Talk:Capital ship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

I disagree with this definition of a "capital ship." SSBNs are such that they should be considered in this manner as well. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:47, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way for the article is to say is that the concept of "capital ship" has become ill-defined, seeing as how things like SSBNs are not warfighters, at least in the usual tactical sense, and that navies don't really count capital ships any more. Stan 06:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good direction. Well, if there are still such things as "capital ships," then aircraft carriers definitely count. They are the centerpiece of a battlegroup. But SSBNs are singularly critical in their own right. Basically, to me, a capital ship is any vessel which is a very significant force multiplier. Carriers and SSBNs are the only two ship types currently afloat which have geopolitical ramifications in the same way that a battleship or ship of the line would in centuries past. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:48, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

One could define capital ship as the ship class of choice to use against other large warships of great naval powers. That would make it the attack submarine. Or one could say it is simply the most destructive and hardest to destroy ship class, which would make it the missile submarine. An aircraft carrier is clearly not a capital ship, in spite of its size, because it is of little use against major naval powers with effective submarine forces or in an all-out nuclear war with a major power. David R. Ingham 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Urk. Forgot to sign in before adding EVE-Online capital ships. That was me. InitHello 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a capital ship is any ship that is of significant size (150 meters) and forms the center of a task force. To me capital signifies importance and size. Aircraft carriers definatly are included as well as cruisers and battleships. As for SSBS only if the entire or majority of the taskforce is centered on supporting or protecting the submarine is it to be considered a capital ship. Also this page should include space capital ships. Rp_Sorbet 1:20, 11 Feburary 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

Anything about Capital ships in popular culture? --121.6.184.26 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CV's and SSBN's

This is continuing from above.

Aircraft carriers are most certainly capital ships... the power they're able to project is immense. Sure, it may not be the hull itself that's the asset, but... what good is a battleship without its shells? The Aegis air defense system was invented primarily to defend the carriers against cruise missile attacks. In the event of an actual war, they'd be the number one target because of that power that they can project. The carriers are equipped with anti-submarine aircraft so to say they're of little use against submarine forces isn't really accurate. Through the Nimitz, the USN's modern aircraft carriers were branded CVA/CVAN "attack carriers" until they were equipped with ASW capability. And were battleships really capable of attacking submarines? No. That's what the escort ships were for. And save for the tactical nukes on the recommissioned battleships, what good would they have been in an all-out nuclear war?

SSBN's are not capital ships. They go out to sea and lie in wait until they're relieved. Their mission is the same no matter what the situation. They participate in no sea control or anything of the sort. They only exist to supplement the land-based ICBM's. They exist to provide second strike capability. No matter what would unfold in world affairs, they would do nothing until after a nuclear first strike would occur. They aren't as fast or maneuverable as attack submarines because they never are intended to do anything but hide; they only carry torpedoes for theoretical self-defense.

SSBN's have no real ability for sea control. Their ballistic missiles never would be released to be used discretionally in a battle situation involving the submarine; they're built to avoid battle altogether. I think that the term "capital ship" is intended to describe those ships used for sea control. An aircraft carrier can respond to situations developing above, on, and beneath the seas. I think, then, that the aircraft carrier is the epitome of a capital ship.

</sermon>

Jdkkp (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


I think the Kirov class should definently be considered a capital ship and it should also be listed in the 21st century part. This is because 1) its a Battlecruiser 2) Still operational 3) Are built to serve as capital ships because they have alot of room on the bridges to serve as a capital ship 4) Role is to attack Super Carriers, not to escort carriers. Because they are supposed to duel a carrier 1v1 they should be considered a capital ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.171.88 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and when i mean duel 1v1 I mean they go head on and attack a Carrier group. If they where made to support a carrier then they would not be the capital ship of a fleet because the Carrier is the most important object in it. But because the Kirov is solely a defensive ship and would probebly have its own escorts to go and hunt carrier groups i think it is a capital ship of the 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.171.88 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Agree with both comments. Definitely the Aircraft Carrier can be considered a "capital ship" in the traditional sense, as well as the Kirov class cruiser. What would be more interesting is to verify if the current modern "big" navies (US, Russia, UK, France, China, etc) use/define this concept in their doctrines, or if it is defined in any relevant bibliography.
As for the request to include "space" capital ships, it seems to be a concept for the future (or for sci-fi) as no combat spaceships (other than military satellites) are currently known to exist.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)