Talk:Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

CVN-80 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 December 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier at the Reference desk.

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 / North America / United States

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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft

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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Whitespace

Formatting white space must necessarily be minimized, ie. there must be a justification in each case. Otherwise, one could legitimately double the size of every article with various white space formatings.

In this case, there is no reason to add formatting white space. - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jargon and PR like writing

IMO this article is full of DoD jargon and reads a bit like a PR from the DoD

Complement and crew don't match up

The article says the crew will be 2,600 approx. but it also says there'll be 3,789 enlisted crewmen. How can this be? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Complement" is being used to include the ship's air wing personnel, while "Crew" means only the actual crew required to run and operate the ship. - BilCat (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, makes sense, thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metric project?

Does anyone know if this ship and the rest of the class was built using metric or not? I'm aware that a lot of current and recent past projects, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22, have been. Flanker235 (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Seapower-Digital" reference URLs defunct and now taken over by another party

At least this following link in the article references Seapower Magazine. Seapower Magazine does not appear to use this domain any longer. If we navigate to the URLs using Seapower-Digital as a source, it appears these have the potential to be malicious or, at the very least, not the intended resources. Wherever this source is cited, we should likely replace. Putting this here for common knowledge/heads-up.

--Marsbound2024 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USS Dorris Miller Under construction

with the first steel cut completed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taCfKLZ4pV8) ive changed the status of CVN-81 from "ordered" to "Under Construction"

75.89.43.149 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any issues with roll-out?

I've read of some problems with rolling out this ship, but see no mention of that here. Do we not want to address that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.48.6 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the class article, in the article about the ship, USS Gerald R. Ford, there are numerous issues noted. - wolf 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ship length

Huntington Ingalls Industries said the length is 1106 feet [1] 75.139.201.84 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.201.84 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length may have changed since 2013, it's better to use the later Navy source. Also, Militaryfactory isn't considered a reliable source. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Naval Vessel Register seems to think it's 1,092 ([3]). --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that there's a discrepancy of 14 feet, but perhaps something was removed after construction. In the past, the bridal catchers added something to the length, but they haven't been used in several decades, so wouldn't have been included in the Ford class's design. BilCat (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After hunting around a bit, it appears that both lengths are found in numerous sources, so I don't really see how we could go with just one or the other. I think we need to list both until either the discrepancy itself is addressed by some sources, or until one length starts to show up almost exclusively in the most recent, up-to-date coverage of the class. (JMHO) - wolf 21:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic (Airlant) says length is 1106 feet [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.201.84 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that has already been noted, both here and in your duplicate thread. - wolf 20:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Navy also says it's 1,092 feet long (The Naval Vessel Register seems to think it's 1,092 ([5]). So, you want to go with an assertion that the Navy is wrong because the Navy says it's wrong, when another part of the Navy asserts that it is right? Stop ignoring other sources in favor of the source you prefer. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a duplicate of a post at Talk:USS Gerald R. Ford#Ship length - fyi - wolf 17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]