Talk:USS United States (CVA-58)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS United States (CVA-58) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

"That mission put the ship in harm's way long before construction began..."

Using the phrase "That mission put the ship in harm's way long before construction began...." in referring to a turf war between the US Navy and Air Force seems a little on the inappropriate side. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll come back and amend it in a week or so. Mark5677 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design

Is this sentence correct: "It would be equipped with four aircraft elevators located at the deck edges, and four catapults, two at the bow with the outer ones at the deck edges staggered back."?

I suppose elevators at the deck edges could be described as being "outer", but it seems to me that it would make more sense reading "other", ie "It would be equipped with four aircraft elevators located at the deck edges, and four catapults, two at the bow with the other ones at the deck edges staggered back." Dawright12 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long-range Bombers

What sort of bomber was supposed to be used on this class of ships? Were they ever built? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the a/c types stated under the image of the model I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-2_Neptune#Nuclear_bomber which imo answers the question. In short: A few usually land based a/c of the intended type were converted for testing. Then of course history overtook the nonsense when the Soviet Union blasted their own nuclear weapons and came up with intercontinental rockets able to deliver them and further on with capable air defenses which rendered the whole vector obsolete. JB. --92.193.226.217 (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy the "Proposed Operations" Section

It seems to me that the section "Proposed Operations" goes off on a tangent irrelevant to the topic of the section. I would rather not just remove the two sentences, but I feel that a rivalry between the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy was not one of the proposed operations for the USS United States. Yenoham35 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1200 PSI ?

I find it interesting that this article says United State was to be a 1200 PSI steam plant. 1200 PSI was quite experimental when this ship was designed. USS Forrestal was 600 PSI, Saratoga was the first 1200 PSI carrier, many years after United States was designed and laid down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8382:B680:1575:F857:EDCB:E153 (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

The picture captioned "A preliminary design model undergoing seakeeping tests" shows what look like a B-1 and various other modern-era aircraft on it. It is very unlikely that that is a picture of a model CVA-58. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.125.10 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft models pictured are depicting Chance-Vought F7U Cutlass fighters, and the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior. The Skywarrior was intended to operate from such a carrier (although, it was designed with the foresight to know that such a carrier was likely to be cancelled, so it was small enough to operate off existing designs), so is a contemporary design to the USS United States, and the Cutlass slightly predates in terms of design, being based off designs from Messerschmitt and Arado, and first flying in 1948. Therefore, one model is "concept" and the other is an aircraft that was then coming into service. SquireJames (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unit conversion error

1,090 feet (330 m) overall, 1,030 feet (310 m) waterline, 1,088 feet (332 m) flight deck

1,090 feet is apparently smaller than 1,088 feet when converted to meters. 1,090 feet should read 332 meters. 1088 feet should read 331 meters. 1,030 should read 314 meters. However the possibility this error comes from using three different sources for the three measurements, where a single source with the most precise figures should be used. 2001:8003:5C41:5500:C895:377E:57D9:D115 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the template, not the refs. The template assumes a certain amount of significant figures and assumes less precision for 1090 vs 1088. Help:Convert#Rounding. It can be manually overridden by adding 1 significant figure: 1,090 feet (332.2 m) 1,088 feet (331.6 m) 1,030 feet (313.9 m) 0 sig figures: 1,090 feet (332 m) 1,088 feet (332 m) 1,030 feet (314 m) --Dual Freq (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]