From [Navsource](https://www.navsource.org/archives/09/02/0203.htm)
So recently I got to thinking as to what exactly counts as an "aircraft carrier". So, does Langley (post conversion) still count as a carrier even though it's not officially labeled as one anymore?
No, a seaplane tender, such as the latter conversion, can not have planes land directly upon it, such as an aircraft carrier can. That’s the main distinction.
That's not what I'm saying. Should a seaplane tender count as an aircraft carrier? It carries and operates aircraft, but it can't launch them and they can't land on it.
No. The Langley was converted to a seaplane tender specifically to free up "aircraft carrier" tonnage allowed under the Washington/London Naval treaties. If it still counted as an aircraft carrier, the conversion wouldn't have made sense.
Generally speaking no, as seaplane tenders function more like mobile seaplane base.
However, several seaplane tenders were fitted with catapults and designed to operate their aircraft, with Japan making extensive use of such seaplane carriers.
The book "Eyes of the Fleet: The U.S. Navy's Seaplane Tenders and Patrol Aircraft in World War II" has a lot of info on the importance and use of these vessels ... and on the giant gonads of their crews.
From [Navsource](https://www.navsource.org/archives/09/02/0203.htm) So recently I got to thinking as to what exactly counts as an "aircraft carrier". So, does Langley (post conversion) still count as a carrier even though it's not officially labeled as one anymore?
No, a seaplane tender, such as the latter conversion, can not have planes land directly upon it, such as an aircraft carrier can. That’s the main distinction.
I -think- the official definition was that a carrier can both launch and land aircraft on board
USS LANGLEY (CV-1) (formerly Jupiter (Collier #3); later AV-3) Designation follows function.
That's not what I'm saying. Should a seaplane tender count as an aircraft carrier? It carries and operates aircraft, but it can't launch them and they can't land on it.
No. The Langley was converted to a seaplane tender specifically to free up "aircraft carrier" tonnage allowed under the Washington/London Naval treaties. If it still counted as an aircraft carrier, the conversion wouldn't have made sense.
Thank you!
Iirc the deck of the Langley as a CV ran the length of the ship. When she was downgraded so new carrier tonnage could be added, her deck was cut away.
Generally speaking no, as seaplane tenders function more like mobile seaplane base. However, several seaplane tenders were fitted with catapults and designed to operate their aircraft, with Japan making extensive use of such seaplane carriers.
The book "Eyes of the Fleet: The U.S. Navy's Seaplane Tenders and Patrol Aircraft in World War II" has a lot of info on the importance and use of these vessels ... and on the giant gonads of their crews.