I though we were supposed to avoid each other. This isn't how you go about it. So drop it already, I'm not interested. - theWOLFchild 22:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You're always interested, TWC. And we all have our heroes. Mine landed on carriers at night. What did Yours do? - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, you have again confirmed that you lack humour, which goes a long way to explaining why you are so consistently miserable here. Maybe your hero "landed on carriers at night", but that is irrelevant here and serves as no basis for your completely juvenile and unprovoked attack. You were wrong to write what you did above (and below as well, as I now see). Assigning selfish motivations to me, and calling me "petulant" is not how you go about avoiding negative interactions with someone, nor is it how you go about collaborating on improving an article. Just because I was dragged to ANI and you weren't, does not give you a free pass to act like an ass. And, for the record, my heroes are the people I work with. True heroes, doing a job everyday that people like you couldn't even comprehend. So spare me the guilt trip. - theWOLFchild 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right, TWC. I don't have a free pass to act like an ass. I was wrong to do that. Please forgive me. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oooh Bill, I can't stay mad at you. We're good. - theWOLFchild 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would say that the way some of the types listed have no code at all while others have several is one thing that cannot stay as it is: if reworking in the name of readability creates some redundancy, then so be it. I'd suggest those codes need an alphabetical listing and an explanation of each acronym - otherwise, one should just mention that the set of codes exists and link to its main article.
My own view is that more widely the whole article is badly structured, for example we have a in-service types divided primarily by inscrutable acronym, future types by country of project, and historical types by era if at all. IMHO the Classes in service section should be forked two ways, one listing the classes and who they serve with, and merged into the Types of carrier section, and the other a section on say Carrier operators merged with the future dreams section to become a set of nation-by-nation discussions of types past, present and future. In this picture, the US hull classification symbols would find a natural focus in the section on the US Navy. One might add a side note where some other navy has adopted one or more specific codes. Failing that, simply adding a subsection to the current Types of carrier section would be an improvement - you could list each code with the navies that use it, maybe as a table. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the layout of the article either. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The article layout has been changed several times over the last few years. I'm not looking forward to another long drawn-out discussion on a new layout, however. Perhaps it would be best just to removed the hull codes at this time, and leave layout changes for a time when there is fresh input from other users. Note that I still support their inclusion, but am admitting their is no clear support for it at this time. Is that flip-flopping? No, just agreeing to disagree. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
SteelP, aside from just the codes, you appear to have some much larger issues with this article (which I don't necessarily disagree with). Are you considering a proposal for some major changes? - theWOLFchild 06:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I am considering just being bold, so much easier than trying to explain. You all have a revert option if I get it wrong. BilCat is not alone in dreading another marathon discussion, which is what a sandboxed proposal would probably trigger. I am considering a multi-step process: first give the hull codes their own sub-section, then if that sticks have a crack at the wider restructuring, then if that sticks rethink the national applicability of the codes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
[Update] So, I did the first step. The main article on the US Hull classification symbols suggests that several of those listed in the present article are no longer in use, while other old ones are not mentioned here. So there is some cleanup to be done to bring those lists into line, not least will be a decision whether this article should limit itself to symbols currently in use, or maybe just delete the table and stick with the link in the text paragraph. But I am hoping that at least the structural change of adding a new section can stick. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not opposed to the added table but, I'm just looking at the overall size of the article, (one that is only getting larger) and wondering if a "See also" notation is all that is needed. But, as for the table itself, should it be retained, are you considering adding some more columns for the UK and Canadian codes as well? - theWOLFchild 13:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't gone that far, I just wanted to clean up the article structure a little, and stopped at noting a few pointers to possible ways forward from here. The table format is kind of a leftover from a half-baked draft, it may or may not have been a good idea. Sorry, not too helpful a reply really. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"True" carriers
Anyhow, my reason for posting today was, (now that some time has passed), to ask that we reconsider using the word "true" in the notation accompanying the list. The original author admitted is was "horrible and clunky". Yes, there was a debate over what ships should and should not be referred to as "aircraft carriers". But as to what ships some editors wanted to reserve that term for, we don't have any sources that identify them (or any other vessel) as "true" aircraft carriers. I don't see how we can then have that in a notation here. I realize there were some inflamed passions here awhile ago, and everyone just wanted to leave things to cool down. Well, we've done that. But the word still remains, and therefore, still needs to be addressed. We could simply change "true" to "traditional", or something else, as long as we agree to it, and it doesn't create questions, confusion, or come in conflict with known sources. After all, we do go by sources and consensus here, right? - theWOLFchild 03:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
'The original author admitted is was "horrible and clunky"' - guilty as charged, but it did solve a problem at the time. I now think that the fewer value words we include the better, so best to simply delete it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing it too. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
So far, so good. We just may have an accord... - theWOLFchild 22:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed my mind. Keep it in. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
@BillCat: bearing in mind your recent highly personal remarks in the previous topic over Thewolfchild's change of mind there, your sudden change of mind here might be construed as a personal slight to Thewolfchild rather than a change of encyclopedic position. Clearly, if you intend to change your mind to and fro as a matter of principle in a personal vendetta, your voice cannot be counted meaningfully. I would be grateful if you could confirm your position on the present topic and accordingly add a rider to whichever of your comments in this thread you genunely disagree with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow. My "highly personal remark"? Like "Actually, I would be surprised if you haven't already, just out of self-interest." Those kind of highly personal remarks? Funny. - BilCat (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me, Steel, you're right. I should have given you some credit, realizing that you cast your pearls judiciously. I can do better than that. Thanks for treating me as the adult, calling me down for my own bad behavior, and holding me to the higher standard that I am capable of. I'll honestly try to drop the feud here from this point on. See below for my substantive response. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I once got banned for a while until I cooled down, we are all of us only human. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
So true. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
"true aircraft carriers" is a term in use by the media in general, so we shouldn't feel too bad about using it. Hcobb (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That does beg the question: Sources? I honestly don't doubt you, as you do read a lot of media sources, but can you cite some noteworthy examples here? If the media do use it prominently, then it's not in conflict with "known sources". - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Anything else? Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Google is your friend - it's just my acquaintance, out of occasional self-interst. ;) Besides, I like making you do your own legwork, as you should know by now! :) - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
How about that. I made the phrase up at the time. Guess I'm never first at anything, huh. Seriously, my preference is still to remove it because, however verifiable, it is still value-laden. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
So a "true aircraft carrier" has a flat top, a hangar deck below, and an elevator that carries aircraft between them, right? Hcobb (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like an amphibious assault ship. - theWOLFchild 00:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. But maybe now you're beginning to see the (original) point. What is considered as a 'true' aircraft carrier is subject to debate. Leaving in the notation that "not all sources regard all these types as true aircraft carriers", simply begs the question "what is?", and tampers with the veracity of the article. That's why were considering either changing or removing the word 'true'. Though, maybe we ask if we really even need the notation at all. - theWOLFchild 06:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
change
The current notation is; (note: not all sources regard all these types as true aircraft carriers). Does anyone oppose changing it something like; note: (edit: see below) not all sources agree on a single, standard definition for 'aircraft carrier'? - theWOLFchild 13:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: - I put this up about a week ago and there have been no responses, so I boldly made a change, to (note: some of the types listed here are not strictly defined as aircraft carriers by some sources). I tried to re-word it to something that still conveyed your original message, but without the word 'true', (and the question it creates). Let me know what you think. - theWOLFchild 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you ask, I think it still reflects the sources well enough though IMHO its phrasing is more awkward than before. But I don't care enough to argue the literary merits. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough... now mind you, we could just do away with the notation altogether. If you're ok with that, I would be as well. - theWOLFchild 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest you might still find that you need to build consensus first. Personally I'd like to see the discussion in context of how to treat such systems generally, for example do we treat systems of classification codes painted on hulls differently from systems of classification codes only ever written in documents? Do we discuss all systems currently in use, or that have ever been used, or merely link to their respective articles? That sort of thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
While that goes quite beyond the focus of a simple notation, I don't disagree with you. However, if you would like to see such a discussion take place, why not kick one off? What answers would you provide to those very questions you have posted? - theWOLFchild 19:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to be unhelpful here. I have no knowledge to offer such a discussion, so kicking it off might be unwise. I don't even know enough to form an opinion, only that there is more to this than a US based system adopted in parts by a few of its allies. I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to draw me further on this, there's nothing to be drawn. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter to me. I just though since you brought it up, maybe you'd like to start a new sub-section and ask; "Does anyone here have any info or opinion to offer, in regards to the context of how to treat such systems generally, for example do we treat systems of classification codes painted on hulls differently from systems of classification codes only ever written in documents? Do we discuss all systems currently in use, or that have ever been used, or merely link to their respective articles?" Or something like that. Or you could just leave it be. Like I said, doesn't matter to me.
On another note, do you have anymore more major changes you're planning to role out? Also, did you have any interest in the aviation capable ship article I proposed earlier? Perhaps looking at the evolution of the ever-expanding aviation capable navy? I thought it was interesting that the US has been landing Harriers on LPD's for 40 years, and now looking at the potential of landing F-35's on the San Antonio class. Especially considering Huntington Ingalls Industries is proposing to have variants of that class replace all surface warfare types, save for the Fords, Americas and the LCS. Anyways, lemme know... - theWOLFchild 06:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I got involved in the topic because it was part of the restructuring issue. No more plans now that's done. I have neither the knowledge nor interest to work on spin-off articles. Like I said, there's nothing to be gained by trying to draw me further on this, there's nothing to be drawn. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
No drawing. Got it. Or Sketching, or doodling or otherwise... Take care - theWOLFchild 21:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you think it should be included? - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yeah... I wondering that as well. The article needs a little work (I'll see what I can do in the next day or so, if no one else does anything). There is mention of room for two Chinooks in the main body, but there's no mention of aircraft carried in the infobox. How many helo's can it carry? Also, while it mentions the elevators can't support STOVL aircraft, can the deck still support them? When/if the JDF gets the F-35, could they use these ships as a temporary landing/refuel/re-arm/re-launch point? Can they be retro-fitted? I don't see an immediate need to exclude these ships, but obviously more info is needed. Thanks - thewolfchild 01:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, shoot! That's right... I was looking at those a week or so ago and meant to bring them up, but I forgot. Good question. Solomon, anyone... thoughts? - thewolfchild 05:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK there is the flight deck but no hangars so they do not have full aviation support facilities. I suppose the question is if we need to amend the definition to include ships with substantial aviation support facilities in addition to the familiar flat-top through deck. per globalsecurity "The 584-foot Oosumi has a long, uncluttered vehicle parking deck topside that is surmounted by a blocky "island" superstructure offset somewhat to starboard, giving an appearance suggesting to some that she is somehow intended to be employed in the future as an aircraft carrier. The JMSDF, however, insists that the ship can handle only a pair of CH-47 Chinook helicopters and two SH-60J patrol helicopters. The small elevator forward is used to bring vehicles to and from the flight deck, rather than to stow aircraft below deck."Solomon(for now)79.182.99.43 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If "full aviation support facilites" equals our Lead definition of "facilities for carrying, arming, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase", then I agree with not listing them here. Btw, most reliable sources seem to agree that the San Giorgio-class are not amphibious assault ships, but a POV warrior from Italy insisted on listing them on the amphibious assault ships page even thouh no sources list the as LHA/LHD/LPHs, and moved the article from San Giorgio-class amphibious transport dock to the current title with no move discussion. Some things just aren't worth fighting about too much with POV warriors, so I let it go at the time. - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Bilcat, perhaps we make it "facilities for carrying, arming, sheltering(hangaring??), maintaining, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase" sheltering sound forced but I think the operational hangar deck is important IMHO; maybe a thesaurus and I can have at it after some coffee, anyone else it free to do so in the mean time thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.99.43 (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest that our criterion should be along the lines of, Do sources about "aircraft carriers" discuss this class of ship? In that marathon discussion we discovered that GlobalSecurity and other references are inconsistent even within themselves. It's not so much about one isolated grand statement or another, as what ships they actually address under the banner of discussing "aircraft carriers". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
20 min of web search and all I get is Osumi looking like but not a carrier, it is a floating two story parking lot with LCACs and a well deck, you can land on the stern and barely fit a SH-60 down the elevator to the garage deck. San Giorgios have a big rear flight deck and is listed here as a Amphibious_transport_dock so Bilcat is likely right about a motivated editor. Solomon(for now)79.182.99.43 (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The info does seem pretty sketchy but, we did opt for a broader definition. Instead of debating whether or not to include, why not put them in and then decide how much weight and space to give? I would say that the further from the def, the less rep. Maybe a brief blurb under "heli only", and a link. What do you all think? - thewolfchild 16:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
While we did opt for a broader definition, it is a definition that excludes the Osumis and San Giorgios. I think we can mention them somewhere in the main text, but not include them in the main list of classes in service. Btw, are Jeffead and Hazegray really considered reliable sources? - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Steelpillow, both of those Jeff Head websites do put it in with aircraft carriers and phibs as it needs a home and I think he thinks it is a good place for them but even he does not call them carriers and not really phibs either; (remembering my days ago web search) he was the only person to go even that far. Jeff Head is not the worst source, I suspect he just grabbed a copy of Janes. I think he made his site as a hobby and later to promo his WW-III scenario military fiction; at this point he does not do many submitted corrections, also most of the his ship pages stopped updating something like ten years ago with only major strategic changes being added anymore.Solomon(for now)79.182.99.43 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That pretty much makes it a self-published source, and thus isn't a reliable source. I'm not sure about HazeGray, but it probably doesn't meet WP:RS either, at least not for citation purposes. - BilCat (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
So? That doesn't affect the argument, those examples were just illustrative, not definitive. We agreed to cover the marginal cases because the authoritative works do but, because the authoritative works are so self-contradictory internally, to warn that not all authorities regard them as such. That agreement has not changed that I am aware of. Why are people still questioning it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
What authoritaitve sources regard the Osumis and San Giorgios as aircraft carriers at all? The fact that non-authoritative sources do isn't relevant, as they are non-authoritative. If they don't fit the definition, and aren't regarded as aircraft carriers by authoritative sources, it's not changing the agreement to leave them out completely. There are always going to be ships that marginally fit the definition. The line has to be drawn somwhere, else we have to start including all aviation-capable ships, and the agreement was not to do that. - BilCat (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a singular lack of any unambiguous authoritative lead on this matter, that's what got us into this mess in the first place. We came up with that definition in order to try and encapsulate all the "not-an-aircraft-carrier-honestly" types included by many sources under the general banner of "aircraft carrier". We needed to respect the PoV that if it is listed in a work on "aircraft carriers" then it is in that sense an aircraft carrier but also, if someone had defined it as a "not-an-aircraft-carrier-honestly" class, then we needed to point that out too. Somebody said that Jeff Head says they are not aircraft carriers but when Andrew Toppan (not Jeff, according to the page credits) titles his page "World Aircraft Carriers List: Japanese Helicopter (ASW & Assault) Ships" and then discusses the Osumi class, the semantics of that colon in the title (and other features of the site, I use the colon as an illustrative example) imply that in some sense at least they are indeed a class of aircraft carrier, even if they turn out to be "not-an-aircraft-carrier-honestly" aircraft carriers. I'll bet you that Bernard Ireland includes the Osumi class along with the other Amphibs too, though I do not have a copy of his book. We should draw the line in the same place all these sources do. If our definition runs counter to what we see out there, then we need to revisit our definition, not hide behind it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ireland does not include either the Osumis and San Giorgios in the 2007 edition of his book. Both classes are pre-2000 designs. To be honest, we can probably find many sources that include all sorts of aviation-capable ships under the topic "aircraft carrier", including many with partial decks. At some point, we'll end up with no line at all, and will be including even frigates and destroyers with a small deck, with and without hangars. Do we really want to go that far? I certainly don't. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Did Ireland publish a more contemporary edition? But that's not really the point anyway. There are sources and there are sources. WP:VERIFY tells us which sources to draw the line at, and the usable sources then tell us which ships to draw the line at. Those sources may be confused and self-contradictory in some ways, but they are not *that* bad. In fact, if they were that bad we would indeed have to represent that too. I really do not see your problem. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that no one has presented reliable sources that describe the Osumis and San Giorgios as aircraft carriers, yet you appear to be arguing for their inclusion on the basis that they have full flight decks, and so must be aircraft carriers, and thus our accepted definition should be changed to include them. - BilCat (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where you get that idea from, I have not mentioned full flight decks in this discussion. I am arguing based on what I actually did say, and I see no basis in that to justify your fears. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
My apologies then. But I have yet to see reliable sources cited that describe the Osumis and San Giorgios as aircraft carriers. Jeffhead and Hazegray don't apprear to be reliable sources per WP:VERIFY, as they are self-published sources. I don't know who Andrew Toppan is, but if he has reliable published works, especially books, then cite them directly. HazeGray may have sections edited by him, but I don't think it has any sort editorial oversight, besides being quite out of date. - BilCat (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with including as aircraft carriers all ships listed under works titled "Aircraft carriers" simply because they are included, without taking into account the descriptions or context of the inclusions. Steel, you stated "We needed to respect the PoV that if it is listed in a work on "aircraft carriers" then it is in that sense an aircraft carrier but also, if someone had defined it as a "not-an-aircraft-carrier-honestly" class, then we needed to point that out too."
Well, let's look at the sources. If Bishop and Chant cover all these in their book on Aircraft carriers then yes, it is hard to argue we should not follow the sources. If the sources then say that these are merely close relatives, then we need to say that too. It's no use asking me, ask Bishop, Chant and their ilk, I don't have a copy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
So we should list every curent ship class covered in every book or site on aircraft carriers, and note which sources include them, and then state whether or not the sources actually consider them to be aircraft carriers? Is that what you're advocating. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Specifically, every book or web site which: a) passes WP:VERIFY, and b) purports to limit itself to aircraft carriers (whether or not it then goes on to contradict itself). Also, it need not be a current class. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
By current class, I meant those that are in service, which is what we list in the "Aircraft carriers classes in service" section. As to the rest, doing that would mean changing the accepted definition that was previously agreed upon, as many of the ships covered in such books and sites don't fit the definition we're using, nor do reliable sources generally describe them as aircraft carriers. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Your comment is not self-consistent. "such books and sites" are those which I specifically clarified as meeting WP:VERIFY, and as such are among the very same reliable sources you contrast with them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
No, because I don't see the title of a book or site page as defining what is or is not an aircraft carrier, nor does that make the book or site inconsistent with itself because it then defines aircarft carrier to exclude some of the ships it covers. The definition was have was chosen as best representing a majority of reliable sources. Again, if you feel the definition is inadequate, you can try to get it changed, but I know I won't be participating in another lengthy, drawn-out discussion. Until then, it's my opinion that the Osumis and San Giorgios do not fit the definition we are using, and should be left out of the "Aircraft carriers classes in service". To this point, I don't see a consensus to include them in that list. I certainly don't see a consensus in the marathon discussions to include LPDs and LSDs in the article. - BilCat (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not about our personal views, it is about the way Wikipedia reflects what is out there: WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, yadda yadda. If reliable books and other resources about "aircraft carriers" cover types which technically aren't, then Wikipedia's overview page on the subject should do the same. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't giving my "personal views" in that statement, but merely being gracious to the other editors by not trying to speak for them. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So... what is the debate here? If there is a reliable source, that states a particular ship, type or class is an 'aircraft carrier', then it should be included here, at least to some degree. No? - thewolfchild 10:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The debate died two weeks ago without reaching a clear consensus to add the two classes. Let it rest awhile. - BilCat (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I figured 2 weeks was 'awhile'. It still needs to be dealt with, at some point... - thewolfchild 14:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It was delt with. There was no clear consensus to add them, which is a consensus not to add them, since they aren't there now. When the same editors go around in circles over the same points, it's usually best to wait a few months at least. If a new poster chimes in before that, it may be able to move the discussion along. Also, the "aviation-capable ship" issue may deal satisfactorily with this one. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Just some random info about the Osumi I read off the Japanese Wiki entry:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%8A%E3%81%8A%E3%81%99%E3%81%BF%E5%9E%8B%E8%BC%B8%E9%80%81%E8%89%A6
The back end of the ship is a well deck. The front end of the ship is a hanger. There's 100 meters of space in the hanger. Officially the ship can handle two large VTOL aircraft at once (there's photos of it servicing Osprey). It has one service elevator for the VTOL.
On a total side note: in the current political climate, Japan would never admit any of their ships are aircraft carriers -- even if it was a 90,000 ton behemoth -- because of how their constitution is written and China/Korea/Taiwan anti-rearming issues. The Japanese navy just tags everything as a "destroyer", even if other nations would classify them as a landing ship or it's large enough to be a cruiser. Chinese political propaganda likes to call the Osumi an aircraft carrier, because it fits their agenda (in contrast how Japan calling everything a destroyer fits their agenda). 132.3.29.78 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
So do they have to be manned fixed wing aircraft to count? Hcobb (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The situation with Japan is a complex political issue. Japan calls all their large surface ships "destroyers" even when another nation would classify them cruisers or an amphibious assault ship. This is because Japan's constitution forbids having an offensive military... despite that Japan is actually number FIVE on world military expenditures -- it out spends France (a major European military power with nukes) and India (a regional rival to China). Note that China and Korea media call Japan's helicopter destroyers, true aircraft carriers... while US analysts call them a type of amphibious ships. Even if the Japanese were to rebuilt a modernized IJN Yamato, they'd call it gun destroyer or something underwhelming like that. It's political smoke and mirrors that the Japanese government uses to not violate their constitution... but still technically violate it. Remember: Officially Japan doesn't even have a military -- they have a "Self Defense Force". If it counts a true military, depends who's being asked, and what's their hidden agenda on the matter. 132.3.29.80 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
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:
Not until (and unless) Turkey actually starts construction, in other words it cuts steel for the ship. - Nick Thornetalk 08:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
China
No mention of any future carriers for China? Another article here mentions that they're building 4 and plan to have two completed by 2015. - theWOLFchild 19:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Major restructuring
Well, I took "be bold" at face value. If you all deem the old way was better, I'd hope my effort could remain up for a few days to allow comment, e.g. to identify the odd subtopic worthy of its own article. Either way, there is still loads of work to be done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh... well look at that. 3 days and not a peep. Good for you bro. I like most of what you've done so far, (I'd like to see what else you have in mind) If there's anything you'd like help with, let me know - theWOLFchild 03:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
As an afterthought I just added a Description section to cover the structure and flight deck stuff. It corresponds more or less to the submarine article's section on technology. Other than that, I see a huge amount of work just cleaning up, filling in topics (e.g. history of postwar operations, a Description subsection on Propulsion), trimming irrelevancies, spinning off overblown topics to their own articles (e.g. a proper discussion of the US national fleet should quickly outgrow its subsection here), etc. etc. Since I know relatively little about the topic and have no reference works to hand, I have no intention of digging into all that detail. Feel free to tackle any or all of that very open-ended list. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll do what I can but, I would think that, as seen from the discussion above, there are a few editors who are quite passionate about this article and, as they indicated, they would be glad to contribute. - theWOLFchild 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Just looking at the list I think combining current and future is a great idea, but there is very unbalanced treatment especially in history, the UK had a fleet which was large enough to loan a carrier or two to the US in WW-II, Why does Germany deserve any mention for a never used or completed hulk? Japan had nothing resembling a carrier for at least 50 years post WW-II, and no mention of French, Brazil, Australia, Canadian, or any other history at all, etc. My opinion is that historical is well covered especially in the timeline page, the uncited OR and incorrect should be trimmed from this page especially considering its current state.Solomon(for now)109.64.38.45 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps restrict future to ships that have actually entered the construction stage rather than open ended national specualtion?Solomon(for now)109.64.38.45 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's been a while since anybody commented on this, but things seem kind of broken in here. I think this should either be cleaned up (which I don't have time to do right now) or we should at least put a cleanup tag at the beginning of the article. There is a lot of redundant data between "The future of aircraft carriers" and the individual "Nation Fleets" sections. One way to clean it up would be to pull all of the "Future of aircraft carriers" info down into the national fleets section and just scrap the first one. At this point there's a lot of copy and paste and some conflicting/wrong data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazzid (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Aircraft carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I found this article rather good, but one in my oppinion vital matter is left out of the lead.
The purpose of the lead (in longer articles atleast) is to cover the article. It shall without exaggerations and superlatives kind of "tease" the readers to go on reading the full article more in detail. Here is a lead which is good from all perspectives, but which has forgotten one imperative part. As landing with fighters on carriers differs from all other landing styles within aviation (the pilot must give full throttle(s) in the moment of touch down), I find a brief mention this matter to be proper and a benefit to the lead, which well can cause a few readers to read more than just the lead. If my tiny contribution now really was written as a "school essay", could then someone else please add this matter to the lead ? If the matter is sourcered in the article, inline references are redundant in the lead. If improved, the article could possibly be nominated as good reading. Boeing720 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The bit you wanted to add is not really relevant to the lead and I suspect it is not true for all aircraft types and aircraft carriers so I am not sure it really belongs in the article as we dont have anything on "landing technique", but it might be worth something at Flight deck#Landing on flight decks if you can find a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
In my contribution I actually did point out exceptions. For instance do I believe the Lockheed X35B is able to lift and land like a helicopter. And I don't think that model is the only one. But to stay in the air without flying, overcome Earth's gravity without the use of aerodynamic forces, truely uses astronomic amounts of fuel, even if it's only for a few seconds. I believe (but am not entirely certain) that all such aircrafts usually both take off and land through catapults and tail hooks. I believe only in extreme hurry (and exercise of the same) this spectacular capability is used. Nevertheless these exceptions must be mentioned (if my thoughts were accepted, that is). I just think a large majority of all fighters which have landed onboard carriers through history has given and still gives full throttle onboard the deck and the retardation entirely is done by the tail hook which captures one of several wires - is both interesting and of some general importance, since it's the opposite to landing on land. But I suppose it comes down to a matter of oppinion whether to think if it's importaint enough or not. All the best Boeing720 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, the information you sought to introduced is not contained within the article body and so does not belong in the lead. Furthermore the info you tried to introduce does not belong in this article anyway since that information is focussed on an aspect of how carrier aircraft are operated that does not impact on carrier design or operations. If it belongs anywhere it would be in an article that focusses on carrier aircraft operations.
Finally, the information you introduced contains errors and is unsourced. Not all jet powered carrier born aircraft are "fighters" as you put it. There are many types of aircraft currently or previously carried at sea which while they do include fighter aircraft they also include strike/attack aircraft, AEW aircraft, ASW aircraft and multi role aircraft. The significant issue is the form of propulsion the aircraft uses. If an aircraft uses jet propulsion then the issue is the time it takes for the engine(s) to spool up again in case of a bolter or if practising "touch and go" operations - there is not enough time to wait even a short time to go to full power and have the engine spool up before the aircraft needs the power to go round. The solution is indeed to put the engine to full power immediately the wheels hit the deck, but as I said this information does not belong in this article.
It is incorrect to say that STOVL aircraft usually launch via a catapult and recover using the arrestor gear, firstly many STOVL carriers do not have arresting gear or catapults and in any case the STOVL aircraft do not have the necessary catapult fittings or a tail hook. BTW, the STOVL version of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II is the F35B and neither it nor the earlier Harrier/AV8B are capable of catapult launch or arrested recovery. Although there has been some work done on a "rolling recovery" for the F35B, vertical recovery is and will remain the primary method used by these and other STOVL aircraft. Some of the Russian/Soviet naval aircraft do have tail hooks but none of their carriers have or have had catapults - they have all used a ski ramp type launch. So in the end I reiterate that this info does not belong in this article and will need a fair amount of copy editing before it is placed anywhere else in Wikipedia. - Nick Thornetalk 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI
@Nicky mathew: - Hi, I saw some of your edits to the Aircraft Carrier page and thought I would pass on some friendly advice. Before you make anymore bold changes, unilaterally deciding what does and does not belong, I suggest you take a look through the talk page, specifically archives #5 & #6. You are new here, having only joined this year, so one wouldn't expect you to be versed in the article's history, but you should know that back in 2013, there was a lengthy discussion (and debate) involving multiple editors. After some time, there was a clear consensus on what types of ships would be included in the article. Instead of limiting the context to only the "traditional" aircraft carrier, those being ships designed to carry multiple squadrons of fixed-wing aircraft, it was decided that all big deck ships would be included, such as (for example), helicopter carriers and amphibious assault ships. There was extensive and multiple re-writes made to the page to accommodate this new consensus. As such, no single editor can now just simply come along and remove content because "they don't feel it belongs". Please keep that in mind when making future edits.
Also when you say; "we only classify a ship aircraft carrier if it operate or plans to operate fighter aircrafts like f35 or harriers or mig 29k not only helicopters and used for offense strike ." - who is the "we" that you are referring to in that sentence? - theWOLFchild 00:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you already post this on his talk page a week ago? - BilCat (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do you ask? - theWOLFchild 04:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Because it doesn't seem to be an issue now. - BilCat (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Your point being... ? - theWOLFchild 04:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:- Ok lets just clear things out, i understand everything you said in my talk page and i agree with your views but that doesn't mean i have to reply to your question because i do not have the time nor any obligation to give you reply. When I archived the discussion it means i have red your comment and choose not to reply, by posting the same thing again here shows how desperate you are for attention and you are acting like a newly autoconfirmed user who learned few tricks on how to use talk pages in wikipedia. If you choose to annoy again i will report you and also i will not be replying to your comments on this topic anymore in any talk page. Bye Nicky mathew (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow! Aren't you an angry fellow? You can relax... neither the hostility nor the insults are necessary. It seemed prudent to re-post here because this is the very article my comments were about. Also, since you didn't reply and instead moved multiple comments en masse, I had no idea if you read them or not. You brought this on yourself with your ridiculous edits and silly comments, and compounded it by abruptly removing comments without acknowledging them. I also find it laughable that you would call me "new", when you yourself only stated here earlier this year, and your history is already full of you misusing and abusing multiple wp processes. You need to calm down, getting so upset and "annoyed" over a simple post and even resorting to empty threats is no way to help build and maintain an encyclopaedia. I was simply offering advice, you can take it or leave it, but if you can't do either nicely, than do it quietly... - theWOLFchild 04:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
_steams_through_the_Atlantic_Ocean_March_14,_2013_130314-N-FH321-020.jpg){kind=spacer}
Seriously, my preference is still to remove it because, however verifiable, it is still value-laden. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- theWOLFchild 14:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)