Talk:Aircraft carrier/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Future Australian Carriers

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

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

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 ^talk 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)