Talk:Nimitz-class aircraft carrier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Entering service?

I see that, according to this article, CVN-77 George H. W. Bush is set to enter service in 2008? According to theUSS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) article this is when it is due for delivery, to be commissioned the following year. Given that the article on the year 2009 seems to support this, should this in fact read that it is set to enter service in 2009? Or is there some distinction between 'entering service' and 'being commissioned' that I'm unaware of? Angus Lepper 17:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why USS deleted?

Why was the USS deleted from all the names of the ships? H Padleckas 12:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A style thing usually - prefixes are not usually used if they would be redundant or obvious. In running text with multiple nationalities, the usual is to include prefix on first use only, or if context might be confusing. For a list like this, there is no consensus - you'll see some with, some not. It would be good to agree on a "house style" - the back-and-forth in articles like this is annoying and wasteful. Stan 16:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The USS prefixes are typically obvious only to people in the Navy, since are familiar with names of ships. Other people could easily confuse the name with its namesake for ships. In formal writing, such as Wikipedia, the prefix USS should be used in front of the names of US Navy ships. This should be the consistent style throughout Wikipedia, even though I understand in informal talk and perhaps in internal Navy messages, USS might be omitted for convenience. Wikipedia is written for the general public. Also, the prefix is useful to show that the name refers to a ship in the United States Navy. Other countries' Navies have their own prefixes to distinguish them. This style (using the USS prefix) is also consistent throughout most of the rest of Wikipedia, except for the lengthy list of submarines which never had the USS prefixes from the beginning. H Padleckas 06:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Usually the names are called out with italics, and on the first use by being linked. The "USS" isn't actually used that much in our narratives - see almost any ship history for an example, USS Wasp (CV-7), USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37), and so on. If you want to propose a change to house style, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is the place to go, you can get more than just my opinion. Stan 07:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the house policy. The first time a ship is mentioned it's USS Shipname, after that it's common to refer to her by her name, and often her nickname. If were are talking about something formal, then you revert to USS Shipname. Also the title of the article correct, but the text is not. A ship's class never starts with USS. The USS is a formal designator meant to show commissioned US Navy ships. This is the second time I have seen this done on Wiki. The first time was with the midget submarine X-1 which was never commissioned (the CNO would never let something like that get commissioned because it counts against his total ship count). PPGMD

Absolutely drop it off the class name. Stan 06:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm satisfied with the current USS situation the way it is in this article (Nimitz class aircraft carrier) right now.  :-) H Padleckas 09:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actual displacement?

The displacement figures are wrong, it lists a number for metric tons that's larger than the number in short tones, even though short tons are smaller. This may just be a backwards conversion, so someone should chekc and fix this. Night Gyr 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Public trials?

I'm going to go ahead and comment out the trial speeds; I've seen those figures quoted but no links to papers where they were actually published by the Navy, until then they belong in the same category as rumors that the Nimitz class can go 40/50/70/100 knots: Unconfirmed. Feel free, though, to link in any press releases announcing the trial speeds, and then it would be OK to remove the comment. Iceberg3k 11:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Non confirmation policy

Shouldn't a mention be made of the US policy of refusing to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board aircraft carriers? User:Night Bringer

I don't think it's needed, but I don't think it hurts anything, either. I won't object to it. Izuko 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Women on board mean trouble

I saw on TV there are a lot of chicks serving aboard US CVNs. How can Navy prevent problems, like prostitution, promiscuity, jealousy, pregnancy?

They'll get back to you on that when they've figured it out. Izuko 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably the same way the UK Navy solved their problems with "rum, sodomy and the lash" (to quote Churchill). Come on, think it through. That's what discipline is for. Epstein's Mother 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Victories

I think the term victory is wrong and distasteful regarding bombing some place in iraq. Is it a victory for the knife to cut the apple?Droben 21:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Victory is victory. You may not like the word or its connotations, but the standards are accuracy and verifiability, not niceness. Izuko 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory and think about if it a victory of the carrier. Is there a battle or a competition with the target? I don't think so. Droben 08:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is what happens when people single-source off of wikipedia. Try using a dictionary to find the definition of a word, not an open-source encyclopedia. Izuko 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This advice does not help your side of the argument. Dictionary definitions (see dictionary.com for one example) support Droben's point. When the state executes a man, is it the defeat of an enemy? There's a reason the word "executed" is used. ChrisLawson 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need either a dictionary or wikipedia to know the meaning of a victory in the military sense: a victory is something which could have been also a defeat. Bombing people in third-world-countries, from the point of view of an aircraft carrier, could be an operation. But the people being bombed have no chance to win, therefore to bomb them is no victory. To call it victory is distasteful and wrong because it gives the people throwing the bombs a heroic touch. This is common sense. Any questions to me the people? Droben 23:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Range

Although powered by nuclear reactors the Nimitz class must have a maximum range? At some point presumably the fuel rods need to be replaced by new ones, the old ones are depleted and the stores of fuel rods are used up. Equally I imagine the old ones have to be removed from the ship and dumped somewhere. Can anyone enlighten me to this process, are they just thrown into the sea? are they taken off the ship and burried in concrete, buried in concrete and thrown into the sea?? anyone know? And equally does anyone know what the maximum range is? I'm trying to make a comparison to the Royal Navys 2 new gas-turbine powered 65,000 tonne carriers. They supposedly will be able to go around 18,000km (11,000 miles) before being refuelled. Although one presumes it will just be followed by a tanker and refilled as it goes. Its a risky move by the UK's MoD seen by some to be a step backwards but I'm afraid im not very knowledgable on this subject. Thanks! --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of the information you're looking for is probably classified, and much of the rest of it, I don't know the answer to ;-) However, one thing I do know is that USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) is in "Refueling Complex Overhaul" right now. She was commissioned in 1982, and this is the first and only time her reactors will be refueled (she is planned to have a 50 year service life). She likely steamed over a million miles before overhaul. Spent nuclear material is sent to, I think, the Naval Reactor Facility in Idaho for storage.

One important thing to keep in mind about nuclear power is that the rest of the fleet won't have it even if your carriers do, so all of the escorts will need to refuel. An 18,000 km range is not as bad as it sounds. TomTheHand 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom is right. The key advantage of a nuclear carrier isn't the range (which will be limited by the non-nuclear escorts), but by the greatly reduced volume of fuel the carrier needs to keep on board for its own propulsion. This translates into much greater storage capacity for aircraft fuel, which really is the endurance-limiting factor for a modern carrier. High-performance jet aircraft use lots of fuel, and under combat conditions an aircraft carrier can deplete its stores of aircraft fuel very quickly. Having extra space for aircraft fuel that would otherwise be be used for a ship's gas turbines is very useful. Epstein's Mother 12:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The range is that most nuclear-powered ships can travel at least several times around the world between nuclear fuel installations. The exact maximum range depends on traveling and other conditions and is not made known to the public. Eventually at some point, the nuclear fuel does get used up and is removed from the ships if they continue to operate. The used nuclear fuel "rods (as you say)" are extremely radioactive due to nuclear fission products and are not just dumped somewhere or thrown into the sea. The details of much U.S. nuclear Navy information is not made known to the public. H Padleckas 09:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is CVN-77?

Where is the carrier named for President George Herbert Walker Bush? Why is it not listed in the "Ships in Class" section?

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

• The ship hasn't been commissioned yet as a United States Navy Vessel. It has been Christened thats all. The ship is currently named "George H. W. Bush" It doens't become a United States Ship or get its hull designation until it is commissioned. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Former yes, latter no. CVN-78 was authorized and given her hull classification symbol long before she was named Gerald R. Ford. Iceberg3k 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Name selection

who is the commitee(if any) that decides on which us goverment officials will have a ship named in their honour - what are the criteria? are "airport presidents" excluded for example? tali 1/1/07

All ship names are decided by the US Secratary of the Navy, unless Congress or the President make an explicit move to name a ship. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CV Aircraft Carriers

The article states that there were 68 CV Aircraft Carriers built since the days of the USS Langley, which was CV-1. Indeed, that is NOT true.

In the first place, CV does NOT stand for Aircraft Carrier, but – rather – Fleet Aircraft Carrier. The designation CV is further divided as follows:

• CV: Fleet Aircraft Carrier (CV 1 – 21; 31 – 34; 36 – 40; 45; 47; 62 – 64; 66; 67 Total: 37)
• CVA: Attack/Heavy Aircraft Carriers (58. Never Completed; 59 – 61 Total built: 3)
• CVAN: Nuclear Attack Aircraft Carriers ( one built: CVAN 65 Reclassified to CVN 65)
• CVB: Large Fleet Aircraft Carriers (3 of 6 planned completed: CVB 41 -43, Not Completed: 44, 56, 57 Total built: 3)
• CVE: Escort Aircraft Carriers (CVE 9; 11 - 13; 16; 18; 20; 23; 25; 27 - 29; 31; 55 - 104; 105 – 123 Total: 80 )
• CVL: Light Fleet Aircraft Carriers (CVL 24 - 30, 48, 49 Completed from CL 110 Buffalo; CL 109 New Haven; CL 111 Wilmington; CL 107 Huntington; CL 106 Fargo; CL 105 Dayton; CL 108 Newark. Total built: 9)
• CVN: Nuclear Fleet Aircraft Carriers (CVN 65; 68 – 77. Total: 10)

All told, including the Escort Carriers, which duplicate the numbers of the other carriers, there were and will be a total of 151 Aircraft Carriers built over the life of the program.

Source: The US Navy Carriers SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Victories

I deleted some statments claiming bombings as victories for the aircraft carrier, the libyan example is valid as a dog fight which could be lost and result in subsequent destruction of the ship can be seen as a victory for the ship but a plane bombing a target, can't be lost by the carrier so it cant be won if the bomber faced a dog fight or anti air fire then you can sort of say the plane scored a victory.. sort of. but claiming that for the ship which was never in any danger is just claiming anything that goes your way as a victory for everyone who was within a thousand miles of it, why stop there? why not count it as a victory for the submarines gaurding the carrier carrying the plane that bombed the house that jack built.(note this has nothing to do with the morality or victims etc.. its just the definition of victory) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.19.162 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nimitz Hull in new ship classes

I've heard that the Royal Navy's new carriers are going to be using the Nimitz's hull design. Is this worth mentioning in the article? 78.146.244.49 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? We can't add it in without a reliable source. - BillCJ (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Next class name?

Does anyone know what the name of the next class of navy carriers will be? Has there been an official annoucment or are we being kept in the dark?

Currently it's called the CVN-21, but the class almost always gets it's name from first ship of the class (CVN-78) which has yet to be named. PPGMD

The next class of carriers (as above, CVN-21) will be called the Gerald R. Ford class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.206.89 (talk • contribs)

In a slightly different thread, in the upper right statistics panel, the preceding class is correct, but the ship name is not. The U.S. built the Kitty Hawk (CV-63) and the Constellation (CV-64), then deviated from class to build the Enterprise (CVN-65). The Enterprise constitutes a single-ship class of her own. After her, the U.S. returned to the Kitty Hawk class with the America (CV-66) and the John F. Kennedy (CV-67). So, the names of the ship(s) under the preceded by class listing should be the John F. Kennedy, perhaps with the America also listed. NimitzSailor (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We list both the Kitty Hawk and Enterprise classes as concurrent since they were built at the same time. We list the class name and in the case of Enterprise and other single-ship classes the ship since we do not have a class article. That is also because we count JFK as a unit of the Kitty Hawk class regardless of how she is sometimes described as her own class. The infobox was correct per how we present them before you changed it, accordingly I have reverted you. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, if the previous class is the Kitty Hawk, and the Enterprise is A) not in the Kitty Hawk class and B) the last ship in the Kitty Hawk class was the JFK, why is that not listed as the preceded by ship? Or are you listing both the Kitty Hawk class AND the Enterprise class (as a single ship)? The way the list is presented, it LOOKS like you are saying the Enterprise is the last ship in the Kitty Hawk class to precede the Nimitz. Please help me learn your conventions as I am a new Wikipedia "contributor". 207.228.60.180 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You nailed it, we are listing both the Kitty Hawk class and the Enterprise class since both provided influences upon the design of the Nimitz class. Usually the field is used in a purely chronological fashion but this is one of a select few exceptions to that rule. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speed claim

I removed the absurd claim that Nimitzes can exceed 60 knots (69 mph, 111km/hr) and edited the debunking response down to just the published figures. Here is the original bullet point:

• Speed: official 30+ knots unofficial 60+ knots (actual top speed is secret) The utility of having a top speed far in excess of its escorts is, of course, dubious. The top speed is likely to be 31-34 knots, as confirmed by people who have served on her, and engineers who analyse ships speeds for a living. See http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm , which observes that the USN publicly released the speed of the nuclear carriers in June 1999:

Enterprise 33.6 knots after last refit Nimitz 31.5 knots Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots Harry S Truman 30.9 knots

The reason that aircraft carriers can achieve speeds of up to 50 kts (and they can!) is that some aircraft have a stall speed such that it is sometimes necessary when the actual wind speed is low to generate apparent wind of up to 50 kts in order for the aircraft to be recovered. jpbp200@hotmail.com

See any naval architecture reference -- see also http://www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/hulls/carrier.html for an elementary analysis. On the other hand, if anyone can cite a reputable source for such incredible speeds, I will apologize most humbly. --the Epopt 16:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No probs. Eugene's site links to my own, so it's nice to see him quoted as an authority!

W/O giving specific numbers which I suppose are technically classified (though easily available), the claims of autobahn speeds are so much bilgewater. The design requirement of 30 knots plus a bit reflects the fact that most fixed-wing naval aircraft need 30 knots relative windspeed for launch, and the boat needs to be able to generate it itself if there's a dead calm. But not much more than that. Do you have any idea the size of propulsion plant 50+ knots would require? Water resistance increases exponentially. 30-35 knots has been standard for most major combatants since the WWII era, since with a conventional hull you can't pack much more horsepower into a given displacement to overcome that hull's resistance (a few destroyers and light cruisers of the late 30's could get up close to 40, but only by sacrificing everything else to raw speed)). Actually, none of the Nimitzes are quite as fast as the longer, lighter Enterprise. Solicitr (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Armor?

Anyone know if the Nimitz Class (or any carrier for that matter), mounts armor? Logic of it being a warship leads me to assume it must mount some kind of protection, but there's no mention of it. Malamockq 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Chances are, any specifics about armor, if there is any, would be confidential at the very least. Izuko 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine why. They release armor specs on tanks, and battleships all the time. Malamockq 07:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Tanks and battleships don't take seven years to build, house two nuclear reactors and six thousand sailors and marines in each one. Nor does one tank or battleship form the backbone for a battle group that is the core of current US military action. Granted, I may be wrong, I wasn't a classification officer. But I do get a feeling that they would like to keep the armor, or at least certain aspects of the armor secret. Izuko 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really prove much. Btw, carriers do not take 7 years to build. And battleships used to form the backbone of a naval battle group before the advent of the carrier. But that's besides the point. Bottom line is you are just speculating, I'm looking for some facts. Malamockq 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It very much takes seven years to build a carrier (assuming no strikes at the shipyard), and that's not including PSA. I've built two of them. Yes, the battleships used to form the backbone of a naval battle group, but a lot has changed since then. And it's not beside the point, it -is- the point. I'm explaining to you why you are unlikely to find accurate and complete information on the armor of a carrier. Yes, I am speculating, but I'm doing so from known information. You can continue to look for facts if you want. But don't whine when I tell you why you're not likely to find them. Izuko 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Be mature, and refrain from flame baiting such as "But don't whine...". As for your points, they are irrelevant. The question was regarding armor on a carrier, not how long it takes to build a carrier. Malamockq 23:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's poor form to contradict someone, then tell them that their point is irrelevant when they correct you. ChrisLawson 19:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you felt it necessary to counter my statement on how long it takes to build one, obviously you understood the significance and how a carrier differens drastically from a battleship. Izuko 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The CVN armor belt is 8" (203mm) aluminium. Aluminium armor is 1/2 the protection of rolled steel, but only 1/3 of the weight for the same thickness. However, there were unexpected big problems with Alu armor body of M113 vehicles in Vietnam (not punctured but ripped apart all along when hit with RPG-7). So I would say the CVN belt protection is marginal against established navy and air force weapon hits. Maybe the jihadist TNT rubber dingy would bounce off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2006

What's the cite for this? (Seems unlikely. Aluminium is expensive, and why would you be more concerned about weight than expense on at 100K ton ship?) Epstein's Mother 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I served on board the USS Carl Vinson in the Reactor Controls division. We had a knotmeter mounted in the No.2 (aft) EOS (enclosed operating station) Where the watch officer, reactor operator, two throttlemen, and a log-rcorder stood watch. I remember seeing 100% power aft and in the 90's forward: (The aft plant always drew more power at high speed due to the center screws taking more power). At this max allowed peacetime power the ship did do over thirty knots, (but not much)the increase in power required to gain even a few knots was immense. Even if the battle short switches were on (over-riding all reactor protective functions) the plants just plain could not make enough power to go a whole lot faster. The power required to turn a marine propeller is proportional to the cube of the propeller's rotational speed: i.e, to double the speed of the propeller takes eight times the power.

Forty knots? Not likely... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.213.205.72 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have added in the article, it seems that, although possibly alongside other forms, the vessels have 2.5 inch kevlar armour over vital areas, as demonstrated by the two refs given. Jhbuk (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Displacement

What is the source for the displacement figure? The Navy once listed displacements in long tons, as that was the measure used in the naval treaties in the first half of the 20th Century. Just to keep us confused, the navy's carrier websites now use short tons.[1] While this source does not explictly say short tons, working out the conversions from metric tons makes it clear.

It looks like a number of carrier article may erroneously be using the "long ton" phrase or link. Kablammo (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have substituted the displacement figures from this paper, cited in the article. The infobox uses one figure only; as displacements vary that value is only an approximation. Kablammo (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This paper (linked immediately above) gives explicit displacement figures, stated in long tons, for each member of the class. See page 8. Other official sources also use long tons. It seems the navy.mil website uses figures based on a misconception that short tons are being used, and therefore converts to metric tons on that basis. Kablammo (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the figures the same as these? (My computer's not letting me open it.) If so, then we can either put both in, or just use that as a ref. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The paper is a 159-page .pdf; the displacement figures, explicitly stated in long tons, are for "delivery displacement" and "predicted current displacement" as of 17 November 2003. The latter figures are within a few hundred tons of those stated by Polmar. The "delivery displacement" figures from the paper range from 93,282 to 97,953 long tons. Kablammo (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll change the figures on the individual ships in line with those, rounded to nearest 100t. Fourth ventricle (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a tonnage range once, for this article, but another user felt it to be too precise.[2]

I have contacted the Navy website on the tonnage question and will post their response when (and if) I get it. Kablammo (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes in displacement over time

I have the 12th edition of Polmar (1981). Some interesting figures in how displacement has increased from then until 18th edition in 2005:

Nimitz class 1981 (CVNs 68, 79, 70): 81,600t standard; 91,400t full load; 93,400t combat load

Nimitz 2005: 77,264t light; 100,020t full load

Eisenhower 1,600t more each measure; Vinson 1,200t more.

Per the paper as of 2003:

Nimitz: 93,282t delivery displacement; 100,264t current as of 2003. Kablammo (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

General Characteristics Block

It seems hard to make sense out of the general characteristics block when there are ten carriers with different and changing charateristics: In General Characteristics block, under Sensors & Processing Systems, should “AN/SPQ-9B Target Acquisition Radar” be changed to read “Mk-23 Target Acquisition System (TAS) radar or AN/SPQ-9B Anti-Ship Missile Defense (ASMD) Radar”? As shown, it seems to mix-up the two entirely different things. Also, under Sensors & Processing Systems, should the AN/UYQ-24 Advanced Combat Direction System (ACDS) Block-0 or Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Mk 2 Mod 1, and AN/USG-2 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), and Link-16 AN/URC-107 Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), all be included? Alot of processing power is in those. Also, under Sensors & Processing Systems, the "4 x Mk-91 NSSMS... and 4 x Mk-95 radars" - the Mk-91 is the Guided Missile Fire Control System of the NSSMS Mk-57 Mod 3, and four GMFCS implies four launchers, which might not exist. Also the Mk-91 and Mk-95 both go away with the NSSMS Mk-57 Re-Architecture, (already done on more than half CVNs). Might it be easier to just refere to the number of topside visible NSSMS Guided missile Directors Mk-79 (quantity 4 - 6 each). The GMD is common to both leagacy and Re-Architectured systems.

Under Armament, what's the difference between "Sea Sparrow or NATO Sea Sparrow missiles"? Maybe it should instead read "2 or 3 NSSMS GMLS Mk-29, each w/ 8-cells for either RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile or RIM-162 ESSM", with a narative explanation for amplification in the article? Under Armament, what does "3 or 4 CIWS or ... missiles" mean - any combination of them? I believe that it might be 0, 2, 3, or 4 CIWS and 0 or 2 RAM GMLS Mk-49, each w/ 21-cells for RIM-116, preferably with a narative explanation for amplification in the article? 144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Use some common sense and do some reading elsewhere. "3 or 4 Phalanx CIWS" means that some Nimitz-class carriers were built with three Phalanx systems, but in some of the later ones, room was found for four Phalanx systems.

For some of the carriers, room was found for two Rolling Airframe Missile launchers, especially after their early-model Sea Sparrow systems were removed.

Look up Sea Sparrow. There were different versions, some of which were more primitive, including ones called simply "Sea Sparrow" or "NATO Sea Sparrow missiles". To confuse you even more, there was a system called BPMS that used Sea Sparrow missiles but an early-model radar and launcher system. BPMS = "Basic Point Missile Defense System", and its mission (never used) was to shoot down antiship missiles, helicopters, and rather slow-moving airplanes -- such as in the case when someone might load a light plane (such as a Piper Cub) with explosives and make a kamikaze attack on an American or an allied warship. Yes, you need to look up Sea Sparrow and related articles to find out about all of the complications and all of the variations. They will make your head spin around. Now, there is even a Vertical-Launch Sea Sparrow that is made to be fired from the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System. Those VL Sea Sparrow missiles are now carried by Australian and Canadian warships, among others.98.67.168.208 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, if CVN-76 had none (0) CIWS, and CVN-77 has two (2) CIWS aft-only (rear-end of the boat), a casual reader might not be able to use common sense to understand how 0 or 2 CIWS could possibly equal 3 or 4 CIWS or missiles. Perhaps they would have to do some reading elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Armament & Protection section

NSSMS

NSSMS: The CVNs have either two or three NSSMS Mk-29 Guided Missile Launchers (GML) with eight cells each for the NSSMS RIM-7 missile, and some have been upgraded for the heavier extended-range RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM). CVNs with three Mk-29 GMLs have six Mk-79 Guided Missile Directors (GMD) as part of three Mk-91 Guided Missile Fire Control Systems (GMFCS). CVNs with two Mk-29 GMLs have four Mk-79 Guided Missile Directors (GMD), either as part of two separate Mk-91 GMFCS, or as part of new and improved Mk-9 Tracking Illuminator System (TIS) as part of single-integrated Mk-57 NSSMS Re-Architecture with the Mk-10 Control System. On newer and upgraded CVNs, the after (rear) starboard (right hand side) Mk-29 GML has been removed and replaced (or designed from beginning) with one of two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) RIM-116 Guided Missile Launching Systems (GMLS) Mk-49. 144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

RAM GMLS

RAM: Since 2001, for improved missile defense, CVNs have been fitted with two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Launching Systems (GMLS) Mk-49, each with 21 cells for the RIM-116 missile. One of the RAM GMLS Mk-49 would be located forward (front) portside (left hand side) at one time occupied by the second of three (or four) Mk-15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems. The other RAM GMLS Mk-49 would be located after (rear) starboard (right hand side) at one time occupied by one of three NSSMS Guided Missile Launchers (GML) Mk-29. When a NSSMS missile launcher is removed, its two slaved missile directors become inoperative and unnecessary, and were not removed but placed into lay-up state until NSSMS Mk-57 Re-Architecture improvements and a dozen associated Capstone AAW SSDS Mk 2 upgrades were to be performed (with substantial industrial effort). This would allow the NSSMS Mk-57 Re-Architecture project to decide which combination of any four of six missile directors would make for the best new integrated system. RAM GMLS Mk-49 installations on CVNs include minor to moderate industrial effort and may be scheduled to coincide with planned three year nuclear Refueling Complex Overhauls (RCOH) for older CVNs, when those schedules might just happen to coincide, but newer CVNs are not planned to wait so long (until RCOH) for the capability improvement, and are fitted with two RAM GMLS Mk-49 during maintenance and repair periods of shorter duration (months not years). The RAM Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk-49, together with its weapons (missiles) and its support equipment may be referred to as RAM Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) Mk-31.144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

SRBOC and SSTDS

Should it be mentioned that some CVNs no longer have the 6-tube SRBOC Mk-36 DLS Mk-137 launchers because the "decoying" concept was somehow ineffective on large ships such as CVNs? I.E. the decoy is supposed to be far enough away from the ship in order to attract incoming missiles away from same ship. Also, is the SSTDS an acronym for Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System, and is that different from, or same as, or parent system of AN/SLQ-25A Nixie. Or is SSTDS the AN/SLR-24, or do SLQ-25 and SLR-24 make-up SSTDS? What is it.144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Design differences: Combat Systems

CVNs may have one of two top level missile defense system configurations, either the older legacy AN/SWY-3 Ship Defense Surface Missile System (SDSMS), or the newer Capstone Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Mk 2 Mod 1. The AN/SWY-3 SDSMS includes NATO Seasparrow Surface Missile System (NSSMS) Mk-57 Mod 3, Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) RIM-116 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) Mk-31, Target Acquisition System (TAS) Mk-23, and interfaces with the AN/UYQ-24 Advanced Combat Direction System (ACDS) as the host combat system. The Capstone combat system configuration includes SSDS Mk 2 as host combat system, AN/USG-2 Cooperative Engagement Transmission Processing Set (CETPS) as own ship sensors integration processor for the AN/SPS-48E height finding radar, AN/SPS-49A long range radar, AN/SPS-67 surface radar and AN/SPQ-9B ASMD radar sets. SSDS Mk 2 also integrates Tactical Digital Information Links (TADIL) and on-board training systems with sensor stimulator and simulator systems. Capstone suite also includes the integrated NSSMS Mk-57 (with two launchers and four directors) and two RAM GMLS Mk-49. The synergy of the newer combat system elements provide improved performance while allowing for one of three NSSMS Mk-91 GMFCS sub-systems (one launcher and two slaved directors) to be removed (or deleted from design). The deletion of these two high power radar transmitters then allowed for CVN mast and radar tower to be re-designed and optimized. The Mk-15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems are autonomous systems which do not interface with the AN/SWY-3 SDSMS, ACDS or SSDS Mk 2 on CVNs.144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Island Decks

Does anyone think that in the article, each of the 3 decks on the island (w/ windows) should be shown (like which 1 is which) or something like that? Random military guy (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Size and composition of CAG

The numbers of aircraft given in the section on the Carrier Air Wing do not match those of page 64 of the reference at [3], but that reference is quite old. Does anybody have a more recent reference, and are the numbers given in the article correct?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pure Speculation

The information about the future of aircraft carriers contains a lot of statements in the category of NOBODY KNOWS THAT, and which do not belong in an encyclopedia. We don't care if they came from publications from Northrup Grumman. They are pure speculation. Nobody, no law, no law of nature, states that the United States will ever build more than one or two more aircraft carriers. Peace treaties and arms limitation treaties can block the construction of carriers. Such has already happened concerning ICBMs, intermediate-range nuclear missiles, nuclear missiles on surface ships, the B-52G and B-1 bombers, and on and on. By treaty, the surface warships of these navies do not carry any nuclear missiles: the United States, Russia, the U.K., and France. There are no nuclear missiles for surface-to-air, antisubmarine warfare, or surface-to-surface warfare -- and I doubt that the Chinese Navy has any, either. The same thing could happen with aircraft carriers -- or Congress could decide that they are just too darned expensive to make any more.98.67.168.208 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dollars

Dollars are AMERICAN dollars unless otherwise stated. To begin with, the United States was the first country with the dollar as its basic unit of currency. Dollars in the United States came a long time before dollars in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Hong Kong, and so forth. Furthermore, when the Federal Government of the United States spends dollars, those are most assuredly AMERICAN dollars, and to state anything beside "dollars" is actually insulting.

Similarly, pounds sterling are automatically British, marks were automatically German, lira were automatically Italian, rubles are automatically Russian, schillings were automatically Austrian, and yen are automatically Japanese, and to say something like "Japanese yen" is insulting.98.67.168.208 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speed

Maximum speed of the carriers is around 31.5 knots according to http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

Will try to find additional sources. Versova (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Displacement discrepencies query

Hi some of the the citations given for displacement link to the official USN website can someone explain the official figures reported by the US Navy as Displacement: Approximately 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tonness) full load found here. Yet in the article it states: Displacement: 100,000 to 104,600 long tons (101,600–106,300 t) also the navy website does note state that the displacement is in long tons if they were long tons they would give the ships an even larger displacement of approx 117,000short ton which is commonly used in the USA when measuring weight per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ton and not the UK long ton. If you use a simple conversion calculator metric tonnes to short tons 87,996 mt is 96,998 short tons so the official USN website is stating short tons not long tons. I would appreciate feedback and I suggest that the figures be changed to the official statistics above.--Navops47 (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

97,000 short tons is 86,607 long tons and 87,996.9 metric tonnes is 86,607 long tons.--Navops47 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Displacement

Much the same query as above. The USN website, updated 31 January 2017, gives the Nimitz class displacement as 97,000 short tons = 87,996 metric tonnes = 86,503 imperial tons, at full load.(SM527RR (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC))

Widespread incorrect date format

Just noticed that all the aircraft carrier articles are using the British date format, which is against guidelines: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. That includes dates. Even in this article, there are citations such as this one, which obviously uses the American date format, yet this article only uses the British format. Are there any volunteers that will help fix this widespread error? --Light show (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not incorrect, and should not be changed without clear consensus to do so. Per WP:DATETIES: "In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage." If you disagree with US military articles using D-M-Y date format, it's best to take it up on that guideline's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. --Light show (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)