Talk:History of the aircraft carrier

No speedy deletion please
As per the talk page for the article on "Aircraft Carrier" it was suggested that the historical content should be split off to a separate article. The historical detail was felt to be clogging up an article on functioning warships. This article will be tidied up to concentrate on their history, leaving details of modern-day carriers, their design and operation as well as future planned vessels for the original article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN
, why René Francillon is mentioned in the subsection of the USN's carriers use during the Vietnam war. This has no place and his quoted is relevant to the page. It is the history of the aircraft carrier, not one authors view of the war on a whole. Needs to be rewritten. There is no mention of the use of the carriers, over 7 years, what entailed the logistical feat that was accomplished.

Missing crucial information
I don't see any 1940's era Aircraft Carriers with Catapults on them, as mentioned in this article. Perhaps experimental ships? The Catapult was a CRUCIAL Aircraft Carrier inovation for the use of jet aircraft and larger aircraft like ASW, Transports, or (Jet) Bombers. Perhaps a note about higher take-off and stall speeds of contemporary aircraft. Also note that "737" and other transport aircraft DO takeoff w/o catapult and land without arresting hook due to high power to weight capability (short field capability) and full engine power thrust reversers (not allowed during civilian aviation use). The "ski-ramp" thing puzzles me. No reference to other articles. "Translating forward motion for vertical motion" seems useless if you are still below stall speed??? Planes tend to stay near the groud building up speed before they "rotate" (head upwards) in part due to "ground effect" (additional lift experienced while wings are still within 20 feet of the ground). Notice that catapult launched aircraft "sink" after passing the edge of the ship's bow. Shjacks45 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, during WWII and before most catapults were hydraulic, it was the invention of the steam catapult by the British that allowed the introduction of jet aircraft and heavier aircraft to modern carriers. Please provide some evidence for a 737 ever being used on a carrier, otherwise whatever its short field capability it is irrelevant to this discussion.  Whatever your thoughts on ski-ramps, the fact is they do enable heavier load-outs to be used and extend the envelope of operation for STOVL aircraft.  Ground effect is proportional to wing span, not an altitude of 20'.  An aircraft with a high aspect ratio wing can experience ground effect much higher than 20', although I will allow that the effect becomes greater the closed to the ground you get.  Not all catapult aircraft sink after launch.  This is entirely dependent in a number of factors, particularity the all-up weight of the aircraft and the wind speed over the deck.  Also, note that modern USN aircraft are usually launched from their nose gear.  This prevents the aircraft from adopting a high angle of attack prior to release from the catapult, however "rotation" is usually instantaneous after the cat releases since the pilot holds the stick back during launch so that this will occur.  Whether the aircraft sinks will depend on the factors I mentioned.  It has nothing to do with ground effect. -  Nick Thorne  talk  00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the 737 information was anecdotal from other Boeing employees. Looking for public reference. The ground effect note came from my flight instructor and my seaplane trainer. I used *~20 feet* because GE is variable. I have no reference for stall speed but I would suppose basic aeronautics are not arguable? If you watch archival footage of WWII Propeller driven aircraft NOT launched by catapult, they too sink on take off when they travel beyond the deck. (Film reel of catapult launched seaplane didn't dip because too high above Battleship deck?) The variable incidence wing of the F8U and variable sweep wing of the F14 as well as flaps and leading edge slats remedy the catapult on the nosewheel issue. Most modern aircraft from Cessnas to B52 are in flying attitude when on their landing gear. "Instantaneous" would indicate tail heavy aircraft or pilot pulling back on the stick while on the catapult, both unlikely. Landings, but see http://www1.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88337main_H-1999.pdf. Shjacks45 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I am not without some little experience with catapult launches from an aircraft carrier - I served nearly 8 years in the Fleet Air Arm. As for WWII launches you need to look at a lot more of them.  Certainly for the aircraft at the front of the launching group this may have been the case, but that was because of the short take off run given all the other aircraft parked behind them, and under war time conditions they were trying to launch right up to the envelope.  Aircraft further back often were airborne well before the end of the flight deck.  You think pulling back on the stick unlikely.  How many cat launches have you done, may I enquire?  BTW, as I said ground effect is a function of the wing span.  Your article is about F-15s, which do not have a particularly high aspect ratio wing, see my first post.  As for your flight instructor and your seaplane trainer - 20' might well be a good rule of thumb for that particular aircraft, but you cannot generalise from the specific.  I suggest you may need to learn a bit more about aerodynamics before you try to teach you elders to suck eggs here. Oh, and if most aircraft are in a flying attitude on their landing gear, why then do they rotate during a land based take off run? -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications
Ironically, the Associated Press ran a "tale of the tape" between the US and Japan on 7 December, 1941 for the Sunday edition of newspapers in the US in case a war between the two countries began, not knowing in advance about the attack that was to occur that day. In that "tale of the tape", it's mentioned that the Japanese had 11 aircraft carriers (not 10, as mentioned in the article).

The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first naval battle in the history of the world where the principal ships, the aircraft carriers, could not see each other. Before that, all naval engagements were between ships that had to be close enough to each other to be seen and allow artillery to reach the other ship(s) during the attack. What was ironic about that battle was that the carrier groups of each side were only 35 miles from each other, but could not easily find each other due to bad weather.

Finally, aircraft carrier operations, even after the success of the Pearl Harbor attack, were thought of as "folly". Many military leaders passed off its success as luck and a "sneak attack". Many military leaders thought that it was insane to launch from or land planes on the rolling deck of a carrier. What finally convinced the American Naval brass that carrier warfare was valuable was the Battle of Midway. A combination of factors allowed the US Navy to strike a near-fatal blow to the Imperial Japanese Navy by sinking 4 IJN carriers in one day while losing just one of their own. This convinced US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the military brass to order the building of hundreds of carriers and thousands of warplanes to operate from them. By the end of the war, the US had approximately 90 carriers (of all types) for every Japanese carrier and a huge advantage in warplanes and pilots over the dwindling Japanese forces and warplanes.76.105.145.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of the aircraft carrier. 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/20081022071307/http://www.angkasa-online.com:80/09/12/english/english1.htm to http://www.angkasa-online.com/09/12/english/english1.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the 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/20081228171944/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv41-midway/cv41-midway.html to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv41-midway/cv41-midway.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the 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/20080613210138/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.880/changeNav/3533 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.880/changeNav/3533

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of the "flying-deck cruiser?"
The idea of a "flying-deck cruiser" was quite heavily experimented with in the USN and could be considered a (spiritual) predecessor of the Independence-class CVL from WWII. Should a section noting this be added to the article?

AN.FSQ-7 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What are your sources? - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)