Talk:Supercarrier/Archive 1

Image
I personally found the larger image much easier on the eyes--with the current version, I end up squinting looking for details, on the smaller carrier especially. Perhaps we could compromise? 400px? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Normally, an article image is supposed to give a general idea, and you would then click on it to get more detail. I guess I'm going by the fact that I have my browser at about normal width, and IMHO images should not consumer more than 50% of the allotted horizontal width in an article, else it looks awkward. -Joseph 18:33, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose. I, OTOH, don't like to click on the images; too time-consuming.  Still, it's not worth fighting over.  Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, we should get some other opinions. -Joseph 18:36, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)


 * One other point--my sole purpose of the image is to give you an intention of the size in comparison with an average carrier from other fleets. -Joseph 21:25, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)


 * I'm about seventeen months late to the party, but for what it's worth I think the current size is fine. The larger version takes up over half the width of the article on my poor 1024 × 768 display, and I imagine it looks pretty silly on 800 × 600. —Caesura(t) 01:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle
Someone added, and I subsequently removed the following:


 * Charles de Gaulle (France, 1999)- ""first combat mission was in december 2001 operation heracles, french part of Enduring freedom

Reason: It does not fit the tonnage or size, and I don't think very many people consider it in the same class as even the Forrestal. I know the definition of a supercarrier is not concrete, but I don't think the CdG even comes close. Comments?

-N328KF 02:41, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)


 * Hi, if there is two class of carriers, "supercarriers" and carriers such as british one, then, the Charles de Gaule is a supercarrier. The take-off system is similar to US supercarriers one, it is a nuclear propelled ship and can load 40 aircraft (such as Rafale). (62.161.27.52)


 * I disagree. There were carriers in the past, such as the Midway-class, Clemenceau, and the British carriers of the 1950s. Nobody ever called them a supercarrier. You have merely defined a STOBAR carrier, of which many World War II carriers qualified as. By definition, a supercarrier would have to be significantly larger than traditional types, and the Clemeceau, Charles de Gaulle, etc, are not significantly larger than aircraft carriers that were available at the end of WWII. In my mind, there are four types of aircraft carriers:


 * Escort carriers
 * Helicopter/assault carriers
 * "traditional" aircraft carriers
 * Supercarriers

-N328KF 14:50, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Listing individual carriers vs. classes
I dunno, I'm sort of conflicted on this. Looking for input. I originally intended to just have a list of classes, and did not want to duplicate too much info from List of aircraft carriers. However, some people have put the actual unit list in there. If we took that to the logical conclusion, then there would be a big list of all of the supercarriers, but I think that it is better to keep the page simple and to the point. Thoughts? -Joseph 19:48, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)


 * Just the classes should suffice. People love to recite carrier names though, so an HTML comment above the list pointing out that each class article has a list of ships, and asking editors not to re-add would help stabilize that state. Stan 21:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I concure with stan on this one. TomStar81 21:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this issue was long-since settled. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:51, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Super what?
There's no official definition of a 'supercarrier'. It's not even widely used by the media nor the Navy. It seems to be just a made-up word! Dan100 22:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that the term was first coined to describe the type of aircraft carrier that would have been needed to transport nuclear bombs to the Soviet Union. Since the first bombs were much larger and bulkier than todays bombs the planes, and subsequently the ship, would have had to have been enlarged.


 * Or it's nothing but a geek-analogy to the Super Star Destroyer or Star Destroyer in Star Wars.--145.254.96.138 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, it goes to show you how much Americans love to supersize things ;-) TomStar81 08:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * in the article, it stated "but lacked several defining features, such as catapults, arrestor wires, and angled flight decks, and also did not possess the sheer size of modern supercarriers" as a need for supercarrier; which it use against Shinano case. but those technology were not required before the arrival of heavier jet fighter. other smaller carriers orginally build without those features were refitted as jet fighters were introduced so those features were not unique to supercarriers but to introduction of jet technology; the better reason why Shinano is not considered a supercarrier is it's role. it carries a mere fraction of planes carried by smaller japanese carrier, it is simply not a frontline carrier, hence not a supercarrier because of lack of firepower. Akinkhoo 11:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where they got that "catapults, arrestor wires, and angled flight decks" requirement. To me it seems that a supercarrier should be defined as "a carrier that's a lot bigger than anything else". The first supercarrier should be Shinano, it even says so in the page, "Following the disastrous losses at the Battle of Midway, Shinano was selected for conversion to a supercarrier." If nothing else it exits so that the History Channel can make a show about it one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.14.158 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Defense daily list US as havingSuper carriers
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another use of the word supercarrier  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise/ Charle Du Galle
I removed the question mark in the picture containing the Enterprise and the Charles Du Galle. Enterprise has a unique island, and upon closer examination with a magnifing glass it is apparent the ship beside the Du Galle is most definatly Enterprise. TomStar81 21:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What happened to this picture anyway? its not in the article anymore, it just says "Missing Image" and then the name. TomStar81 08:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British and French supercarriers
The conclusion of the article currently says: "The U.S. Navy is now the only major sea power building large aircraft carriers, of which the 100,000 ton Nimitz class is the most prolific." But the British and French have both approved plans to build 50-60,000 ton carriers (still significantly smaller than Nimitz class, but probably large enough to be considered supercarriers). The sentence might still technically be true, since the UK and France are fairly minor sea powers, but it's none the less misleading, so I'm going to change the paragraph to note the new construction. Blackcats 19:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Those new carriers will only have half as many aircraft as a Nimitz class vessel. I wouldn't call them supercarriers. 82.135.7.211 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have always heard the definition of supercarrier as being any carrier displacing 75,000 tons or more, as stated in the article. By that definiton, the proposed British and French carriers, while nonetheless large (50,000-60,000 tons), will still be considerably smaller than the US carriers. --BillCJ 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i wonder how does been 75000ton make it a supercarrier or not? i feel it would be better to rated by capability and power. eg. the Hood despite it size, can't stand against Bismarck. Akinkhoo 12:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Franco-British carriers have only half of the air fleet of the U.S. carriers. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nimitz wikipedian page states: "Aircraft: 85 (current wings are closer to 64, including 48 tactical and 16 support aircraft)"  The best guess of the new British/French carriers is 35-40 JSF will be carried so their actual firepower as defined by the number of offensive aircraft carried then they're actually pretty close. DavidWP 15:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd say the QE's fit the class. Maury 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The British and French do not fit the class, I think it is wishful thinking, for those of you still beleiving in the british empire. Currently the US carrier displaces over 97,000 tons loaded and can? and can is the key word, carry 80+ aircraft and a crew of 5,000 plus. Range unlimted. The difference of 25,000 ton is what the british currently call the escort carriers. This page also makes the reader think, these carrier are in service, when in fact they are in the planning stage. With the current situation in the UK and France $$$$, lets wait and see if they even get built before stating what they can due and compare them to carrier in serviceJacob805 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Update, I propose to remove all reference of ships mentioned in this article as super carrier, if they do not fit the classe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposed British an French carriers don't fit in the supercarrier category. Their size and their airgroup is comparable to the old Midway which never were considered beening supercarrier. John Harrington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.204.189 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Update, British delay both carriers construction, due to lack of funds. Dec 11, 2008
MOD stated on Dec 11, 2008 that both carrier programs are being delayed a minimum of 2 years due to the lack of funds. Cancelation of these is still a possibility[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7777723.stm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with aircraft carrier

 * Don't Merge --- The Aircraft Carrier article currently has a notice which states: This article is becoming very long. Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate. In light of this, it might be better to flesh out Supercarrier with info from the other page. -BillCJ 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Aircraft carrier has a live discussion about splitting some of the info from that article to a History page. The Land 11:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge --- Supercarrier is far too vague to warrant all of this (largely spurious) information, that is mostly redundant anyway. This whole article could be condensed into a single sentence in the Aircraft carrier article. BriKaBraK 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge --- I agree. A brief discussion on aircraft carrier re. different size and capabilites would be fine. This is very subjective. Also lack of citations a major problem - "A supercarrier is a ship belonging to the largest class of aircraft carrier, and generally has a displacement greater than 75,000 tons." ...says who? The tabloid journalists who use the term? Mark83 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge --- Redundant information and ill-defined heading. E2a2j (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge --- A "supercarrier" is just a difference in size, not function? Article has strange information such as defining phrase "largest unofficial class". They are "the largest" but oil tankers are longer and heavier?? A bigger island makes for a better flagship? Maybe, maybe not. What makes a good flagship? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Time to Merge. Some of the history can be split off from the main carrier page.  I'll work on it...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by E2a2j (talk • contribs) 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa! THere are 3 separate dates above, nearly a year apart for each set. THat's hardly a continuous consensus, especially on a low=traffic page compared to the main one. Also, any splits on the main carrier page have been continually rejected in the past, so you don't have consensus to split the history off there either. THe best thing now to to is to add split and merge tags to the main carrier page, and let the discussions plat out there now. I can set them up for you if you want. THanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bill I find it odd that you choose to focus on the timescale of the comments above rather than the 4:1 consenus. And I don't get your point about low traffic/"continuous consensus" - surely the fact that its a low traffic page is the reason for the trickle of comments? You suggest split and merge tags - but the last result was a (weaker) consensus for this to be merged into aircraft carrier and it was ignored! This ill-defined, unreferenced article has reached the end of the road in my opinion. Like I said at the very start it should be a sidenote on the aircraft carrier article. Mark83 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mark, it may be ill-defined, but that's a true measure of the term. It's a common term that is well-used in reliable publications that deserves some coverage, even if just to state it's ill-defined. And besides me and you, none of the other editors who've participated even edit on the main carrier page, and I'd like to get a consensus of the editors there too - that's all I'm asking for, and I do believe that is within the guidelines. Btw, how many refernces does an article need to have before it's not "unreferenced"?? Five? Ten? Or just the ones we approve of? - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest I had forgotten about the addition of ref #2. Sorry. However I stand by my argument that the article is not needed - rather than being superfluous on the aircraft carrier article, a short discussion about carrier size is needed. i.e. that the US Navy for much of the post war era has and will continue to operate 'supercarriers' and that (with the expception of the USSR) most other navies have operated 20k tonne class ships with a few expections on both sides of that measure. A large percentage of the article is the copy and paste from Queen Elizabeth class - the Alan West quote and that is less supercarrier-related than UK/US political/military relations related.
 * Much of the rest of the article is open to question, e.g.
 * "but lacked several defining features,[citation needed] such as catapults, arrestor wires, and angled flight decks" - the UK could have decided to build Nimitz-size vessels without catapaults/arrestor wires/angled deck and operated in STOVL form and these still would have been "supercarriers" hence the "several defining features" comment is strange.
 * I'd interpret that to mean the defining characteristics of supercarriers that actually exist, since it is really hard to define those that don't exist!;) - BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a fair point except the article has deemed the QE class to be supercarriers and they don't have such "defining features"! And although they don't yet exist their specifications are clearly defined. Mark83 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But the QEs aren/t Nimitz-sized, and you had said: "the UK could have decided to build Nimitz-size vessels." THat's what I was comenting on. Not a big deal anyway, so I'll stop with this. - BillCJ (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Because of the angled deck and large deck area, supercarriers can have a far larger island than conventional carriers" - ??? The angled deck has nothing to do with it, is is the latter that is the issue, i.e. larger deck area. Are large island structures preferable anyway? As far as I can remember the stress of the post-Nimitz carriers has been smaller island structures, not as big as possible.
 * see also Alpha Ralpha Boulevard's comment re. flagship. Mark83 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the article needs work, and I have tried to improve it in some areas. (I do wonder who wrote the original piece, as there are some odd statements.) Those are issues that need to be addressed, but they aren't reasons for merging of themselves. As I said, it's a common term, and as such, I do believe an encyclopedia needs to cover it as it's own entry, especially not one without paper limits. I think by merging it into the huge main article, we'll make it harder for people to find info on it, even if this page is redirected to a the correct section. I also think the main page is too long, but the last time I tried to get it split, there was no consensus to split the history, and no agreement on what else should be split. So, by merging this in, we are going to make it a little longer, and even if it's just a few sentences, I don't think it's an improvement. As such, I'd like to see some decisions made about the main article before we go to dumping more info in to it. - BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, Bill. You got me with the "whoa!"  I'll de-saddle the horses and put 'em back in the barn for now! E2a2j (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * E2, I do think the History section in the main carrier section ought to be split out. I'mg oing to add a split tag to that page again, and see how it goes this time. YOur comments are welcome there, no matter your opinion. It is an awfully long article, but there's been no consesnus on how to split it in the past. I'd like to try agian. - BillCJ (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article should be deleted. The reason it keeps digressing and isn't very coherent is because as suggested above - the word Supercarrier is a slangish dictionary entry. Not a full article.

De-stub
I think the article has a sufficient size to be upgraded. Perhaps we can replace the stub tag with a 'needs expansion' tab. Rares 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced??
When someone adds a tag as vague as "unbalanced", it's common practice to explain what it's for on the talk page. Please do not re-add the tag without explaining why it's there. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about because it's a made up word invariable defined so as to apply only to American carriers. It's effectively a meaningless advertising term for the US Navy, and as such is not encyclopedic.ANTIcarrot (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reference to the wording Super carrier. chapter 11..Jacob805 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

At some point, all words were made up. The term is used in a broad range of media, and thus should be covered. Honestly, just because only the Americans did something is not reason enough to call something "meaningless". The word had a definition long before anyone else even attempted to build carriers in this range. The Forrestal class were so much larger than the Midway class, the previously largest carriers built (but not necessarily designed) to that point, that the obvious term for them was "supercarrier". All US carreirs built after the Forrestals were even larger, so naturally they became the benchmark for what makes a carrier a "supercarrier". The US is the only nation to this point that has operated carriers in this size range, though the Soviets were building 2 in the 1980s that were never completed, and they were also called supercarriers. I have a feeling the QE class will be considered supercarriers by enough people that the accepted definition will be moved down slightly, and probably rightly so. The QEs (esp the French CATOBAR version) will be nearly as large as the Forrestals, and certainly more capable in modern terms. - BillCJ (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a USN publication from 1964 that credits the term "supercarrier" to the (presumably US) media. The term was first applied to the USS Forrestal. Interestingly, early figures for the Forrestal list its displacement at 58,000-61,000 tons standard, and 71,000 tons deep load. To the best of my knowledge, these figures are not mistakes, as the tonnage increased during later upgrades. These figures are well within the projected range for the QE class, and thus I have no objection to the term "supercarrier" being applied to them. I have a feeling it will be applied anyway! - BillCJ (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ, I think you just have personal agenda to keep these carriers or carrier on this page. You quote citations out of context and use them to fit your opinion. That's right, this is your POV. Lets discuss your entry above, The President of the USA and the sec of Navy were quoted using the terms Super carrier. This was in relation to the size of carriers serving during that time through out the world. You take it as it compares today, in relation to the 65,600 ton limit. You do this because it suites your purpose. I can quote 2 dozen nations around the world, stating the US super carrier. I cannot get one other country beside Britain in relation to the QE class to make the same statement. I think with the current events more foreign news papers would mention the word, but not one is quoted as saying the British are reducing one of there super carriers. This is because only you and hand full of others ( British Bias at it Best ) claim this to be fact. You do Wikipedia no justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for removal

 * 'Reich's Cruise Ships Held Potential Plane Carriers', New York Times (1 May, 1938), pg. 32: 'The Wilhelm Gustloff, of 25,000 tons gross, is about 700 feet long and has a deck area of 53,000 square feet, claimed to be larger than any vessels of this size. Reynolds Sunday News quotes a shipping expert as saying that this deck could easily be lengthened to form a flying deck and the vessel's speed, now stated to be 15½ knots, could be readily increased.  Thus modified she could accommodate thirty-five aircraft – half the number of machines allotted to Britain's new super-carrier, the Ark Royal, which is starting her trials next week.'
 * Because I don't see its relevant to the sentence its supposed to be referencing
 * 'Royal Navy Air Squadrons In The Ark Royal', The Times (20 December 1938), pg. 20, col. E: 'Six squadrons of aircraft have been allocated to the new carrier Ark Royal, two more than in any other carrier.'
 * Because although it does provide the necessary verification - this is already done by the other Times ref.
 * "Alexander P. de Seversky, 'Air Power And the War', New York Times (17 November 1943), pg. 18: 'Secretary of the Navy Knox has revealed that construction has been ordered on the world's largest aircraft carriers: three 45,000 ton craft, as big as battleships and about 12,000 tons heavier than any carrier built heretofore ... The decision to go in for super-carriers amounts to public recognition that the very limited striking power that can now be conveyed by aircraft carriers is inadequate against enemy shore installations and shore-based aerial defenses.' 'Arabian Oil Plan Defended by Knox', New York Times (22 March 1944), pg. 8: 'The Navy also is building three super-carriers of 45,000 tons each, which conceivably might not be in action before the end of the war.  “If the war ends before we can use them, then thank God,” said Mr. Knox.  “If not, they will be of immense value.'  Sidney Shaletts, 'Navy Gains Skill in Smashing Forts', New York Times (12 June 1944), pg. 17: 'At the Brooklyn navy yard construction of one of the new 45,000-ton super-carriers was viewed.  These carriers, largest in the world, are 17,000 tons heavier than our Essex class.  Their advantages in greater armor protection, more compartmentation (which makes them harder to sink), greater speed and greater fire power have been described.'  'Navy Ready to Hit Japan Hard Blows.  Admiral Fitch Says Previous Attacks Would Seem Like “Sweet Summer Zephyr”, New York Times (30 August 1944), pg. 10: 'In the last year more than seventy carriers were commissioned and construction began on two of the three projected “super-carriers,” which have nearly twice the displacement of the Essex class.'  '84 Extra Ships Ordered for Navy, Program Already Has 288 on Ways.  Two “Super-Carriers” Among Craft Authorized by Admiral King – Military Forces Also Get 29 Merchant Vessels', New York Times (7 March 1945), pg. 16: 'The additional ships will include aircraft carriers of the newest and largest 45,000-ton class; Essex-class (27,000 tons); carriers, escort carriers, heavy cruisers, light cruisers, destroyers and submarines, the announcement said, with the extended program aggregating 626,860 tons ...  [T]wo of the 45,000-ton “super-carriers” have been added to the program, which formerly called for only three.'  'New Great Carrier Named Roosevelt', New York Times (26 April 1945), pg. 25: 'The name of the Navy's newest 45,000-ton supercarrier, which is to be floated in New York Sunday, has been changed from the U.S.S. Coral Sea to the U.S.S. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Navy disclosed today.'  'Carrier Roosevelt is Christened Here', New York Times (30 April 1945), pg. 32: 'Mrs. Roosevelt seemed deeply moved as she made her brief address.  She said: “I know that my husband would have felt very keenly and appreciated the thought of having this super-carrier given his name.”'  Jay Walz, 'Mightiest Carrier Will Be Ready Soon', New York Times (14 August 1945), pg. 6: 'That the USS Midway, christened here in March, is to be the world's largest aircraft carrier has already been written ... The most powerful power plant ever installed in any ship will enable the super-carrier to maneuver her approximately 45,000 tons rapidly and easily, and as a result, be hard to hit either by bomb or torpedo.'  'Super-Carrier Midway to Be Commissioned', Washington Post (4 September 1945), pg. 3: 'Under-secretary of the Navy Artemus L. Gates will be principal speaker when the mammoth supercarrier Modway [sic] is commissioned at Norfolk Navy Yard Monday the Navy announced today.'  'Navy to Adapt Atom Bomb for Carrier Planes', Washington Post (11 September 1945), pg. 1: 'The Undersecretary said the Midway, first of three super-carriers, is “evidence of our will to maintain peace.”'  Meyer Berger, '31 Ships of Fleet Now Moored Here; 6 More Due Today', New York Times (20 October 1945), pg. 3: 'It is expected that one spectacular feature of the lighting will be a network of searchlights against the sky and a dazzling focus of powerful beams on the super-carrier Midway, which is to anchor in midstream."
 * Because it is insane to have this much information just to cover "In 1943 the superlative was transferred to the 45,000-ton carriers of the Midway class, as a step-up from the 27,000-ton Essex class."
 * 'Navy Planning Fleet of 28 Fast Carriers. Force to Be Built Around “Supercarrier” For Atom Bombers', Washington Post (25 October 1948), pg. 1: 'The force will be built around a 65,000-ton “supercarrier,” a flush-deck, 1090-foot long seagoing airfield able to handle a plane big enough to carry the atom bomb.'  Joseph and Stewart Alsop, 'Matter Of Fact', Washington Post (27 October 1948), pg. 11: 'Vice Admiral Earl W. Mills has announced that the Navy intends to start on a fleet of 28 carriers, centered on a huge 65,000-ton “supercarrier,” over a thousand feet in length.  This carrier is designed, of course, to take heavy bombers capable of delivering the atomic bomb.'  Reserve Aerologist, 'Supercarrier And Service Rivalry', Washington Post (30 April 1949), pg. 8: 'By its mere existence a large carrier would neutralize substantial enemy forces that would have to be deployed defensively in anticipation of attack or utilized in extensive search and attack operations.'  'Navy: Summing Up', Washington Post (17 October 1949), pg. 10: 'It is on the development of weapons that Admiral Denfeld's statement seems to us the weakest.  He proposes that each service design and develop its own weapons within budgetary limitations.  By this criterion he has a point in the contrast between the treatment of the B-36 and the supercarrier.  The Navy's objections to the B-36 came principally after procurement had started without evaluation of the bomber's merits; but the supercarrier was canceled before even a prototype was built.  This gives some justification to the Navy's challenge of the B-36 and its role in strategic bombing.'  'Supercarrier Still Dead', New York Times (15 March 1950), pg. 26: 'Defense Secretary Louis Johnson said today he has no intention of letting the Navy revive its cherished 65,000-ton supercarrier, construction of which he halted last spring ...'  'Atom Bomb Plane Lands on Carrier', New York Times (27 October 1950), pg. 37: '[T]he proved ability of the AJ-1 to land on an existing carrier may make it more difficult for the Navy to revive its cherished dream of a new flush-deck supercarrier.  Its first such project, the proposed 60,000-ton U.S.S. United States, was scuttled by former Defense Secretary Louis Johnson.'  United Press, 'Supercarrier Drive by Navy Reported Due', Washington Post (5 June 1950), pg. 3: 'The Navy was reported yesterday to be shaping a new drive to win approval of its controversial flushdeck supercarrier, which was scuttled last year by Defense Secretary Louis Johnson ...  It was not clear whether the Navy still is thinking in terms of the 65,000-ton Behemoth that was blocked by Johnson in April, 1949, after its keel had been laid at Newport News, Va.  The Navy for the past several months has been studying “tentative” plans for a smaller carrier, about 55,000 tons.  Whether 65,000 or 55,000 tons, the vessel would be the largest ship in the fleet ...  The supercarrier faces certain rough going."
 * Same story for just referencing " The post-war standard for supercarriers was set by the proposed USS United States and USS Forrestal."

Mark83 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for streamlining the references. The existing article implied "supercarrier" was just a postwar term. The reason I included very detailed quotations was that I was concerned factual statements about inter-war and WW2 usage might be challenged otherwise, but I'm happy so long as omission of the supporting quotations doesn't encourage editors to challenge the factualness of the statements. 78.146.61.64 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

update British carriers delayed 2 years
MoD delays British carrier program for two years, stating there Skint.[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7777723.stm] So I guess this put the Super carrier question to rest until 2016. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

removel of ref on british usage of Supercarriers
I have read through the 4 listed references 3 made no mention of Super carrier, 1 made a very slight reference to the usage of Super carrier, by a unknown person directed at PM Brown, in which when he replied no use of super carrier was mentioned. I would ask the person to cite reliable sources for the british use of SUPER CARRIER, as the class they are proposing to build, does not fit the classJacob805 (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claim is simply false. Your deletion of references to parliamentary publications was improper and has been reverted. The term supercarrier is used explicitly and without ambiguity by Lords and Members of Parliament in each of the references cited from parliamentary sources, viz. House of Commons Written Questions for Answer, 8 September 2003: 155 Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): 'To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans he has to increase the number of escorts when the new supercarriers are commissioned.' House of Lords, 15 March 2007 Lord Luke: 'Is it not true that this puts our Royal Navy in a position where it is effectively out of the carrier business until the arrival of the newly commissioned supercarriers, or a decision is made to re-equip at least one operational ship with an air group of carriers?' House of Commons Written Answers for 17 June 2008 Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife): 'To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what co-operation exists between the Government and the government of France on the Super Carrier project.' Select Committee on Scottish Affairs Minutes of Evidence, Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19), 17 July 2007 Q18 Mr Ben Wallace: 'It is not about how well you do each job, it is that one job is to champion and represent Scotland and sell their yards and the excellent facilities in Govan to produce submarines and the other job is to make a decision to build submarines or a super carrier or whatever and they just cannot be done by the same person.' 59.101.142.234 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If reference to the use by the British, the term supercarrier. I understand that the British might think these are supercarrier in relation to there own navy. The question is are they to be considered a supercarrier in relation to other naval carriers. Your reference only list British sources. I'll try and find other worlds soucres about the usage for the USN. I don't believe other nations think there are not of the same size or can project the same power as the USN. Therefore, should not be considered in this pageJacob805 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see if we can find a refernce from the MOD, RN or another navy soucre, using the term supercarrier? Here is a USN navy site, using the term Supercarrier. From the offical USN website Jacob805 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing all the soucred referenced material for the British claim on ther proposed carrier's,they are all British sourced material. All of the sources are British newpaper or British Poltical claims to the status. When reading references material they are either trying to sell the program or sink it due to the program cost. The term Surpercarrier is used in such a way, to discribe the cost or the size of the project, not the capabilites or even compare ships it to other navies carrier's capabilites. I have references here a source outside the US, using the term supercarrier to describe the USS Nimitz as it entered South Africe. [ http://www.airpic.co.za/news/airrep/CVN71.asp] I cannot find a reference used by the Royal navy stating supercarrier, If any one can, it would help define the usage of the British carriers on this page. I went to both the MOD and RN site and could not find one reference to the usage of the word supercarrier. Yet I have sited sources here that the do you use the term in the USA and other countries use the reference too when describing a US navy carrierJacob805 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref [13] The French navy makes no mention of super carrier and it need to be removed or correctly referencedJacob805 (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

watch video discussing US Super carrier
This is good video, it really sets the difference between Super carrier and what discussing are suggesting the British and French be considered. It is all about size, fire power, operating area, the number of different types of aircraft, range, speed and endurance. When you look at the differance of the Nimtz, CVN 21 Supercarrier and what the british have proposed, you can see the difference. The lastest news is the British have delayed there program two years and first carrier is not set to built until 2014 and 2016 and not expected to see service until 2017. I think it is fair to say, that at this point there is a question if they will built at all. we are talking 8 years from nowJacob805 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

US super carrier
Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Company, Newport News, Virginia Power Plant: Two A4W reactors, four shafts Length: 333 m (1092 ft) overall Flight Deck Width: 76.8 - 78.4 m (252 - 257 ft 5 in) Beam: 41 m (134 ft) Displacement: 98,235 - 104,112 tons full load Speed: 30+ knots (56+ km/h) Aircraft: 85 (current wings are closer to 64, including 48 tactical and 16 support aircraft) Aircraft current in operation on Nimitz class carriers include: F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F Hornet/Super Hornet, EA-6B Prowler, E-2 Hawkeye, C-2 Greyhound, SH/HH-60 Seahawk, S-3 Viking and T-45 Goshawk (non-combat aircraft, used only for training missions when the ships are in port) for many missions including self defense/interception, land attack/close-air support, electronic warfare, maritime strike and air crew training. Cost: about US$4.5 billion each Range: Capable of continuously operating for 20 years without refueling Average Annual Operating Cost: US$160 million Service Life: 50+ years Crew: Ship's Company: 3,200 — Air Wing: 2,480 Armament: NATO Sea Sparrow launchers: three or four (depending on modification) 20 mm Phalanx CIWS mounts: Three on NimitzTemplate:WP Ships USS instances and Dwight D. EisenhowerTemplate:WP Ships USS instances and four on Carl VinsonTemplate:WP Ships USS instances and later ships of the class, except Theodore RooseveltTemplate:WP Ships USS instances and George WashingtonTemplate:WP Ships USS instances which have three. (USS Ronald Reagan has none, initially outfitted with Rolling Airframe Missile system during construction) RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile: Two on NimitzTemplate:WP Ships USS instances, George WashingtonTemplate:WP Ships USS instances and Ronald ReaganTemplate:WP Ships USS instances, will be retrofitted to other ships as they return for RCOH. Date Deployed: May 3, 1975 (NimitzTemplate:WP Ships USS instances)Jacob805 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

British CVF Data (CVF)

Specifications Displacement: 65,000 tonnes Length: 284 m Beam: 39 m (waterline); 73 m (overall) Draught: 11 m

Performance Main propulsion: 2 x 36 MW Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines 2 x 11.6 MW Wärtsilä 16V38 and 2 x 8.7 MW Wärtsilä 12V38 diesel engines Max speed: 25 knots Economical speed: 15 knots Range: 10,000 nautical miles (18,520 km)

General data Crew: 600 (1,450 with aircrew) The carrier will be capable of carrying up to 40 aircraft and helicopters, including 36 F-35B Lightning II fighters (expected to be called the Lightning FG1 in UK service) or 18 Merlin helicopters. Initially, the CVF will be equipped with Harrier GR9s. France’s PA2 will require a Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (Catobar) system for the launch of up to 36 Rafale M fighters plus three E-2C Hawkeye fixed-wing AEW aircraft and five NH-90 helicopters. A similar Catobar system could be fitted to the UK CVFs at a later date. Status: Undergoing development

Am I the only one that see the difference?Jacob805 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The RN supercarriers are still very much larger than the so-called midi-carriers proposed for the USN in the 1970s. More importantly for Wikipedia, published sources refer to them as supercarriers. Sorry, you may have a point of view, but Wikipedia is not a place for pushing personal pet theories or concocting original definitions. And this page is not a forum for discussing them. To be recognised and included, arguments—not just evidence—have to be sourced from reliable publications. 59.101.142.234 (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, we will wait until the MOD cancels the program and then we will remove all reference, with the exception the RN was planning.Jacob805 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, even if the projects were to be cancelled, removing all references would still be wrong and inappropriate, given the usage that has been established. 59.101.158.72 (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Parlimentry record only proves that some politicians refer to the ships as supercarriers. Compared to the Invincible class, even the CdG might look like a supercarrier to a politician! What is really needed is something from Jane's or or a similar authoritive military/naval publication. As I've stated elsewhere, the early Forrestals had a standard displacement close to that planned for the QEs. That's provable from the early figures the USN itself published. Whether the QEs will truly be considered supercarriers remains to be seen, but they are certainly not in the same "class" as the Nimitzes by sheer size and aircraft carried. In fact, there may never be a true consensus among experts as to whether the QEs should be considered supercarriers. Whatever the case, WP should report what reliable sources say, including if they disagree. At this point, all we've seen here is that some politicians call them supercarries, and that's all we should report. - BillCJ (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The term is informal so class is somewhat arbitrary. The meaning is established by usage. There are media references too. I've added one from Jane's. 59.101.158.72 (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jane's is an RS, so I won't quibble with that, assuming the source bears out the interpretation (and I'm assuming it does, since Jacob didn't add it!). Since the term is "somewhat arbitrary", we need to be sure that's apparent in the article. The history showing the term's usage goes a long way towards that, but some sources that discuss the arbitrary nature of the term would be good to. So far, I've not been able to find any such sources, much less any that give an accepted definition of the term. - BillCJ (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If reference to the use by the British, the term supercarrier. I understand that the British might think these are supercarrier in relation to they own navy. The question is are they to be considered a supercarrier in relation to other naval carriers. Your reference only list British sources. I'll try and find other worlds soucres about the usage for the USN. I don't believe other nations think there are not of the same size or can project the same power as the USN. Therefore, should not be considered in this pageJacob805 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see if we can find a refernce from the MOD, RN or another navy soucre, using the term supercarrier? Here is a USN navy site, using the term Supercarrier. From the offical USN website Jacob805 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing all the soucred referenced material for the British claim on ther proposed carrier's,they are all British sourced material. All of the sources are British newpaper or British Poltical claims to the status. When reading references material they are either trying to sell the program or sink it due to the program cost. The term Surpercarrier is used in such a way, to discribe the cost or the size of the project, not the capabilites or even compare ships it to other navies carrier's capabilites. I have references here a source outside the US, using the term supercarrier to describe the USS Nimitz as it entered South Africe. [ http://www.airpic.co.za/news/airrep/CVN71.asp] I cannot find a reference used by the Royal navy stating supercarrier, If any one can, it would help define the usage of the British carriers on this page. I went to both the MOD and RN site and could not find one reference to the usage of the word supercarrier. Yet I have sited sources here, that USN does use the term. I like to think of it this way there are tanker and there are super tankers, ships have always classified by there size and tonnage displaced. Using this formal, the British new carrier's do not fit nor match in any comparisionJacob805 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

china carriers
I have entered info on china's new carriers this is now confirmed by the ship yards in china. We might want to revisit the intro regarding British and French carriers, as this is going to change.Jacob805 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill check the sources I have added, including the USN website and defence daily. I try and research more sources as there is clearly a differene in class, common usage, will usally develop into an acceptable normJacob805 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between a carrier and a supercarrier
Great sourced ref, about supercarriers 08:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

75,000+ tons description
Ok guys, we should either remove this 75,000+ tons description, or find a source for it. It's been there too long for no good reason. As it stands there's no justification for keeping it. Its origin and accuracy are both dubious. It just doesn't seem to reflect either historical use or modern use. If we can't find a source, somebody's bluff has been called, and an inaccuracy can be cleaned away. Even if we do find a source, retention in the introduction would arguably still be giving it undue prominence. It probably should be moved down the page to the history section as a historical usage, assuming it even was one, as the description seems to have been rendered obsolete by media application of the term "supercarrier" to a newer projected class of a lesser displacement. If no one finds a source soon, it's going to have to come out. 122.109.196.160 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what 122.109.196.160, wish he would sign in?. is talking about. There is no source for this 75,000 tons description. I have tried to define the difference of the Carriers, through size, tonnage, number aircraft ect..but no one will really have it. I can source numerous articles,books and even the US Navy in the usage of the word Supercarrier. But I think the other individuals contributing to this page, have a different opinion on a super carrier is. Maybe we should give up on this page and develope or contribute to the current pages on the carriers in service and being developed. There we can define differences to the size, range, performance, which in the end, is the real difference. It would help if the USN would define the class, but they have not, which makes using the term so vague.Jacob805 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)