Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:10, 12 September 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aircraft carrier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 18 months

	Aircraft carrier was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 2, 2006 Good article nominee Listed April 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 1, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept June 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / World War II 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not 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 Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft / Airports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article is supported by the airport project.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aircraft carrier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 18 months

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

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 23:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

For correct and equal coverage either Japanese Hyūga class helicopter destroyer must be removed from future aircraft carriers and moved to current carrier list but listed as helicopter only. They would then have to be joined by the HMS Ocean (L12), Dokdo class amphibious assault ship, and add the Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock be added to future carriers. The Japanese ships are not particularly unique as full deck helicopter carriers other than that their mission is not primarily amphibious assault. The intro of the article needs to define for readers and editors whether this article is about fixed wing or any specialized ship for basing any type of flying craft.79.180.218.125 (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2012 (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)

Recent changes (2-3 Arpil 2013) have one new cite from a non-defense fluff tech site, wired.co.uk, taking the Chinese press release at face value and wipes out other news and analysis cites which acknowledged video of arrested landings but questioned unverified clams of launching aircraft, also wipes out cited information that Liaoning is not yet capable of sustained air or combat operations implying that this status has changed without cite.109.67.100.21 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The video of a Chinese aircraft taking off from the carrier appears fairly clear: are you suggesting that this is some form of advanced CGI which no-one can identify as CGI? I don't the article as it stands in any way implies a capability for 'sustained' operations. Thom2002 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, initially the vid of launch ops was not available and I believe one of my cites on that Nov day was analysis on whether the Chinese version of the SU-27 had enough engine to make a ski jump launch. Very sorry, good work, thanks.109.67.100.21 (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth class carrier redesign

According to an article dated 10 May 2012 the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced that the Royal Navy will order the STOVL 'B' variant in preference to the carrier capable 'C' variant. His reasoning is that to convert the Queen Elizabeth class carrier to 'Cat and Trap' configuration would delay service implementation and double the cost of the carriers. He stated that the carriers will now be completed in the STOVL configuration with a ski-jump which will permit continuous carrier availability throughout the life of the ship

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/May/10/120509-F35B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djandersonza (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Paraffin fuel aircraft

In the documentary "Generals at War: The Battle of Midway ", it was mentioned that for safety (aircraft carriers under fire had the risk of airplane fuels on deck being ignited trough enemy fire), they switched to using "paraffin fuel". Can someone look into this and mention it ?

Perhaps it's also useful to mention the "fast attack carrier" classes. Ie the the Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sōryū was one of those.

91.182.172.104 (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Paraffin fuel is appearantly tractor vaporising oil, see Diesel engine. Should indeed be mentioned in article.

91.182.169.215 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

STOVL Carriers

The article seems a little confused as to whether STOVL-capable ships like the Juan Carlos and the Wasp-class are aircraft carriers or not. The Wasp class seems to be excluded from the total number of aircraft carriers, despite regularly carrying out fixed-wing operations, but the Juan Carlos is included. Any views? I imagine that the article should at least be consistent. Thom2002 (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we change the lead to say the modern version is fixed wing aircraft? Also suppose a ship only had V-22 Ospreys, would that count? Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If a ship isn't operational as an aircraft carrier, then is it not simply a ship? We should divide the list into those carriers that are actively launching/recovering aircraft in the line of duty from those that are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.158.233 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

if you need a cite

If you need a cite for the historical, current, and future role of aircraft carriers this US Naval War College article might help. http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87bcd2ff-c7b6-4715-b2ed-05df6e416b3b/The-Future-of-Aircraft-Carriers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.96.39 (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed tag/Good article

I remember when Aircraft Carriers got delisted as a good article, there has been a general citation needed tag on the header since '08. How about a coordinated effort here to identify paragraphs and statements needing a cite and tagging them, finding the required sources or removing the uncited information, and finally removing the tag and requesting a review. It would be nice to see this page, an important highly rated starting page for journalists and strategic researchers, again get the respect it deserves once we have put in the required work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.32.46 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Crucial inovation missing

I don't see any 1940's era Aircraft Carriers with Catapults on them. Perhaps experimental ships? The Catapult was a CRUCIAL Aircraft Carrier inovation for the use of jet aircraft and larger aircraft like ASW, Transports, or (Jet) Bombers. Perhaps a note about higher take-off and stall speeds of contemporary aircraft (this article is about ships AND aircraft.) Also note that "737" and other transport aircraft DO takeoff w/o catapult and land without arresting hook due to high power to weight capability (short field capability) and full engine power thrust reversers (not allowed during civilian aviation use). The "ski-ramp" thing puzzles me. No reference to other articles. Its on China's new Carrier. "Translating forward motion for vertical motion" seems useless if you are still below stall speed??? Planes tend to stay near the groud building up speed before they "rotate" (head upwards) in part due to "ground effect" (additional lift experienced while wings are still within 20 feet of the ground). Notice that catapult launched aircraft "sink" after passing the edge of the ship's bow. Shjacks45 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You made an identical post on Talk:History of the aircraft carrier, I have replied here, I don't intend to repeat myself. - Nick Thorne 00:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparison graphic incorrect

The comparison graphic is really good, however it is factually incorrect as the HMS Queen Elizabeth is now 70,600 tonnes displacement and isn't even finished yet so this will only increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.172.219 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To include, or not to include...

Have not reverted, but have continued to seek improvement and clarification with latest edits. - thewolfchild 02:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for going to talk. This discussion of "What is an Aircraft Carrier?" has been tricky over the years to get consensus; does a amphib with only 4-6 harriers count as a carrier(the Gulf War and Iraq War deployment of LHA and LHD phibs as light carriers pushed them over the top), what about a phib used as a carrier Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I_(L61), does the Chakri Naruebet count when it's Harriers were worn out after ~three years, and what about the Illustrious, converted to a phib, the aircraft sold for parts? So far the liberal definition used here has been anything that has ever regularly been designated as a ship which operates fixed wing aircraft including Harriers and is still in commission gets listed in "Classes currently in service". Changing the inclusion from regular fixed wing operations to "Fixed-wing and Rotary-wing capable" is a fundamental change to the whole page and stretches the meaning of an aircraft carrier IMHO to the breaking point, taken literally any frigate, corvette, oil tanker, or cruise ship with a helicopter flight deck would be safely inside this definition, without consensus backed by citation of definitive experts I do not think such a basic change is warranted. I had concern that this definition float would happen when the beautiful and useful graphic comparing ship classes was uploaded which included Hyuga, I now see this concern becoming reality.109.67.140.225 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Never-the-less, the change was needed. It's crazy to lump the 106,000 ton Nimitz class with that 11,000 ton joke that Thailand has, and then go further and include the SVTOL carriers of some countries, but segregate the much larger, newer and more capable SVTOL carriers of the USN. Then there is your comment "citations from definitive experts". The USN is arguably the world experts in all things naval and even they can't seem to figure out some standard class descriptions. All WP can do, as a reference for readers, is clearly lay out this info in the best way possible. Your argument about "oil tankers" and what-not doesn't stand. At it's most basic, the term aircraft carrier applies to ships capable of carrying jet fighter craft, which all the ships here are, or were at one time. I had tried to distinguish the "rotary craft only" as being re-purposed, but that was shot down. I am gonna note that now tried noting that however, in my continuing effort to improve this page. (along with the help of Fnlayson - thanks.)

- By the way, are you also 109.67.104.36? Is there some reason you cant edit with a user account? Blocked?, banned? lazy? or maybe just shy? I only ask because it's difficult have a dialogue with a bunch of random ip's. If you don't have an account, I would urge you to consider the benefits of getting one. It's easy, anonymous and free. If you already have one, would you please edit with it? Thanks. - thewolfchild 01:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, also wanted to address these comments:

"...does a amphib with only 4-6 harriers count as a carrier..."

You seem like you're trying to craft an "almost pregnant" argument. These ships do carry fixed-wing aircraft. They meet the very same definition of aircraft carrier that a Nimitz class does. Yes, it may only be 6 most of the time, but they are capable of carrying more, just like the other SVTOL carriers on this list that seem to satisfy your idea of what should be included in the list of active carriers. And as for the Juan Carlos, why wouldn't it count?

"Changing the inclusion from regular fixed wing operations to "Fixed-wing and Rotary-wing capable" is a fundamental change to the whole page and stretches the meaning of an aircraft carrier IMHO to the breaking point..."

Erm, no it doesn't. It doesn't add or remove any content that was already there. It simply adds one, simple, minor, step to help organize the section. So I must respectfully disagree with... whoever you are, as you are fundamentally wrong. - thewolfchild 02:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but amphibious assault ships are not built nor intended for use primarily for the operation of fixed wing aircraft. That is the defining characteristic of an aircraft carrier. You may make as many disparaging comments about the carriers of other nations as you like, the size of a carrier is not significant in its definition, it is the purpose for which it was built and operated that determines whether, or not, a ship is an aircraft carrier. That is why "that joke that Thailand has" (as you so politely put it) is a carrier and the Wasp class LHDs are not. You are not the arbiter of what gets included in Misplaced Pages articles - this is supposed to be a collegiate enterprise - and the consensus has been well established here about what constitutes a carrier for the purpose of our articles here, and what does not. You are entitles to try to change the consensus, but you are not entitled to dictate what that consensus should be. - Nick Thorne 12:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

You say: "...amphibious assault ships are not built nor intended for use primarily for the operation of fixed wing aircraft. That is the defining characteristic of an aircraft carrier."
According to whom? You?

You also said: "That is why "that joke that Thailand has" (as you so politely put it) is a carrier and the Wasp class LHDs are not."
And yet, the HTMS Chakri Naruebet has no fixed-wing aircraft what-so-ever, and is now; "used for royal VIP cruises, helicopter operations, and as a disaster relief platform."<be> Was that it's "intended purpose" ?

Meanwhile, the Wasp's "design was modified to allow for the operation of AV-8B Harrier II aircraft ... making the Wasp class the first ships specifically designed to operate these." And; "a Wasp operating in the sea control or 'harrier carrier' configuration carries 20 Harriers (though some ships of the class have operated as many as 24)"
These ships were "intended" to have the ability and option of being used for the "purposes" of a 'light aircraft carriers', and therefore are "aircraft carriers".

You said: "You are not the arbiter of what gets included in Misplaced Pages articles" (which I never claimed to be)

You also said: "...you are not entitled to dictate what that consensus should be." (which I also never claimed to be)

These condescendingly rude comments are in contrast to your statement that: "this is supposed to be a collegiate enterprise"

Well, sir, I don't find you being very "collegial". I do find that you have somewhat of an elitist attitude. These articles do not belong to whatever group of editors "contributes the most" or even seem to "know the most". These articles belong to everybody, and need to be crafted as such that everybody and anybody reading them will have a clear understanding of the content, while still complying with wiki-policy. That is what I am trying to accomplish here. I haven't significantly altered anything, I have only tried to clarify existing content. To improve the article. What are you tying to accomplish with your complaints, insults and accusations?

As for the "definition of an aircraft carrier", when you look it up in just about any reliable source, it is basically "a ship that carries aircraft". Now obviously we are trying to narrow that here in these articles to something more like "a naval warship that carries fixed-wing fighter planes". To go beyond that, we would need to be very carful. You claim that there is an established consensus for this. I would be interested in seeing that, and even taking part in it. Perhaps you could show me this consensus? But, please, don't bother responding if you can't withhold the vitriol. Most of these aircraft carrier articles are in need of improvement, if you have the interest, perhaps you would consider lending some assistance? - thewolfchild 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are both broad and narrow definitions of "aircraft carrier". These generally exclude ships with hangers for helicopters and a small flight deck, or, historically, those with facilities for launching and recovering seaplanes, as in WW2, which are just aircraft-carrying ships.

Broadly, an aircraft carrier is any ship which carries any type aircraft, and has a large flight deck with occupies at least half of the top deck space of a ship. Narrowly, it refers ships to built or intended for use primarily for the operation of fixed wing aircraft, with a large flight deck that covers most of the ship. These may be considered "pure" aircraft carriers, and are usually considered as fleet carriers, but that term is less common in modern times. Both of these definitions are correct in modern English usage. However, the narrow definition is probably the more common one, especially in navies which operate such ships, such as the US Navy. Ships which operate helicopters only, or V/STOL fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, may or may not be considered to be aircraft carriers in the narrow sense, but usually are in the broad sense.

This article has generally focused on the narrow definition, but has over time been expanded to cover the broad definition. But the non-pure carriers also have their own articles, such as helicopter carrier, ASW carrier, and amphibious assault ship. This article is really the only place to cover pure carriers. We do have an article on the fleet carrier, though again that is more of a historical term.

As WP follows common usage for terms, within defined definitions, the scope of this article should probably as a brief introduction to aircraft carriers in general, but focus on carriers which are designed and used primarily to operate fixed-wing aircraft, ie the "pure' carriers. As such, LHD/LHAs should not be covered here, nor should pure helicopter carriers such as those of modern Japan. Ilustrious and "that joke that Thailand has" has can covered in the history section, but should probably not be listed as aircraft carriers in service. However, I would list the LHDs of Italy and Spain here, as they are effectively full-time dual-role ships, especially as Spain only has one one carrier at all now. I would not list the LHD/LHAs of the US Navy, as the service also has pure aircraft carriers. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So... what about the America-class amphibious assault ship? When it goes into service, does it get added or not? 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

the America-class amphibious assault ship are still LHAs, so probably not. However, we'll have to see how the USN actually uses the type in service. It's my understanding that the class will still be generally used in the amphibious assualt role, even without a well deck. LPHs don't have well decks either, and generally aren't includes here, which I didn't specify above. An example is the RN's HMS Ocean (L12), which to my knowledge has never been listed here. Note that Illustrious has been re-roled by the RN as an LPH while Ocean is undergoing refit. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You mention well decks, but my understanding is that only the first two America class ships will have not well decks in favour of larger aviation facilities. The remaining ships of the class apparently will have well decks. But either way, I don't see how that is a deciding factor in how to define these ships. - thewolfchild 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The well deck is irrelevant as to whether or not a ship is considered an amphibious assault ship (LHA/LHD/LPH) or not, which was my point. - BilCat (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK... well, like I said, you brought up the well decks in the first place. I wasn't sure of the relevance. Now you say there is none. So we're back to me not understanding why you brought them up in the first place. Anyways... let's just skip that, and get back to definitions. Can you or anyone else here point me to where consensus had established that USN SVTOL light carriers don't count, but every other counties' ships do? Thanks. - thewolfchild 17:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The USN does not have "STOVL light carriers". It has amphibious assualt ships. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And if the USN/USMC decides to equip these LHA's with a couple dozen of AV-8's or F35's, what then? (even if it's just one? even if it's temporary?) Because, these ship were designed with the intention of being able to operate as light aircraft carriers, just like the SVTOL carriers of other nations. - thewolfchild 04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If the USN decides to re-classify these ships as CVs, or something similar, then you may have an argument. Until then, not so much. - Nick Thorne 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that USN hull symbols are the deciding factor here? There are ships from other nations that are nearly identical (or lesser) in size and ability, without the CV designation, and they are considered aircraft carriers. - thewolfchild 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The USN hull symbols actually aren't the deciding factor. Cavour is classed by the Italian Navy as a CVH, basically a light STOVL carrier. The Juan Carlos I is classed as an LHD by the Spanish Navy (hence the "L" prefix in its pennant number "L61"). It was intended to to operate in a secondary role as a carrier when Spain's primary carrier, Principe de Asturias, was not available. As such, the JC1 shouldn't have been listed here. However, the PdA has since been prematurely retired, so JC1 is SPain's ony carrier-type vessel. As such, the carrier-type role is now more important than was planned. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I included the LHA, LHD, and Juan Carlos since even though they are not officially CV but rather L class shlips they now almost always carry an air wing similar to most STOVL carriers, the America will do the same and is a light carrier in the fashion of the LHA/LHD classes in wartime, I support its inclusion once in commission. Part of the reason why I went for such a clear cut use in wartime etc. is that after a few years I got tired of reverts and I try to format my work in a most obvious/non-controversial way which still preserves the facts, the fact is while the Juan Carlos will always get called a carrier even though it is a phib, it is controversial to double the US's already huge carrier numbers. BTW I prefer talk to take place on the talk page not a personal page(and no I am not banned or I couldn't post even unlogged) that way it is not personal but stays on topic, so no I have never made a wikipedia account and rely on my cites and content not my rep. Also the helicopter-only sub-category is a good idea as long as we don't end up with a helicopter carrier edit war with Hyuga, Dokdo, etc being added and deleted, if that happens I think we should go back to the old format to preserve the page integrity.79.182.99.46 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with your comments here. As for 'CV' vs. 'L', see my comment above to Nick T. As for you comments regarding talk pages and user accounts... that is right to go that way. But so far, you have used no less than 3 different IP addresses in this discussion alone. As they are all from the same part of the world, I can only assume their likely from the same person. In situations like this, where you are posting multiple comments, perhaps you could employ a nick name to manually sign at the end. For example;

Comment comment comment, blah blah blah, yadda, yadda, yadda. Solomon. - 79.182.99.64 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be simple for you to do, make things a little easier, and preserve the anonymity you desire. Anyways, please consider it. - thewolfchild 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

IP 79.xxx, et al, added the USN LHAs and LHDs to the article without gaining a consensus to do so first, and it has been controversial ever since he/she did it. In addition, a photo of Dokdo is now in the article, and Hyuga and/or her successor has been added recently also. So, yeah, now is the time "to preserve the page integrity". - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but how has it been controversial? I had a look thru all the talk discussions here, but all I could find, was a section where it appears you have argued for the inclusion of these ships. - thewolfchild 13:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, there was no real discussion at the time IP 79.xxx/109.xxx began to make changes to the scope in 2011. ANd I did support the inclusion of the USN's big deck amphips in 2007, but no change in scope occured at the time. That was over six years ago, and I have since changed my mind regarding the scope of the article. You'll note that at the time I called the LHAs/LHDs "amphibious assualt carriers". but that was mainly a term I made up. No one else uses that term, and that was influentioal in changig my mind about the scope of the article, that it should focus on the narrow definition of aircraft carrier, and exclude the USN big-deck amphips. - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

BilCat, I would also support removal of all phibs including the Juan Carlos, also up for discussion would be Chakri Naruebet and Illustrious but IMHO we must have the criteria we are using at the head of the list. This list simply will always be POV we just need to find the most clear/useful/authoritative POV which will get the least amount of revision. there are several ways to go that I see; 1-all active CV type ships, 2-only active CV ships with an active air wing, 3-ships with active air wing of any class, 4-???. Page integrity to me is using the same criteria across the board. My opinion was that the USN has called them harrier carriers, that was enough for me and I would not have objected to a discussed reversion. thewolfchild I get the utility in a discuss like this to have a nick(IP/nologin thing started years ago, work related, ssh tunneling out of firewall) so bla, bla, yadda, Solomon (for now)79.182.99.46 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have agreed to excluding Juan Carlos I before the Principe de Asturias was prematurely retired, but as it is now Spain's only carrier-type vessel, it should be included here. - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the LHA\D's should remain in the article. As it stands now, with them included, it provides a better view of the 'big picture'. Though these "amphibs" (or just "phibs") currently serve in the primary role of bringing USMC MEU's to shore, and only use a half dozen AV-8's to support that mission, they were designed with the capability of serving as light aircraft carriers. Hence the fact that they can carry a couple of squadrons of Harriers, and potentially F-35's. That is also why they are comparable to the other SVTOL carrier's of other nations - not just visually, but in size, weight, length, and capability. So, they should continue to be included, but with a clear explanation of the current/main/primary role they serve. There seems to be a couple of 'traditionalists' here who object to the inclusion, for they only consider "CV-type" ships to be real aircraft carriers. But that narrow definition aside, we must be prepared to cater the many readers who don't know of these distinctions, and have come to learn about 'aircraft carriers', and LHA\D's are 'aircraft carriers'.

(And, 'Solomon' I'm glad you agreed with the need to use (for now) a nick name. Mind you, you could use any one you want, just as long as you're consistent, so we know who you are with each ip change. I only used 'Solomon' as an example because... well, never mind. Anyway, I understand your reasons for anonymity and I glad we found a compromise.) - thewolfchild 13:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Some quotes from the USN official web-site;

"Unites States Navy Fact File"

---

Amphibious Assault Ships - LHA/LHD/LHA(R)

Description

The largest of all amphibious warfare ships; resembles a small aircraft carrier; capable of Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL), Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor and Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft operations; contains a well deck to support use of Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC) and other watercraft (with exception of the first two LHA(R) class ships, LHA 6 and LHA 7, which have no well deck). LHA 8 will feature a well deck.

Features

Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these ships transport and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) or Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) with a combination of aircraft and landing craft.

The Tarawa-class LHAs and Wasp-class LHDs provide the Marine Corps with a means of ship-to-shore movement by helicopter in addition to movement by landing craft. Three LHAs � which have extensive storage capacity and can accommodate Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and LCAC craft � were active during Operations Desert Shield / Storm. Since that time, LHAs (and later LHDs) have been participants in major humanitarian-assistance, occupation and combat operations in which the United States has been involved. Such operations have included participating as launch platforms for Marine Corps expeditionary forces into Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 and 2002, Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and humanitarian support after the catastrophic Tsunami in 2004. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, two LHDs served as �Harrier carriers,� launching an air group of AV-8B attack aircraft against targets inside Iraq.

(LHA-6) was placed under contract in June 2007 with NGSB, now Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). LHA 6 will be an aviation-centric modified repeat of the LHD 8 and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in 2013. Key differences between LHA 6 and the LHD class ships include an enlarged hangar deck, enhanced aviation maintenance facilities, increased aviation fuel capacity, additional aviation storerooms, removal of the well deck, and an electronically reconfigurable C4ISR suite.

Background

Amphibious warships are designed to support the Marine Corps tenets of Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS) and Ship to Objective Maneuver (STOM). They must be able to sail in harm�s way and provide a rapid buildup of combat power ashore in the face of opposition. Because of their inherent capabilities, these ships have been and will continue to be called upon to also support humanitarian and other contingency missions on short notice. The United States maintains the largest and most capable amphibious force in the world. The Wasp-class LHDs are currently the largest amphibious ships in the world. The lead ship, USS Wasp (LHD 1) was commissioned in July 1989 in Norfolk, Va. LHA Replacement or LHA(R) is the next step in the incremental development of the �Big Deck Amphib�. She is being designed to accommodate the Marine Corps� future Air Combat Element (ACE) including F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and MV-22 Osprey with additional aviation maintenance capability and increased fuel capacities, while also providing additional cargo stowage capacities and enabling a broader, more flexible Command and Control capability.

Just thought it might help contribute to the discussion. - thewolfchild 15:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting quote;

"It is, for all intents and purposes, a light aircraft carrier, Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix wrote of America".

Figured I'd ad that as well. - thewolfchild 15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The key phrase in what you quoted above in in the first line: "resembles a small aircraft carrier". The USN does not consider its LHAs and LHDs to be aircraft carriers in the narrow sense. This is further illustrated by the second quote, in with the captain states "for all intents and purposes". Are LHDs and LHAs aircraft carriers in the broad sense? Yes. But should the scope of this article be the broad sense or the narrow sense? That's the key question here. Historically, the article has covered the narrow sense, at least until "bla, bla, yadda" (IP 79.xxx/109.xxx) began to change the scope unilaterally in December 2011. And you're right, there was no real opposition to the change at that time. But now it's come to a head.

At this point, we're mainly going in circles. It may be time to hold a survey on what the scope should be, and post a comment about it at MILHIST and WPSHIPS, the primary wikiprojects for this article. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Really, why? You've just said the article has been this way for 2 years. (!) There is already an implied consensus in that fact alone. But you want to push that aside, and any benefit that an untold number of readers may gain from the inclusion of these types of aircraft carriers, just to satisfy the demand of a "narrow" definition by... who? You? and Nick? Don't you think that all sounds somewhat... unreasonable?

You claim that; "The USN does not consider its LHAs and LHDs to be aircraft carriers in the narrow sense." Based on what? And, isn't the USN part of the US government, and isn't the US government represented by Congress? And doesn't Congress claim that LHA/D's are basically aircraft carriers when they challenge the need for Ford class super-carriers?

You have to remember, that at the end of the day, these LHA/D's are aircraft carriers. In every sense of the definition, save for your unsupported "narrow" one. I don't think it's the place for a group of wikipedians to alter this definition, just because... well, whatever your reason is. - thewolfchild 23:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we do a greater disservice to the reader by trying to cover the big-deck amphibs both here and in the type article. I actually laid out my reasons for why I support a narrow scope for the article in my initial comments in this discussion. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right - I'm trying to build a consensus to support my position as being the normative one in in reliable sources. That can be done without your agreeing with me, and the opposite is true too. Four editors isn't really a broad enough spectrum of editors to try to establish a clear consensus for what the scope of the article should be. As long as we have wider participation, I'll have no problem accepting the final outcome of such a discussion, whatever the consensus may be. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, forgive me, but I'm a little fuzzy on what your idea of 'consensus' is. I have asked repeatedly to be shown the discussion where consensus was established to "narrow" the definition of 'aircraft carrier' and omit the aircraft-carrying, SVTOL, amphibious assault ships. I had a look thru the talk archives, but couldn't seem to find anything. What I did find, is several people asking about these ships, indicating there is a need to include them. Actually, the only "consensus" I could find was you and Nick telling B. Fairbairn that he couldn't have a table in the article.

But anyway, I think the lines are too blurred to try and carve out the definition you seek. You may think it's as easy as saying "the big Nimitz class ships ARE 'aircraft' carriers and the Amphibs. are not. That's why the Nimitz ships have CV and the rest don't! " But we're not talking about just the American ships. LHA/D's are just to similar to the other SVTOL 'carriers' of the other nations to discount.

Of course, once we get past the size and ability of these ships, you guys will argue, "but it's NOT their purpose!." But since they were designed with that ability, obviously they had the possibility of that purpose mind. And, they have been used specifically as carriers.

So then you'll say "but that's not their PRIMARY purpose! ". By which point your whole argument will become as narrow as the definition you seek.

All that aside... Bill, lemme ask you, if it is determined that LHA/D's are to remain in this article, will you still contribute? Would you suggest any changes for improvement? What would they be? - thewolfchild 00:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why?- BilCat (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC

TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted notes on the WPMILHIST and WPSHIPS talk pages requesting input on this discussion. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Amphibious assault ships are not aircraft carriers. Arguing that they are "because they're so similar to the other STOVL 'carriers' of the other nations" is WP:SYNTH, in its purest form - "A is A, C is like A, and B is like C, therefore B is like A". Now, it might be worth having a footnote section for that sort of ship, but to classify them as aircraft carriers, when they are not, is not what we should be doing. They are built as amphibious assault ships, classified as amphibious assault ships, and referred to in sources as amphibious assault ships - therefore it is WP:OR for Misplaced Pages to refer to them as aircraft carriers. The ships used by Spain, Italy, and Thailand, howwever, are built as aircraft carriers, classified as aircraft carriers, and referred to in sources as aircraft carriers - therefore they are, in fact, aircraft carriers, regardless of size. (The fly in the ointment would actually be the Template:Sclass-s.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4
2. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/navy-mini-carrier/
3. http://www.navyhistory.org/2012/05/interview-captain-jerry-hendrix-director-naval-history/

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Ships articles
• All WikiProject Ships pages
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• C-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• C-Class airport articles
• WikiProject Airports articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles