Talk:Essex-class aircraft carrier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

hoo-- this page needs a rewrite... I have no doubt to the facts and figures, but the grammar needs a lot of work, and it could use a bit of organization. Anyone with a comment? I will get started this weekend.Davejenk1ns 12:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to critique and not offend someone, or many, that have obviously worked very hard to bring this article to its current level of completion. However, after just reading it for the first time, I felt let down and misled by the superb section titles that at no point in time of their content describe what was promised. Design, for instance. I fully expected to learn about the DESIGN. As in, what individuals (by name) had their hand in a) the preliminary design, b) the contract design phase, and lastly, c) who or what agency acted as "design agent" and tackled the massive job of creating every single detailed working drawing that the builders need to get started. I think this type of information is interesting and essential to a famous design such as Essex class.

Similar paragraphs could be said about the promises made by the title DEVELOPMENT, and one I didn't see but would love to read CONSTRUCTION.

Like I said in my opening. it's so easy to criticize and so hard to do the work. I'm just sharing what I feel the types of detailed information ship fans are hoping to find once they land on any ship article. Thanks for listening. Xl five lx 10:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I have serious doubts about some of the facts (if not figures). The 3rd paragraph states: "U.S. carriers had the same amount of deck armor as their British counterparts." No, they didn't: in fact that entire paragraph needs a rewrite as it's pretty incoherent, along with the factual inaccuracies. John DiFool —Preceding unsigned comment added by John DiFool2 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This article still needs to be rewritten for clarity, even if it means greatly increasing the word count. At many points in the article the language is cumbersome and it is very unclear to which vessel(s) a particular statement refers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.201.32 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Ticonderoga into Essex

Propose to merge Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier into Essex class aircraft carrier. The building of both type overlaps. The Essex class usually describes both the short-hull (Essex) and long-hull (Ticonderoga) variants, with little difference between the two othet than length. As such, there is consideralble overlap between the two articles, and neither article is that long. Post war, some of both types underwent the same types of modifications (such as receiving angled deck), while others of both types remained unmodified. Most historical assessments deal with the entire history of both types together. -BillCJ 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd accept the merger, but it'd have to be carried out very delicately. Like you have stated, the Ticonderoga isn't really a separate class as much as its a slight modification of the Essex design, but you'd still have to explain that progression in the new merged article. Shoot me a message if you need any help with this. Andyuts! 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I'll need help with copyediting, and it's easy to miss minor errors. Also, I'm not that good with placement of pictures, and so on, so any help with alignment would be good also. -BillCJ 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any objections, I am proceeding with the merger. I hope to have it done within the next week or so. -BillCJ 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger completed--tasks remaining

I have completed the major portion of the merger, and the Tico class page has a redirect. The following tasks remain to be completed:

• Clean-up paragraphs which mention the Tico class; I have done all I have seen, but there may be some I missed.
• Add General Characteristics for the post-war mods (if we keep this at all). Currently shows Midway and Coral Sea specs.
• Decomissioning dats for the short-hulls need to be added. I have a printed source with the dates, but it may take me awhile to get to it.
• We could use a good color pic of a unmodified Essex class ship showing the straight-deck.
• The articles on the long-hull ships need to be changed, both in text, and the links at the end.

-BillCJ 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Some clear errors

Why are there specs for the Midway class carriers (totally different class) on this page? Some ships are clearly missing from the list of ships (e.g. USS Boxer). -h27kim 21:54, October 24 2006 (PST)

I copied the ship specs Template from the Midway class aircraft carrier article. I intend to change them to an Essex ASW carrier, and an Essex CVA carrier, but have not had time as yet. (I've been involved in trying to mediate an edit war over the Charles de Gaulle (R 91) page.) Please feel free to make any necessary changes. Thanks for catching that Boxer was missing; she has been added. That makes 26 total in the list, so there should not be any more missing. Let us know here if you find another one. Thanks. -BillCJ 05:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"constituted the industrial age's largest class of heavy warships"?

I find it quite surprising that this passage was allowed to stand for so long. They were not even the largest warships during the war, or even the largest American warships of the war (Iowa Class). Secondly, the end of the Industrial age is rather imprecise, I suppose the end of WWII is a pretty good date for it but it is certianly not the only date.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Essex class were, and still are, the largest CLASS of HEAVY warships ever built; not largest warships, or largest class of warships. (According to the text; I can't think of a class of large warships built in greater numbers, so I am accepting this as a true statement.) There were 4 Iowa class ships; 24 Essex class ships were completed. If someone can name a class of warships of greater than 27,000 tons displacement, with 25 or more ships in the class, built before or since the Essex class, please do.

The term "heavy" may need to be redifined; they certainly were/are the largest class of fleet carriers ever built. Also, I've changed "Industrial age" to "Twentieth Century". Hopefully that's a little more precise, though no one is likely to build a larger class of heavy warships anytime soon. - BillCJ 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is from the table: "15 ordered, 15 laid down, 10 commissioned as Essex ships 5 completed as Ticonderoga class ships" It does not match to the article itself! Can someone verify the numbers and correct it. I think 27,000 tons is a good definition for "heavy", as it was the maximum displacement set in Washington Naval Treaty. ("Only two carriers per nation could exceed 27,000 tons (27,400 t), and those two were limited to 33,000 tons (33,500 t) each - this exception was in fact made to allow the reuse as carriers of certain battlecruisers being built, and gave birth to the USS Lexington (CV-2).") Chagai 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that on the table. As stated above, we recently merged in the article on the Ticonderoga sub-class. There are a few thimgs we missed in the merger. Thanks again. - BillCJ 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As a class and total tonnage/ steel utilized - IE displacement multiplied by number in class it probably does meet that criteria. I have to admit guessing. Also, a nice improvement would be to add the building shipyard for each of these carriers. All post-war Aircraft Carriers in the US Navy have been built by Newport News. What about for this class. Other than NN, were these the largest ships ever built by those shipyards? Wfoj2 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I criticized (see above in rewrite), now maybe I can help on one tiny thing to make amends. Know that opening line that is so important to communicate the class' uniqueness yet so hard to put into words and have people actually understand it?

Essex was a class of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, which constituted the 20th century's most numerous class of heavy warships, with 24 ships built.

You're having the very same problem we had. How to phrase a challenging point so it flows smoothly and is easily understood by anyone on their first pass. "most numerous class of"???? Wow. I kinda think I know what you meant - you guys certainly know what you meant - but they, those average joe guys, likely are saying wow too - or worse, what the heck does that mean?

We had the exact same problem with the Casablanca class escort carriers and here is what turned out to be the solution. It will solve your problem as well.

The Casablanca class Escort aircraft carriers were the greatest number of, not only escort carriers, but also, any size aircraft carrier ever built to a like-design by any nation at any time. Fifty of these were laid down, launched and commissioned within the space of a little more than one and three-quarter years - November 3rd, 1942 through July 8th, 1944.

Now, adapting this verbiage and order to Essex might look something like this:

The United States Navy's Essex class aircraft carriers were the greatest number of heavy warships ever built to a like-design throughout the 20th Century! Twenty-Four of these were built ... blah ... blah ... blah (you guys can take it from there)

One last thing: Since the whole criteria of your point absolutely hinges on the word HEAVY, I don't think you have much choice but to emphasize it somehow. Italics, Bold, something - some way. Good luck, hope this helps, even just a little. Oh, one last thing: Regarding were the Essex's the largest ships ever built by the yards that built them OTHER than Newport News? No way. The Navy yards pumped out the odd Essex just to relieve Newport News the burden of building all. These same Navy yards also built BBs. So, there goes that Essex the largest from those other yards thing. Xl five lx 10:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Amended to read "capital ships." The original sentence was copied verbatim from the DANFS article; byt "heavy" is, as observed above, a term susceptible of misinterpretation. "Heavy ship" is not a term of art and has no agreed-upon definition: is a heavy cruiser a heavy ship? And if so, then what about the 27 Cleveland class "light" cruisers, which were 'heavier' than most heavy cruisers? Whereas "capital ships" has a definition which is well understood: battleships, battlecruisers, and (since the Washington Treaty) aircraft carriers.--Solicitr (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lake Champlain picture

1. I dont see the rationale for putting the picture of the Lake Champlain where it is. First of all, there's just no need for it. If people actually read the article, they'll realize that Essex carriers started as axial deck, and later received angled decks. I dont get the urgency to put both pictures right at the beginning.

2. More importantly, putting an image right next to the infobox cuts off the flow of the text. At least on my computer, the picture comes between the contents box and the text. The Manual of Style cautions against sandwiching text between two images. I dont see why cutting off the text with two images or an image and an infobox is better.

3. The Manual of Style also says you should start with a right aligned image, which this is not. It also says you should not fix thumb sizes, which this one is.

4. Why Lake Champlain? If the important thing is to show the basic form of the Essex class, I'd show an unmodified ship. Lake Champlain was an oddball with the straight deck and SCB-27A configuration. (I know a few carriers served in the Korean War in this configuration. Still not typical.)

5. Can you put two images in the infobox? That would make sense to me. This format doesn't.

6. Failing that, how about replacing the current infobox image with an unconverted carrier? That's how they started, the angled decks came later. It would seem fitting that they also came later in the article.

M Van Houten 23:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I think showing two pics side-by-side or otherwise adjacent showing both the straight and angle-deck configurations is good, but I understnad your objections also. I was fairly new when I placed the Champlain pic there, and really didn't know another way of doing it at the time. Do they have to be right at the front, adjacent to or in the infobox? No, but I'd still like them as close to the top as possible.
2. I agree cutting off the text is not recommended, and am willing to consider another option.
3. Why Lake Champlain? Simply because it was the only pic on Wikipedia that I could find at the time which showed the straight deck clearly, and at an angle which was close to that of the other pic. I don't personally have any free images of any ships at all, and I have no experience adding images from other web sites to Wikipedia, especially dealing with copyright issues. With all the image-nazis running around on Wikipedia who delete images without notice simply because the image "might" not be useable, it's simpler for me not to get involved at all in adding images. I have no problem using ather ship, especailly one that's pre-conversion, if we can a good, clear, usable image. Champlain was simply the best pic availabe at the time I searched, and it is a straight deack, which is waht I wanted to contrat.
4. Can two images be put in the Infobox used in this article? I have no idea, but we can try and see what happens! I havn't seen it done, tho, and even if it's possible, there may also be MOS guidelines which preclude doing it.
5. The Champlain pic was not the only pic in the article with thumb sizes; a good number of them had sizing (I didn't count how many or in what proportion of the total), but I removed almost all of them earier today. I left Champlain's in to help keep it from overgrowing its text space at larger thumb settings, but if we move it to a new spot that would be moot.
6. As far as the existing image in the infobox, I have no probelm replacing it with a better pic. As to whether it should be a WWII-vintage shot, the carriers served a long time after WWII. I prefer using color pics in the Infobox for aethetic reasons (I think they just look better as the first pic). However, I also feel the lead pic should be the best available pic, color or not, vintage or not, which gives a good overall view of the subject, or a view that is notable or dramatic.

If we could find at least two, prefereably 3 or 4, pics of the Essexes of various configurations, which show how they have changed over the years, that would be great. Might be even beter if some of them were of the same ship. Besides the deck configuration, it would be good to highlight the bow changes also. Once we have some good pic candidates, we can decide how to arrange them best, and where to place them in the article.

I did not have much experience editing when I chose that configuration, and there where no other editors around who chose to give input at that time (and I didn't know much about asking either). Anything which improves the article is a good thing, and I'm not going to rigidly hold to something just because it was the way I did it at the time, or it was my idea. The thoughts mentioned by the previous editor are definitely worth considering. Let's see what we can come up with together. - BillCJ 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this for the infobox? I think it will pass muster with the image nazis.

Another possibility

M Van Houten 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a great pic. Good shot of bow. Given the size of the Infobox pic, I think it would show up well (it's a little had to see in a smaller size). The Yorktown pic would be great showing the straight deck next to the angled-deck photo. Thanks! - BillCJ 01:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help.

M Van Houten 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The new changes look good. Thanks for finding a place for the deck pics. - BillCJ 05:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate?

"All were scrapped, most in the 1970s, although Shangri-La survived until the late 1980s."

This last sentence seems to be inaccurate unless I'm misunderstanding something. CV-10 Yorktown was never scrapped - she's preserved at Patriot's Point. It would be accurate to say all were decommissioned, but not that all were scrapped. The Dark 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. That paragraph is speaking of the long-hull Essexes, aka the Ticonderogas. It's a paragraph from the original Ticonderoga class article. We probably need to rewrite that sentence for clarity. However, I'm not certain if "all" is supposed to refer to the 6 unmodernized long-hulls, or all the long-hulls. I'll try to check my Essex class book and other sources for verification on this. - BillCJ 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor wording % incorrect

U.S. carriers had the same amount of deck armor as their British counterparts.

The US carriers DID NOT have the same amount of deck armor as UK ships, they had the same amount of HANGER DECK armor. Suggest that this be changed to "hanger floor armor" to be clearer.

In addition, the UK ships had 3" of FLIGHT DECK armor - which the US ships did not.

Sorry, but you are under a false impression. Both the Essex and the Illustrious-Indomitable classes carried a similar amount of armor on the main armored deck: the flight deck on British ships, the hangar deck on US ships. In the RN case, the thickness was 3"; Essex-class carriers carried 2.5", plus an additional 1.5" at the fourth deck. Solicitr (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ships Today

I added the "Ships Today" section, as I think it's interesting to have a section devoted to the final fates of the ships; also, it's worth pointing out that four of the ships can be visited. This section is really minimal right now; feel free to expand and correct. — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also added the Apollo section, which I think is worth mentioning -- 5 ships of the class took part in the manned missions. (I didn't look at the unmanned ones yet.) And it wasn't just chance; the reason, I think, was that they had 4 independent power plants; maybe someone can find a source for that and add it.

BTW, the post-war section looks to me like it could be oragnized a bit and split into roughly-chronological subsections; post-war, korea/vietnam, rebuilding, space program, anti-sub, etc. Comments? — Johan the Ghost _seance 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Air Wings/Ops

Looking over the individual articles there is no mention of air wings durning the mentioned periods. Especially difficult to find is information about post 50's straight deck operations and ASW ops which could be included. The ASW information would really help improve the sad state of the ASW_carrier page which as it stands is mostly a unresearched list of light carriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.100.72 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the ASW ships operated S-2 Tracker, E-1 Tracer, and SH-3 Sea King also A-1 Skyraider are shown in some pictures but with unspecified mission. Did these ships carry any defensive fighters? I have found the USS BENNINGTON operated A-4B in 1964 and 1965 but the role is uncertian I don't think the sidewinder was used with the A-4 at this time.[1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.100.72 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See USS Bennington (CV-20), will these be good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.162.82 (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the A-4s did have Sidewinders in '64, but I'll try to line up a source on that. - BillCJ (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the Israeli and US A-4 air-to-air kills were with zuni rockets, the only mention I see is the later Australian and Argentine aircraft. Perhaps not for fighter cover but just for extra close air support in Vietnam? I put a sample ASW and CVA air wing in USS Bennington (CV-20), but nothing on post was un-angled land deck ops or aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.174.182 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, good discussion, but please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Otherwise others have to dig through the history and add signatures so that folks can make sense of the conversation. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sample Air Wing

The 1956-57 air wing consisted of the following one squadron each of the following: FJ3 Fury, F2H Banshee's, F9F Cougar fighters, AD-6 Skyraider, AD-5N Skyraider, and AD-5W attack aircraft, AJ2 Savage bombers, and F9F-8P photo reconnaissance planes.

As an ASW carrier a typical air wing on an Essex class ship in the 1960's such as the [[[USS Bennington CVS-20|USS Bennington (CV-20)]] consisted of two squadrons of S-2F Tracker's, a squadron of Sikorsky SH-34's ASW helicopters which were replaced in 1964 by SH-3A Sea King's in that role. Airborne early warning was first provided by EA-1E's modified for the AEW role, these were upgraded in 1965 to the E-1 Tracer which is built on the same frame as the S-2 Tracker. During the years 1964 and 1965 a squadron of A-4B Skyhawks were also embarked.

Above from info I grepped on the USS Bennington, The Essex ships that served into the 80's I belive were given F-18's to retire the Phantoms since they couldnt do F-14's but I need a source. Seems thse were Midway class ships. Below is from the USS Orskany

For a typical 1969 attack carrier configuration such as the the USS Oriskany CVA-34 deployed with Two squadrons of F-8J Crusaders, Three squadrons in A-4E Skyhawks VAW-111 in {{E-1 Tracer|E-1 Tracers]], VAQ-130 in EKA-3B Skywarriors and RF-8G photo Crusaders. In 1970, the three A-4 Skyhawk squadrons were replaced by two A-7A Corsair II squadrons. The F-4 Phantom II was considered too heavy to operate from the Essex class ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.174.182 (talk • contribs) June 7, 2008

Thanks everyone for contributing here -- the new information is great. Only thing is I added a section header.

I think the article needs a bit of re-organising -- we now have two air wing sections, for example, one for the original plan and one for post-war. Maybe this is OK, but perhaps we could clarify the layout a little. For example, "Armaments" could be folded into the "Design" section, to clarify that these are the as-built load-outs. Probably someone else should do this as I'm no expert on these ships (just a USS Hornet fan.. ;-) — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A-4 air defense

The a-4 was apparently used as air defense for CVS designated ships working up in 1962 and apparently ending around 1965 here is the best CVS link I could find http://www.skyhawk.org/3e/va64/va64.htm as well as Attack_Squadron_46_(United_States_Navy)#Early_years showing skyhawks armed with the AIM-9 Sidewinder, although at this time the USS Randolph (CV-15) was a CVA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.124.230 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tripulation

I read on some internet sites that any of these ships, had a tripulation of as much as 5,000 persons.Other sources put as just 3,500 persons in each ship.The article doesn't tells how many persons were the tripulation of this ship.Agre22 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

There are two major sources of variation of manning for aircraft carriers. One is the practice common to all United States warships of establishing a peacetime manning level adequate for routine maintenance and a larger wartime manning level to replace casualties and increase the speed of battle damage repair. A factor unique to aircraft carriers is the difference between the number of personnel assigned to the ships crew, and the total population of the ship's crew plus the pilots and maintenance personnel assigned to the air group operating from the ship. References I found give the Essex class complement as 2500 (Kafka & Pepperburg), 2500+ (Fahey), 2631 (Friedman), 2900 (Jane's), 3448 (Brown), and 3500 (Silverstone). All of these are appreciably less than 5000; but 5000 is a typical complement for the larger aircraft carriers built during the cold war. Friedman breaks down personnel on USS Enterprise (CVN-65) as 136 officers and 3189 enlisted for the ship's crew, 244 officers and 1647 enlisted for the attached air group, 20 officers and 75 enlisted for an embarked flag staff and 2 officers and 69 enlisted for the marine detachment. Thewellman (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling Norman Friedman

It's not addressed, but IIRC, there were complaints about the deck-edge elevators not being as suitable due to exposure to sea & weather. Can anybody confirm/refute & add? Also, use of overhead suspension demands an increase in hangar height & consequent increase in tophamper & instability. Was this accounted for in the design? I don't see it mentioned. (I confess I may have missed it...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Details of the Essex rebuild program were broken out in the SCB-27 article (with a link in the "Post-war rebuilds" section), where the next to last sentence of the "Modifications" section mentions the addition of blisters increasing hull beam by eight to ten feet. I believe the original side armor belt was removed at the same time, although I didn't find that mentioned. Thewellman (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a 27C issue, this is an as-built issue. The angled deck would have demanded a beam increase on top of that from the greater hangar height over Lady Lex (for instance). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Some more clarifications needed.

"U.S. carriers had the same amount of deck armor as their British counterparts"

Which ones?

"carry the increased weight of landing aircraft"

Was there also an issue of the increased spot strain of impact at touchdown? And some changes.

"A startling innovation"?

Startling? I rewrote.

"Due to their large and spacious hangars, and the innovation of the angled flight deck"

The link has damn all to do with the hangar, & angled deck was postwar. I deleted or rewrote to fix it, adding it was the Brits who innovated the canted deck (as they call it, I believe), in 1952. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a soapbox

"redesignated Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) amphibious assault ships" Now, I understand the two aren't synonymous, but isn't there a less awkward way of phrasing it? (I couldn't find one that didn't ask for deleting one or the other...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Some specifics might be helpful. Was it another edit by the ubiquitous 79-series IP user? He does make some odd edits. (See discussion at Talk:Landing Platform Helicopter#Non-USN Ships for an example of this.) - BillCJ (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

^sigh^ One day, I'll be completely clear, & the world will come to an end. :) As I understand it, LPHs & assault ships are the same; I'm finding the repetition clumsy, & redundant, but I can't figure out how to fix it without deleting mention of one. If they aren't synonymous, a delete is an even worse idea. If anybody can reword it so it's a little smoother-reading? (OK, fussy, but I keep reading that passage & shaking my head how bad it sounds to me.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As defined by the US Navy, an LPH is a type of amphibious assault ship, but not all amphibious assault ships are LPHs. We could probably lose the term "amphibious assault ships" without affecting the meaning too much, since the LPH page descripbes them as such. - BillCJ (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suits. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Long-hull

This is something that could use an illustration to show. From reading it I can't tell how much more of a bow there was on the long-hulls. Was it entirely above the waterline? or was the lower hull longer too? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if there exists a public domain image. In fact there was no difference whatsoever perpendicular-to-perpendicular, or below the waterline- the extended 'clipper' bow was in effect just a forward sponson for two 40mm AA mounts. The distinction disappeared during the 50's rebuilds.--Solicitr (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tico" class and averting an edit war

Trekphiler, I think you should review the discussion behind the decision taken some time ago to merge the former Essex-class and Ticonderoga-class articles into one. To add my points here: 1) the Navy never recognized or listed a separate "Ticonderoga" class; all ships were originally listed in the Naval Vessel Register as the Essex class (except Oriskany, which was commissioned as the lead ship of her own class). 2) The terms "long-hull" and "short-hull" are actually rather misleading; there was no difference in the hull design p-to-p or below the waterline. The extended bow flare was in essence little more than an AA sponson. Moreover, the Navy rarely considers superstructure alterations as creating a new "class"- even the angled deck refits never rated a class change. The addition of a helo hanger to later Arleigh Burke destroyers doesn't mark a separate class either. For that matter, Jimmy Carter is still a Seawolf-class sub despite being 100 feet longer than her sisters! 3) If you've never heard the term "subclass", well, then you haven't read a lot. It's by no means uncommon to refer to, say, the Kent, London and Norfolk subclasses of the County-class cruisers, a usage in fact found on that Wiki page. 4) In the interests of amity, however, I propose as an alternative "Tigonderoga group." --Solicitr (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My objection is with "subclass". I would have said "group" (which is much more common in what I have read; admittedly, not extensive), but that's gramatically very awkward if "long hulls" is to be added, too. I'd welcome a rewording. Say "Tico (or 'long hull') group"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:39 & 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

name

Where does "essex" come from? This needs to be included.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Essex-class aircraft carrier. 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/20120902004920/http://www.ussoriskany.com/id17.html to http://www.ussoriskany.com/id17.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004023847/http://www.skyhawk.org/3e/va93/va93.htm to http://www.skyhawk.org/3e/va93/va93.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essex-class aircraft carrier. 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/20130306081521/http://www.mbtdivers.com/Diving%20Oriskany.htm to http://www.mbtdivers.com/Diving%20Oriskany.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1