Jump to content

Talk:Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment

[edit]

Short, no references, could use improvement. Carom 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67)

[edit]

The United States Navy does not consider the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) as a Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier. The Navy officially lists her as a single-class of her own. Neovu79 (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy is not consistent on this; they also refer to her as a member of the Kitty Hawk class. TomTheHand (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where the navy list her as a Kitty Hawk-class.Neovu79 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DANFS for one. (CV-67: displacement 87,000 tons (full load); 1ength 1,047'6"; beam 130'; extreme width 252'; draft 35'9"; speed 30+ knots; complement 4,950; armament 3 Sea Sparrow launchers; aircraft 70+; class Kitty Hawk) --Dual Freq (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [2] for two and three. TomTheHand (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modern naval combat lists all four in the section titled Kitty Hawk class saying on page 116, "There are major differences between the first pair of aircraft carriers completed. Kitty Hawk (CV 63) and Constellation (CV 64), and the second two, America (CV 66) and John F. Kennedy (CV 67). These four ships are, however, generally grouped together because of their common propulsion systems and flight deck layout." Modern naval combat. / David Miller, Chris Miller. p. 116-117. London ; New York : Salamander Books, c1986. ISBN 0861012313 --Dual Freq (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to muddy the waters, but NVR says JFK is class CV 67. The other 3 are listed as CV 63. Encyclopedia Of World Sea Power by Tony Cullen p.67 ISBN 0517653427 Lists 3 classes, Kitty Hawk class, America class and John F. Kennedy class, but discusses them in the same section after the Forrestal class. It notes that a difference in America was its SQS-23 sonar, the only post war carrier to have a sonar, according to that book anyway. My Janes book, Jane's American fighting ships of the 20th century New York, N.Y. : Mallard Press, 1991. ISBN 0792456262 puts all four carriers in "Improved Forrestal class". It notes JFK was to have the sonar as well, but it wasn't installed. It also notes America and JFK had stern anchors (as well as bow ancohrs) to accommodate the sonar. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that all 3 of the books that I have, discuss all four carriers at the same time. It would seem appropriate to do the same here. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However, John. F. Kennedy is often referred to as being a member of a sub-class, or a separate class, and so that should be mentioned on the page. TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the evidence presented from all of the references we have access to (myself included), all four should be discussed on the same page. I've also decided to be bold and re-add the Kennedy back to the template mentioned below by Maralia. -MBK004 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that JFK should be discussed here, but I've also re-inserted the note that she is often considered her own class (with slightly modified wording). TomTheHand (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JFK was apparently removed from Template:Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier back in March 2007. Whatever consensus is arrived at here should be reflected in that template as well. Maralia (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to OPNAV to see if we can get a statment from them on this issue. Some of the sources here [3], [4] and [5] state while the Big John was intended to be a Kitty Hawk-class her extensive modifications during the construction phase made the navy classify her as its own class. Neovu79 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters much what they say - Many sources state that she was a member of the Kitty Hawk class, many sources state that she was her own class, therefore she should be mentioned here and it should be noted that she is often considered her own class. TomTheHand (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can agree to that, if we were to meet half way. We could put the Big John a sub-class under the Kitty Hawk-class since it was originally suppose to be a Kitty Hawk-class, and also note becuase of the differences, the navy puts her in a class of her own. Neovu79 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds alright to me, except the "the Navy puts her in a class of her own" part; as shown above, the Navy is inconsistent on that point. "The Navy often puts her in a class of her own" works fine for me. TomTheHand (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sale to India

[edit]

In 2008 there were rumors that Kitty Hawk can be sold or even "donated" to India on the condition that India buys F-18s. Any idea why this did not happen? IMO it was a very good idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.47.221 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kitty_Hawk-class_aircraft_carrier&oldid=1203317853"