Jump to content

Talk:Anti-submarine warfare carrier

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

CVS

[edit]

There are several redirects from 60's era NATO CVS ships that were conventional carriers not just Invincible class SVTOL mini-carriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.112.40 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccncur. Conventinal carriers were first used as CVSs, before the advent of helicopter and VSTOL aircraft for the role. I'm going to try to expand the aritcle to give better coverage of the these types, particularly the Essex calss ships. - BillCJ (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the light carriers listed had an ASW/strike mission profile where is the line drawn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.100.72 (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Wings

[edit]

It would be useful to also include the ASW aircraft flown from various carriers ie: Breguet Alizé on Indian and French carriers, S-2 Tracker on Brasillian, US, Canadian, Argentine, Dutch, and Australian ships, but beginning in the 70's as most nations were drawing down and retiring their fixed wing carrier based ASW forces the US introduced the S-3 Viking. While the British and other carriers started with Fairey Gannet they like most other services through the 60's and 70's switched to helicopters like the Westland Sea King, SH-3 Sea King, and later the SH-60 Seahawk, in addition to many other ASW helicopters flown from from CV, LPH, and conventional warships. If I find the time I will try to get these into this page, but need help with some of the older American Essex class ships. 6-4-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.100.72 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By what criteria are the light carriers listed, many did little in the way of ASW, thers phased into and out of that role. Epecially the Essex class ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.174.182 (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I propose we move this to Anti-submarine warfare carrier per the naming conventions: Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar).. These types of carriers are almost never known as "ASW carriers".--Pattont/c 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - A quick Google search of the full terms, while not in any way authoritative, was somewhat surprising: "ASW carrier" - 4,600 hits; "Anti-Submarine Warfare carrier" - 1,140 hits. I actually expected it to be closer. Nevertheless, the term is quite common. - BillCJ (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - MOS:ABBR makes it clear this is not a straight popularity contest: "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar)." ASW carrier as a term is simply not widely enough known to qualify (I get 3 Google news hits (all dates); Google books hits are highly technical publications), and therefore should be in the expanded form in the title. The 4:1 Google results above do not represent "almost exclusivity" either and in my opinion favour support. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this move. ASW carrier will still redirect, but Anti-submarine warfare carrier seems to be more in line with naming conventions. Martinmsgj 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

I am proposing that Antisubmarine Aircraft Carrier be merged into Anti-submarine warfare carrier. It appears that both articles are on the same subject, but while the former is United States-specific, the latter attempts to encompass a worldwide application. -- saberwyn 10:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOrry I missed the discussion when it was first opened. The newer article was created by an inexperienced user, who has not edited WP since the article was created! I've redirected the page here. The only real "unique" content was the list of CVS carries, which is probably already covered in a list article. - BilCat (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-submarine warfare carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-submarine_warfare_carrier&oldid=1213085072"