Talk:Flight deck

Disambiguation page
Flight deck is another name for cockpit. I think we need a disambiguation page. Acdx 13:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All that is needed is a simple disambiguatio link at the top of the page linking to Cockpit. - BillCJ 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Armored Deck Questions
American carriers had an amoured main ( hangar ) deck, while the Brits had an amoured flight deck but also amoured the sides of the hangar as well ( mainly against shell fire). The British lifts were never amoured as the weight meant they would not have any load at all.This was a weak point as on one occasion in the Med, a bomb did explode inside the hangar after penetrating the lift 222.153.244.134 03:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Sockeye
 * I'm not sure where you are getting this from; it is my understanding that the lifts were outwith the hangar at either end, and that there were sliding armoured bulkeads that allowed access between the hangar and the lift. Do you have a source for this? It is possible either that the bomb penetrated the bulkhead, or indeed it was open at the time. Emoscopes Talk 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the negative tone about British carriers, the higher hangar hieght of US Ships was since they would carry spare planes hung from the roof. No planes needing 20ft till after the war. Dont forget the Ark Royal and early Illustrious had two hangar decks as British doctrine was to have a clear flight deck. If it wasnt for the indroduction of the proximity fuse there would have been quite a few more wrecked US carriers during the last year of the Pacific war 222.153.244.134 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Sockeye
 * The early 3 Illustrious ships had only a single deck. Indomitable had a half-length hangar underneath the main hangar, and the Implacable and Indefatigable had two full-length hangars with restricted clearance in the lower. Emoscopes Talk 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At best, the British carriers can claim equality to their US counterparts - deck armor may have been instrumental (extremely occasionally; the RN only credits one kamikaze defeated to deck armor, that being the famous Formidable hit that's so frequently bandied about as typical of the RN's damage control) in defeating successful kamikaze attacks, but the heavier CAP available to the American ships and better US AAW ships were far better in preventing successful kamikaze attacks in the first place. The 5"/38 DP was by far the best heavy AA gun in the war, Allied or Axis; it fired a heavier shell just as fast as the British 4.5" high-angle. "The bomber will always get through" proved to be false in the Pacific War. Not that it was really that true in the European war either; the success of the Allied bombing campaign had far more to do with superior Allied tactics, the P-51 Mustang and the time-band strategy, before those were developed, Allied bombers (including the B-17 and Avro Lancaster) were being steadily slaughtered by the Luftwaffe. Iceberg3k 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the clear decks, and I have been meaning to address the issue myself. THe fact that the FAA stored all its planes in the hangars, rather than parking at least half of them on the main deck as the USN did, had more to do with the amount of planes carried than which deck was armored, for a given carrier size. I don't know when the FAA began regularly spotting planse on the decks, but ut was at least since the Korean War, esp with thte increasing size of jet aricraft.
 * The FAA was using deck parks on these ships, and their other carriers, later in the war. It allowed them to carry 60-plus aircraft. Emoscopes Talk 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The section does dwell a bit too much on the armor question, but there are British historians who agree with what the text states in regards to the issue, as cited in the article. If you can find a verifiable source with an opposing view, then by all means cite it in the text. As to proximity fuses, I assume you mean AA guns. - BillCJ 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article, as it stands, is very poor. Rather than an encyclopeadic description of flight decks, it has involved into a heavily biased analytic essay of the merits of US carrier design and detriments of British carrier design. It talks as if all British carriers were armoured carriers, when in fact only the 6 Illustriouss, Implacables and the Indomitable were. It really needs heavily pruned down to the bear bones of the issue, and to get back to what it really should be - an article describing flightdecks in a concise, unbiased and encyclopaedic manner. Emoscopes Talk 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Essex Class American carriers were built with wooden flight decks. From above thr British Deck armor was instrumental in less damages from kamikazes. However in the South Pacific, I believe the British could cook their meals on the deck. Most Essex Class American carriers as the got the post war conversion and an angled deck had the complete flight deck replaced at one time with metal, necessary for the heavier aircraft. The USS Lexington did not get the deck replaced alll at once, was patch work. I believe there was an early to mid 1980's story of the nosewheel of an A-6 Intruder going throught tht flight deck. Modern Super-carriers have metal strenghtened flight decks not armored. The main deck for strength is still the hangere deck. In the hanger deck is 2 spots for 3 sections there are flex joints allowing each section independant movement. Wfoj2 18:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wooden flight decksd? Rubbish.  They had steel decks with wooden planking laid on top. Solicitr (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The detailed discussion of the benefits/drawbacks is a bit excessive for an article about flight decks in general, so I spun off the comparison into its own article. Anynobody 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs. Kablammo 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)




 * I have to laugh when I hear our US 'cousins' trying to decry the UK armoured flight deck as 'inferior' to the US wooden ones. The UK armoured carriers were designed for operations in the Mediterranean, where they were likely to come into range of land-based enemy aircraft, so the bombs liable to be used against these ships were likely to be heavier than ones carried by carrier-based aircraft. For those thinking that a wooden deck had any superiority over a 3" armoured one then just look at how HMS Illustrious stood up to the repeated attacks that it suffered in that theatre, any one of these attacks would have sunk any US carrier easily. Then there's the BPF's record, where no UK armoured carrier hit by multiple Kamikazes was out of action for more than a few hours, around five/six hours being the longest IIRC. Usually all a Kamikaze did was to leave a large dent in the flight deck, which, when any fires were put out, was then filled with quick-drying cement. At one point, the RN was painting the outline of an additional deck lift (elevator) in the centre of the flight deck to draw-off Kamikazes from the vulnerable US carriers, Japanese pilots having been told to ignore any carrier with two lifts, i.e., UK ones. The fact is, for a US carrier to be hit by a Kamikaze was a disaster, for a UK-one it was merely an inconvenience. The only reason that armoured decks were not used post-war was because the Royal Navy assumed any subsequent major conflict would involve nuclear weapons, and no amount of armour was going to be of any use against them. So if anyone wants to say how 'superior' the US wooden decks were I suggest they ask the US Marines on Okinawa as, at one point, the BPF supplied ALL the air cover for the landings as the US carriers had all either been put out of action by Kamikazes or had 'retired hurt'. Oh, and look at the Illustrious, launched in 1939, and then compare her to the US carriers built immediately after WW II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.10 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)



I edited the image caption because the image is incorrect. I actually did want to remove it, but thought that a little too bold. Friedman discusses the differences between USN and RN carriers and makes it very clear that it was USN doctrine and their permanent deck park that was the major factor in USN carriers having a much larger aircraft capacity. Roberts and Watton, Anatomy of the ship - Victorious, p9 show that RN armoured carriers could and did carry spare aircraft in their hanger overheads, and Victorious had 23ft of clear height between the deck support beams.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This might interest some of you: Kamikaze Damage to US and British Carriers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.46.179 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has included the statement: "The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck carrier; however the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers." Solicitr has attempted to remove the latter part this statement, and his latest edit attempt includes the statement: "Reference doesn't matter if the statement is horse manure". Perhaps Solicitr can explain more fully why he feels compelled to edit the article and then justify his statement with such unscholarly remarks? Can he provide sources which contradict the referenced statement. As it is now, his justification makes his edits tantamount to vandalism.Damwiki1 (talk)


 * It may be from a 'source'; but simply because something appears in print doesn't mean it's not rubbish. The fact is that Essex had capacity for 72 aircraft in the hangar alone, without deck park (Norman Friedman, a real RS): double Illustrious'.  The "deck park" argument is nonsense, counterfactual, and simply special pleading by Yankbashers who can't admit the  operational cost of the ABH. Solicitr (talk)
 * Just to prove a point, Essex hanger area = 654ft x 70 ft = 45780 sq ft. Indomitable's hangers = 408 x 62 + 208 x 62 = 666 x 62 = 38192 sq ft or 84% of Essex. Essex's standard displacement = 27500tons versus 23000 tons for Indomitable or 84% of Essex, so proportionally, Indomitable has the same hanger area as Essex. The Implacable class had 458 x 62 + 208 x 62 hangers and so had larger hangar area than Essex, on a proportional basis and eventually operated up to 81 aircraft by using a permament deck park, which is roughly proportional to Essex, based upon their respective displacements. Ark Royal (1939) had even larger hangar area than Essex, 568ft x60ft + 452ft x 60ft = 61200 sq ft on only 22000 tons or about 1/3 more than Essex, yet Ark Royal never operated with more than 60 aircraft, because she did not use a permanent deck park. If we examine aircraft capacity in 1944/45 on RN and USN carriers we find that the use of deck parks on RN carriers greatly reduced the disparity between USN and RN designs, just as the source states: Hone, Friedman, Mandeles, British and American Carrier Development, 1919-1941, p125: "The 1931 edition of "Progress in Tactics" included a section on foreign tactics, including operating practices. The U.S. portion mentioned that "the number of aircraft in carriers is proportionately much higher than in our Navy, largely due to the practice of storing some aircraft permanently on deck."Damwiki1 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. So a 1931 British source (that is, ten years before the Essex was laid down, and well before even Ark Royal much less Illustrious were in service) is relevant here?  Numbers are numbers:  the Essex had capacity for four squadrons, 72 a/c- in the hangar. Not on the roof.  In fact that was a design requirement for the class. It was the reason the proposed armored-deck design was rejected (that design would ultimately lead to the Midways- but on 50% more displacement). In wartime service, we then added a fifth squadron for a total of 90; it was also convenient, in the Pacific, not to strike below a/c we didn't have to. Therefore US carriers are almost always seen in photos with planes on deck. That doesn't alter the fact that Essex had double Illustrious' hangar capacity.  Did the BPF adopt the deck park?  Yes- but no British carrier ever operated more than 54 that I know of, at a time when US carriers were operating as many as 110. The passage in question asserts that which is not true- the Essex greater capacity was not simply a function of using a deck park. Solicitr (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source is relevant since the USN used deck parks through out the war when the RN did not use them till 1943/44. I have not been able to find a source which states that Essex had the capacity for 72 aircraft in the hangers, which is not surprising since the hanger area is insufficient to store a typical WW2 mix of 72 aircraft. This source lists the aircraft complement for several Essex class and several RN armoured carriers: OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. Note that HMS Implacable is carrying 81 aircraft, also note that Essex class CV Bon Homme Richard, which was a night fighter carrier, which required a clear flight deck for night operations, only carried 55 aircraft. Typical Essex class aircraft complement was ~100, with some carrying more and some less. Essex had 45780 sq ft of hanger space versus 28400 sq ft for Illustrious, or 1.6 times (not double) Illustrious Hangar area, while Implacable had 41292 sq ft of hanger area or 90% of Essex. Illustrious had capacity for ~36 aircraft in her hangars and thus Essex would have had capacity for about 58 similar aircraft and Implacable about 52 similar aircraft. Even with a deck park the RN carriers have a smaller aircraft complement, since as the article states, the flight deck armour, reduced the size of the flight deck, but the RN armoured carriers have only about 85% of the Essex class design standard displacement; with a deck park and correcting for displacement, Implacable and Indefatigable would have average aircraft complements only ~10% less than Essex. The current wording of this article states: "However, to reduce top-weight the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads.[1] The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck carrier; however the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers.[2] RN carriers did not use a permanent deck park until 1943." There is nothing in the wording that is not supported by solid references and our quick calculations of hanger area versus aircraft complement confirm the accuracy of the current wording; without a deck park Implacable would only carry ~52 aircraft while with one she carried up to 81, so we can see that the deck park does constitute "the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity". Without a deck park Implacable would only have ~50% of Essex aircraft capacity but with a deck park this disparity is reduced to ~80%. Damwiki1 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I showed above, using a fully sourced argument that RN aircraft carriers, using deck parks greatly reduced the disparity in aircraft numbers between their USN counterparts, and that the Implacable sub-class then carried nearly the same number of aircraft per ton as USN Essex class, when both were tasked with the same mission, in 1945.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * All OR. "the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers" comes from no source but yourself. You have inserted this  special-pleading campaign into virtually every carrier article on Wiki, trying to cover up the heavy price British designs paid in terms of air complement, and in true triumphal fashion bringing up the Midways' armored decks without mentioning their size, the only way to combine an armored flight deck with a usable air complement. (Also other bits of warpage, like bringing up the few hits on the minuscule RN contingent at Okinawa as "proof" that their fighter cover was adequate).  If you want to play back-of-the-envelope calculation (all OR, of course)- then you are overlooking (A) the fact that Brit carriers had big elevator pits in the middle, which the Essexes with their deck-edge lifts didn't; and (2)triced-up aircraft in the Essexes' ample overheads.  "thus Essex would have had capacity for about 58 similar aircraft"  is nothing but purest OR-- and also wrong.  "US prewar doctrine required carriers with hangar accomadation for 72 aircraft, whereas the Illustrious class carried 36" Roberts, John, The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid  So, since you asjked for a source, there's one.Solicitr (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 72 aircraft was achieved by carrying aircraft in the overheads, which Essex class did not do. Implacable which was also an armoured deck carrier had a design capacity of 52 aircraft and in 1945 when Implacable used a deck park she carried 81 aircraft, versus an average of 100 for Essex class carriers. Implacable and Essex were contemporaries whereas Illustrious was an earlier design, but in any event Essex was a much larger ship than Illustrious or Implacable.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your last revert: Statement by?  Really?  Then why no quote marks-- or is it a convenient paraphrase? You continue to push an arch-POV line, that the moronic Americans built carriers without armored flight decks (actually "wooden"!!) for no good reason, whereas the brilliant Brits installed them without any tradeoff in air group capacity, all disparity can be explained away by the deck park.  It's rubbish.  It was a conscious tradeoff: it was not possible to have an AFD and a decent air complement without building a Midway-sized ship.
 * "72 aircraft was achieved by carrying aircraft in the overheads, which Essex class did not do. " WTF???? Bollocks.
 * Yes, Illustrious was an older design than Essex; but Implacable's double-decker hangar only bumped the capacity to 54 (with reduced operating efficiency)Solicitr (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have studied the history of the Essex class carefully and they did not carry aircraft in their hanger overheads; I searched carefully for evidence of this but could not find it. Late war aircraft were too large to carry in the hanger overheads. BTW, All RN armoured hangers had the lifts at either end of the hangers to maximize capacity. The article states that design tradeoffs were made, as we have previously discussed.


 * My "Bollocks" was in reference to your assertion that the Essexes couldn't store 72 in the hangar without using the overheads. You're even being self contradictory, saying that 72 "was achieved" by tricing up.Solicitr (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have carefully explained to you that the hanger deck area of the Essex class was about 115% of the Implacable class. The Essex class could not store 72 aircraft in their hangers given a typical late war mix of aircraft.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You can get away with storing a large complement of aircraft on deck if the weather's good most of the time. This does not apply to the North Atlantic in winter. In these sort of conditions it become almost impossible to work on the aircraft, due to howling gales that might last several days, as well as the extreme cold that leads to frostbite on fingers (you can't work on aircraft while wearing gloves) and toes for maintenance crews. In addition, icing occurs that, if left alone, causes damage to aircraft, so increasing maintenance requirements, that causes frostbite on ....etc,.


 * The weather problem is the reason that all British fleet carriers from the Ark Royal on had completely enclosed hangar spaces, as it is not possible to service complicated and delicate machinery like aircraft on deck in temperatures of zero degrees and in a wind of 40-60mph. And you can't manoeuvre aircraft on deck clear of lifts, etc., in a howling Force 8 because to do this you need to release the tie-downs, and then the wind just blows the aircraft away, perhaps into nearby aircraft, damaging both. This ought to be fairly self-evident to anyone familiar with the weather in the sort of places the Royal Navy was required to operate. At times in these conditions it may not even be safe to turn a carrier into the wind for flying-off anyway.


 * To do any sort of major work on an aircraft requires it to be struck-down to the hangar, and in the sort of weather conditions found in the North Atlantic in winter, sometimes you can't even move them off deck. So if an aircraft in a deck park becomes unservicable - perhaps its engine won't start - then it holds up everything behind it. And in these sort of low-temperature conditions an aircraft's batteries will lose their charge if left in the aircraft on deck, which means that you then have to store them (the batteries) somewhere warm below decks and fit them immediately before take-off. So eventually you get to the stage where it is impossible, due to all these factors, to operate any increased numbers of aircraft made possible by a deck park reliably and without suffering delays - you can't have aircraft that have already taken off hanging around wasting fuel while they wait for the rest of the flight to take off.


 * The escort carriers, which stored their aircraft permanently on deck because of a lack of a hangar, were another matter, as they were only ever meant to be used in convoy where air cover was required. They were not intended for sustained flying operations such as a fleet carrier would be used for and so loss of one or two aircraft due to temporary unserviceability was accepted. And for any major servicing the aircraft were transferred ashore.


 * These problems aren't as apparent nowadays because aircraft weights have greatly increased, and so they are less vulnerable to high winds, but you still wouldn't want to do much in the way of servicing on the flight deck or in an open hangar in sub-zero temperatures accompanied by a howling gale.


 * For an idea of what the Atlantic is like in winter watch The Cruel Sea - the only advantage the North Atlantic had over the Pacific was that there were no sharks. Otherwise it was cold, wet misery, for much of the year. And if you suffered from seasickness then it had the added attraction of frequent periods of hunger, as as soon as you had anything to eat - that's in the unlikely event that you actually felt like eating - it came right up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, this is the sort of weather I was writing about - the ship is the Duke of York and the photo was taken from Victorious.   ... and this is how cold it gets:  - this ship is the Belfast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Contemporary WW II film of ships at sea in bad weather with what appears to be the carrier Victorious here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.168 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A 62ft (19 metre) wave recorded in North Atlantic, the highest ever recorded anywhere;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.84 (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For the Record
sourced from H.T. Lenton, British and Empire warships of World War II''; The Malta class were designed to carry armour; Emoscopes Talk 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4.5 inch belt amidships
 * 1 inch flight deck
 * 2.5 inch central strake on main deck and outboard strakes on middle deck
 * 2-3 inch box citadels
 * 3 inch steering gear roof and closing bulkheads
 * 1.5 inch longitudinal bulkheads.

Angled and axial deck animations added
To illustrate difficulty/danger of missed approach on straight flight decks and the evolution of the angled flight deck. Anynobody 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Brilliant stuff! :) Emoscopes Talk 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was thinking about parking some planes on the Centaur and Nimitz to further illustrate the parking advantage, and tweak the color a tad on the Yorktown so the planes are easier to see. Does this sound like a good idea? Anynobody 07:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that's a good idea. Also, perhaps add a fourth animation with a deck barrier up, to prevent the landing aircraft crashing into the parked ones. Perhaps also emphasise on the caption that in the first animation, aircraft can only land or take off, but in the later ones, they can do both at the same time. Emoscopes Talk 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on the suggestions you made (the take off or landing only nature of the axial deck carrier, and the deck barrier). Hopefully I can have something in the next couple of days. The replacements I've uploaded look a bit better than the originals. I also fixed the scaling of the giant Vampire on Centaur.

P.S. Feel free to modify the caption as you see fit. Anynobody 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated
I'm still trying to figure out a good way to illustrate the deck barrier, but as I type this an idea just occurred to me so I'll try to work it in too. The modern angled deck now shows simultaneous launch/recovery. Anynobody 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Physics bug in cvs122ani.gif
It seems rather obvious to me that the parked aircraft should be rotating in the opposite direction than shown on impact. The approaching craft will take the inward pointing wings with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.113.125 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Princeton (CVL-23) was bombed not hit by kamikaze
See www.dcfp.navy.mil - U.S.S. PRINCETON (CVL-23), BOMB DAMAGE - Battle for Leyte Gulf, October 24, 1944 (LOST IN ACTION)  for further info (or the link in the section head). Anynobody 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved hurricane bow to aircraft carrier
Since this article is about the flight deck, I have moved this subsection to the aircraft carrier article. Anynobody 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Flexible decks needs a source
Realistically making a deck that could absorb all the shock of a jet aircraft hitting it at 100-150 knots without causing damage to the jet sounds like wishful thinking at best. They say a carrier landing (with landing gear) is more of a controlled crash than a landing. Without gear it'd just be crashing. Even if it was possible, handling a plane without landing gear sounds like a pain: One would need a tractor/crane and separate cradle for each aircraft landing. Anynobody 10:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying out, with early jets landing gear counted for a lot of weight, and it was tried. GraemeLeggett 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, is there some proof that it was tried? How did they plan on handling aircraft like the E-2, S-2, or A-3? Anynobody 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this statement in the ref you added doesn't give enough specifics, what setbacks are they talking about (damage to the fuselage I'm betting if this did happen): "One of the more unusual ideas was to save weight and cut down landing accidents by having undercarriage-less aircraft. They would be launched by a special catapult and would land on a flexible rubber deck. Trials were even carried out with a mock deck at Farnborough, using Sea Vampire aircraft. After initial setbacks the concept proved practical, but even so, the Admiralty abandoned the idea." Anynobody 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a printed source (Carrier Aviation: Air Power Directory ed. by David Donald, AIRTime Publishing) that states the angled deck was presented by Capt Dennis Campbell at an Aug 1951 meeting of the Royal aircraft Establishment who were discussing the "flex deck". It seems that with the angled deck, there was no need for the rubber deck, as the angle solved all the problems the rubber deck was attempting to address. I'll try to get a proper quote for it later. - BillCJ 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The source was a stopgap found quickly online until i got a chance to get Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters Since 1950 out from the library again. GraemeLeggett 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the types of planes to be handled (and this is working from memory) - the idea came from the combination of the expected landing weights (naval aircraft are heavier because of folding wings, stressed airframes etc) and the size of the decks. GraemeLeggett 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the mention of "flexible deck" is notable, or maybe just has undue weight. By the way, the US Navy uses the term "flex deck" to describe certain carrier air operations: when aircraft are allowed to return to the carrier to land at flexible times.  This is unlike typical cyclic operations wherein aircraft can only recover during specific periods.E2a2j (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See linked video here: Rubber deck. The pilot is Eric "Winkle" Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.196 (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The rationale behind the flexible deck concept was that with the introduction of jet aircraft there was no vulnerable propeller to worry about damaging, and the early jet engines were thirsty on fuel, so removing the undercarriage reduced weight allowing more fuel to be carried without reducing overall manoeuvrability or speed. Although successful, the trials were abandoned when later engines became more fuel-efficient. The 'fuel problem' was why the Royal Navy didn't use any jets in the Korean War, as they were regarded as having insufficient range or endurance to do anything useful, piston-engined Sea Furies being preferred instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.65.59 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Angle deck revised
I have added some additional info on the development of the angle deck. All additions and changes have been check and referencedJacob805 (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason this section doesn't mention the angled deck on the american Flight Deck Cruisers from the 30's? That article seems pretty clear, and predating the British study by at least a decade seems like it would be notable.--73.158.89.182 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Catapults section?
For an article about carrier's flight deck, there is VERY little explanation of the CATOBAR system, which is being used by most of the carriers. Comparisons between Sky-Jump, and Catapults would be helpful. Or at the very least, link to the catapult system's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting 1960 RN instructional film called Launch & Recover on YouTube here: that has some useful stuff on steam catapults, etc. The carrier featured BTW, is HMS Hermes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision: capacity comparison
Get real, Damwiki- this really is nationalist special pleading. You're seriously equating Swordfish to Corsairs and Avengers? Your assertion that the use of deck park was the only significant difference US and UK carrier capacity is getting very, very stale. Solicitr (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not directly comparing capacities, just showing that WW2 USN CVs carried a very large, permanent, deck park, since you have previously stated that my reference to pre-war USN CV deck parks was not valid for WW2. Some months back I gave the hangar dimensions for each class and the RN capacities in terms of folded wing Swordfish and your data for the Essex class capacity (which was clearly lower in the late war period). As I have stated to you in the past, the aircraft capacity of any given carrier is determined by hangar capacity and the available parking area on the flight deck forward of the last barrier. The article clearly states that armouring the flight deck caused a reduction in the number of aircraft carried, but, again, once a deck park is added to RN armoured carriers the disparity is reduced considerably.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with Damwiki here. The case for removing the info from the article has not been made. Perhaps it needs clarification, but that should be discussed here first also. - BilCat (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * DamWiki insists on maintaining the categorical statement, which is categorically false, that "the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers". This is part and parcel of DamWiki's very POV campaign to create the impression that RN armored-deck carriers did not, as they did, pay a heavy price in air group capacity.  Yet let's look at the numbers, as provided in his own cite: "On June 05 1945, USS Bennington reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park."  51 aircraft in the hagar deck alone (103 total)- while no RN armored-deck carrier, even after adopting USN practices including the use of a deck park during this same period (Okinawa), ever managed to operate more than 54 aircraft total. Solicitr (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * HMS Implacable carried 81 aircraft by adopting a permanent deck park and this is stated and referenced in the section under discussion. The USN Essex class were much larger ships, with nearly 20% greater displacement than the RN armoured carriers, so it is no surprise that they carried a greater aircraft complement but I have very patiently explained all this in the past. The article makes it very clear that armoured flight decks would impose a penalty on aircraft capacity, but as the references show, the greatest part of the disparity was due to the USN's permanent deck park, which on Bennington, actually exceeded her hangar capacity. Threats and name calling are no substitute for accurate, cited, information.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What if we said "a large part of the disparity" instead of "the largest part of the disparity"? We can keep the same sources, but perhaps quote the texts in the ref tags so the user can draw their own conclusions. This avoids any appearance of synthesis on our part. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Another source for information on Deck parks in RN armoured carriers is British Warships of the Second World War, by John Roberts, p.61. He states the nominal aircraft capacity (using late war aircraft) of the Implacable class as 72 with 48 in the hangars and 24 as a permanent deck park so this shows very clearly how the use of a deck park greatly increased RN carrier capacity.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In stead of using inmprecise quantifiers like "most" or "greater part" or "large part", would it not be better to escheew those flexible terms in favor of actual numbers? Otherwise there will just be continual sniping over which adjective better fits the relationship of 72 vs 48, or 110 vs 72.Solicitr (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's a proposed rewrite of the section on armored flight decks:

When aircraft carriers supplanted battleships as the primary fleet capital ship, there were two schools of thought on the question of armor protection being included into the flight deck. The USN initially favoured unarmoured flight decks because they maximized aircraft carrier hangar and flight deck size, which in turn maximized aircraft capacity in the hangar, and on the flight deck, in the form of a permanent "deck park" for a large proportion of the aircraft carried.[2][3] In 1936 the Royal Navy developed the armored flight deck aircraft carrier which also enclosed the hangar sides and ends with armor. The addition of armor to the flight deck offered aircraft below some protection against aerial bombs while the armoured hangar sides and ends helped to minimize damage and casualties from explosions or fires within or outside the hangar.[4] The addition of armour to the hangar forced a reduction in top-weight, so the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads.[5] The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck aircraft carrier. Additionally, Royal Navy aircraft carriers did not use a permanent deck park until approximately 1943; before then the aircraft capacity of RN aircraft carriers was limited to their hangar capacity. The 23,000 ton British Illustrious-class had a hangar capacity for 36 Swordfish sized aircraft and a single 458 ft x 62 ft x 16 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.8m) hangar, but carried up to 57 [6] aircraft with a permanent deck park while the 23,400 ton Implacable class featured increased hangar capacity with a 458 ft x 62 ft x 14 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.3m) upper hangar and the addition of a 208 ft by 62 ft by 14 ft (63m x 19m x 4.3m) lower hangar, forward of the after elevator, which had a total capacity of 52 Swordfish sized aircraft or a mix of 48 late war aircraft in the hangar plus 24 aircraft in a permanent deck park[7], but carried up to 81 aircraft with a deck park.[8] The 27,500 ton USN Essex class had a 654 ft x 70 ft x 17.5 ft (198m x 21m x 5.3m) hangar that was designed to handle a mix of 72 prewar USN aircraft.[9] but carried up to 104 late war aircraft using both the hangar and a permanent deck park.[10][11] The experience of World War II caused the USN to change their design policy in favor of armored flight decks: "The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on Enterprise's flight deck in 1969. The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks." [12] Damwiki1 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [2] Hone, Friedman, Mandeles, British and American Carrier Development, 1919-1941, p125.
 * [3] USS Bennington, Action Report, OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OCCUPATION OF OKINAWA INCLUDING STRIKE AGAINST KANOYA AIRFIELD, KYUSHU. 28 May to 10 June, 1945, p.18. On June 05 1945, USS Bennington reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park. At that time she carried 15 TBMs, 15 SB2Cs and the rest were a mix of F6Fs and F4Us. She was prompted to utilize, and report on, her maximum hangar storage due to a Typhoon.
 * [4] Eadon, Stuart, editor, Kamikaze, The Story of the British Pacific Fleet, Worcester 1991, ISBN 1-872017-23-1, p.338-339: In nine kamikaze strikes "...The Fleet Air Arm suffered...44 personnel killed...By contrast Bunker Hill lost 387 dead in the Kamikaze attack on 11th of May 1945."
 * [5] Roberts, British Warships of the Second World War, p62.
 * [6] Brown, David, Warship Profile 11, HMS Illustrious Aircraft Carrier 1939–1956, Operational History, p257. 42 F4U Corsairs and 15 Fairey Barracudas.
 * [7] Roberts, British Warships of the Second World War, p61.
 * [8] OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. 48 Seafires, 21 Avengers and 12 Fireflies.
 * [9] Roberts, John, The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1982.
 * [10] OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. USS Bennington: 37 Hellcats, 37 Corsairs, 15 Helldivers and 15 Avengers.
 * [11] Francillion, Rene, US Navy Carrier airgroups Pacific, 1941-1945, London, Osprey Press 1978.ISBN 085045 2910
 * [12] Cracknell, W.H, Cmdr USN, Warship Profile 15, USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Nuclear Attack Carrier, p56.
 * Any further comments on my proposed changes? If not, then I'll implement them in a week or so.Damwiki1 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for the long delay but I decided to do further research on the maximum number of operational aircraft used by an Essex class carrier during WW2, and 104 was the largest I could find. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Illustrious class were built within the London Naval Treaty limitations of 23,000 tons, the Essex class built after the US had abandoned the treaty were more than 10,000 tons larger at full load. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Flight Deck of British Aircraft (1945)": - unedited British Pathe newsreel footage of BPF carriers in operation and there doesn't seem to be a noticeable lack of aircraft - at one point there are around 24 Seafires parked on deck. More here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Multi-Deck Carriers
The Russian Version of this article has a section on earlier designs originally implemented, among others, on Akagi, Kaga, Glorious, Courageous and Essex. It has, however, no sources and a non-free image to go on. Transfer or purge? - 95.165.36.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Purge" is not a decision for the English Wikipedians to make. It is a decision for Russian Wikipedians. Feel free to decide on whatever info you get back in that encyclopedia (which has different policies BTW).
 * I will concede that your "non-free" image has Wikimedia policy to back it. I imagine you may delete that.


 * Note that we don't cite anything for Essex either. It would be nice to know if the Akagi and Kaga had a different design, which is probably true. I don't recognize the other two, apparently British ships. Student7 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert


So, I see Damwiki is still ring-fencing his attempt to convety the impression the RN paid no price for its armored decks. Solicitr (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The 'price' you state was a cost necessary for operations in places such as the Mediterranean where on the Malta Convoys RN carriers would be operating at some parts on the route less than 100 miles from Axis air bases from which were flown Ju 87, Ju 88, SM.79 and He 111 land-based bombers all capable of carrying 500kg-1,000kg bombs, and with flight times to and from their targets of only a few minutes. Air attacks against the convoys would continue more or less all day - and sometimes at night, for days on end.


 * Anyone who thinks a wooden-decked carrier could have survived these sort of conditions is sadly unaware of the differing operational conditions in places such as the Mediterranean theatre, as opposed to the Pacific. The Axis had all the resources of a substantial land-based air fleet to call upon, both German and Italian, and all capable of carrying bombs at least twice the size of those the Japanese carrier aircraft were capable of carrying.


 * The 'price' the RN paid was for having a range of modern carrier designs usable anywhere in the world, against any opposition - not just one. And not just a technologically less advanced one at that.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Flight deck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228171944/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil:80/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv41-midway/cv41-midway.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv41-midway/cv41-midway.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050113082026/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/nan/backissues/2000s/2000/ja2000/ppp.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2000/ja2000/ppp.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901213306/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/mj90.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1990/mj90.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Flight deck. 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/20131019135316/http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Harrier_VTOL_Jump-Jet_part4.html to http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Harrier_VTOL_Jump-Jet_part4.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

American English
I'm really not sure why an admin keeps reverting my restoration of American English and threatening me with 3RR when there's a tag at the top of this page that clearly says "This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, color), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus."!!!!! This tag has been here since January 2014, and no one has challenged it to this point. Granted, the article is inconsistent in using American English, but that can be fixed. But I'm not in the wrong here to revert improper changes of "armor" to "armour". Per MOS:TIES: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. Per MOS:TIES: With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." I'm not sure why I'm the one that has to prove my case first. - - BilCat (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see:
 * the article started off neutral, not using any words that Americans spell differently. BilCat was involved at that time (unsurprisingly, given his field of interest)
 * 6 October 2006 it progressed from a stub to a fully fledged article (not that we used such terminology in those days) and used British spelling (armour, maneouvre, tyre, etc.) &mdash; although "maneouvre" was a spelling error of "manoeuvre" it's clearly not a spelling advocating dropping the ligature
 * 13 January 2008 Bilcat defended the British spelling of the article when a contributor covertly (ie no Edit Summary) converted "tyre" to the American spelling "tire"
 * 15 August 2009 a contributor covertly (ie no Edit Summary) converted "tyre" to the American spelling "tire" and nobody caught it
 * 19 April 2011 a contributor converted "armour" to the American spelling "armor" deciding the article should become an "American article. where links are not involved, should use American spelling" and nobody caught it. He also flagged the talk page with ((American English)) three years later in 30 January 2014.
 * 27 December 2017 a contributor converted the American spelling "armor" back to "armour" but was reverted by BilCat because by this stage "article appears to use American English"
 * just recently BilCat converted "manoeuvre" to the American spelling "maneuver" and added ((Use American English)) and this time somebody noticed
 * This kind of creep is typical / ubiquitous / endemic on wikipedia. We saw it at Oestrogen which gradually crept to American spellings and in the end they stayed because those are the spellings used by certain international standards bodies. We see it also with words such as "artefact" being uncorrected by users to the American spelling "artifact" even when it's part of a direct quote. There could be a number of factors contributing to this:
 * access to, education about, and attitude toward (or against!) the world wide web differs greatly from one country to another
 * visitors / contributors from mainstream English-speaking countries may be outnumbered by visitors / contributors to Wikipedia from America
 * visitors to Wikipedia from America may contribute proportionally more than visitors from elsewhere who do not bother to contribute
 * contributors tend to be familiar with their own dialect and often oblivious to the deviations of other dialects
 * 's rationale "I do believe Wikipedia policy on British/American spelling is 'use what was used first'; this article used British spelling originally" invokes MOS:RETAIN which says: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." This notation was recommended in February 2011 but:
 * no such "discussion [to] resolve the issue" was held on the Talk Page before converting it to American English in 2011 - it was just a single user's whim / preference
 * the article had been written in the British dialect for five years before the decision was made to declare it an American article (and eight years before decorating the Talk page appropriately)
 * hiding the markup decoration in the Talk page means few visitors / contributors will ever see it
 * who reads the MOS anyway?
 * BilCat has been here a long time, and I bet his watchlist is a mile long. He's the most prodigious reversionist I've encountered on here, reverting more bytes per day than most visitors contribute in their lifetime. I wouldn't even be surprised to discover BilCat has reverted more content than he himself has ever contributed &mdash; perhaps by several orders of magnitude! (Not counting his enthusiastic "Declaration of Edit War" template drops on User pages though!) But even the most vigilant vigilante can miss such subtle creep as this article experienced. It is easy to see how visitors just switching one word at a time over the years flew under his radar. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I think BilCat's defence of the insidious status-quo is perfectly understandable because much like the Eternal September there is a tide of Americanisation and holding it back is more than one Lone Ranger can be expected to do. More wikipedians; interested parties; and patriotic native English speakers from Britain, Hong Kong, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. "should" have helped. They didn't, and so the original British content in the article was eroded gradually over the years until it was outright declared American. I have no doubt Dan100 is Right but until there's a dedicated https://usa.wikipedia.org domain provided, this will keep happening. 58.164.7.191 (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that such disputes only started to generally arise on Wikipedia in around 2006-7 when (I presume) US schools and their teachers discovered the site. I suspect that pupils may be required to edit articles as part of their homework or similar. If so, that may explain a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Let us please remember that Wikipedia was founded by Americans, and is still owned by an American-registered organization. Other forms of English are allowed by the grace of Jim Wales, et al. Had Wikipedia been formed in any other country, particularly the UK, I have absolutely no doubt that language variant would not be an issue because British English would have been mandated from the beginning. So please drop the US-bashing. - BilCat (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice any USA-bashing at all. If you feel defensive about this issue could you clarify which hypotheses are antagonistic? Otherwise it sounds as if you're sidestepping the issue raised. The emphasis seems to me to be that an article established in (British) English was arbitrarily declared an American article without consensus on the Talk page (presumptuous) and despite that, the original spellings have persisted right up until a few months ago when BilCat adapted the last of them to the American dialect (so even the insistence that it's an American article was inconsistent with the actual content of the article itself).
 * I am sceptical of your speculation that an English wikipedia would have mandated (British) English spellings. A number of English works have been translated comprehensively to the American dialect for export to America over the years, consistent with the BBC's recent trend to engage with regional (and foreign) dialectical derivatives. I have yet to encounter an American product which has been so accommodating (albeit this is limited to my personal experience). Sure, American wikipedia tolerates (British) English for articles strongly bound to the UK of GB and its commonwealth, but as was stated above, even such articles are non-constructively modified by users of the American dialect unfamiliar with the English used in those articles. This is far less accommodating than, for example, translating iconic English Harry Potter or Bob the Builder comprehensively into the American dialect. 110.150.223.76 (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the article first used United Kingdom English before someone with their own bias cared enough about propagating a style they found familiar that they converted the article to that style. That was presumptuous. But now the article has spent years using United Kingdom English and a decade gradually transitioning to United States English, word by word. As of 's edit, that transition is finally complete and the article's style is internally consistent once more. 's statements were inaccurate and their decision to transform the article was out of line, but the information in the article is no less accessible. The people who care most about the information in the article maintain it, and that inevitably influences which dialect/s dominate prominence. To represent your own stylistic preference (more), get (more) involved in creating and maintaining the content! 60.230.1.22 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify…
“ (aircraft now launched from the bow and re-embarked on the angle, leaving a large open area amidships for arming and fueling)”

I have read this sentence several times and cannot understand it. Please clarify for non-technical reader. Launched… and then re-embarked? 124.150.79.224 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Tweaked it to say "aircraft now launched from the bow and landed on the angled flight deck" does that help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As a fromer member of the RAN FAA, I would word it "aircraft now launched from the bow and recovered on the angled flight deck", but maybe that's just me. - Nick Thorne talk  08:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)