Talk:Aircraft carrier

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Aircraft carrier was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 2, 2006 Good article nominee Listed April 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 1, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept June 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force World War II task force Aviation: Aircraft / Airports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article is supported by the airport project.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cloi929.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with how to present the Japanese MSDF 'escort ships' which are currently getting their ski jump+ mods and 99% USMC Lightnings, It appears that Japan is doing a diplomatic dance around their post war constitution and foreign relations, a dance which IMO must be presented by official quotes and leave the conclusions and OR to readers. There is the reality that Japan is financing and developing a screwdriver-away minimal carrier training force without ever committing to this apparent reality in official statements. The RT cite contains a useful quote, "We are not creating carrier air wings or carrier air squadrons" is then unclearly and imprecisely qualified by the Russia Today article's editor by ending the sentence with their own "similar to the U.S Navy." statement; unclear as the USN is the absolute extreme in historical naval air power and this short qualifier statement could be true even of a hypothetical navy with five CATOBAR Nimitz/Ford size CVNs and a few secondary STOVL carrier LHA/LHDs. I propose we use this RT quote of an unnamed Japanese MOD official without the editorial qualifier from RT as it encompasses, and it's reasonable authenticy is supported by, the meaning and apparent intent of the many longer form official and expert sources and quotes into an easy to understand single quote of denial for a short informational stub on the intentionally obfuscated Japanese position and situation for the Aircraft Carrier article. Wikipedia consensus officially doesn't trust RT because trusted sources disqualify them due to a history of editorialization and propaganda, so much so that others have now removed the cite entirely from the carrier article, non-preferred sources can be used especially for for quotes as long as they have consensus. So we have some facts supported by cited expert analysis, recorded orders and purchases, and official statements: 1- There is no cited official quote so far to support a hypothetical JMSDF or forthcoming JASDF STOVL force ever planning to operate from the Izumo class 'escort ships'(officially not aircraft carriers) only the USMC so far 2- Japan has purchased carrier capable aircraft but only officially buying these(per 2020 def white paper) for Air Self Defense Force to operate from short fields, expert analysis in cites that it is for STOL southern island defense 3- The JASDF will be operating these aircraft and until now I have found no official quotes Japanese nor American that the JASDF pilots will be receiving at-sea ops training, only hype and clickbait forecasting 4- The Izumo class is being modified for the F-35B(same as ordered by JASDF) at great expense but all quotes I can find out of official Japan speak when specific about American aircraft ops and building a domestic Japanese capability to support USMC or unspecified generic F-35B air. There is much excitement and hype but if we can keep it encyclopedic and within the rules then the only way this can be presented is to show the facts and official reasons and let the readers understand the clear capability by presenting a coincident JASDF with carrier capable aircraft but no official naval cross mission and a JMSDF with a few STOVL carriers but officially no mission to ever support JASDF aircraft, only USMC as far as reliable cites I can find.

Request for discuss->consensus on how to briefly present a country that officially presents a near future 2 STOVL carrier maritime defense force training to support STOVL ops but only with foreign(USMC) planes and an air force with future delivery of (same)carrier capable aircraft but no official public plans for shipboard ops or training. Solomon(for now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.42.138 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Significant change was made with this edit, which to me is problematic. It's seems too definitive, based on a single encounter in an joint exercise 20 years ago. (This edit is copied from an edit made to USS Enterprise (CVN-65).) I made minor changes to that one, and though the edit to this page has also since had some changes made to it, perhaps more is needed? Note; same user has also added this edit to Carrier battle group and U.S. Carrier Group tactics. Would like some more editors to take a look and discuss. Thanks - wolf 17:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged - wolf 00:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless "vulnerability". Carriers aren't especially susceptible to a diesel electric submarine, any more than they're vulnerable to nuclear attack submarines, maritime strike aircraft, surface action groups etc. etc. I suggest just removal, or a catch all not that Carrier vulnerability increases when operating in a littoral confined area. 2A00:23C7:8A90:BA01:45AA:E99:93BB:F17C (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marine&Mer: - I may be erring on the side of caution, but I don't believe you can use images as refs. Additionally, you're linking directly to an image on an outside website, which may be a copyvio and/or image use violation. - wolf 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser LHD.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tcganadolu.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How made by aircraft 2409:4042:2D07:415A:0:0:30C9:B608 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not made by aircraft. The lead says it is a "warship that serves as a seagoing airbase ... for carrying, arming, deploying, and recovering aircraft." -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TCG Anadolu sea trials 7 March 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that someone should put in aircraft carrier schematics. In case they're not familiar with their general layout. I can't do it. I don't have access to WikiCommons and such, and have limited site access. So can someone please put in the basic schematics? Faith15 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 2 years, the concept of drone carrier has become more popular among the navies. The latest example is the Chinese effort to develop a drone carrier. This concept is more and more significant day by day and we can create article or section about drone carriers, like the Persian and German articles. -- Iri1388 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Drone carrier Iri1388 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]