Talk:Supercarrier/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

QE and Kuznetsov

The source states:

"There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons; the U.S. Navy currently has fourteen, the Soviet Navy one."

The Soviet Navy only had one such carrier in that time in 1991, which is the Kuznetsov. Thus the source is not only providing a direct ship class that is one, it also must be using short tons to define 70,000 tons, as the Kuznetsov is not 70,000 via long tons or tonnes.

The Kuznetsov is also lighter than the Queen Elizabeth class.

As such, both by direct source quote, and by mathematics, the QE class and Kuznetsov class are both supercarriers.

Change has been included once more. The page's primary top source is very clear on its definition. Kuznetsov, and by extention the Chinese carrier, will also needed added now. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be making assumptions here. The source states 65000 tonnes, for the QE, which is 64,000 long tons; 72,000 short tons. The QE is light by 6000 tons. But, they also say at she will get heavier with updates and refits, so even though she doesn't make the list now, she likely will in a few years. So don't worry. As for the Kuznetsov or any Chinese carriers, I haven't even looked them up yet. (we should only be editing one carrier type/class at a time anyway). I'll have a look at them, and in the meantime, we can leave this discussion open for others to comment on. Please stop edit-warring, the page won't blow up if your version isn't there for a day or so. Take it easy and this will get worked out one way or the other. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have included the explicit quote above from the source on this very page. The source explicitly states that the Soviets had one in service. I'll quote it again, these words are from the exact page source for the definition:

"There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons; the U.S. Navy currently has fourteen, the Soviet Navy one." - Dated 1991.

The Soviet Navy has only ever had a single large carrier in service in its entire history. The Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov. As you can see from its own page source for its displacement, it is not 70,000 long tons. Thus, the page source cannot be meaning metric tonnes, nor can it be meaning long tons. The only metric in this page's definition for what a supercarrier is, can only be using short tons. Note that you say it uses "long tons", but the source text provided does not specify long tons in its direct quote attributed to this page. It simply says "tons", and mathematially, the only ship in the Soviet Navy's entire history that is large enough to meet that definition would have to have done it via short tons.

Either way, the page source explicitly states that the Kuznetsov is a supercarrier, and as the Kuznetsov's own page states with a cited source, it is lighter than the Queen Elizabeth class at around 61,000 tons, even at the lower end of the QE's estimated displacement of 65,000 metric tonnes. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the dispute is. In the lead, with the source you're relying on, it says; Supercarrier is an unofficial descriptive term for the largest type of aircraft carrier, typically those displacing over 70,000 long tons (71,000 metric tons). The Queen Elizabeth class is 64,000 long tons (65,000 metric tons or tonnes). So right now she is too light.

As for the Kuznetsov, she can't be a supercarrier. According to the Russian Navy, her max displacement was 58,600 tonnes (57,700 long tons, 64,600 short tons) So, again... too light. (and thus the same goes for the Chinese carrier). I think the problem here is that these carriers are from metric countries, and thus the people that are actually weighing them are weighing them in metric. Then these weights are reported in American sources who write "tonnes" as "tons" without much thought to conversion and the figures become confused. The primary source for this page setting the definition for "supercarrier" has set the threshold at 70,000 long tons. According to the actual Royal and Russian navies, the most reliable sources you can get, these carriers weigh 64.000 (QE) and 57,000 {K} long tons respectively, so neither of them are supercarriers.

With that said, however, I really think there should be another discussion on the whole supercarrier issue... perhaps an RcF at WP:SHIPS or WP:MILHIST. Should there even be an article about this? If so, should be we relying on this particular source that sets the threshold at 70,000 long tons? I'm sure there are plenty of sources that would state that only the Nimitz/Ford classes should be considered supercarriers, with the minimum standards being 100,000 long tons, 1000ft length, nuclear propulsion and catobar capable. Everything else would just be an aircraft carrier. The only reason I suggest this is, this issue keeps popping up, every month or so, and has been for years now, and therefore isn't likely to go away. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Given that the term is an unofficial one, I think this argument relies far too much on a single source from 1991. The QE ships have been described as supercarriers in reliable press sources. Whether the authors of the reference would consider QE a supercarrier is moot, it did not exist then. The appellation supercarrier is basically one invented by the press and used by the press, so long as the press continues to apply it to the QE, as they do, then I think relying on some "definition" from a more than 25 year old book which, whatever else it may be is certainly not an authority on lexicography, is pointless. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, we actually agree. Yes, this is why I question this article in the first place and think that it, and the term 'supercarrier', should be reviewed and discussed by the community (as much of the community as possible) to make some final decisions, on this article, what's in it, the term and how it is to be applied . Otherwise, there is just going to be constant, continued disputes and disrupted articles. - ^theWOLFchild 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wolfchild (sorry, I got your name wrong as wolfman before, apologies for that), the source does not say long tons. Only the wikipedia page says long tons, and wikipedia in itself is not a source. The actual text of the source the page is citing does not say "long tons". If you hover your mouse over the [1] you can see the actual text, which states:

"David Miller and Lindsay Peacock, Carriers: The Men and the Machines (London and New York: Salamander, 1991), p. 7: "There are four main types of carrier in service today. Largest of these are the super-carriers displacing over 70,000 tons; the U.S. Navy currently has fourteen, the Soviet Navy one."

At no point in this sentence, which is the definition used on the page as its primary source, does it say "long", yet you keep saying that it does and requoting the text someone wrote on wikipedia itself. The baseline definition for the page explicitly says that Kuznetsov is one. And if Kuznetsov is one, then QE and Liaoning must be ones also. The only way that it makes sense for Kuznetsov being one is if he is discussing short tons. Again, the source does not say "long tons", it simply says "tons", which from a US publication would most commonly mean short tons as that is what 'tons' alone means from the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton) The only place that says long tons is on the wikipedia page itself with no source or reasoning, thus we have to define it by the source's definition. But even if it didn't say what kind of ton it uses at all, it wouldn't matter, as it directly states which kind of class is and is not, and as the Soviets only ever had one large carrier in their entire history, it is very clear.

Until a more authorative source is found than the currently used released publication, I submit that the page should match the current source that it has, rather than vague opinions and incomplete data. Right now the page is inconsistent and does not match its own source (Source at top of page defining what a supercarrier's displacement is explicitly states that Kuznetsov is one, but Kuznetsov and ships heavier than the Kuznetsov are not listed on the page?), so I suggest that the first step is to make the page match the source.TheFuzzyOne (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just like Nick pointed out above, people here are relying way too much on a single source, which itself is a single comment made by a single person almost 30 years ago. We need more and better sources to define the term 'supercarrrier'. But that said, getting back to your comment; you seem to be missing one important point, it doesn't matter if the source you're relying was using long tons, short tons or metric tons/tonnes because the Kuznetsov never displaced 70,000 anything. As I pointed out above, as per the Russian Navy, her max displacement was 58,600 tonnes (57,700 long tons, 64,600 short tons) So the source the is obviously wrong and we shouldn't be making any changes to any articles based solely on it, nor should we even be basing any content solely on it. And with that, I think this argument is moot. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion is not moot at all. In the absence of that one definition then there remains no other definition on the page at all, which means that you are commiting the choices of carriers listed to your own personal preference, rather than adapting it the best possible understanding via the source. The source states that anything over 70,000 tons, (Which must be meaning short tons as the standard US metric for the word "tons" as defined on the Short_ton page) is a supercarrier. That is an immutable number. If you look back through the history of this page, the change from the standard US metric of short tons to the very unusual to use long tons was done in a quick edit with no supporting evidence as to why they changed the source's wording.

However, I believe that the source may have been mistaken about the Kuznetsov, as I thought it was slightly higher displacement than it was (When I did the math above, I mistakenly substituted its short tons as metric tonnes). I am content for this ship (and by proxy, the Liaoing) to be left off the page as it is clearly not above 70,000 short tons, and thus is not a supercarrier. The Queen Elizabeth class however, most definitely is above 70,000 short tons, as 65,000 metric tonnes = 71,650 short tons. I'll edit up the page in the days going forward to include that ship class, since it matches the page source requirement; however in respect to your thoughts, I will continue to look for a more updated source for a future update to see if we can get anything more concrete.TheFuzzyOne (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you admit the source is in error, and you're dropping your pursuit to edit in the Kunetzov, but despite that you want to push forward with the QE, and with your own interpretation, decide which version of "tons" you think he meant? You're going to make changes to the article based on that? I would suggest that we leave the article be as is for now. (This isn't an urgent issue) Leave this discussion open, see if any other editors contribute and see if any other sources are provided. The re-visit in a few days. Let sleeping dogs lie... - ^theWOLFchild 23:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I am attempting to apply the only definition this page has accurately to the points of the page. It is not a perfect source as it is clearly making an error regarding one ship class, bear in mind that source is from a time when the exact displacement for Kuznetsov was not as knwo nas it is now, but otherwise clearly states "70,000 tons". That is the term for short tons, as it is the US standard metric of displacement, as defined on the Short Tons page. If we were to leave the page "as is" then it would be the one I originally undid the edit to be, as like I said, on the 15th of August last year there was an edit by Kablammo who changed it from short tons to long tons with absolutely no evidence, source or citation behind his change. Link to said comparison below.

Please find that edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supercarrier&type=revision&diff=795620188&oldid=794770862

The page source is a US source. Short tons is the unit used for "tons" in the US. The existence of "long tons" in this debate is the change without evidence, not the one I am doing, as short tons is how it was originally referenced when the source was brought onto the page long ago. There is absolutely no evidence that the source's statement of "tons" is referring to an almost unused and borderline obscure measurement of displacement. As it is our only definition source, unless another from a published source is found, it makes no sense for Kablammo to have made this change to long tons with no evidence as to why, thats why I made the change in the first place, to restore the page to before these changes started getting made. I'm happy to leave it for a few days to assume good intentions.TheFuzzyOne (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be a tough fix for various reasons. For example, however the tonnage debate fleshes out I know of two sources that state that Kuznetsov is not a supercarrier, both of which are viable to put it mildly. One, 'China's Aircraft Carrier Ambitions' by Li and Weuve states outright that the Kuznetsov falls between supercarriers and smaller, VSTOL carriers that operate a small number of aircraft. The other, 'Recalibrating U.S. Strategy Toward Russia' authored by members of the CSIS states that Russia intended to follow up Kuznetsov with a 'true supercarrier' design that was later scrapped. My fear here is we're going to have a lot of credible sources which disagree on what makes a proper supercarrier. For example, Bryan McGrath from the Hudson Institute would argue instantly that a lack of catapults on all three Kuznetsov carriers prevents them from being dubbed supercarriers because of the limitations that lack places upon their aircraft compliment (ie: no fixed-wing AEW&C and rather limited offensive capability). Do we need to find a way to acknowledge different definitions here? Syr74 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe so, to your last sentence. See my comment below under "sources", I think we need a different approach, rather than trying to chase something that ultimately doens't really seem to exist with any official full definition.TheFuzzyOne (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

sources

Another problem is this article has been on Wikipedia since 2004 (if you can believe that) and when I did a cursory search on Google yesterday for "supercarrier definition", it appears that webpage after webpage have used this wiki-page as the basis for their definition of supercarrier (Ugh). And all based on that one crummy source that some editor stuck on here way back when. One guy, makes one mention of 'supercarrier', in one book almost 30 years ago, picking a seemingly random number of 70,000... and then not even bothering to clarify what standard he'd using when saying "tons" and now we're stuck with this dogs breakfast. But we need to address this article and the definition of supercarrier, and hopefully put this issue to rest. - ^theWOLFchild 03:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi wolf, I think you actually make a very good point here. We could debate until the cows come home as to the meaning, but I think the ultimate truth is that there is no such thing as a single recognised definition, as seen in Syr74's post above. As such, I think it's less that we need to find "the" definition, and instead need to consider how the page is organised to present the concept in a more telling way. Rather than the Supercarrier page attempting to say "this IS what a supercarrier is, and these ships ARE or ARE NOT supercarriers", I think it might be more worthwhile to information to instead have the page simply list the known definitions, make it clear that it is an unofficial title with no singular definition, and then simply list all known carriers that have been referred to as them, or even simply just all known "large" carriers. That way, we cut out the debates on what "is or is not" and instead simply present a page that contains a range of what has been referred to as them, accompanied by each known definition above said list. This would be more akin to the "Blue Water Navy" page, where there are various definitions in use worldwide, and the page simply lists all the possible nations that have a possible attribution. I feel that this would be much easier to maintain, as it allows us to have a philosophy of range, rather than a strict line for people to try and debate either side of every few months. Let me know what you think, cheers for the dialogue. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If anything, your comments underscore the need to question the value of this 'article' in the first place. An article for something that seems less and less tangible the more you examine it. Perhaps it should just be put up for deletion(?) Anyhow, if you have a suggested re-write in mind that you think will be a clear improvement over the current page (and is worth your time), then go for it. I would suggest doing it in your sandbox, then linking your proposed new page here for the community to review, and to seek consensus to implement the change. Good luck & Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I can definitely see that as a possibility as well. Do supercarriers warrant their own page, or should they just be a portion of the overall carrier page? Admittedly, I like the idea of supercarrier being it's own page that links into the standard carrier page, but the discussion is worth having in my opinion. Syr74 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. If we were !voting right now, I'd vote to have this as a section of the aircraft carrier article. We could still link "supercarrier" directly to that section. Perhaps we should have a merge discussion? - ^theWOLFchild 00:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply. I would actually support deletion and integration if that were something people felt was best as well, as it is on loose ground. I've been looking for days but I can find no other definition source than the one on the page already, which I don't feel is enough to justify an entire page on its own. I was hoping to find something (even been looking through older Nautical Architect mags surrounding that year) but nothing's turned up. Anywhere that isn't just requoting the wiki page is pretty much just the odd random blog, which aren't sources. So yeah, I'd be for merging and deleting, however I do wonder if that article on the carrier page might just end up with the same debates again, only on a larger, more "important" page. I'll plan out a rework of this one anyway, in case integration ends up not being the way forward in the end. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a shot. I would suggest looking at what content and sources you guys would like to see moved to the new section at Aircraft carrier, perhaps post some suggested re-writes here. I would suggest not making it very lengthy. I'll set-up the proposal and post the templates. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This article appears to rely on a single source, a comment in a book from almost 30 years ago, and has since been shown to be (at least partially) incorrect. This article, and the term "supercarrier" have been a source for constant debate and even disruption. However, the term endures, and instead of outright deletion, it has been suggested in the above discussion that a merge could be of benefit.
Proposed: taking any worthwhile content and source(s) from this page, condensing and moving to aircraft carrier as a new section.

• Support as proposer. - ^theWOLFchild 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Syr74 (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Su7pport To be honest I have never understood why this page needs to exist. There is nothing unique about super carriers that is not present in other smaller carriers except for just size. Super carrier has no formal definition and I think you will find that even the operators of these behemoths refer to them as simply aircraft carriers. Anything unique can be merged into the aircraft carrier page, but otherwise, surely, all that is needed on that page would be some single line saying that the largest aircraft carriers are sometimes known informally as super carriers. We should, of course, leave a redirect from this page to the relevant entry on the aircraft carrier page. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume there is some formal process for a merger proposal, or is this discussion sufficient? - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This is it. Merge proposal tags have been added to both this and the aircraft carrier page, with this being the site for the discussion and decision making and the aircraft carrier page being the target to receive any potential content from here. And yes, this page would then be changed to a re-direct, leading directly to the new 'supercarrier' section of the aircraft carrier page. We just need a few more !votes for consensus to initiate the merge and some proposals for how the new section would read. - ^theWOLFchild 03:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #1

Well, I'm not sure if anyone else is working on a new section to add to the aircraft carrier article as part of the merger, but here is one up for proposal;

Supercarrier

The appellation "supercarrier" is not an official designation with any national navy, it is a term used predominantly by the media and typically when reporting on new and upcoming aircraft carrier types. It is also used when comparing carriers of various sizes and capabilities, both current and past. It was first used by the The New York Times in 1938, in an article about the Royal Navy's HMS Ark Royal, that had a length of 209 metres (686 ft), a displacement of 22,000 tonnes and was designed to carry 72 aircraft. Since then, aircraft carriers have consistently grown in size, both in length and displacement, as well as improved capabilities; in defense, sensors, electronic warfare, propulsion, range, launch and recovery systems, number and types of aircraft carried and number of sorties flown per day. While the current classes in service, or planned. with navies of the UK, India, Russia and China, with displacements ranging from 65,000 to 85,000 tonnes, lengths ranging from 280 meters (920ft) to 320 meters (1,050ft) and varying capabilities, have been described as "supercarriers", the largest "supercarriers" currently in service are with the US Navy, with displacements exceeding 100,000 tonnes, lengths of over 337 meters (1,106ft), and capabilities that match or exceed that of any other class.

• With this addition, this page would become a redirect to Aircraft_carrier#Supercarrier. I would also suggest that when (if) adding this to the article, we remove any instances where "supercarrier" is being used to describe a specific ship, class or type, and remove it from the lists of "basic types" and "sizes". Just call them all 'aircraft carriers'. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 21:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Whilst I believe that we probably really don't need more than a line or two about supercarriers on the aircraft carrier page, I would be quite comfortable with this paragraph. At the end of the day a supercarrier is just another aircraft carrier, it is really only its size that separates it from other fleet carriers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I agree... less is better, especially considering the current length of the aircraft carrier article. But this page does have some useful, historical and cited info, and is 14 years old, so I'm trying to condense all of that to a minimal amount. I still have some refs to fill out and in the meantime, I'll see if anyone has any suggested alterations. Thanks for the reply - ^theWOLFchild 23:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• YDone. It has been a full month, and while there is support for the merge, as well as the proposal, there hasn't been any opposition noted. I've gone ahead a completed the merge and redirect. - ^theWOLFchild 19:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

USA **** Yeah?

Excuse the cultural reference, I mean no offence; however, it seems someone has suddenly, completely out of the blue, dredged up a thirty year old source to exclude any non-US carriers just as the cutting-edge Royal Navy carriers come on line. One minute the article read as authoritively as it could for the British media-named, naval definition (1928 I think?) the next someone arbitarily decides that 70K LT was definitive, irrespective of numerous sources suggesting otherwise. The edits need to be reverted and the graph by length removed as length is completely irrelevant in the era of VL platforms employed on 21st century carriers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.19.76 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the discussions taking place on this page, on this very matter. The term "supercarrier" itself is being questioned, not just what ships it applies to. That said, what carriers other than the US CVNs can unquestionably be called "supercarriers"...? They're by far the longest and heaviest carrier ever built, not to mention they have nuclear propulsion and cats and traps. I agree many fans of the new British carriers, including myself, and the media, find them to impressive ships, but not everyone agrees they should be considered "supercarriers" The American CVNs have set the bar, and the new QE class falls short by about 30,000 tons and almost 200 feet. Not to mention they have conventional propulsion and are only STOVL capable. That said, this article is desperately lacking in sources, and if you have a reliable source you'd like to add that clearly defines the modern "supercarrier", please do. In the meantime, read up on talk page guidelines, learn where to put your posts and how to sign them. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 01:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, 30,000 tons and 2000 200 feet? We're not talking about the Invinciblex here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The difference between QE and CVN-65; 191ft, CVN-68; 160ft & CVN-78; 174ft. I did say "almost", and it was just part of a point I was illustrating on a talk page, not anything going into an article, so nothing to get riled about here. - ^theWOLFchild 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what? We are defining ‘super-carrier’ by length, propulsion and how an aircraft takes off? Says who exactly? The QE class are designed and built for cats and traps, just not implemented. Also, using one 30nyear old source that was old even before modern tactical naval doctrine is beyond me. The accepted displacement was 60K and should remain being the definitive measure.DNA Cowboy (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe there my have been some mis-understanding about the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers and their comparison with the older designs mentioned. What defines a ‘supercarrier’ is a combination of a number of factors, displacement, the ability to project force in the form of aircraft far from a nation’s own shores (known typically as ‘blue sea navies) and most importantly how quickly that ship can get aircraft into the sky. There are three navies that come under that descriptor: Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DNA Cowboy (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll find most here (including me) find it ridiculous to rely on a single comment in a near-30 year old book to be the sole determinant for what is a "supercarrier". The source has shown to be vague and proven to be, at least partially, incorrect. (but it's also what we're stuck with at the moment). That's why we're having this discussion, it's hopefully working towards a resolution on this. My comments above were merely to illustrate a point, (one only supported by my own opinion) and was not a suggestion for content to be added to the article. Lastly, as you were asked previously, if you have a reliable source that clearly states that a "supercarrier" is any carrier with a displacement of at least 60,000 tons (and is also clear on which "tons" - metric tonnes, long tons or short tons) we'd all appreciate it if you would list it here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the good faith assumption is worth taking to heart here. The issue here, in my opinion, is that there really isn't a universally accepted definition for the term 'supercarrier'. Yes, the British used this term early and, as best as I can tell, likely used it first; but much like the term battleship what is and what is not a supercarrier seems to have evolved with time and the term doesn't seem to carry the same connotation for every group. For example, without getting into citations, it is obvious that the Russian Navy did not consider Kuznetsov to be a supercarrier even though it easily meets at least some definitions for the same. In contrast, I have seen evidence that the Chinese consider their two fixed wing carriers to both be supercarriers even though one is literally a sister ship to Kuznetsov and the other a lightly modified copy of the same. Who is wrong? Both? Neither? To be blunt, I'm not sure that a definitive list of what does and does not constitute a supercarrier is workable because there doesn't appear to be a consensus among experts in general. Somehow, I think we're going to have to find a way to encompass both how the term has evolved over time (ie: what the English termed a supercarrier in 1928 would not be termed a supercarrier now, even by them), the history of the term (ie: recognizing boats that were supercarriers in their day but which arguably would not meet the term today), and how it is viewed differently be differing nations (ie: American boats seem to have to meet a higher standard to be called supercarriers than boats built elsewhere do, at least by their respective governments, likely because America has built so many). This doesn't have to mean that anybody is wrong, just different. Syr74 (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You make some good points. I think, if anything, this supports the merge proposal above. Instead of trying to maintain an entire article based on a poorly defined term and, along with that, trying to craft and maintain a list based on this poorly defined term, we should instead create one or two well written paragraphs describing; the concept of the "supercarrier" and how it has evolved, what some media outlets and even nations consider to be as "supercarriers", the contradictions therein, and the bar set by the US Navy... and place these paragraphs into the aircraft carrier article as a new section or sub-section titled "Supercarrier". This seems, to me at least, the best way to proceed. - ^theWOLFchild 22:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. In the long term this may become a subject too large to remain merely a portion of the larger, 'aircraft carrier' article, but in the near term I think it makes a lot of sense. My fear is that the subject will just become a bigger mess that it is now and stay that way for a year or two if we try to fix it as a stand-alone, which obviously isn't a good answer. A benefit of a merger is that things get cleaned up quickly, the article should make more sense for the effort, and if somebody does have the chops to retool the whole thing in a week as an article that is still large enough and sweeping enough to justify it's own digs, that's an easy change to make too. I don't think we lose anything for at least whipping up a merger proposal in a sandbox and seeing what happens. Syr74 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe there may be a little confusion over what actually defines a ‘supercarrier’. There has been a mention of length, propulsion type etc; however, what truly defines the term is a ship’s (whatever the definition) ability to project force in the form of air power far from one’s own shores. There are four navies that can do that, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, so-called ‘blue water navies’. A supercarrier is defined by the vessel’s ability to how many aircraft it can sortie in any given moment, deck size and typically, displacement. The QE-class carriers employ the latest in robotic weapons loading and has the fastest aircraft lifts of any ship afoot bar none, their radar is the most advanced in the world and most importantly their deck size is over 16K SqM, greater than any other carrier bar the Ford class which is 16.3 SqM I believe. This means that R08 and R09 can put aircraft into the air faster than 95% of all other carriers, achieving an incredible 72-sorties a day with a ships crew of just 679, compare that with the USN carriers which require FOUR times as many sailors to operate their ships, the Nimitz requires 6000, the Ford 2600, an improvement but nothing on the QE-class. Admittedly, they put up more sorties but nowhere near as fast. When designing the QE-class carriers, the Carrier Alliance could have easily built the ships longer and to hold more aircraft but they didn’t, why? Because every study showed that a ship with a very large deck space (wide as well as long) combined with very fast aircraft lifts and robotic weapons handing allowed more sorties per vessel than ships of older, more traditional designs. Currently, the QE class ship the Queen Elizabeth (R08) displaces at 69K LT and is expected to be 71K LT fully loaded; however, this may increase later on. So in conclusion, please don’t dismiss these cutting edge carriers just because they are not nuclear-powered or a few inches shorter, in every other sense they field the very latest world-class technologies. In closing, with respect to certain editors here, I believe it is petty and wrong to have recently excluded the RN carriers from this article on the grounds suggested above which has nothing to do with force projection. Please check this source to get a true picture of power projection in the 21st century from a British perspective. DNA Cowboy (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References

I too believe there is confusion over what is and what is not a supercarrier and why. And I too believe that the QE class carriers are supercarriers for various reasons including force projection, size, etc. That said, I don't believe that everybody who questions the status of the QE class as a supercarrier is doing so unfairly. For example, for all of the impressive tech on the QE class the ship cannot carry a fixed-wing AEW&C aircraft that can compliment the F-35 strike fighters it was designed to carry in every kind of strike profile. The AEW&C HELO the carrier is designed to operate with is going to create some limitations in terms of offensive capability, that is simply a reality of VSTOl carrier operations until somebody creates a more effective AEW&C for the same. The carrier also suffers in terms of ability to employ buddy escorts to refuel the strike package which likewise limits offensive capability to some degree. Neither of this is enough, in my opinion, to bump this carrier out of supercarrier status as I think the stealth assets it employs and the considerable tech designed into the carry still give it really impressive offensive potential, but I understand why some people would think it is enough to omit the class even though I disagree. In fact, in my opinion, the only supercarriers on the planet right now are the QE class and the active U.S. carriers, as de Gaulle just isn't large enough to meet the modern definition of the term and the Kuzentsov triplets struggle too much in the offensive role to qualify. That said, my opinion only really matters in so much as it drives me to find legitimate sources that support of refute my opinions. It's the legitimate sources that really matter here, and some agree with me while others don't....but all of them matter to one degree or anotherSyr74 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your positive feedback, the AEW&C solution is the Crowsnest system deployed on the five Merlin AsaC5’s, the new sensor package is extremely long-Range and the F35’s will use the buddy-buddy system for refuelling.DNA Cowboy (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem DNA Cowboy. My point wasn't intended to play devil's advocate and was instead simply intended to point out that I have seen qualified, intelligent people argue that no VSTOL carrier can be a supercarrier. Do I agree with them? Not really, as in this regard I think the QE could be a game changer. And I think the QE could change some of their minds as many of them haven't spoken on the subject since QE s[pecs became clearer. That said, I don't think we're going to come to a consensus on what makes a supercarrier 'super', because from what I can see the experts haven't. And I think the discussion on this talk page has gone beyond just what should be included and moved onto how the subject should be addressed in general. There is no question in my mind that, in any article on supercarriers, QE has to be included in some way. But at this point, I think the bigger question is how we mention them and any others that warrant inclusion. Syr74 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

DNA Cowboy, your lengthy post is unfortunately an opinion piece that does not support the inclusion of the QE class as a "supercarrier", or even help define what a "supercarrier" is. You added one link that doesn't even mention the term "supercarrier". And please don't call editors "petty" for simply following the guidelines here. I agree with Syr74, we need more sources to clearly define and support the term and it's application. Until then, we should focus on whether or not this article can be improved or if it should be merged. - ^theWOLFchild 18:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand your point, all comments here are ‘opinions’, including the ones deigned to hand down the definitive ‘supercarrier’ definition, the same editor going on to delete all mention of the QE-class carriers in the piece. The difference with my opinion is everything I have said can be backed up with reliable sources, the problem is that an editor has arbitrarily decided that their 30yr old, dated definition was the one that editors must abide by. However, my sources are up to date, take for example, the US defence correspondent Tyler Rogoway , he firmly believes the QE-clas are ‘supercarriers’ or this highly respected defence journal, the author defines the QE-class carrier’s as ‘supercarriers’, having done so since the they were built. or this one perhaps: or how about the very well-known newspaper The Independent? Or perhaps we should hear from the highly respected ship builders Knud E. Hansen or the award-winning American defence journalist Joseph Trevithick? (War Is Boring/Small Wars Journal/Vice)
In closing, interestingly, the BBC consider 55K LT in the SC class, because like me, their defence correspondents believe the issue is one of force projection. Finally, two excellent US defence correspondents at The Aviationist have a couple of very interesting pieces on the QE-class ‘built for’ but not implemented yet EMALS catapult system as well as the IEP electrical propulsion system. DNA Cowboy (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References

What is there to "not understand"...? You listed one source in your last comment and it didn't even mention "supercarrier". So, as I pointed out, it was basically an opinion piece, and lent nothing in the way of either adding to the article or the proposed merger. But, clearly you took some meaning from my comments, because you've now listed a whole parade of sources about "super-carriers", (all written by well-respected, awesome, super-duper!, yadda-yadda, people). So... ok, now what? - ^theWOLFchild 01:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, my edit needs to be restored. As for the rest of your comments you have clearly failed to understand my previous implication, so I will now make it crystal clear for you, I had hoped you would have taken my word on the legitimacy of my comments regarding the defence sources, aka good faith, instead you chose to ‘dig in’ and that position has now caused friction. My next edit was to include the numerous citations; however, my work was deleted before I could and we ended up arguing over nothing.DNA Cowboy (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, whoa... relax. If there's any "friction" here, you're the only one feeling it. This is just a discussion about content and decision making, no need to take anything personally. Look, the fact still remains, that your post above was not supported, it's not that I didn't believe you, I was just pointing out that salient fact. "Faith", good or bad, assumed, implied, bestowed, or otherwise, is irrelevant when it comes to sourcing. Now, that said... I have no idea what you're talking about when say your "work was deleted". Do you mean here on the talk page? Or the article? Anyway, it looks like this article itself is going to be deleted and re-directed to a section on the aircraft carrier page, once the content of that new section is written and approved. So I wouldn't stress too much over this page anymore (including putting "supercarrier" into Google then adding every. single. page. you find here.) Hope your day gets better, Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 19:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

By friction I was referring to your increasingly bizzare tone (super duper, yadda yadda’) when confronted with reliable sources that counter your assertions and dogmatic approach to the 70K LT SC definition and that the QE-class not be re-added to the article. Also, I am a little confused as to why you would think anyone would take it personally. The problem is that your demands are all over the place, first of all you cling dogmatically to your position citing bizarre definition requirements for a ‘supercarrier’ irrespective of the facts and demanding sources then the next thing you do is criticise these same sources as ‘google searching’ when in fact I chose the above sources for ease of access, are you now saying that these sources are somehow questionable because they are on the internet? Finally, having lost the argument regarding the QE-class SC definition you have retreated to promoting the idea that the article be deleted. Frankly, at this point I recommend we re-add my edits and improve the article which I am happy to do rather than like small children in prams tear up our toys.DNA Cowboy (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@DNA Cowboy: What do you think this is? 4chan? Reddit? What "argument" did you think we were having and how is it you think I "lost"? This is an encyclopaedia, and I don't care what goes into an article as long as it is properly added, written and supported. When it's not, it gets removed. What about that don't you get? And I haven't "clung" to anything here, ("dogmatically"...? WotD?), I've been discussing this issue with other editors while at the same time trying to keep you pacified.

And now, finally, after what... a week now? With one massive rant after another, each one adding a dozen entries into the page history, (because you apparently don't know how to use the preview function), you finally find some sources. Which I never questioned btw... not once. You, however, added them here like some used car salesman trying to sell something (the "highly respected" this and "the well known" that). I was trying to let you know how foolish you looked without actually calling you foolish. But you crossed that line awhile ago, with your persistent ad hominem attacks. Everyone else here, including those who do not agree with each other, have managed to keep this discussion civilized.

You, however, are taking this all waaay too personally. You are too close to the subject of the QE carriers, and that's why you're pushing your POV agenda so hard to have them labeled as "supercarriers", regardless of what is actually taking place on this page. Do you even realize what is happening here? Apparently not, as I see you ignored yet another guideline, and went and edited the article, while an active discussion is still taking place, and without any kind of consensus supporting your edit. You need to slow down (and cool down). You've been on Wikipedia for about 5 minutes, you only have a few dozen edits, (all of them on this page) and clearly your inexperience and temper are affecting your editing and your attitude. You need to read, understand and follow the policies & guidelines of this project, and keep your combative behaviour in check. Do you think you can do that? - ^theWOLFchild 17:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: Having just reviewed your changes, it's clear that you should propose future edits on talk pages and seek assistance from experienced editors to implement them until you know how to edit properly. You left the page in an unsuitable condition, leaving me to wonder if you even looked at it after you saved it. The entire edit should have been reverted, but I have instead done what I can for now to clean up what you left behind. You cannot just arbitrarily remove reliable sources, just because you don't agree with them, and you certainly can't take quotes from those sources, after you've removed them, and add them as your own prose without attribution. You can't just cram in images wherever you please, and you shouldn't be modifying tables when you obviously have no idea how markup works or leaving edits that conflict with the layout of the table. You can't list ships as "commissioned" and in "active service" when in fact they are still years away from even being completed. You. Can't. Just. Make. Stuff. Up. Competency is required to edit this project and right now you're just creating more work for other editors, so I'll say again, learn the editing guidelines here before you edit any further articles, and seek assistance on talk pages in the meantime. - ^theWOLFchild 19:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3