Talk:Supercarrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale
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.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:51, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)