User talk:Horologium/January 2013

Accidental revert of you at BN
Sorry about that! The rollback link is too easy to bump when checking my watchlist on my phone. I'm going to hide it with CSS to prevent that happening again. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be a bit bent about that edit had you not said anything about it. As I have a "dumb" phone (and have blocked all text messaging), I've never encountered any of those particular difficulties; incidents such as this reinforce my resolve to never try to edit Wikipedia from a cell phone or similar mobile device. Of course, I'm old, and was a "young fogey" when I was not. Sometimes, I think the old ways are better. :)  Horologium  (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * :) Our mobile interface is... somewhat lacking. I think my ideal interface for dealing with rollbacks and so forth would look something like this (preferably brass, and mounted on a wooden box with some dials as well). Pretty hard to use by mistake! Best wishes, — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

CATOBAR
Check the two citations in the original edit, both in the US Naval Engineers Journal, both citing catapult and arrester systems as CTOL. There are NO official references to CATOBAR anywhere and as per the original edit, it has only surfaced in the last six to eight years. In any case CATOBAR is an acronym, not a system as per my last edit. The systems in this case being the C13 steam catapult and Mk 7 Mod 4 arrester gear, or in future EMALS catapult and AAG (advanced arrester gear). As a naval engineer of 20+ years experience, I'm merely trying to correct the misconception that CATOBAR is a system (it's not) or an endorsed acronym (again, it's not). Show me reputable official sources for it's use.82.20.237.113 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cited two peer-reviewed journal articles from the Naval War College Review, one from the Summer 2011 issue, and one from the Winter 2012 issue (I accessed them through JSTOR, as my university has a license to view their articles.) Both were written by people directly affiliated with the US Navy (the first one is by a Navy analyst, while the lead author of the second is a professor at the Naval War College). As to the "system" debate, we can work out precise wording, but it is a system insofar as it describes an overarching general process, rather than the more restrictive Navy use of the term for a discrete set of components such as the AN/AQS-13F Dipping Sonar system (one of the systems on which I worked when I was still on active duty) or the AN/SPY-1 Radar system (AEGIS). Since (AFAIK) all of the currently active US carriers (the 10 Nimitz-class carriers) use the same catapult and arresting gear system, right now the differentiation is really a distinction without a difference. Whether or not it is a recent coinage or an "endorsed acronym" in the Navy engineering community is really not relevant; there are a boatload (pardon the pun) of citations (from within the Navy community and from outside it) that use the term in a variety of contexts.
 * To clarify the "system" thing, the digestive system of a human comprises a number of discrete components which all work together to produce a result. The human digestive system and that of (for example) a bird are quite different, but they are still essentially the same thing, and they are both systems.  Horologium  (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your citations may be affiliated with the USN, but they are not official sources. You will note that the articles you quote are very recent - supporting my assertion that this is a recent derivation. As further evidence, you will not find, a single UK or US government document that refers to CATOBAR - although I appreciate that is "negative proof"! The Aircraft Carrier Reference Data Manual ( An official NAWC pubication) also refers to CTOL as do various NATO publications (eg APP2F). Irrespective of official designations, it is still incorrect to describe CATOBAR as a system. It is an acronym for an operating regime in the same way as Short Take Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) or VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) describe regimes rather than a system. The Brazilian Sao Paolo is a CTOL carrier (what you would describe as CATOBAR) but with the old BS5 steam catapult and UK-origin arrester gear, so there are more examples than CVN68. I am simply trying to correct a misconception that has arisen since someone unknown invented the CATOBAR acronym after the F35A was described as CTOL (see if you can find a single reference to CATOBAR prior to that date!). Every single authoritative author on naval engineering (Comstock, Morison, Friedman, Brown) all refer to catapult and arrester gear configuration as CTOL in their work. To perpetuate the current definition of CATOBAR merely re-inforces the derogatory phrase "Wiki-engineering".82.20.237.113 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 82.20.237.113 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)