Talk:Supercarrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Image 2 Charles de Gaulle 3 Listing individual carriers vs. classes 4 Super what? 5 Enterprise/ Charle Du Galle 6 British and French supercarriers 7 Merge with aircraft carrier 8 De-stub

[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)

[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)

[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)

[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)