Talk:Supercarrier

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)

Contents

1 Charles de Gaulle 2 Listing individual carriers vs. classes 3 Super what? 4 Enterprise/ Charle Du Galle 5 British and French supercarriers 6 Image missing

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. —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.

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

Image missing

Hi,

Looks like the second picture of the article (USS Enterprise next to the Charles de Gaulle) is missing.