Talk:Capital ship

Definition

I disagree with this definition of a "capital ship." SSBNs are such that they should be considered in this manner as well. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:47, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way for the article is to say is that the concept of "capital ship" has become ill-defined, seeing as how things like SSBNs are not warfighters, at least in the usual tactical sense, and that navies don't really count capital ships any more. Stan 06:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good direction. Well, if there are still such things as "capital ships," then aircraft carriers definitely count. They are the centerpiece of a battlegroup. But SSBNs are singularly critical in their own right. Basically, to me, a capital ship is any vessel which is a very significant force multiplier. Carriers and SSBNs are the only two ship types currently afloat which have geopolitical ramifications in the same way that a battleship or ship of the line would in centuries past. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:48, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

One could define capital ship as the ship class of choice to use against other large warships of great naval powers. That would make it the attack submarine. Or one could say it is simply the most destructive and hardest to destroy ship class, which would make it the missile submarine. An aircraft carrier is clearly not a capital ship, in spite of its size, because it is of little use against major naval powers with effective submarine forces or in an all-out nuclear war with a major power. David R. Ingham 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Urk. Forgot to sign in before adding EVE-Online capital ships. That was me. InitHello 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a capital ship is any ship that is of significant size (150 meters) and forms the center of a task force. To me capital signifies importance and size. Aircraft carriers definatly are included as well as cruisers and battleships. As for SSBS only if the entire or majority of the taskforce is centered on supporting or protecting the submarine is it to be considered a capital ship. Also this page should include space capital ships. Rp_Sorbet 1:20, 11 Feburary 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Anything about Capital ships in popular culture? --121.6.184.26 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

CV's and SSBN's

This is continuing from above.

Aircraft carriers are most certainly capital ships... the power they're able to project is immense. Sure, it may not be the hull itself that's the asset, but... what good is a battleship without its shells? The Aegis air defense system was invented primarily to defend the carriers against cruise missile attacks. In the event of an actual war, they'd be the number one target because of that power that they can project. The carriers are equipped with anti-submarine aircraft so to say they're of little use against submarine forces isn't really accurate. Through the Nimitz, the USN's modern aircraft carriers were branded CVA/CVAN "attack carriers" until they were equipped with ASW capability. And were battleships really capable of attacking submarines? No. That's what the escort ships were for. And save for the tactical nukes on the recommissioned battleships, what good would they have been in an all-out nuclear war?

SSBN's are not capital ships. They go out to sea and lie in wait until they're relieved. Their mission is the same no matter what the situation. They participate in no sea control or anything of the sort. They only exist to supplement the land-based ICBM's. They exist to provide second strike capability. No matter what would unfold in world affairs, they would do nothing until after a nuclear first strike would occur. They aren't as fast or maneuverable as attack submarines because they never are intended to do anything but hide; they only carry torpedoes for theoretical self-defense.

SSBN's have no real ability for sea control. Their ballistic missiles never would be released to be used discretionally in a battle situation involving the submarine; they're built to avoid battle altogether. I think that the term "capital ship" is intended to describe those ships used for sea control. An aircraft carrier can respond to situations developing above, on, and beneath the seas. I think, then, that the aircraft carrier is the epitome of a capital ship.

</sermon>

Jdkkp (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the Kirov class should definently be considered a capital ship and it should also be listed in the 21st century part. This is because 1) its a Battlecruiser 2) Still operational 3) Are built to serve as capital ships because they have alot of room on the bridges to serve as a capital ship 4) Role is to attack Super Carriers, not to escort carriers. Because they are supposed to duel a carrier 1v1 they should be considered a capital ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.171.88 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a lot of problems with what you present:

• First off, the "it's a battlecruiser" part is debatable. The articles say that SOME consider them to be potential battlecruisers, but none actually seem to cite a source; it looks like original research; cited sources seem to universally refer to it as merely a large guided missle cruiser; the USSR/Russia's own name for them apparently is 'heavy cruiser'.
• Secondly, on point #3, you're confusing "capital ship" with "command ship/flagship." None of the USN supercarriers were used in that sort of role, nor were they designed for it; instead the US Navy has build some specific-purpose command ships, such as the Blue Ridge-class command ships, which are most certainly NOT capital ships.
• Lastly, on point #4, I've yet to see a cited source that it was designed to "duel a carrier." It carried anti-ship cruise missiles, entirely the same as other guided-missile surface combatants, including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and even smaller boats. Being designed to attack a capital ship doesn't make it one, best exemplified by the torpedo boat.

Overall, I'm questioning Wikipedia's naming of the ships as 'battlecruisers' in the first place, as it appears to be original research. Similarly, I've seen nothing to indicate that they'd serve in a true capital ship role, or any role that is not also done by, say, the USN's Ticonderoga class cruiser. If you can find actual, reliable sources that state to the contrary of what existing ones do, feel free to add. Otherwise, they should not be included here as capital ships. Nottheking (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and when i mean duel 1v1 I mean they go head on and attack a Carrier group. If they where made to support a carrier then they would not be the capital ship of a fleet because the Carrier is the most important object in it. But because the Kirov is solely a defensive ship and would probebly have its own escorts to go and hunt carrier groups i think it is a capital ship of the 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.171.88 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both comments. Definitely the Aircraft Carrier can be considered a "capital ship" in the traditional sense, as well as the Kirov class cruiser. What would be more interesting is to verify if the current modern "big" navies (US, Russia, UK, France, China, etc) use/define this concept in their doctrines, or if it is defined in any relevant bibliography.
As for the request to include "space" capital ships, it seems to be a concept for the future (or for sci-fi) as no combat spaceships (other than military satellites) are currently known to exist.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Gun counts and ship sizes

The section with size ratings: "1st Rate: 100 or more guns ... 2nd Rate: 90–98 guns ... 3rd Rate: 64 to 80 guns" has gaps in the gun count ranges. Where would ships with 99 guns fit, or ships with 81 to 89 guns? Do such ships simply not exist? Are ships with fewer than 64 guns by definition not capital ships? That section either needs source citation + a brief explanation, or it needs to have continuous numeric ranges. Memetics (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ships never had odd numbers of guns 'rated', because of the broadside arrangement taken by such ships; a 100-gun ship-of-the-line would have 50 guns on either side of the ship, for a total of 100. It was not considered reasonable to have different numbers of guns on either side, and their design didn't allow for a gun to fire to either side. Nottheking (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deutschland class - missing citation

Where is the citation for the statement that "They were generally considered as capital ships"? This class were not battleships or battlecruisers, they were "panzerschiffe" or armored ships, Germany attempted to negotiate building capital ships instead of the Deutschland's. In the Washington Treaty era there was a fairly clearly established deliniation between capital ships and other ships. The only difference between these ships and treaty cruisers (limited to 10,000 tons & 8" guns) was the fact that the had heavier guns, however other ships with greater displacement and heavier guns such as the Duke of Edinburgh class (14,000 tons, 6 x 9.2" guns, 12 x 6" guns} were never considered "Capital Ships". Abraxas42 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) In the era mentioned, fleet review formation seemed to place the capital ships at the head of two (or more?) columns of ships. Is that what they are historically alluding to, effectively capitals of columns(ceremonially and in terms of command)? Maybe some associations with the symbollogy of the Plus ultra (motto) , pillars of Hercules etc? SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Rank of ship's Captain.

It seems to me that command of a Capital Ship would define the (US) Navy rank of Captain (an O6 grade equivalent to Colonel in the Army or Air Force). But this article doesn't say anything about the command structure, just tonnage and number of guns. From a military point of view the minimum rank of a capital ship's commanding officer would be part of the definition of what makes a Capital Ship, surely? Silas Maxfield (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't we get into capital ships vs. command ships then? c.f. Amphibious Command Ship Hcobb (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capital ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117045247/http://www.marines.mil:80/unit/hqmc/Pages/GenAmos'speechtoSurfaceNavyAssocation.aspx to http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/GenAmos'speechtoSurfaceNavyAssocation.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Flagship?

Are flagships and capital ships the same thing?Inkan1969 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The answer is in the article you linked to: "In common naval use, the term flagship is fundamentally a temporary designation; the flagship is wherever the admiral's flag is being flown." pburka (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)