| Revision as of 10:14, 12 May 2015 editM.srihari (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users732 editsm →Proposed Supercarriers← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:07, 28 September 2023 edit undoAVDLCZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,730 editsm Fix rcat shell |
| (326 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{for|the television program|Supercarrier (TV series)}} |
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
<!-- This article was originally written using US English. Please respect this per ]. --> |
|
|
] (rear), the first nuclear-powered supercarrier (94,781 tons), and ] (front), a medium-sized nuclear-powered carrier (37,085 metric tons).]] |
|
|
], a modern-day supercarrier (left), alongside the 22,000 metric ton light carrier ] (right).]] |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
'''Supercarrier''' is an unofficial descriptive term for the largest type of ], typically those ] over 70,000 ]s (64,000 ]s).<ref>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."</ref> Supercarriers are the largest ]s ever built, larger than the largest ] class laid down by any country. The ] has ten supercarriers {{As of|2015|lc=y}}.<ref></ref> |
|
|
|
{{R from merge|Aircraft carrier}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{R from related word}} |
|
A few countries operate medium-sized ]s of around 40,000 tons, such as the ] aircraft carrier ] (R91). The size and configuration of the ''Charles de Gaulle'' corresponds closely with the 45,000-ton {{Sclass|Midway|aircraft carrier|4}} the United States built at the end of World War II as a successor class to the much more numerous 27,000-ton {{Sclass-|Essex|aircraft carrier|2}}, mainstay vessels of WWII after 1943 when they entered service. Outside the US, there are more ]s closer to 30,000 tons, such as Italy's ]. In 2009 the United Kingdom cut the first steel for construction of two ], with the first ship to be delivered in early 2017 and expected to become fully operational by 2020. Their displacement is expected to be 70,600 metric tons, making them the third largest supercarrier class in service, after the United States' ''Gerald R. Ford'' (first expected in 2016) and ''Nimitz'' classes. |
|
|
|
{{R mentioned in hatnote}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
==History== |
|
|
The first ship to be described by '']'' as a supercarrier was {{HMS |Ark Royal|91|6}} in 1938,<ref>{{citation | contribution= Reich's Cruise Ships Held Potential Plane Carriers | title = The New York Times | date = May 1, 1938 | page = 32 | url = http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=%22Britain%27s+new+super-carrier%2C+the+Ark+Royal%22&date_select=full&srchst=cse}}.</ref> with a length of 685 ft and a displacement of 22,000 tons, designed to carry 72 aircraft.<ref>"The Ark Royal Launched. Most Up-To-Date Carrier. Aircraft In The Fleet", '']'' (14 April 1937), p. 11.</ref><ref>{{Cite book| last= Rossiter | first= Mike | title = Ark Royal: the life, death and rediscovery of the legendary Second World War aircraft carrier |origyear=2006 |edition=2nd |year=2007 |publisher=Corgi Books |location=London | isbn = 978-0-552-15369-0 |oclc= 81453068 | pages = 48–51}}</ref> In 1943 the superlative was transferred to the 45,000-ton {{Sclass-|Midway|aircraft carrier|4}} carriers as a step-up from the 27,000-ton {{sclass-|Essex|aircraft carrier}}.<ref>John G Norris, "World's Largest Warships: Three 45,000-Ton Carriers For Bombers Ordered by Navy", '']'' (23 October 1943), p. 1.</ref> The ], launched in 1944, was the first aircraft carrier with a standard displacement of over 65,000 metric tons. |
|
|
|
|
|
The post-war standard for supercarriers was set by the proposed {{USS |United States|CVA-58 |6}} and {{USS |Forrestal|CV-59|6}}.<ref>"Va. Firm Gets Giant Carrier Building Job. 65,000-Ton Warship Will Be Largest in Postwar Program", '']'' (8 August 1948), p. 3.</ref> ''Forrestal'' displaced 60,000 tons standard and 78,000 tons in deep load<ref>{{Cite book| last= Donald | first = David |author2=Daniel J March |title= Carrier Aviation Air Power Directory |year= 2001 |publisher= AIRtime Publishing |location = Norwalk, CT |isbn= 1-880588-43-9 |page =77 }}</ref> and is considered the first operational supercarrier in the present-day sense, as used by the US press.<ref>{{Cite book | format = PDF | last = MacDonald | first = Scot | title = Evolution of Aircraft Carriers | publisher = US Government Printing Office | date = 1964-02-01 | location = Washington, DC |url = |doi = |isbn = |id= | page = 69 | chapter= 14 | chapterurl= http://www.history.navy.mil/download/car-14.pdf | quote = The versatility of the current US carrier fleet is largely due to the operation of what the press has labeled 'super-carriers,' heavy duty aircraft carriers of the size, power, and potency of the Forrestals and the nuclear-powered Enterprise.}}</ref> The similar-sized ''United States'' would have been in service earlier, had it been completed; its cancellation triggered the "]". |
|
|
|
|
|
The ]'s 85,000-ton nuclear carrier ], closely comparable in size to earlier American supercarriers, was 40% complete when it and a follow-on vessel were canceled in 1991 during post-] funding cuts. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{As of|2014}} the United Kingdom has two 70,000-ton Queen Elizabeth class carriers being built,<ref>http://royalnavyinfo.com/future-vessels/queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers/</ref> and France had until 2013 been considering building ] based on the same design. These ships are referred to as supercarriers by British ]s<ref></ref><ref>.</ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> and the ].<ref name="supercarrier">{{Cite news| title = Hoon to confirm ‘supercarrier’| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1401764.stm| publisher = ]|date= 2001-06-22| accessdate = 2008-12-23}}</ref><ref name="Go ahead">{{Cite news| title = Go-ahead given for work to start on supercarriers| url = http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/hands-off-our-base/Goahead-given-for-work-to.4099975.jp| work = ]|date=2008-05-20| accessdate = 2008-12-23}}</ref><ref name="VT">{{Cite news| title = VT at forefront of £3.9bn supercarrier project| url = http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/hands-off-our-base/VT-at-forefront-of-39bn.4100855.jp| work = ]| date=2008-05-20| accessdate = 2008-12-23}}</ref><ref name="Janes">{{Cite news| title = Navy (France), Navy Assessment | url = http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Sentinel-Security-Assessment-Western-Europe/Navy-France.html | publisher = '' Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment—Western Europe ''|date=2008-12-03| accessdate = 2008-12-28}}</ref><ref name="Delayed">{{Cite news| title = Navy aircraft carriers delayed| url = http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/3969255.Navy_aircraft_carriers_delayed/| work = ] |date=2008-12-11| accessdate = 2008-12-23}}</ref><ref name="Job concerns">{{Cite news| title = Job concerns as MoD proposes carrier delay| url = http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/12/12/newsstory12371214t0.asp| work = ] |date=2008-12-12| accessdate = 2008-12-23}}</ref><ref name = "Airfix">{{Cite news| title = The £4billion Airfix Kit: Behind-the-scenes at Britain's biggest warships| url = http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1100714/The-4billion-Airfix-Kit-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html| work = ]|date= 2008-05-28| accessdate = 2008-12-28 | location=London | first=Damon | last=Syson}}</ref> The two Queen Elizabeth class carriers will provide the ] with capabilities much closer to ] carriers than its current {{Sclass|Invincible|aircraft carrier|0}} vessels. Giving evidence to the ] ] in 2004, the ] ] explained that interoperability with the United States Navy was as much a deciding factor of the size of the carriers as the firepower of the carrier's airwing: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quote|I have talked with the CNO (]) in ]. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers.<ref></ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Future plans for supercarriers in the United States involve the construction of the U.S. Navy's next generation of carriers, the {{Sclass-|Gerald R. Ford|aircraft carrier|4}}, which will have a 100,000-ton displacement. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Alternatives== |
|
|
The United States maintains ten of these ships, with each typically operating 45 ] aircraft for traditional fighter, attack and ] roles with twelve ] helicopters, four ] ] aircraft and two ] ] aircraft.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Alvarez |first1=Beto |last2=Robbins |first2=Gary |date=4 July 2014 |title=The Fleet |journal=] |volume= |issue= |pages=10&11 |publisher= }}</ref> Given carriers' vulnerability in combat and to peacetime ] attacks, the use of more and smaller carriers rather than large vessels has been suggested over the years, such as ]'s ], and carriers the size of {{USS|America|LHA-6}} carrying ] aircraft and ].<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref name="hendrix201105">{{cite journal | url=http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-05/twilight-uperfluous-carrier | title=Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier | author=Hendrix, Henry J.; Williams, J. Noel | journal=Proceedings |date=May 2011 | volume=137 | issue=05}}</ref> However, supercarrier advocates consider them to be more cost-effective than a larger number of smaller carriers.<ref></ref> An American carrier strike group costs $25 million per week for routine operations, rising to $40 million during combat operations.<ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] (MOB) is an extension of the supercarrier concept, a modular floating military base as large as 10 aircraft carriers. If realized, it could be moved anywhere throughout the world's oceans, obviating the need to seek permission from allied nations for use of land bases. The concept was studied in the 1990s by the U.S. government but was abandoned in 2001 as cost prohibitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Classes== |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USA}} ] (1955): Four unit class, all decommissioned |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USA}} ] (1961): Four unit class, all decommissioned |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USA}} ] (1961): Six unit class, five cancelled, one decommissioned |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USA}} ] (1975): 10 unit class, all active |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USA}} ] (2015): 10 unit class, two under construction, one ordered, 7 planned |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|UK}} ] (2016): Two unit class, all under construction |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USSR}} ] (1990): Two unit class, all active |
|
|
|
|
|
===Cancelled=== |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USA}} ] (1950s): Five planned, one laid down, all cancelled |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|UK}} ] (1960s): Two planned, both cancelled |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USSR}} ] (1970s): Cancelled |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|USSR}} ] (1990s): Two planned, one partially completed, all cancelled |
|
|
* {{Flagicon|FRA}} ] (2010s): One planned, cancelled |
|
|
|
|
|
==Supercarriers in service== |
|
|
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:95%;" |
|
|
! Country |
|
|
! Name (]) |
|
|
! Length |
|
|
! ] (]) |
|
|
! Class |
|
|
! Propulsion |
|
|
! Type |
|
|
! Commission |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">100020</span> 100,020 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1975-05-03</span> 3 May 1975 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">103200</span> 103,200 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1977-10-18</span> 18 October 1977 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">102900</span> 102,900 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1982-03-13</span> 13 March 1982 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">106300</span> 106,300 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1986-10-25</span> 25 October 1986 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">105783</span> 105,783 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1989-11-11</span> 11 November 1989 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">105900</span> 105,900 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1992-07-04</span> 4 July 1992 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">105000</span> 105,000 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1995-12-09</span> 9 December 1995 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">105600</span> 105,600 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">1998-07-25</span> 25 July 1998 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">103000</span> 103,000 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">2003-07-12</span> 12 July 2003 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">333</span> {{convert|333|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">104000</span> 104,000 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Nuclear |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">2009-01-10</span> 10 January 2009 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|Russia}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">305</span> {{convert|305|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">61,390</span> 61,390 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Conventional |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| 25 December 1990 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|China}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">304.5</span> {{convert|304.5|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">67,500</span> 67,500 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Conventional |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| September 25, 2012 |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Supercarriers under construction== |
|
|
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:95%;" |
|
|
! Country |
|
|
! Name (]) |
|
|
! Length |
|
|
! ] |
|
|
! Class |
|
|
! Propulsion |
|
|
! Type |
|
|
! Commission date |
|
|
! Status |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|UK}} |
|
|
| ]<ref name="UK">], p. 206</ref> |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">280</span> {{Convert|280|m|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">070600</span>70,600 mt<ref>, UK Defence Journal. Retrieved 19 February 2015.</ref> |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Conventional |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| 2017 (expected) |
|
|
| Being fitted out |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|UK}} |
|
|
| ]<ref name="UK"/> |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">280</span> {{Convert|280|m|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">070600</span>70,600 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| Conventional |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| 2018 (expected) |
|
|
| Under construction |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ]<ref name="USA">{{cite web |url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf |title=Navy Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier |first=Ronald |last=O'Rourke |date=10 June 2010 |publisher=] |format=pdf |accessdate=8 September 2010}}</ref> |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">337</span> {{convert|337|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">102000</span> 102,000 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
|] |
|
|
| 2016 (expected) |
|
|
| Under construction |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|US}} |
|
|
| ]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.defense.gov//releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14523 |title=Navy names next aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy |date=29 May 2011 |publisher=] |accessdate=29 May 2011}}</ref> |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">337</span> {{convert|337|m|ft|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">102000</span> 102,000 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| 2020 (expected) |
|
|
| Under construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposed Supercarriers== |
|
|
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:95%;" |
|
|
! Country |
|
|
! Class |
|
|
! Number of Carriers |
|
|
! Length |
|
|
! ] |
|
|
! Propulsion |
|
|
! Type |
|
|
! Commision Date |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|China}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| tbd<ref name="plan">{{cite web|url=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2011/01/01/DT_01_01_2011_p71-272520.xml |title=China Has Plans For Five Carriers |publisher=Aviation Week |date=2011-01-05 |accessdate=2011-04-30}}</ref> |
|
|
| {{Convert|300|m|abbr=on}} |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">90000</span>90,000 mt |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/8429544.html |title=Chinese aircraft carrier should narrow the gap with its U.S. counterpart |date=18 October 2013 |website=english.peopledaily.com.cn |publisher=People's Daily |accessdate=18 October 2013}}</ref> |
|
|
| 2025 onwards (projected) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| {{flag|India}} |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| ] (confirmed)<ref>Navy eyes high-tech options for future aircraft carriers,</ref> |
|
|
| {{Convert|300|m|abbr=on}} for ] |
|
|
| <span style="display:none">065000</span>65,000 mt for ]<ref>India’s Modi Approves Aircraft Carrier Funding, http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/indias-modi-approves-aircraft-carrier-funding//</ref> |
|
|
| ]<ref> Times of India 1 August 2013</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url = http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150228000028&cid=1101|title = India speeds up the design of second domestic aircraft carrier|date = |accessdate = |website = |publisher = |last = |first = }}</ref> |
|
|
| ]<ref> The Big News Network 02 May 2015</ref><ref> The Diplomat 23 April 2015</ref> |
|
|
| 2025 (expected) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{Reflist|30em}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links== |
|
|
{{Commons category|Aircraft carriers}} |
|
|
* —comprehensive and detailed listings of all the world's aircraft carriers and ]s from 1913 to 2001, with photo gallery. |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Warship types of the 19th & 20th centuries}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|