Talk:List of aircraft carriers in service/Archive 1

Archive 1

An interesting image that could be useful for this article

Taken from the first page of a google image search for aircraft carriers: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.gif I'm not sure how up to date it is and if whoever made this image would allow it to be used, but it's certantly useful for showing the comparative strength of the USN in comparison to other navies. Maybe if someone could make a similar image to this which could be used on wikipedia freely and follows the content of the article.Boyinabox 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, that WAS up-to-date at the time of its creation... Which would've been sometime 2005. Since then, the top 3 US assault ships, the top 2 US supercarriers, and the French Jeanne D'Arc have all been decomissioned, and numerous other ships have been comissioned. Further, one slight problem is posed for using it in this article (aside from the unknown copyright status of said image) is the fact that the image clearly includes rotary-wing-only carriers (like the afordementioned Jeanne D'Arc) as well as all of the USA's amphibious assault ships. Nottheking (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not simply a useful image, but the ultimate image. Tallying aircraft carriers by number doesn't begin to assess the true military capabilities of the various nations. It would be like claiming two basketball teams, one comprised of junior high school kids, and another comprised of NBA All-Stars, were equivalent simply because they had the same number of players each.

Moreover, the name aircraft carrier basically implies a ship that can carry flying craft, of which VSTOLS and helicopters count. The U.S. amphibious class warships clearly have decks far larger than the largest so-called fixed-wing aircraft carriers of most other countries. The fact that the U.S. chooses to field helicopters from these amphibious ships in no way negates their capability of being used as VSTOL carriers.

And what is the point of including an aircraft carrier if it's not even functional? Most of these other countries' aircraft carriers are non-combat operational and might as well be described as experimental or ceremonial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.36.59 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Description

On which grounds is the Principe de Asturias labeled 'unique'? At a quick glance I would claim that Chakri Nareubet, the Invincible class, Giuseppe Garibaldi and Viraat all are comparable (if not similar) ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhu219 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Amphibious assault ships

Do amphibious assault ships qualify as carriers? They are listed here as carriers for several countries, but those of the US Navy, such as Wasp and Tarawa class ships, are not, even though they are defined as carriers in the main aircraft carrier article. Should those be listed here, and should there be any differentiation here between conventional, fixed wing carriers and amphibious assault or helicopter carriers? Dafoomie 13:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a change needs to be made here. Many of the carriers listed for countries outside of the US have more in common with the Wasp and Tarawa than with the CVN's. Also, "In Storage" is listed for Britain, but there are many US ships of similar status not listed (I suspect some missing for other countries as well). Overcast75 (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Invincible at least once, but the "nationalistas" keep adding it back. It used to say "In service", so at least that is fixed. I'd agree with splitting off the Amphibious assault ships - they are also listed at List of amphibious warfare ships. Perhaps moving them to a new page at List of Amphibious assault ships will help solve part of the problem. - BillCJ (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that, so long as Principe de Asturias and other SVTOL carriers are included, that the Wasp-class, which routinely embarks fixed-wing assets (Harriers) should be included as well. Solicitr (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it appears that nothing has been done to fix this I am now planning on adding amphibious assault ships which are capable of launching fixed wing aircraft to this list as well. The wasp class has practically the same (if not greater) level of functionality as most of the vessels included in this article. -Nem1yan (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a good idea, as amphibious assault ships aren't traditionally consider aircraft carriers. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So what classifies an aircraft carrier?? And how does the wasp class not qualify? -Nem1yan (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no plausible argument against the Wasp class being considered an aircraft carrier. The Wasp class is actually a closer comparison to most of the other ships on the list, the US super carriers being the main exception. -Nem1yan (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest mentioning the amphibs sometimes employed as STOVL carriers such as Wasp or Juan Carlos class in the into, there should also be a sentence explaining that some phibs are not used as carriers such as the forthcoming Canberra subclass, Dokodos, and probably also Hyga class ships as not fixed wing operational but easily convertible if aircraft and will are present. Non primary mission ships should either all be mentioned and tabled or all removed, the split between unlisted USN LHA/LHD which do sometimes operate as a STOVL carrier VS listed Australian Canberras which so far are not assigned to operate their own fixed wing aircraft at all is very misleading.109.67.198.159 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that all the non listed STVOL class carriers and fixes to the current list that I had made have been removed. First let me say that the current list is very incomplete. The list is missing many aircraft carriers that should be on this list. Any ship that servers or can server in its primary role as a aircraft carrier regardless of whether it is fixed wing aircraft or not should be on this list. I know of several times most recently during both Gulf wars when so called US amphibious assault ships were used in the primary role as U.S. aircraft carriers. So in short I say this list is arbitrary at best and the addition of all types of aircraft carriers should be seriously considered. Rucadulu (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Several navies operate large amphibious assault ships or other helicopter carriers that may even be occasionally tasked as aircraft carriers but their primary purpose is landing troops and equipment in expeditionary operations or supporting multiple ASW or other naval helicopters, not providing fixed wing air cover or power projection operations, many are not even equipped for these aircraft and operations." This statement in the opening of this page is incorrect. While the primary role of an amphibious assault ship is to land troops using hovercraft (a type of aircraft), amphibious vehicles and in some cases conventional landing craft, they also provide air cover and air support operations with fixed wing and rotary VTOL aircraft as part of that primary role. I have never heard of a case were a landing operation/exercise was conducted by this class of ship when the ship did not provide air cover and air support operations as part of said operation/exercise. Rucadulu (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done

I have boldly added the US's fleet of Amphibious assault ships to all the tables. They are aircraft carriers by every definition of the word. Other counties (nearly) identical ships have been included so, quite simply, so should these. - thewolfchild 03:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is presently a discussion on the Aircraft carrier talk page that will have an effect on what is and is not included on this page. - thewolfchild 03:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Once a consensus is reached on whether or not AASs are aircraft carriers then make the edits, please hold off until that happens. — -dainomite   12:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is an established consensus already, that has AAS's included in the aircraft carrier article. I added them here as per that consensus. There is currently a discussion, where a few users are trying to seek consensus to remove the AAS's from there. If that happens, then, of course, they would be removed from here as well. But until then, you should restore them as they should be included, per that consensus. - thewolfchild 05:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Thewolfchild, this article is currently going against consensus.

Rob (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Along with consensus, I have now supported the edits with a source as well. - thewolfchild 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

amphibious warfare ships are not aircraft carriers , they are meant to carry troops and deliver them using their well dock and helicopters. they cannot extensively support fixed wing assets like an aircraft carrier. lack of fully heat resistant flight deck also limits fixed wing operation to few landing spots on the deck. clearly they are not the equivalent of aircraft carriers as they are meant to fulfill a different purpose. please list the amphibious landing ships under list of amphibious warfare ships in service and keep this article for aircraft carriers only. 106.185.30.232 (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about. USS America can't extensively support fixed wing assets? Really? Please explain how Italy's Cavour is more of an 'aircraft carrier' then the United State's USS America? Rob (talk | contribs) 06:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

let me guess... you are the nationalistic editor who keeps adding the amphibious warfare ships ocean and invincible under aircraft carriers. you have a point about the America class as it is unique among other amphibious warfare ships in that it doesn't have a well deck and might make comparison with aircraft carrier . But despite weighing 50% more (15000+ tons) than the Cavour has only similar fixed wing aviation capabilities, that too at the expense of removal of all other rotary wing aircraft so it can support 20 f-35 and 2 MH-60. while the Cavour can carry 30 max if it remove all its rotorcraft. additionally the America class and other lph only have limited spots where fixed wing vtol aircraft can land, due to heat from harrier / f35 engines melting the flight deck. do some research on this and you will find that its true. so to answer your question, there are vast difference between the Cavour and the America. additionally I overcome my nationalistic urges to retain izumo and hyuga to this list, you cannot compare all other Amphibious assault ships with America and use that as argument. America class is like Nimitz class of Amphibious assault ship which other ships like izumo or dokodo or ocean cannot come close to matching. the best option is to start new article List of Amphibious assault ship and add a link in summary of this page with caveat that these ships can function in a limited fixed wing aircraft carrying capacity role. thank you for cleaning up your earlier rude comments, I have tried to keep this professional discussion also. sorry for my grammer and spelling. 106.185.30.232 (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. How could my great country not have an aircraft carrier? That would be absurd.

You've proven my point entirely. It's a blurred line. How exactly is Spain's Juan Carlos I less of an aircraft carrier then Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi? 'List of Amphibious assault ship' wouldn't be ideal considering not all Helicopter carriers are Amphibious assault ships. This article is simply a list of ships with a full-length flight deck.

'An aircraft carrier is a warship with a full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying, and recovering aircraft, that serves as a seagoing airbase.'

Your definition of an aircraft carrier is your POV.

All ships only have limited spots for S/VTOL. Even HMS Queen Elizabeth. I don't understand how that's a criteria to define what is an aircraft carrier.

Rob (talk | contribs) 13:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually sympathise with your argument somewhat. I think we should split the article between fixed-wing capable carriers and Helicopter-only carriers, but it would require changing the definition at Aircraft carrier which is already established by consensus. I just can't be bothered. This isn't the place for defining what is and isn't an aircraft carrier. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I see your point also. are you open to the idea of adding more columns to the table to list ac separately , helicopter destroyer/carrier and assault ship as separate sections to provide more clarity. I would like consensus before change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.185.30.232 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the inclusion under the 'Type' column. i.e. for Dokdo, Type would be VTOL AAS. Doyna Yar (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to split articles. That is pretty drastic and this simple list page with a few tables doesn't qualify. We also don not need to further separate types into different tables and they are already distinguished and all the tables are sortable. In other words, it's fine as it is. - ^theWOLFchild 02:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Carriers under construction

Since the title of this page is “List of aircraft carriers in service” (bold added for emphasis), I added a subheading “Under construction” for the last two U.S. Navy carriers. They are not actually in service. ●DanMS 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Table instead of list

I think this page should be one large table (with all countries), instead of a list. As long as there's no argument, I'll be working on this when I have a chance to get to it. Here is a sample (notice the sections within the table). LobStoR (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Country	Status	Name	Hull Number	Tonnage	Class	Type	Details	Commission Date
United Kingdom United Kingdom	In service	HMS Illustrious	R06	020700 20,700 tons (21,000 tonnes)	Invincible	STOVL aircraft carrier	Scheduled to be decommissioned in 2012.	1982-06-20 20 June 1982
United Kingdom	In service	HMS Ark Royal	R07	020700 20,700 tons (21,000 tonnes)	Invincible	STOVL aircraft carrier	Scheduled to be decommissioned in 2015.	1985-11-01 1 November 1985
United Kingdom	Under construction	HMS Queen Elizabeth	(Unknown)	064000 64,000 tons (65,000 tonnes)	Queen Elizabeth	Aircraft carrier	Ordered in 2008.	2014-xx-xx 2014 (Expected)
United States United States	In service	USS Enterprise	CVN-65	093000 93,500 tons	Enterprise	Nuclear-powered supercarrier	First nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Due for decommissioning in 2015.	1961-11-25 25 November 1961
United States	In Service	USS Nimitz	CVN-68	101000 101,000 tons	Nimitz	Nuclear-powered supercarrier		1975-05-03 3 May 1975
United States	Under construction	USS Gerald R. Ford	CVN-78	100000 100,000 tons	Ford	Nuclear-powered supercarrier	In design and development stage.	2015-xx-xx 2015 (scheduled)

Project complete. Please correct any errors I may have made. I double checked it, but it couldn't hurt to have someone else open the last "list" revision and triple check the accuracy of conversion. LobStoR (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the newest Japanese Helicopter Carriers?

These ships are at least as big as some of the ships listed here, do they meet the criteria for this list? Have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga_class_destroyers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.174.220.253 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so because they aren't designed to operate aircraft.  Dr. Loosmark  16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hyugas aren't designed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the current article's consistent with carriers intended primarily for fixed-wing aircraft. It excludes helicopter carriers that can double as STOVL carriers and amphibious assault ships, (which are often the same kind of ship) such as the HMS Ocean, the French Mistral-class, and, of course, the extensive number of such ships in the USA's Tarawa and Wasp classes. As a result, the Japanese ships would not be consistent with this article. Nottheking (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's rather confusing the way things have been left regarding Japan. The list of countries omits Japan, but in the list of carriers in service Japan is credited with two carriers. -- Fyrefly (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Updates needed

Royal Navy UK

Royal navy has no current aircraft carriers in service, no aircraft for the next 10-12 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.23.147 (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Spain

A BBC News article 10-Aug-2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14470882 - has a table of current carriers, and lists Spain as having only 1, with cited source: Jane's Fighting Ships LarryLACa (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

China

Needs clearer wording to distinguish between the rebuilt/refurbished Soviet carrier(s) (Varyag) and new carriers being built from scratch. LarryLACa (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do Chinese Varyag sea trials and research of a rebuilt ship really count as in service? It seems to be less than than the Graf Zepplin at this point.109.67.198.159 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Shi Lang

Where are the sources who say the tonnage of the future Chinese aircraft carrier (probably different from Varyag) and its commission date? This article says 50-60,000 tons to completing by 2015. --Enok (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers under construction

I deleted from the "Under construction" list the two Chinese aircraft carriers. From the source provided:

“We expect China to build at least one indigenous carrier, probably two or more, but they have not revealed how many they intend to build, what the construction schedule will [be] or what their missions will be,” said a defense official familiar with intelligence assessments.

This article includes only vessels in service or (officially) under construction.--Enok (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

9 nation club?

According to the NBC article "China brings its first aircraft carrier into service, joining 9-nation club", something doesn't match up with the table List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service#List_of_countries_by_aircraft_carriers which lists 10 countries. Unfortunately, the NBC article does not name the countries. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

UK does not operate a carrier anymore

HMS Illustrious is no a STOVL carrier anymore--she has no more Harrier jump jets and is acting as the fleet LPH when HMS Ocean is in refit. It should not be in the table.Phd8511 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is part of NATO which has many aircraft compatible with HMS Illustrious. As it is capable of acting as a STOVL carrier in the event of an invasion of the United Kingdom (in which all of NATO would have to assist the United Kingdom) I think it should be the table. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, the Illustrious has been decomissioned in 2014. -- 23:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

HMS Ocean

Why is HMS Ocean included? It is the only VTOL on the and if it's VTOL only than doesn't it fall into the same category as the Japanese Helicopter carriers? The US WASP class ships actually do (at times) carry fixed wing aircraft, while Ocean does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.232.212 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Amphibious assault ships are not Aircraft carriers

From the incipit of the article: "Several navies operate large amphibious assault ships or other helicopter carriers that may even be occasionally tasked as aircraft carriers but their primary purpose is landing troops and equipment in expeditionary operations or supporting multiple ASW or other naval helicopters, not providing fixed wing air cover or power projection operations, many are not even equipped for these aircraft and operations." This article should include only vessels designated as aircraft carriers. You can still create another article, if there is the necessity.--Enok (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Enok. I would advise you look at this discussion on the Aircraft carriers talk page. I haven't personally analysed that discussion, however Thewolfchild believes there is consensus against removing the Ambiguous Assault Ships based on your reasoning. I would also advise you inform all editors involved in the discussion above at least if you wish to reopen the discussion, however I think you would have better luck over at the Aircraft carriers talk page, where the topic of the article is defined. Rob (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What about creating another article called List of Amphibious assault ships, as proposed in this discussion? The only user, apart from you, in favor of including the helicopter carriers is Thewolfchild, who "boldly" added all those ships to the list about two months ago. --Enok (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm only supporting consistency with Aircraft Carriers, where there was a long discussion about this, and it was agreed that Amphibious assault ships would be included there. That's where the topic of this article is defined, and regardless of my view on whether A.a.s. should be included, I think this article should be consistent with the article covering the topic. Rob (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just protected this article for three days due to the ongoing edit war. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten I don't know what I can do here, Enok edit goes against the current consensus from this discussion: #Amphibious assault ships. You have protected their revision of the page, even though I don't believe they are actually adding anything new to the discussion, in which it was agreed that the outcome at this discussion on Aircraft carrier would decide this, as this isn't the place to define the term. Rob (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look, but it might take a considerable amount of time for me to read over the talk pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark, if it helps, Rob is correct. The addition of the amphibious assault ships is supported by both reliable sources and consensus. Cheers. - thewolfchild 22:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Aumnamahashiva

Hi, the last edit I made was to correct multiple, wholesale changes to the entire article that should not have been made. Please don't revert me, just for the sake of updating one country's entry on the list. I am happy to help you make what ever update it is you're seeking. In fact, I will now look at the changes for India and update them myself... just give me a few minutes. Thanks - thewolfchild 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I have added your updates for India to all the tables. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks. - thewolfchild 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Helicopter carriers?

Why are helicopter carriers added in the list? Isnt there another wikipedia page about helicopter carriers with the right list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.193.72 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Because Helicopters are aircraft, hence aircraft carriers. Rob (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

By that reasoning, any frigate with a helo deck and a hangar is also an aircraft carrier. Your logic is unsound. An aircraft carrier, by historical usage, clearly designates ships which operate fixed-wing aircraft as a primary mission. Helicopter carriers certainly don't belong on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.56.48 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead re-write

The lead should be re-written to reflect the lead of the Aircraft carrier article. Any suggestions? - thewolfchild 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

India's Multi-Role support vessel

India is planning 4 Helicopter carriers/Amphibious ships .

Here are the sources

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/l-mrss.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Role_Support_Vessel

Can someone add this to the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.167.244 (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @120.62.167.244:, unfortunately, we don't use one wiki-article as a cite for another. As for the GlobalSec ref, it does not clearly state that the Indian Navy has officially ordered (planned) any vessels as of yet. As soon as they do, and we have a reliable source reporting it, this info can (and will) certainly be added to this page. Thanks.

(btw - when you leave a comment, please add ' ~~~~ ' to the end of it, so that your account id and time will be added. Also, please consider creating an account, if you wish to contribute. You don't have to, but it provides you some advantages and it makes things easier for everybody) Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Navy does not consider them to be aircraft carriers. They Indian navy has called these planned vessels as Landing Platform Docks. See Indian Navy to set up more facilities at Kakinada port and Indian Navy to have 200 warships in ten years. In my opinion, we should not add these planned acquisitions to this page. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Anir1uph: - Well, like I said, there is no need to add anything now, but we also are in no position to rule anything out, either. As I write this, I believe India is still considering three different types of ships. Two of them, the Mistral and the Juan Carlos I classes are already listed here with other navies. The third, at a glance, appears to be an amphibious assault ship with a full-length deck, possibly with the potential ability of supporting VTOL fixed-wing craft. We'll just have to wait and see... - ^theWOLFchild 07:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 08:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Korean "Dokdo" class

Looking at the article for this class, as well as some sources, it's not entirely clear (to me at least), just how many ships have been ordered, planned and cancelled. It appears there may have been up to 4 planned at one point, but the article states 3. Also, while there is mention of the third ship being cancelled, there is no mention of the fourth. There seems to be 2 for sure, (1 active, and one being built), but I'd like to clarify and confirm what's happening with the 3^rd and possible 4^th vessel(s). In the meantime I've removed mention of #'s 3 and 4 from the lists. Can anyone here clear this up? In the meantime, I will copy this post to the Dokdo class talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 06:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:Dokdo-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Looking_for_clarification - ^theWOLFchild 06:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thai Navy

Does anyone know if the Thai Navy uses pennant numbers, hull codes, something else or nothing at all? For example, the Chakri Naruebet has '911' painted on the hull, but awhile ago, someone added 'CVH' to the entry here, changing it to: "Chakri Naruebet (CVH-911)". 'CVH' seems to have been made up, and as such, I have removed it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 08:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

INS Vishal propulsion

Having propulsion listed "tbd" is unhelpful as that conveys almost nothing. The propulsion is most likely going to be nuclear, but may be conventional gas turbine, as per reliable sources. The article should should state that. But I really don't care. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired of reverting IP users claiming Nuclear. Until there is an official source TBD will have to suffice given that there are only two rational routes of propulsion,.. provided we disregard sail or oars. Personally the idea of INS Vishal being 25,000 tons heavier than it's predecessor in the Same Class sounds as vaporous as the alleged record breaking 2020 PRC 110,000 carrier. Out of every ship on this list they both stink of inflation and propaganda. Time will tell. I'll kindly eat my words when appropriate. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Donya Yar. We can not add info based on "most likely". It should remain "tbd" until RS confirms one way or the other. - ^theWOLFchild 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

INS Jalashwa- Slippery slope

The recent addition of the INS Jalashwa creates a slippery slope for the definition of Aircraft carrier that would broaden it to include a vast array of helo-capable ship. I can see both sides for the amphibious assault ship inclusion given their capacity to carry VTOL fixed-wing aircraft and their configuration as arguably flat-tops. At some point a line has to be drawn on the scope of inclusion given the article's title. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary purpose only. So yeah, it shouldn't be included. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tonnes or tons and tonnage or displacement

The tonnage section on all the tables is completely incorrect. It is a mixture of tonnages and displacements, and the measurement contains both "tons" and "tonnes". I recommend simply blanking the sections so that they can all be redone. I also think we should specify "Displacement", and "tonnes", since the tonnage is less-commonly provided then the displacement, and "tons" refers to two different measurements (of which I see no consistency in which is used here). Rob (talk | contribs) 18:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Classification column

Glad to see this finally added, just one issue. Wouldn't a Better description of the Nimitz class be 'Supercarrier' vs. 'Aircraft Carrier, Nuclear-powered' since propulsion is already in the chart? Doyna Yar (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's classed by the US Navy as "Aircraft Carrier, Nuclear-powered". There's so many generic classifications that could describe these ships that I think we're better off sticking with the official classifications. For example, France classes it's nuclear-powered carrier as just a "aircraft carrier"; but could be classed as "Nuclear-power aircraft carrier", "Fleet aircraft carrier", "Multi-purpose aircraft carrier", etc. Rob984 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Turkey

http://www.yenisafak.com.tr/ekonomi/turkiyenin-ilk-ucak-gemisi-2019da-akdenizde-2056857

Turkey's first aircraft carrier: commission date is 2019. pls add this info to the article.

88.69.18.145 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Endurance class LPD

This caught my attention. Apparently the Endurance that Singapore is getting is a longer variant of the standard Endurance with a full length flight deck. I'm hoping the Endurance class article will be better updated on this (or a new page created) and I would really like to too see a photo of this new "Endurance-160" added to the project. - ^theWOLFchild 02:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy (CV-67)

We know that the Kennedy is on 'donation hold', but I read that it is at the Philadelphia Reserve Fleet. What condition is she in? Could she be re-activated if needed? What I'd like to know is if she could be considered as being "in reserve"...? - ^theWOLFchild 02:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC

Egyptian Mistral Class ships renamed

Vladivostok is now Gamal Abdel Nasser, and was delivered today to the Egyptian navy. Sevastopol renamed Anwar El Sadat should be delivered in September. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Major restructuring

I've noticed all aircraft carriers, Helicopter carriers and even Amphibious assault ships are noted under the same category, so i've decided to separate the main table's columns into 3 separate ones for ships serving winged aircraft and those who can't. Its because some navies have rafts on which Jumpjets land, and even those can be included because of your definition. Daiyusha (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Amphibious warfare ships

So I changed:

Ships classed as amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers, whose primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft, are included.

to:

Helicopter carriers and amphibious warfare ships whose primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft, are included.

Reasoning being, the point isn't that they are amphibious assault ships. It's that they are multi-role ships (aircraft deployment and amphibious warfare, neither being its primary purpose), unlike conventional carriers (which may have amphibious warfare capability, but are mainly for aircraft deployment). Hyūga-class and Izumo-class are the only examples I can see in this list. However, it does raise the question as to whether other amphibious warfare ships with full-length flight decks should be included, for example Italy's San Giorgio-class.

Rob984 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

An "amphibious warfare ships whose primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft" is an amphibious assault ship. - BilCat (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not only an amphibious assault ship if we were to include amphibious transport and amphibious support ships which have full-length flight decks. I suppose there is references and discussion needed as to whether these should be included.

The current wording is somewhat problematical anyway. If all helicopter carriers and amphibious assault ships "primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft", then the sentence is actually implying otherwise, since it inferring that we are only referring to a group of "amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers", not all of them.

I suggest copy editing the sentence from:

Ships classed as amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers, whose primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft, are included.

to:

This includes ships classed as helicopter carriers and amphibious assault ships, whose primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft.

or even clearer:

This includes helicopter carriers and amphibious assault ships, which are vessels whose primary purpose is to carry, arm, deploy, and recover aircraft.

Rob984 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the last option. - BilCat (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft carriers in service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115122016/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=61899 to http://www.defense.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Gerald Ford commissioned

Gerald Ford commissioned today 188.142.179.111 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

usually Before to correct and add numbers there always a clarification of the source, but I have a question ...the "full tonnage" data here appears as the " Tonnage"? in the source that I added before and making a comparison with what's on the source and what's in the list I find that there a confusion , there Aircraft carriers with 62 t, with 70,000 Full T. and Carriers of 30,000 full T. with 27,000 , someone Kindly can exlplain me why?... or maybe Im wrong? However the source speak clear for Cavour! Attention, Before to delete or add please show a reliable source and an "unique list" that show the Tonnage for all Aircraft Carrier. in this way we will have an unique List for every Aircraft Carrier.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not all sources report tonnage the same way. We can only report what the most reliable sources say, we cannot interpret the sources as that is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Unfortunately there are no sources that report all ship tonnages in a uniform manner, so we have various methods for various ships, leading to inconsistencies between differing ships. For those of us interested in writing an encyclopaedia this is regrettable, but there it is. BTW, there is no such thing as full tonnage, I think you mean full load tonnage. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks for correct me You are too Kind! well I have cited the number of "full load Tonnage" Because here an user have deleted the Italian full load Tonnage .there so many source that talk with different Numbers, I was in the British Navy Page and the Italian navy Page Both dont show the " full load tonnage", the Pages shows only the " Normal Tonnage" 65,000 t for the UK and 27,100 T for Italy while there others sources that Talk about full load Tonnage 70,000-65,000 T for the UK and 30,000 T for Italy!. that is why I wanted to know if there a Page that cite all the " full load tonnage" of every country.!LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1