Talk:List of aircraft carriers/Archive 1

List of aircraft carriers
I removed HMS Ocean as it is only a helicopter ship. We could have a separate list of helicopter ships but adding all of them to this page would be a mess. Rmhermen 15:22 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * The first two canadian carriers were manned by a majority of Canadians and a minority of Royal Navy personnel. They were both Escort aircraft carriers operated during WW II. The mix of sailors from the Canadian Navy and the Royal Navy casued many morale problems, since the Canadian Navy paid and fed its sailors better than the Royal Navy, at the time. AlainV 16:09, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Consistency/PRC/etc
To SpookyMulder:

Regarding your comment directed at me in the article:

&lt;!-- you dont believe in consistency, do you? different formats on every second line. or - or, after ship names, some in italics, some with. some with no. at the end of a sentence, etc. etc. I don't see the point really. ALso, no one calls it "Peoples republic of China". they call it "Taiwan". you're just confusing people with that.--&gt;


 * If you would do a bit of research, you would see that you are off-base here. First of all, I have been making an effort to clean up the article, after you added some things that were unformatted, as well as clean up the formatting on pre-existing portions. Second of all, the People's Republic of China and Taiwan are not the same thing. You see, the formal name of Taiwan is the Republic of China, which is not the same thing as the People's Republic of China. Before you go to lecture someone on place names, perhaps you should carefully study other areas of Wikipedia. -Joseph 22:04, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)


 * Inspired by 203.185.240.11's efforts, I decided to impose some additional rules: no links in country section titles (which is a general rule actually), subgroups are bolded but no more (because many are small and clutter up TOC), and we don't need prefix notes because we have ship prefix. Green for dates is undesirable because our red/blue/brown/purple links are quite enough color, thank you, and it's not done anywhere else in WP. I'm waffling a little on links in the list annotations; generally I don't favor those, and many of the ships here appear on the list elsewhere. It comes down to a question of whether it's useful for a user to be able to click directly on the previous or following name, or sufficient to have them scan down the list and look for the other incarnation manually (of course when I put it that way, the link seems preferable :-) ). Stan 14:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I know china and taiwan uyse similar Official names. that's why it's less confusing to call them "china" and "taiwan" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpookyMulder (talk • contribs) 07:35, 10 August 2004 (UTC)

Why remove launch dates?
User:SpookyMulder has just removed launch dates for several Canadian ships, leaving only launch years. Why? &mdash;Morven 20:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm all for whacking launch dates myself, that is the sort of extreme minutiae that only the article itself needs. List readers/scanners only need year as hint to set the "era", and ideally a short phrase describing the ship's significance, much as is seen in lists of people. Stan 03:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with you, Stan. The more data / more precision, the better.  With this extra precision, one could infer interesting trends (well, moderately interesting), such as what time of the year is more common for ship commissioning, or the differences between the US and Russia commissioning patterns.  More precise information is generally better, never underestimate what the reader wants to know. LobStoR (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate table
Please stop adding the table to this article, as it is already on the List of aircraft carriers by country. While I have no love for tables, I can see the need for it on one page. I can't see the need for the identical table on TWO pages, however. The table lists the info by country, while this page lists the carriers alphabetically. If however, as you say, this list is a duplicate of the other page, then one of the pages should be AFDed. I hope that you will engage in discussion about further changes to these articles that blur the differences between them, and reduce the need for extra pages. - BillCJ (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to tackle this project when I get the chance. I have an  idea cooking up that should help merge several of these pages of aircraft carrier lists into one table... which really is the best way to put it all together.  As long as there's no objections, I'll be working on this when I have a chance.  After this page is in table format, I'll propose some merges on the other pages.  LobStoR (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a table is the way to go for presentation, but they are harder to edit sensibly. or go to this format of bulletting:
 * USS Abraham Lincoln
 * CVN-72
 * Nimitz class
 * Nuclear-powered supercarrier
 * Commissioned in 1989
 * currently in service
 * currently in service


 * or a sortable table:


 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Name !! Service !! Fleet Number !! Class !! class="unsortable" |Type !! Commissioned !! class="unsortable" |Notes
 * USS Abraham Lincoln
 * CVN-72
 * Nimitz
 * Nuclear-powered supercarrier
 * 1989
 * Currently in service
 * }
 * Petebutt (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * }
 * Petebutt (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Petebutt (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Surcouf?
What does Surcouf do on the list? She wasn't virtual aircraft carrier since the aircraft wasn't her primary weapon. The Besson MB.411 was light spotter aircraft, like those used on cruisers and battleships, but, in contrary to the most of catapult-launched spotter seaplanes, it was unarmed. It was nothing more than just an observation circle widening tool in pre-radar era. If you add Surcouf to the aircraft carriers list, you should make so with the every aircraft-carrying capable vessel, including all 42 Japan aircraft-carrying submarines of types A, B, AM, and, last but not least, Sen-Toku - which, in fact, is the only submarine type worth to be added on the list, since Aichi M6A Seiran bombers were its primary weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.52.37.114 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Displacement or type?
Currently, the 5th column of the list reads "Displacement". The information in the column is actually the type of carrier each ship is rather than the displaced tonnage. Should the column title be changed or the information be switched? Perhaps having both by adding a new column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.224.239 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Akitsu Maru
The Akitsu Maru is listed as an "escort carrier", despite the fact that her sister Nigitsu Maru is listed as "Amphibious warfare ship / aircraft ferry". Since neither ship was capable of recovering aircraft, and neither (to my knowlege) ever served as convoy escorts, I propose re-labeling Akitsu Maru as "Amphibious warfare ship / aircraft ferry". Cwelgo (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objection, I have done so. Cwelgo (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Should ship prefixes count towards capitalization?
The British MAC ships are all listed together because "MV" has been prefixed to their names. According to Merchant Vessel,, "MV" stands for "Motor Vessel" (similar to "SS" standing for "Steam Ship"), and is a prefix to the name, which implies it is not part of the name. If we keep "MV", we should also sort by "USS", "HMS", "IJNS" and all of the others, thus destroying the purpose of having an alphabetical list.

If there are no objections, I will remove the "MV" prefixes and move the ships' names accordingly. 24.241.240.168 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing none, I have moved them. Cwelgo (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

service dates
Do not write in brackets as numbers in brackets appear higher on the list than ones not in brackets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Japanese carrier Onuyu
The list includes an entry for a Japanese fleet carrier Onuyu. I have never heard of this ship, a Google search comes up empty, and none of my reference books mention this ship. Can someone provide a reference that this ship belongs here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwelgo (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing none, I have removed it Cwelgo (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Chakri Naruebet is not Principe de Asturias
A recent edit states that the Thai carrier Chakri Naruebet was formerly the Spanish carrier Principe de Asturias. This is not true; they are two different ships, although of the same class, as their Wikipedia pages make clear. Does anybody have a problem if I correct this? Cwelgo (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're completely right - but I've already saved you the effort. Thanks for bringing it up. Shem (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Japanese carrier Myoho
I have searched the internet and my sources and can find no mention of a Japanese aircraft carrier named Myoho. Can anybody provide a source? Cwelgo (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wan't able to find anything directly about it either, and the entry was bare of any detail that would provide some evidence it might have existed. Perhaps it was a cancelled project, in which case it can be re-added when a source is found. There was a transport by that name and it appears that some users in a video game were using it as a substitute carrier, so probably no basis in reality whatsoever.NiD.29 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for deleting it. Cwelgo (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sortability and Ship Prefixes
My sensibilities are offended by the fact that this alphabetical list can be sorted by any of its columns, but sorting it by ship name, instead of returning the list to its original order, sorts the list by ship prefix instead, unless there is no ship prefix, in which case it sorts by name. In other words, the sort feature is less than useless for the ship name column.

I would like to suggest fixing this by removing the ship prefixes. Firstly, the prefix is not actually part of the ship name. Secondly, the prefix provides no additional information since another column indicates who operated the ship.

Your opinions? Cwelgo (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hidden sort keys should work just fine. I would favour trimming the operator column to just the name.NiD.29 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, hidden sort keys would sort the names alphabetically. Before anybody goes to the effort of editing over 300 entries, I still have several problems with retaining the ship prefixes in the Name column.


 * 1. The page states that it "contains aircraft carriers listed alphabetically by name". The prefixes USS, HMS, etc are not part of the ship's name, and are routinely dropped in Wikipedia articles and in reference books. The prefix is useful to make it clear that one is talking about a ship (e.g. USS Abraham Lincoln) rather than, say, a person (President Abraham Lincoln) but since this page is about nothing but aircraft carriers, I don't see what value is added. My guess is it's more because of tradition than anything else.


 * 2. Using hidden sort keys will sort the names correctly, but will still cause confusion to the uninitiated since they will appear to be sorted incorrectly.


 * 3. Not all ships in the list have prefixes, so the list appears to be inconsistent. Experts will know that American ships use prefixes and Japanese ships don't, but the casual reader won't. Even experts might not be aware that Imperial Germany used prefixes but Nazi Germany didn't.


 * 4. While some prefixes such as USS and HMS are widely known and understood, the rest of them used in this list are not. I'm looking at you, NAeL.


 * 5. The strongest argument against using prefixes is the sheer effort of making them correct and keeping them so. Even for nations that use ship prefixes, not all of the ships on this list had them. I can't speak for other navies, but in the US Navy, the prefix USS is only used while the ship is in commission. There are four groups of US ships in this list that should not carry the USS prefix:


 * a) Ships that were planned or ordered but construction never began (e.g. CV-50, CV-51, CV-52, et al).


 * b) Ships whose construction began but was never completed (e.g. Reprisal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc).


 * c) Ships that were completed but never commissioned (e.g. Rabaul, Tinian).


 * d) Some of the ships that were built and completed but transferred to the Royal Navy under Lend Lease, usually under different names (e.g. Niantic, Jamaica, Perdido, etc). However, other ships were actually commissioned in the US Navy before being transferred to the Royal Navy (e.g. Altamaha (CVE-6), Baffins (CVE-35), etc).


 * The effort of researching each ship and deciding whether or not the prefix is appropriate seems prodigious. In addition, other editors will come along, see that a whole bunch of US ships have the USS prefix, and will edit, say, Tinian to match them. I don't relish explaining all this to future editors.


 * In short, I recommend removing prefixes from the Name column. Cwelgo (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objection, I have done so. Cwelgo (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

problematic definiton
"An aircraft carrier is a warship with a full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying, and recovering aircraft, that serves as a seagoing airbase."

This definition is from another wiki, which isn't a valid source, and is too narrow, and disregards historical usage, being a modern definition intended to be as unambiguous with regard to helicopter carriers, and VTOL aircraft. The Japanese submarines (along with the French Surcouf and others) that carried aircraft were and are widely referred to as Submarine Aircraft Carriers. Likewise the earliest aircraft carriers often did not have full length flight decks, or were even necessarily equipped to re-arm aircraft.

Because of the ambiguity, and inclusion of many seaplane tenders, the page should be renamed List of Aircraft Carriers and Seaplane Tenders along with a more inclusive definition such as: a vessel designed, built or modified to launch and recover fixed wing aircraft. (thus excluding the helicopter carriers, container ships temporarily used as carriers but still including all of the historical aircraft carriers one would expect to find.NiD.29 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You state that "This definition is from another wiki, which isn't a valid source". I could argue that it is lifted verbatim from our sister page, Aircraft Carrier, which links to us and we link to it, but I see your point, so please provide a definition that is from a valid source, not one that you have made up. If we can get Aircraft Carrier to accept it, I'll support its use on this page. Here's what I have found:


 * Yahoo A large naval vessel designed as a mobile air base, having a long flat deck on which aircraft can take off and land at sea.


 * Merriam-Webster a military ship that has a large deck where aircraft take off and land


 * Merriam-Webster a warship with a flight deck on which aircraft can be launched and landed


 * Free Dictionary a warship built with an extensive flat deck space for the launch and recovery of aircraft


 * Free Dictionary 2 ship designed to carry aircraft and to permit takeoff and landing of planes. The carrier's distinctive features are a upper deck (flight deck) that is flat and sometimes sloped to function as a takeoff and landing field,


 * Oxford Dictionary A large warship equipped to serve as a base for aircraft that can take off from and land on its deck.


 * Wictionary A warship with a deck on which airplanes can be launched and landed.


 * Cambridge Dictionary a large ship that carries military aircraft and has a long, flat surface where they take off and land


 * Audio English A large warship that carries planes and has a long flat deck for takeoffs and landings


 * Definitions.net a large military ship from which aircraft can take off and land


 * Random House Unabridged Dictionary: a warship equipped with a large open deck for the taking off and landing of warplanes and with facilities to carry, service, and arm them.


 * Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English: a warship equipped with a large open deck for the taking off and landing of warplanes.


 * Websters New World College Dictionary: a warship that carries airplanes, serves as their base and servicing station, and has a large, flat deck for taking off and landing


 * 1922 Washington Treaty: a vessel of war with a displacement in excess of 10,000 tons standard displacedment designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft. It must be so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon


 * The Complete Idiot's Guide to Aircraft Carriers by CA Mobley, Michael Benson: a ship [whose] primary function must be to carry aircraft, to be a floating air base, and take air power closer to the battlefield


 * The Aviation History by Reily Victoria Petrescu: a warship designed with a primary mission of deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase.


 * Aircraft Carriers by Matt Doeden: Aircraft take off from aircraft carriers. They also land on aircraft carriers.


 * These definitions tell me that the generally accepted definition of "aircraft carrier" is a ship/warship/military ship/naval vessel/vessel of war with a deck/surface that is large/long/extensive and flat/open and that deck/surface is used to take off/deploy/launch and land/recover aircraft/warplanes/airplanes/planes. Several (but not the majority of) definitions add that it is used as an airbase.


 * Other than "arming", which I personally agree is not a required feature of an aircraft carrier (but just my opinion), the provided definition covers all of the generally accepted features of an aircraft carrier.


 * This definition categorically rules out ships that a) do not have a flight deck or b) cannot land aircraft on their deck. These restrictions eliminate aircraft-carrying submarines, seaplane tenders, early Japanese amphibious assault ships, and LSTs, which are currently included on this page, and CAM ships, seaplane-carrying battleships and cruisers, which are not. If you want to include seaplane tenders in your definition, please explain why seaplane-carrying battleships and cruisers are any different.


 * We're now left with the definition of aircraft/warplanes/airplanes/planes. The last two are generally agreed to be fixed-wing aircraft, but the first two properly include fixed wing, rotary wing, V/STOVL and helicopters.


 * I understand that you want to include seaplane tenders under the definition of "aircraft carrier" while excluding helicopter carriers. Please explain your logic.


 * Your statement that the provided definition is "too narrow" is your opinion. Please provide a reliable source that says otherwise.


 * Your statement that the provided definition "disregards historical usage" doesn't carry much weight with me. I recall reading news stories of USS Tripoli (LPH-10) when she was mined in 1991 that described her as both an "aircraft carrier" and a "battleship". Calling her so didn't make her so.


 * I am not completely at odds with you. I personally agree that aircraft carriers do not have to necessarily have to have the ability to arm their aircraft (USS Sable and USS Wolverine come to mind), or that helicopter carriers/amphibious assault ships or container ships are aircraft carriers. I just believe that we should have reliable sources to back up our opinions.


 * I respectfully anticipate your reply. Cwelgo (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The exclusion of helicopter carriers is stems from the fact that anything with an unobstructed deck area is effectively a helicopter carrier, and a number of yachts and commercial vessels that routinely carry them would then have to be included, and finding sources or making a complete list of those would be nearly impossible (and OR as a book listing all of them is unlikely to exist). As to "aircraft/warplanes/airplanes/planes", the second and last items can be dispensed with entirely, one as too informal, the other as marginally useful (is an SNJ-4C trainer really a warplane?), leaving aircraft and airplanes - and yes the former includes helicopters and airships while the former does not, which leads back to the helicopter exclusion. The first aviation vessels were built for the carriage of observation balloons, though they suffer from the same problem as "helicopter" carrier in that a great many vessels were used temporarily with minimal modifications.


 * The 1922 Washington treaty definition is closest (dispensing the size requirement) to what I was looking for - my reasoning there is that although current practice would suggest a large flat deck is always a requirement, some of the early carriers did not have a complete flight deck in this manner, but were still regarded as aircraft carriers. HMS Campania (1914) for instance had a takeoff deck forward and an aircraft recovery platform aft but was still an aircraft carrier, while HMS Furious (47) had at one time a pair of gangways connecting its fore and aft flight decks and neither were all that flat (indeed even after it had a stem to stern flight deck, it wasn't). HMS Ark Royal (1915) Your reference to faulty news reports is a red herring, as a newspaper report is hardly "historical usage", rarely being correct anyway, the important matter being how the navies themselves regarded the vessels, and little distinction was made between seaplane tenders and aircraft carriers during WW1. Add to this the common usage of the term "submarine aircraft carrier" for the I-boats and other subs that were more correctly submersible seaplane tenders. As for the battleships and cruisers, I was looking at vessels whose primary purpose was to operate airplanes, rather than an ancillary capability, especially as the list would then include nearly every capital ship built from the 1920s to the 1940s.
 * I would support splitting up the page, hiving the seaplane tenders and helicopter carriers off into their own lists (with a comments and links in the lead), which then leaves only some of the early experiments as exceptions to the flight deck definitions, which can also be mentioned in the lead following the definition, and the CAM ships which could be merged with the page on CAM ships. A seaplane tender page could then include those capital ships equipped for seaplane operations. This would also solve the page size.
 * Most of my sources are currently packed as I am in the process of moving into a new place, but when I find the relevant references I'll post them here. The page itself is desperately in need of a lot more references. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think my opinions are much closer to yours (and vice versa) than it may appear. My main concern is substituting our opinions with reliable sources (or perhaps finding reliable sources that echo our opinions!).


 * I agree with your opinion on the unsuitability of helicopter carriers for this list. As you say, almost every large warship and many commercial ships can operate helicopters (and sometimes VTOL fixed-wing planes). How can we define "aircraft" to exclude them? "Fixed-wing non-V/STOL aircraft" is clumsy but might work, but can we find a reliable source that concurs?


 * I believe it's your turn to introduce a red herring regarding the word "flat". Of course, no deck is completely flat, and many early aircraft carriers had decks that sloped downwards, sometimes significantly, towards the bow and stern. I thought it was clear that "flat" means "flat enough to use as a runway" but if you disagree, please supply an alternate definition.


 * I did not intend to imply that you want to include WWII battleships and heavy cruisers in the list. I was trying to show that seaplane tenders are very much like those battleships and heavy cruisers in that they can launch a seaplane but cannot recover it on deck. If recovering aircraft on deck is a definition of aircraft carrier, then none of these ships should be included.


 * The fact that HMS Campania could not recover aircraft on deck means it doesn't belong either. Yes, I know the Royal Navy called it an aircraft carrier, but how much emphasis should be placed on official designations? After all, the Soviet carriers are/were officially "heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruisers", and the Chakri Naruebet is an "Offshore Patrol Helicopter Carrier".


 * I concur enthusiastically with your suggestion of splitting up the page. If all can agree on a definition supported by reliable sources, I'm ready to start. Cwelgo (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Shinshu Maru
There is some disagreement whether Japanese amphibious assault ships such as Akitsu Maru and Nagitsu Maru should be considered aircraft carriers or not because although they had flight decks, they were unable to land aircraft. However, the amphibious assault ship Shinshu Maru had no flight deck at all and could only launch aircraft via catapult (and even these were removed shortly after completion). If this ship is included as an aircraft carrier, then every Catapult Armed Merchantman and World War II era US and Japanese battleship and heavy cruiser must also be included, since they also launched aircraft via catapult but were unable to land them. I propose removing Shinshu Maru from this list. Cwelgo (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objection, I have removed it. Cwelgo (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Split Table into operational and retired carriers?
I recommend splitting the table into operational and retired carriers. The merged one doesn't give any comprehensive idea. standardengineer (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Click the up/down arrows in the header for service period and you'll see all the ones listed as current are operational. Splitting the table would make a horrendous mess, would make it much more difficult for researchers trying to find out what other ships were operational at the same time, and would introduce the need to continually transfer ships back and forth. Much better to leave it as it is, although the service period column could be split into two columns.NiD.29 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

merge proposal
It is proposed that List of aircraft carriers by country be merged here as all the information is or can easily be incorporated in the existing table--Petebutt (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No point duplicating things, especially with sortable tables making the "by country" redundant - go for it. Shouldn't this section have gone at the bottom of the page though? Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support merge – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

✅ Klbrain (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * these two lists present different prospect of classification, can not be merged. just like you can't merge your left hand with the right hand, or left face with the right face.--93.216.73.17 (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I accepted the AnonIP's reversion from the NPP queue. While the two pages might be mergeable, there's quite a lot of information on the other page that is not captured by this one, and to satisfactorily do so would likely make the table excessively wide. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The argument that consensus was not reached in a reasonable time is spurious, given that there was no opposition to a perfectly reasonable proposal (note WP:SILENCE). With sortable lists, there is no need for a separate page. I think that the argument from the AnonIP was that the merge was incomplete, which is quite a different argument. I've therefore object to the grounds for reversal. The problem is that little of the material is properly referenced; my feeling is that a merge is better than a delete.


 * Given that there seems to be no other argument than an incomplete merge, I'll resist the proposal in order to generate a better discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - List of aircraft carriers by country is redundant since List of aircraft carriers is fully sortable by country/service. -Zanhe (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

HMS Vindictive (1918)
Should this ship be on the list? She was a “true” aircraft carrier for part of her career, although ability to land aircraft seems to have been impaired by her primitive layout. Ewilen (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * is the question 'should she remain on the list?' Or 'should she be added to the list?' she is currently on the list. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * the latter—but mistaken. Somehow I missed her on the list as currently composed. Never mind.Ewilen (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Japanese Izumo-class (and the smaller Hyuga)
Why aren't these girls considered in this list aside from the lack of fixed wing aircraft (which they can carry)?Feking83 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is explained in the article lead. - wolf 22:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean the article grouped pure helicopter carriers into Amphibious assault ship despite they being primarily helicopter carrying ship with no amphibious capability. It also say something about not being airbase but how do you define airbase that include the Thai's carrier but exclude the Japanese ones. Feking83 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are they are a third thing - the anti-submarine warfare carrier with a capacity for a bit of light ground warfare. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Japanese is arming the Izumo with F-35B so they do count as proprer carriers now right? Feking83 (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they still are not "aircraft carriers". If the Wasp (LHD) and America (LHA) class amphibs arent listed, why would you expect the Izumo class to be? Have you looked st the capabilities of the LHAs and LHDs? - wolf  14:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the list includes this and this Feking83 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And...? - wolf  22:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Charkri Naruebet spend most of its life as an helicopter carrier carrying out search-and-rescue and disaster relief mission. Her fixed-wing component only come into play once. The Izumo in their current configuration basically fulfill the same role. With the F-35B acquisition, The Izumo could be considered a modern Hosho an experimental carrier to build up institutional knowledge on how to build and run a modern aircraft carrier. Feking83 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Chakri Naruebet was designed, built and initially used as an aircraft carrier. That is an established fact. Even if she is only used as a royal yacht now, doesn't change that fact. Anadolu is still being built. There are sources that state she was designed as a "light aircraft carrier".
 * Do you have any sources that specifically state either of these ships are not aircraft carriers?
 * Do you have any sources that specifically state the Izumo-class is an aircraft carrier?
 * Without any such sources, all of this is pointless.
 * And you apparently still haven't looked at the capabilities of LHAs and LHDs. You need to understand the difference between aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and amphibious assault ships. - wolf  15:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Chakri Naruebet ,the Anadolu and in the future the Izumo all fit the definition of a Sea Control Ship which are essentially modern light carriers. The American LHA and LHP are significantly more capable than the Izumo but ship type are define by their role and function and not capability. This why the Zumwalt are classify as destroyers despite having the displacement and power of a pre-dreadnought battleship. Feking83 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Okaaay... not doing this forever. You've made your case, so check this page every once in awhile to see if others post to support you. If you achieve a consensus, you're good to go! If not, you'll just have to drop it and move on to something else. Good luck - wolf  21:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Russia—no carrier under construction

 * per List of aircraft carriers of Russia and the Soviet Union

The linked article (also this article) does not list any fleet carriers under construction in Russia. But the table in this article indicates that Russia has 1 fleet carrier under construction. Should we update this table? Just waiting for some time to comment. Thanks. Holy (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Totals in the table of number of carriers do not add up. E.g. two are listed as in reserve but none are mentioned for any country. Some of the other totals also seem out of date. Ditlev Petersen (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

TCG anadolu
There's a statement saying that helicopter carriers/Light amphibious assault ships shouldn't be listed Fenn Viktor (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * TCG Anadolu is an unusual case. It's apparently being built to be able to operate fixed-wing aircraft, which brings it in scope, but Turkey doesn't have any on order now it's out of the F-35 program. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Amphibious Assault Ships
This article seems to have a very variable view on whether amphibious assault ships count (although the introductory text suggests that it does not) - for example the map and the later text include PHM Atlantico, whilst the table does not. Jellyfish dave (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

US Aircraft Carriers
The United States only has 11 aircraft carriers in service, and 2 under construction at the moment (08/07/20). The USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) has not yet been commissioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.251.100 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)