Talk:Lexington-class aircraft carrier

message: [Moved from Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2):]
Which treaty caused limits to the tonnage of the ship? And it's not clear from the article whether the US "cheated" or whether there was some complex "tonnage borrowing" aspect of the (mysterious) treaty. 17 December 2005; 69.181.82.202 
:The washington naval treaty []  09:25, 9 April 2006; 66.6.80.48
The text of this article suggests that there was evasion of the Washington Naval Treaty as the carrier is stated to have displaced 40,000 tons. The treaty limitation however is on "standard" displacement, not full load (including fuel).   Is it contended that the ships in fact displaced 40,000 tons "at completion" at standard displacement, and if so, where is the authority?  Kablammo 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect text deleted.  The treaty allowed these ships to displace 33,000 tons, and have an additional 3,000 tons added for deck and underwater protection []; hence the 36,000 ton displacement figure. []  The USN and Jane's however continued to use the 33,000 ton figure. Kablammo 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty Displacement

message: Reference is made in the article to studies wherein USN "battlecruiser" designs were to have up to five quad turrets mounting 12" rifles.
In all the readings available, especially that by Friedman in his design development texts on USN battleships and USN cruisers, not one reference exists to such a study.
The studies which existed dealing with what one may refer to as "battlecruisers" are of three types. You had the battlescout series which were of two types, one series looking at the requirements of high speed scouts with varying armour suites (and featuring generally 8-14" rifles) and the other at the upscaling of cruiser practice for the more traditional types culminating in the 1917 battle scouts (Constellation class); and what were referred to as "battlecruisers" which were in reality more akin to fast versions of battleship contemporaries at the time (with respect to armour scheme) such as Wyoming or New York, featuring twin 12" (presumably the 45 calibre but equally likely the 50 calibre to enhance hitting power at short ranges) and more likely not exceeding four twin turret/barbettes.
Certainly the largest turret/barbette construction up to the BB-55 studies was a triple turret. No quad is ever mentioned for the dreadnought era. The only exception is the one off Tillman design with the sextuple 16" which clearly was disfavoured by all involved.
Given warship construction practices of the USN at the time a quad 12" turret/barbette would have been "doable" for a battlecruiser designed under the principles of the Wyoming, but certainly problemmatic if for example one intended to utilize the battlescout variants as upscaled from cruiser practice.
Although Friedman is certainly the pre-eminent authority on the matter and the absence of information from his writing a sign that more likely than not a design that the author mentions was never a design, still, there is always the chance that Friedman and others overlooked material which may have come to light in the last decade.
On behalf of the Warship Projects Board 3.0 and also the scholars who deal with these matters, if you have any source information on these designs please share with me so I can forward to the Warship Projects Board 3.0, which of course you are welcome to visit and join as we so far have gotten a fair bit of information on never-built warship designs.
209.205.181.109 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: The alleged five turreted USN battlecruisers 

message: This stuff might be interesting but I don't think it beolongs on this page:
: Although the first purpose-built carriers pre-WWII were named for earlier ships, e.g., Wasp and Ranger, in the grest expansion after Pearl Harbor, battle names came to predominate.  As it happens, the first carrier, “Langley,�? CV-1, had been named for an individual, Samuel Pierpont Langley, an unsuccessful rival of the Wright brothers.   The next person to be honored was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Weeks after his death, CV-42, which had been named Coral Sea, was renamed for him.   Other individuals so honored were James V. Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense (CV-59), and the Wright Brothers (CV-49)/  Another type of exception was CV-38, named “Shangri-La,�? for the city in James Hilton’s novel Lost Horizon.  This alluded to the fact that when FDR belatedly announced the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo, he said that the planes had flown from “Shangri-La,�? actually CV-8, “Hornet.�?   Still another was CV-63, “Kitty Hawk,�? commemorating the first heavier-than-air flight.  The last carrier to be named for an historic ship was CV-66, “America,�? commemorating the Navy’s first ship of the line.  The next carrier CV-67, was named for the recently assassinated John F. Kennedy.    Since then, all carriers have been named for individuals, mostly U.S. presidents, although two have honored powerful committee chairmen in Congress.   CV-77, “George H. W. Bush,�? is the first to honor a living former president. Dave w74 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed ship naming conventions text

message: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm disputes that turbo-electric was all that vulnerable, and discusses the Saratoga engine outage in detail. I've no strong feelings either way, but thought it was worth a look.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.217.229 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbo-electric drive 

message: This article states that Lexington-class aircraft carriers were distinguished by "topside flight decks" - are there any other kind?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really?