Talk:Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Prince of Wales to be a Helicopter carrier

Hey just followed a link from the F 35 page to the times online -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece

according to the article the over budget F35 has caused the goverment to reduce the order from 138 to just 50 and that the RAF will recive multi role Typoons to replace the tornado, but as a result according to the article only the Queen Elizabeth will operate the F35. As a result the goverment plans to use the prince of wales to replace the helicopter commando carrier HMS Ocean when the ship is decomissioned in 2018. the reason for this is that the contractual agreements with BAE require the completion of the 2 carriers. Have a look at the page and reply as the article seems a little far fetched at times but seems grounded into the article and im hesitant to include it without support as afterall it is a newspaper. --Delta33 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like media speculation and nothing more. There was a parliamentary question on the 2nd of november this month (a few days after that article) and the minister confirmed they still expect two aircraft carriers. Also he mentions them being used whilst HMS Ocean is in refit but that it was always part of the plan. [1] BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is just speculation for now (though I suspect it may - temporarily - be the case) and was denied officially in Parliament. David (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There was also speculation that both would be finished as conventional carriers and the F35C purchased instead of the F35B. I think we have to treat newspaper articles as unsound until its announced in parliament --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems that the construction of two aircraft carriers is (fairly) safe, the question now is what variant of the F35 the UK gets, how many it will order and how many the RAF and Royal Navy each get. And I suspect we won't know for sure until a) after the next general election and b) after the upcoming strategic defence review. David (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I got the feelin that it was a little dodgy as it didnt add up, as the UK's a primary partner in the F35 so i expected that the purcuse order would at least match that off the other partners and the article lacks to site a harrier replacment, we shall have to see as the current goverment is taking a lot of flack over budgetting and military cuts, although i wouldnt be suprised if the new carriers dont usually carry a full airwing like the current through deck cruiser but thats just speculation. Do you think we should inform the F35 page? --Delta33 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

good prediction then Stupidstudent (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

redesign

Based on PMs statement today how baga redesign will we see. We know they will no have catapults and arestor gear. Will this also mean an angled flight deck? Stupidstudent (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at the pictures: it already has an angled flight deck, though the landing strip is not painted with the angle. All that will need to be done is ta add catapults and arresting gear, which the design already allows space for under the flight deck. And the lines will be paitned differently too. - BilCat (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Carrier Air Group

Please merge Carrier Air Group and Aircraft and carrier format selection. Thanks. Hcobb (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Air Group

The air group was always stated as 36 F-35B and four AWACS helicopters. Now they have decided to go with the larger winged F-35C does anyone know how that will effect the air group? I would imagine the larger area required (288 foot to park 36 side by side) to park the F-35s on deck will reduce the number of air frames it can take. Or does the F-35C have folding wings. Also although it has not been mentioned now being conventional carriers I would not be surprised if they get rid of the inferior heli borne AWACS and go for the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye which will also use up more space. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You asked "Or does the F-35C have folding wings". Yes, it does, according to F-35 Lightning II#F-35C. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the noise about flying PAK FA up to a level worth mentioning yet? Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No because that is utter nonsense and personally given the tone of your previous comments, I believe you know it is sir. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Only the F-35 will be operated from the QE carriers, as confirmed by the British government in the SDSR. Quite vivid blur (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"while the other ship operates with either American or French fighters." Since the French don't plan to buy F-35s... Hcobb (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The PAK FA is neither an American or French fighter. Do you have a source stating PAK FAs will be operated from QE carriers? Quite vivid blur (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is HC's typically-obtuse way of implying that the US or France will buy the second carrier. Any response on that line of thinking should be reserved for a forum on another cite, as WP doesn't deal in this sort of speculation. (No matter how much fun HC or I think discussiong such speculation is. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The SDSR Fact Sheet [2] states that the normal air group will include 12 F-35Cs. AFAIK, the SDSR said nothing about the MASC requirement (the AEW capability). Letdorf (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

I can only point to the British press (lousy source it may be) for the French fighters on British Carrier: "Defence cuts: French and US jets to use British Navy aircraft carriers" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072413/Defence-cuts-French-and-US-jets-to-use-British-Navy-aircraft-carriers.html

PAK-FA doesn't even have that level of support and is currently at forum posting and blogging level. I doubt that the persons calling for this have considered the differences between the Russian and Indian STOBAR carriers and the British CATOBAR configuration. Hcobb (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not having read the forums you mention but don't link to, I can't comment on their content. But unless it's from a reliable published source, it we can't use it here anyway. But you already know that, or aleast you ought to. As to the British source, that appears to be speculation from before the Review was released, and I'm not certain that's in the Review itself now. I'm sure someone who's had/taken the time to read it can answer that tho. - BilCat (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb, the text "while the other ship operates with either American or French fighters." does not appear in the SDSR where as "catapult and arrestor gear... will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers and naval jets." does. This implies to me since the ships will enter service the same time as the F-35C for the British (around 2020), the US and French fighter may operate on the ships in addition to British aircraft on joint ventures. A key point of change to CATOBAR was "interoperability" and "joint missions". Please read the SDSR as it should clear up the confusion you seem to display in most of your posts but to be perfectly honest you seem to be, for want of a better term, 'trolling' with regards to half of the things you post here. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Like some others of us, HCobb has an irreverent sense of humor and sarcasm. He also has little respect for WPNOTNEWS. I don't think anything he's doing here is intentionally disruptive, just sometime hard to understand as he doesn't often explain the background of his comments well enough. He does mean well, in my opinion. - BilCat (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

PA2 CATOBAR configuration

I seriously recommend that the main image be changed to this http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/cv1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.255.48 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We dont normally replace free images with copyrighted ones. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It also has a ski ramp which will presumable not be fitted to them now. But would be interesting to see a catapult launch going up it. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The current image is based on File:PA2.svg. I'll contact the person who modifed the original image to the STOVL version, and see if he can modify the French version to look more "British". - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"currently speculation"

A comment today from the French MoD is "currently speculation"? Can we just delete France from Wikistan then if it's so speculative? Hcobb (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No. France is not speculation, only the speculation is speculation. - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering the British Defence minister ruling out the sharing of the carrier vessels, your additions seems unworkable. Yes it is possible US or French aircraft will fly from the ships, but the British order of the F-35 will arrive the same time as the ship is put into commission. So when a French minister says he will look to "explore the possibility" of sharing aircraft fleets or something similar, we really should wait and see what a semi-concrete outcome of that exploration could be before posting every decision related to this programme. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a wider view they could share E2-Hawkeye aircraft France already has three and are looking to buy a fourth. Britain has none. To share would save on setting up a training establishment for Britain and a mixed fleet of 4/5 UK/French aircraft makes sort of sense as I can not see any of these countries going to war unaided. There would always be a US or French carrier there as well. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember WP:CRYSTAL! Letdorf (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=14573

Prime Minister David Cameron and French president Nicolas Sarkozy are to discuss the detail of plans to share military equipment, including aircraft carriers, between France and the UK at a November summit in London.

I suppose that whoever this Cameron dude might be, he's just not notable. Hcobb (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said... let's see what the outcome of these talks are before we add possible outcomes. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As an observation, the ability to operate aircraft from other nations is a significant constraint with the current CVS, what this amendment does is allows routine cross-decking. The leap from being able to refuel to operate from the vessel is quite significant, as operational level embedding is far more than the mere ability to fly aircraft of the deck. There are a number of issues that would need to be considered; comms and planning systems, maintenance infrastructure that tends to be type specific, the ability to embark the air-weapons, each of which need to be licensed individually and need appropriate magazine infrastructure, ship hotel facilities with each nation requiring a different logistic footprint for their aircraft. The last point was a fairly significant one even within UK AF with the Air Farce using twice the number of people to deliver a Squadron that the RN required.

The flexibility that the new infrastructure gives to the Joint Force Air Component Commander is considerable, and it's worth bearing in mind that the JFACC may already be on board.

ALR (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier in service dates are wrong

The SDSR only states one aircraft carrier will remain in service and will have catapults installed, while one carrier will be built to its current ski jump configuration and put into reserve shortly after being commissioned.

HMS Prince of wales will be built with Catapults and be commissioned in 2019/2020 ready for the JSF (F-35C), while HMS Queen Elizabeth will continue her construction with ski jumps and be commissioned in 2016/2017 only to be put into reserve as soon as HMS Prince of wales is commissioned.

Its too late for HMS Queen Elizabeth to be built with catapults, and the government will not extend her construction time from 2016 - 2020 just to fit catapults, it would cost far too much (it doesn't even take 4 years to install Catapults anyway). 194.46.236.77 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Catapults

Is there any concrete info avaiable yet on whether steam or electromagnetic catapults will be fitted to the CATOBAR carrier? There is some confusion at Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System#EMCAT at what will be fitted, and which electromagnetic catapult system (US or UK) will be fitted. As I understood, the previous plans for "future-proofing" the carries included provisions within the hull spaces for both stream and EM cats, but only one type would b e actually installed if a CATOBAR configuration were selected. - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Hansard link in the section above has the statement "As announced on 19 October 2010, we plan to deliver the carrier strike capability from around 2020 with the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and Queen Elizabeth class carrier fitted with catapults and arrestor gear. We are investigating the optimum means of achieving this outcome, working with industry and our international partners. No decisions have been taken as to the type of system, delivery dates or procurement route, or whether both carriers will be converted." - basically no-one knows yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please update to show latest news

1 converted to commando ship and no aircraft until after 2020. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.187.70 (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the SDSR. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this section: A second CVF vessel will also be completed, but initially held at extended readiness and possibly later sold. Cameron says the previous administration "signed contracts so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would cost more than to build it." Continuation of the full programme is a boost for Aircraft Carrier Alliance industry partners BAE, Thales UK and Babcock.

Held is readiness and possibly later sold, what does this tell you. I read that basically you will have one carrier as your order for the aircraft has been reduced to for 1 carrier.

That isn't the SDSR, so no I did not mean that section of a flightglobal.com article. I suggest you actually read the SDSR and see what the plan for the carriers is, it is improbable one will be sold. One key option they will have open is the ability to quickly regenerate a two carrier strike ability if and when it is needed. Also the F-35 order is likely to be enough for two carriers (I know initially both will not be deployed), there has been no confirmation of order numbers yet. Seriously... have a read at some point. Here it is G.R. Allison (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The SDSR confirmed that both QE carriers will be constructed and an unconfirmed number of F-35Cs will be purchased. What the second QE carrier operates will be decided at a later point. 62.47.187.70 is a well known Salzburg anti-British troll. Quite vivid blur (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MrGRA that enough F-35Cs are likely to be purchased for both QE carriers, even if only one carrier operates them to begin with as the first F-35s come into service. Quite vivid blur (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr Allison and Vivid blur, your are stating POV, not fact. Please keep to facts, not your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

HMS Queen Elizabeth will be CATOBAR, not PoW.

The SDSR states "We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020." now considering the QE was supposed to enter service in 2016, doesn't this suggest it will be the ship which gets the catapults and arrestor gear?

for reference the article states "HMS Prince of Wales will be built to a CATOBAR configuration"

Can anyone clarify this? G.R. Allison (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The PDF doc is here [3] quote - carrier strike based around a single new operational carrier with the second planned to be kept at extended readiness. page 22 . So that suggests HMS QE not PoW will be fitted with CATOBAR equipment. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/216621-UK-Navy-Aircraft-Carrier-Will-Be-Sold-After-Three-Years-And-Never-Carry-Jets

"--The first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will enter service in 2016, configured to carry helicopters, not jets. The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will arrive in 2019. At that point, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into "extended readiness", effectively mothballed indefinitely.

Government sources indicated that the Queen Elizabeth was unlikely to return to service after that, and could well be sold to another country to recoup some of the cost of building it. "There are no plans for it after 2019 and it could well be sold. No one wanted the second carrier but we had no choice," said one source. "No one is pretending this is an ideal situation, but this is what we were left with." --"

Looks to be QE will be removed from service once PoW enters service in the CATOBAR configuration.194.46.236.77 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As the Daily Telegraph article on which it is based was written prior to the Defence Review being published, it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No decision has yet been made, so the article shouldn't be guessing. David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In line with what the SDSR implies, I propose we change the CATOBAR ship from PoW to QE. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

SDSR2010 suggests that both carriers will be built as CATOBAR. To have a carrier in extended readiness that it is intended to be able to rotate out with the operational carrier (also stated in SDSR2010) that is a completely different configuration would be ridiculous. It would vastly increase costs and require either completely different personnel, or for the personnel to be re-trained prior to using the alternate carrier. It would require a completely different air group with separate training. This would cause delays in getting the alternate carrier ready and probably a less experienced crew which would have a lower combat effectiveness. If the strategic situation changed and both carriers were desired to be operational at the same time it would mean that you could not fly planes off of one to the other. It would be a Bad Idea™.

SDSR2010 actually states that there are multiple options as to what to do with the second carrier: from holding it in extended readiness to selling it. It is stated that what is to be done with the 2nd carrier will be reviewed in SDSR2015.

As such we should not speculate in the article. The article should state what we actually know from SDSR2010 and other verifiable sources, not what we want to be the case. What we know is:

That the Queen Elizabeth, the operational carrier, will be CATOBAR with catapult and arrestor gear installed. See: pg.5 "We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the Joint Strike Fighter with a longer range and able to carry more weapons. Crucially, that will allow our carrier to operate in tandem with the US and French navies, and for American and French aircraft to operate from our carrier and vice versa." and pg.23 "As currently designed, the Queen Elizabeth will not be fully interoperable with key allies, since their naval jets could not land on it. Pursuit of closer partnership is a core strategic principle for the Strategic Defence and Security Review because it is clear that the UK will in most circumstances act militarily as part of a wider coalition. We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020."

That the in-service date for the Queen Elizabeth is delayed from 2016 to around 2020. (See quote above.)

That the current plan for the 2nd carrier is to hold it in extended readiness. However, other options are being considered. The fate of the 2nd carrier will be revisited in SDSR2015, but it will still be built. pg.23 "To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops."

Makyen (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Very informative post Makyen, thank you. If no one else wants to do it I'll work on including simply what we know but I may be a while in getting started on that due to some personal circumstances. G.R. Allison (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, Makyen has started work on it. Thanks :) G.R. Allison (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the SDSR suggests that both carriers will be built as CATOBAR. Phrases like We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier... (p.5) and Installing a catapult on the new aircraft carrier... (p.27) suggest only one carrier will be fitted for CATOBAR to me. Letdorf (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

As I said further up this thread, no decision has yet been made. David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Letdorf, we obviously disagree with the implications of the SDSR and the strategic thinking and choices that are stated in it. If this was a forum, I would be happy to debate this with you. However, this is not a forum. Thus we should be content with the fact that we disagree with the implications and stick to what is actually stated in the SDSR. I thought I was quite clear on this earlier in this thread.

David Biddulph, I quite agree that no final decision has been made. In addition to the reference you provide, the last sentence I quoted above from SDSR2010 explicitly states that the fate of the second carrier will be revisited in 2015. Obviously, the actual fate of the second carrier affects the configuration in which it will be built.

Let's stick with what we actually know from verifiable references.Makyen (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The SDR seems to be hedging it's answer, and with good reason, it admits the carrier may not be in service at all. Why go to the extra expense of fitting it up with catapults, arrestor-wires ect ect, if it is not to be used? Conversely, why use it if it is incompatible with our aircraft/requires a whole seperate pool of aircraft? Two contradictory scenarious, which pend on the fate of the carrier. If it is to be sold, why bother, I doubt it would add to its sale value dramatically and may have to be stripped right back out due to usage of sensative technologies in some not-too-unimaginable scenarios. If it is to be put into service, it is beyond doubt that it'll be outfitted the same as it's in-service duplicate; but as it isn't certain to if it'll be used or sold, naturally nobody is going to be certain if the expense of making it servicable in the Fleet Air Arm of the future is to be made or not. Once the basic matter of its fate is settled, the minor details of its equipment, which are a comparitive drop in the ocean, will be made. And that depends if there is anybody in the world willing to make a good deal for it, the economic situation may also have an impact, as well as diplomatic stability/instability (unthinkable really, but if the world were to be on a knife-edge, there's no way it would be sold). The saying "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves" doesn't work well here, because its the big decision that'll decide all the little insignificant details like this question. The answer is simple but, contradictorily, complicated. The cat in the box is dead and alive. Kyteto (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One carrier canceled?

page needs updating, since 1 of the carriers has been canceled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.24.163 (talk)

I'm sorry, but I missed that news. Do you have a source I could use to update the page? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not dead yet: HMS Sultan and QE carriers 'safe with the coalition'. This is why we don't change article content based on unsupported rumors! - BilCat (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the reception of 'unsupported rumours' at the Royal Navy page(!!), I thought I'd just park this text here without adding it to the article. Source is the Times, 3 April 2010:"however, only one will operate the STOVL variant of the F-35 Lightning II, which is planned for both the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force to replace the Harrier. The other carrier will not carry fixed-wing aircraft and will instead be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft."(Smith, Michael (2009-10-25). The Times. London http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece. Retrieved 2010-04-03. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle" ignored (help))

We really should wait until the Strategic Defence Review is published, in November. David (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the Carriers have not been cancelled there for your case is not valid. Tamarin2010 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It will be held in reserve with no aircraft, what do you call that? This page needs to be updated with the current facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's called "extended readiness". Covered in the article, at Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier#Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010. David Biddulph (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not new or unique to the RN one of the Illustrious class was always held in reserve/refit same with the American carriers not all are at sea or have air groups some are in reserve/refit. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The SDSR confirmed that both QE carries will be constructed. After the SDSR there is no chance of one of the QE carriers being cancelled. One QE carrier may be placed in extended readiness, as other ships are, but it will be in commission just as any other Royal Navy ship is. Note to others: 83.64.176.178 is a well known Salzburg anti-British troll. Quite vivid blur (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not anti British, it is known as the truth, not twisted words and or a play on words to say what you would like to think. It is not fact. As the MOD has also stated that they might sell one of these carriers. But not one of you wish to mention it. Your vision of fact is what suits you. These pages are to be factual it you can remember, but when something is going your way, you omit it. If you remember the MOD and the Cameron did state that there was a possibility of canceling one of these carriers. It was in every paper, but not one word here. That is not anti British, it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest you read the papers again as they have all stated that the previous UK governmant signed contacts that made it impossible for them to stop production of both carriers without paying more in penalties than for building. There has also been speculation over which carrier will be completed in what form and which will be held at extended readiness or even sold. Until we have reliable facts nothing furtehr can be added.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Roger's Yuckspeak Dictionary - No. 43956: "extended readiness" after completion - I think they mean mothballing, Brian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.81.149 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

latest news of lay offs

Jim Sweeny. Pleas do not remove other peoples contributions, with out first using the talk page. Otherwise it is vandalism. My entry is cited and it is news when they lay off 300 worker, constructing these ships. It is under the construction site and should remain until the ships are complete. if you don't believe so, let talks about. But don't just remove other people contribution without asking. Jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I back Jim Sweeney on this. The lay off of workers, in my opinion, does not concern the article on the ship itself. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Jim Sweeny and MrGRA Boatman (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

BAE also confirmed the lay off as men working on OPV's at the end of their contract Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

HMS Queen Elizabeth

On one page this ship in the building stage is shown with an angled deck, and in another it is shown with a straight deck. As an ex RN Petty Officer I am interested to know which one it is going to be. I would suggest it should be an angled deck. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.129.206 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Current plans as of October this year will mean it'll be the Angled Deck, with catapults to launch and cables to arrest landings with. If the ship was to somehow be rearranged for STOVL operations, it would be a straight deck. Originally Britain was going to go for the STOVL operation carrier, without an angled deck, to allow Harriers to operate onboard initially then move to the expensive F-35-B option. The change for catapult aircraft means a wider variety of planes, American and otherwise, can be used, giving both choice on the market and by that virtue lower costs; as the Harrier is now to be retired next year, there was no need to bother with concerns with compatibility for a retired aircraft. And the F-35B STOVL jet is fighting for its survivial, and may be cancelled altogether, perhaps jumping ship from it was a wise move. The decision bumps up the cost of carriers, but drops the cost of each and every plane, which should make a new saving, especially if we joint operate some of the planes as is planned, French AWACS and Raphael fighters will be embarked regularly if the current talks with France go down well. Kyteto (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there any sources of its armanent--defesnive weapons?Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• A gentle nudge to point out that the talk page is to 'talk' about improvements etc to the article rather than a blog discussion on 'if', 'but' and 'maybe' which make no proposals/suggestions on material to improve or develop the article. If there is good accurate stuff with valid sources in the above then lets have it in the article. Thanks Boatman (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are, I am prepared to edited the article. It's not like I'm blogging or disccusing it. Is the section below on latest developments not a discussion?Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Which comes first the carrier or the F-35

Am trying to find a source as I remember that the carrier will be launched without the f-35 being ready. So which willl come first?Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The SDSR, by delaying the carriers (again), means that the F35s and the carriers will be in service about the same time, c. 2019. David (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Source?Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by which came first. The F-35 is already flying and in limited low rate initial production while the carrier is still being built. Remember talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article not a forum. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the page bey especially the section on the air-wing. This is not about a forum--in fact if you look through the sections above--are they not about forums??? Please dont play double standards. I improve pages.Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Defence Systems

I've added, based on the Naval Technology website, that the carrier might have self-defence systems. If any one has more information, please alter accordingly.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Prince of Wales Renamed

I read yesterday that the PoW is to be renamed Ark Royal with the blessing of the Prince of Wales. Is this true? 208.180.152.114 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did you read it? Do you have a link for a reference? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick search found this link which quotes the Telegraph and the BBC referring to it in passing. Clarence House state no formal approach has been made however so it is all speculation at the moment. Woody (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Update on the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier Programme

From the official website of the programme.

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/media/press-releases/2010/19-11-2010.aspx

Following the announcement of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the QE Class aircraft carriers will undergo some design adaptations. Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will be built and the work on these vessels will subsequently continue to support around 10,000 jobs in the UK.

The ACA is currently reviewing the work which will need to be undertaken to make the changes to the design; from the original Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) design with the ramp on the bow, to the Carrier Variant (CV) model, which will incorporate an angled flight deck along with catapults and arrestor wires (cats and traps).

The Alliance has set up defined teams to coordinate the modifications to the programme, with a range of options currently being examined to ensure that together, the ACA delivers the programme to meet the Ministry of Defence’s new requirements. The primary aim of all of the ACA partners has always been to ensure that through working together we deliver the best ships possible to the Royal Navy and this is something that will continue throughout the assessment, build and subsequent delivery stages.

The site also provides an artists impression of the new carrier, WITHOUT ski-ramps. Is this any use to the article? G.R. Allison (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The text claims "the QE Class aircraft carriers (plural) will undergo some design adaptations". This would imply both carriers will be constructed as CATOBAR, does anyone have an opinion on this with regards to article inclusion? G.R. Allison (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If they are switching to CATOBAR, are they going to use steam catapults or the new EMALS system like the Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers?Axeman (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As said not half a page up from your comment, they have not said. They simply say "there will be catapults" and leave it at that. They'll likely be electric, but I've got no evidence to provide for that other than popular sentiment. Kyteto (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's possible to respond to someone without talking to them like they are idiots. Merry Christmas.Axeman (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You have my apologies. Kyteto (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So I was told that this talk page is not for discussions by Boatman. Yet is this section not a "discussion"? Sheesh.Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The principle of WP:Other shit exists: Just because somebody else does it, doesn't mean it is good behaviour to replicate and spread. Some talk threads on article changes, that were supposed to keep ontopic towards establishing/reenforcing article content, sometimes end up as a moot point or deviated by other users. That doesn't mean disruptions/deviation should be aspired to, however. Kyteto (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

UPDATED

This page is some what POV and one sided. When I tried to enter updates to delays and possible cancellation, my entries are removed and quoted Anti British. I might be wrong the last time I check this page is about the New Royal Navy's Carrier production, not British flag waving. I have made some entries today based on fact. Please try and keep this page about fact,no matter how painful it is to you personally. Jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You've only made one edit to WP as Jacob805 since Dec 2010, and that was to the NYC page. You haven't edited this article in recent months, if ever, and the article hasn't been edited in 3 days. - BilCat (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your time machine must have messed up again! You've have since edited the article and been reverted, but note that I didn't accuse your edit of being "Anti British". Is that still to come? - BilCat (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard to disagree with fact if that is what is presented Jacob. You added to this article based on a newspaper article which is out of date and since has been refuted by various bits of information. Since that article, the programme has changed a great deal. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - air wing

I have removed reference to the E2 and V-22 Osprey from the infobox as the type to be selected to meet the MASC requirement for an AEW aircraft is as yet unknown - all we can say is that (probably) something will be operated to fill the role.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Both fitted for F35?

Is this the first announcement that both ships will be converted to cat and trap? [4] quote "The 919ft (280m) carrier, along with its sister vessel HMS Prince of Wales, will be converted to accommodate Joint Strike Fighter jets." Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong URL. The URL you provided links to an article entitled: "Key section of new Navy carrier is on the move", An Equipment and Logistics news article' 17 Aug 11. This article does not contain the quote.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the correct article, but the quote has been removed, now what does that tell us? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Construction

OK am I missing something here the bow section lower block 01 was delivered and lower block 03 has just been delivered. So where is lower block 02 presumably they will be joined 1-2-3-4? Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lower Block 02 is being built in Portsmouth and Lower Block 04 is being built in Govan. There's a block diagram here showing how the bits fit together. Halmyre (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know but is it still at Portsmouth or in Scotland? It makes no sense to build 01 and 03 first and then store them waiting to join them together with 02 unless its already been delivered. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when did defence procurement ever make sense?!? I think 02 is due for delivery early next year, and 04 a bit later. Presumably there's a sheet of instructions, an allen key and a helpline contact number to help join all the bits together. Halmyre (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above A&P Tyne have completed their section of the flight deck and hangar which goes on top of lower block 03 [5] Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All kinds of potential reasons why there might be a consolidation. The blocks need to be kept somewhere and there may be higher costs in leaving them at the build yards than moving them. The barges might be the critical path, there may be architectural reasons for assembling in that order.

Given that the programme management is a BAeSystems responsibility my money would be on lowest cost, for them.

ALR (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest news

In case editors have missed it:

• Defence Management

• Portsmouth News

Not only is the government now looking to have both carriers in service (see quotes from a MoD minister of state), but the news articles also confirm (and go against what is erroneously written in this Wikipedia article) that at the moment the Prince of Wales will be fitted for cats n traps, not the Queen Elizabeth.

Please can this Wikipedia article be updated/corrected, with the two news articles above given as references? I will leave it to someone else as I am not a contributor to this article (though I have contributed to other RN articles). Thanks. David (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Its still only speculation from the links "A MoD spokesman confirmed: ‘Our current planning assumption is to convert HMS Prince of Wales in build but no firm decisions will be taken until late 2012." Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but surely that needs rectifying on Wikipedia, which currently states the exact opposite. David (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles do not need changing.

You have made a faulty assumption that the people writing the articles you have linked know what they are talking about.

The second article can be discounted because they have clearly not bothered to read SDSR2010. SDSR2010 explicitly states (page 23) that the QE will have catapult and arrestor gear installed. Further, it states that the in-service date for the QE will be delayed from 2016 to 2020. The second article gets both of these issues wrong along with other inaccuracies. In addition to multiple inaccuracies wrt. SDSR2010, it states that the F-35B is designed to takeoff vertically. The F-35B is a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). It is not intended to routinely takeoff vertically.

The first article you linked is slightly better, probably just due to brevity. However, it clearly takes things out of context and makes unwarranted assumptions (as if the writer might have read the SDSR2010 document, but filtered it through their own assumptions). Another possibility is that the writers of these articles just read about what SDSR2010 says rather than actually reading it (particularly the inaccurate speculation articles written slightly prior to the release of SDSR2010).

Another possibility is that the articles may have picked up some chatter from people who want to change the strategic direction to not having catapult and arrestor gear installed on the QE resulting in the QE being in-service earlier to allow testing of other systems.

Effectively, the only thing the articles say is that another look at the issue of the second carrier's fate will be taken in SDSR2015. SDSR2010 already explicitly stated that the fate of the second carrier would be revisited in SDSR2015 (bottom of page 23).

We should keep the Wikipedia articles with what has been announced as the official strategic direction unless it becomes clear that the official strategic direction is not actually being followed. Obviously, if the UK government states that their strategic direction has changed, then we should incorporate any such changes.

Makyen (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know that since the 2010 SDSR there have been several statements made in Parliament on the lines that the government have yet to decide which carrier will receive cats n traps? Further, even the Defence Secretary, in Parliament, has stated that it is the ultimate intention to fit both carriers with cats n traps? Essentially there is far greater uncertainty on the issue than what you and Wikipedia state - the SDSR is even vague on the matters and is riddled with inaccuracies, often switching (and possibly confusing) between Queen Elizabeth the ship and Queen Elizabeth the class. David (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David, there still seems to be some uncertainty and vagueness about what is planned at the moment. Better not to make too many assertions in the article where the sources are inconsistent. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

This Wikipedia article is already vague, and currently reflects the uncertainty that exists. It does not make any assertions beyond what has been explicitly stated by the UK government. If there is a consensus that additional text is desired to explicitly state additional points of controversy, then we can discuss the specific things that are desired to be included.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. It is not desirable that we include every little back and forth that occurs in a political controversy, particularly one that will go on for at least five years. However, we should include major shifts in political and strategic direction.

The specific question which was raised in this thread was did the "news" articles linked justify changing this Wikipedia article. My opinion is no. The articles linked get their verifiable facts wrong on multiple points, and do not actually show a change of direction on the part of the government. In general, getting such facts wrong tends to indicate sloppiness (at best), a significant bias, or intent to enhance controversy. Getting easily verifiable facts wrong in these news articles, causes me to highly discount everything that they state. It should also be noted that they quote people who are clearly not considering the fact you mention of the Defence Secretary stating that both carriers will have cats and traps. Further, while there were two articles linked, the first article appears to be based completely on the second article. Thus, there really is only one base article (someone makes this point in the third comment on the first article).

As to fitting both carriers with cats and traps: I stated 10 months ago (see archive page 2 of this page) that the strategic direction stated in SDSR2010 made it ridiculous to fit only one carrier with cats and traps. It was the consensus at that time that we would keep the article text vague as to the status of the second carrier given the less than explicit contents of the SDSR2010 document.

If you have a reference for the statement you mentioned by the Defence Secretary, then we can include that as a quote. I recall seeing something along these lines and thought the article had been changed to include what was stated at that time. However, I see that it does not currently reflect such a statement.

David, you have presented arguments both that we should say that only PW will have cats and traps (news articles) and that we should state that both will have cats and traps (Defense Secretary unreferenced quote). Perhaps you should pick one point of view, or the other. I am not trying to get down on you personally, it is just hard to determine what you are attempting to argue we should say when you explicitly present two different positions.

It is not unreasonable for us to include the fact that there is political controversy as a result of the change in strategic direction stated in SDSR2010. It is, however, inappropriate for us to provide a blow by blow description of such controversy.

Makyen (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The "two different positions" are not mine, but what seems to be coming out from the MoD! All I am saying is that there is no official public line as to which of the carriers will be fitted with cats n traps, or whether both will, or whether one will for now and the other later (I suspect this latter option is what will happen). The articles on Wikipedia should reflect this uncertainty, demonstrating to the reader that the plans are in a state of flux, and that all that is certain is the UK is building two carriers of which one or both will be (initially) fitted out in such a way. David (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PoW to be fitted with cats n traps, not the QE

Right, we now have confirmation of what I previous stated - it will be the PoW that will be fitted out to fly the F35 and not the QE.

Away from the massive progress being made with shipbuilding, work is progressing with the programme to convert the second of class HMS Prince of Wales to fit Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE) for the operation of the F35C fast jet aircraft.

The guy works for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. He knows what he's talking about. I will be changing this and the QE/PoW articles shortly. David (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree that you can reach that conclusion based on what's in the article. It's reasonable to assess from there that PoW is being fitted with the launch system, it's not possible to assess that QE will not be.

I'd make a general observation about the over-reliance on Original Research based on snippets of information in media sources. It's overdone. It would be more useful to reach a stable state based on reliable sources, and stick with it until a reliable source comes up with something conclusive one way or the other. This continual sniping isn't particularly beneficial for the article.

ALR (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I genuinely believe that the article as it stands does not tell the truth! It doesn't even hint at the possibility that actually it will be the PoW that will have the F35s onboard, and not the QE. David (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a lot more than that wrong with the article... It's quite confused but given the nature of the talk page I'm reluctant to start any significant reworking.

ALR (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

David, as has been mentioned, the blog to which you link merely states that PoW will have ALRE and does not comment on the QE as to CATOBAR, or not. SDSR2010 made it clear that the QE would be CATOBAR. The article currently reflects this. At the time, the consensus was that SDSR2010 was not clear as to the CATOBAR status of the PoW. Over the last year, additional sources have clearly indicated that PoW will be CATOBAR (using EMALS). The article states that EMALS will be installed on PoW, but does not make it clear that having EMALS means that PoW will be CATOBAR (this can be, and should be, more clear in the article).

You have not provided any reputable source which indicates that the QE will not be CATOBAR. SDSR2010 was very clear that the QE will be CATOBAR. We have other sources, and at least one quote, in the article stating that the QE will be CATOBAR. SDSR2010 is currently the official government policy. Without extremely clear and reliable sources indicating that the QE will not be CATOBAR it is inappropriate for us to state in this article that the actuality is different from the official policy, or that the official policy has changed. The article remains clear that the ultimate fate of the PoW is uncertain and is to be revisited in SDSR2015.

The situation will certainly be revisited in SDSR2015. Both which one will be kept as the operational carrier, and the use of the other carrier will certainly be revisited multiple times in the future. You appear to have been convinced of a single point of view based on speculation by a variety of parties, none of which are in a position to actually make a statement as to what government policy is, or will be, regarding the fate of the QE.

We should primarily stick to what is stated as government policy as outlined in SDSR2010 until such time as there are clear reports that the government's policy has changed. There is nothing in any of the sources you have referenced that indicates that the policy has changed.

This is a controversy which will be ongoing at least until SDSR2015, if not until well into the 2020s. Wikipedia is not a news service. We should stick to what has been reliably reported, and not go off on tangents with every new speculation.

NOTE: I am not saying that the blog you linked to above is speculative. However, it merely confirms that PoW will have ALRE (only implying that it will be EMALS, which is already stated in this article) and does not make any assertion regarding the QE being CATOBAR, or not. The fact that you have put it forward as reinforcing the position you personally take (that the QE will not be CATOBAR while the PoW will) when in actuality it actually says nothing as to the status of QE being CATOBAR indicates that you are looking for confirmation of a position which you have already taken rather than being objective. Please take the time to step back and be objective.

Makyen (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's leave the article until the government officially reveals what is going on. Which should be in 2012 or so... not in 2015 (when both carriers will be quite far down the construction stage already). Frankly you put far too much faith in the SDSR 2010, which was a rushed job, and which is not clear itself (swapping between "carrier" and "carriers"). Ho hum. David (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The SDSR was a rushed job and it's very clear that the review team were directed by Fox on the answers he wanted. However it is what underpins current policy and it's more authoritative than news media speculation on what's a reasonably dynamic situation.

I'm not convinced that it's an "either/ or" debate at the moment and there is likely to be another government change in the meantime.

ALR (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But the QE and PoW ships will be too far down the construction route for changes in 2015 already. Decisions on what their decks will be like, etc, will have to be taken, well, now. The QE is being assembled right now and in 2015 will be already a largely completed ship! The decisions are/have being taken and surely will be announced by the end of 2012. And I doubt there will be a change of government by then! David (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be structurally complete in 2013. The way plans seem to be at the moment is that PoW will be fitted with cats and traps and QE will get them upon first refit. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be what's happening, though it would be nice if the government just came out and said it! Many seem to see the in-service dates of 2020 and 2023 and think that they'll only be finished construction then... the truth is that QE will be swimming about (on early sea trials, without any aircraft or weapon systems) in 2016 already. David (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

However, from a WP perspective that remains speculation until someone with a degree of authority publishes something that can be used without synthesis.

From an operational perspective what's important is whether the launch and recovery systems are available when she's commissioned. Information available at the moment indicates that QE will have the kit, however as reasonably observed other sources indicate this may not be the case. We don't even have anything in the public domain about whose decision it might be when the kit is installed. It may be Government Furnished Equipment or it may be funded by the ACA. There are different options around how much of the supporting infrastructure might go in during the build stage, and that has a bearing on whether the balance can be installed during a routine alongside maintenance period or whether it'll require docking down.

OF course most major programmes like these have a maintenance period immediately following commissioning to retrofit all the kit that didn't go in during the main build period.

ALR (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In-service date

Confusion; see Talk:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08)#In service date. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Before the SDSR the in-service dates were 2016 for QE and 2018 for PoW. However post SDSR the Royal Navy will use the CATOBAR configuration, thus pushing back the in-service date of PoW to 2020 (Allowing time for the fitting of EMALS).

As the First Sea Lord M.Stanhope said last month, HMS QE will be put to sea in 2016 as originally planned. QE will initially undergo sea trials before enabling the Royal Navy to train a competent crew, which will be ready to be transferred onto HMS PoW in 2020.

As of now, HMS QEs fate after 2020 seams undecided, however the SDSR clearly stated one carrier will be kept in active service while the other is placed in extended readiness. So it appears that HMS QE will have to be fitted with EMALS during her period of extended readiness from 2020 - 2024, by which time HMS PoW will be due to enter maintenance and enter will extended readiness after maintenance is complete.

HMS QE will replace PoW as the active carrier and PoWs crew will transfer to HMS QE. The Royal Navy can no-longer afford to keep running 2 carriers and the 2 separate crews for 2 carriers, so both carriers will have to swap in and out of extended readiness and share a single crew.

This is currently what the Royal Navy are doing with HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. — Woe^{(talk with 90i)} 15:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that all sounds about right! David (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a nit, but SDSR2010 did not clearly state that one carrier would be placed in extended readiness. What it did clearly state was that the fate of the second carrier was undecided. It mentioned that extended readiness was the current plan, but that there were other options (e.g. selling the second carrier). In addition, it clearly stated that the fate of the second carrier would be revisited in 2015.

Obviously, the situation is continuously developing. Thus, what is stated at this point may, or may not, be what comes to pass.Makyen (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Equally the SDSR wasn't set in stone. It was a rushed piece of work that had a clearly political agenda and has now been demonstrated to be a steaming pile of sh!te fairly fundamentally flawed.

The point that Adm Stanhope was making around ability to support the manpower and skills base in a force of c30k people, as well as the straightforward headcount demand.

ALR (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier build.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier build.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Angled Flight Deck?

Is the flight deck going to be an angled one? Any proof?Phd8511 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - see the images displayed at the Aircraft Carrier Alliance site [6] and several update from the MoD and Hansard. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But perhaps not on the QE herself.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/lifestyle/carriers_precise_future_is_still_up_in_the_air_1_3541250

Hcobb (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The debate appears to be that each ship will have either a jump ramp or an angled flight deck. I've been hunting down references that the combination would work for the F-35C, but so far have nothing solid. Hcobb (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What combination? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean debate or ill informed media speculation by a journo who would be better employed on the fashion desk?

ALR (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Brennan was in front of the PAC today. No formal announcement on what they are going to do with the carriers until 3 May at the earliest. Everything until then is most likely to be tactical leaks by worried admirals or their opponents in the other two forces, and of dubious encyclopedic value.

You can watch her here if you are as sad as me: [7] Thom2002 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal opinion and entirely OR, most of the noise is transatlantic politics rather than domestic. The cost argument around the retrofit is specious as the expensive bit is the redesign and that money has already been spent.

The problem is most of the sources are media hence inherently unreliable in the real world.

ALR (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in particular the phrase "supercarrier" seems to have survived in the article despite only ever being used by a handful of jingostic journos in the context of the QE carriers. Thom2002 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't we just call them super-expensive jobs carriers? Hcobb (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

question

In reading recent articles, it suggests that the Queen Elizabeth will not have a catapult system, nor an arrest systrm. Quote that it is to late to make the changes needed after the F35B cancelation. So is it safe to assume this carrier will never have fixed wing aircraft. Possibly used as a Helicopter ship... ? any truth to this.Jacob805 10:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

Reply is in the Queen Elizabeth section of the article, same answer as you posted on the talk page for the ship itself. Also see talk page guidelines this is not a forum. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

QE class Carrier redesign

According to an article dated 10 May 2012 the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced that the Royal Navy will order the STOVL 'B' variant in preference to the carrier capable 'C' variant. His reasoning is that to convert the Queen Elizabeth class carrier to 'Cat and Trap' configuration would delay service implementation and double the cost of the carriers. He stated that the carriers will now be completed in the STOVL configuration with a ski-jump which will permit continuous carrier availability throughout the life of the ship

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/May/10/120509-F35B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djandersonza (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He actually said, "giving us the ability to provide continuous carrier availability throughout the life of the ships." Notice the plural, indicating a potential change in the idea of selling one ship. However, he only said 'ability to provide', indicating that this is a design feature rather than necessarily a change in policy. Perhaps the long-awaited "PR12" review will be more explicit in this regard? Thom2002 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Photo

Why was the STOVL picture of Queen Elizabeth Class deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.50.94 (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

stovl infraredsignature

A few decades ago the US navy to reduce the infrared signature of their ships, introduced a new paint onto the decks and the reason for this was satellite imagery . The reason I raise this is that the 35b is reputed to expose the carrier decks to 1700 degrees on take offs and landings there are satellites that will easily pick up this thermal imagery negating any stealth configuration of the ships design. Think of it this way an overhead satellite especially at night could signal real time deployments.——– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.8.39 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Spacecraft based systems don't work the way they're portrayed in the movies, so you're not going to see someone atching the platform in real or near real time.

The point is valid around the MAS component of tracking the vessels movements and sortie rate though, although there are easier ways to do it. I wouldn't generally anticipate using MAS methods to really extract information of that sort about a mobile platform.

IR signature is reduced using a number of different methods, including coatings, although activity on deck and the aircraft themselves are probably a bigger indicator than any residual heat on the deck. ALR (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Brits will need special coatings to keep the F-35Bs from burning through their deck plates, but I've seen no refs for this yet. No doubt they'll just buy the same stuff the Americans use. Hcobb (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, is there any reason to think that the F-35B has a significantly higher exhaust temperature than the Harrier? The plane the "Brits" operated for many years off carriers. This all seems like pure speculation with no evidence to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.229.145 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The total amount of heat is much greater. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/F-35-Hot-Stuff-Cooled-Down-8-7-2010.asp Hcobb (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been a lot of FUD about this but in practice it's not an issue, they've been using the standard "Harrier" deck coatings with no ill effects. In the short-term, at least - they obviously need to do long-term testing but that's the point of a test programme. See eg For Anyone Wondering About That Wasp Deck "no special matting or coatings have been put down for the F-35B's shipboard trials" and A Morning on the USS Wasp ... With BF-4. 86.31.251.4 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

needs update

queen elizabeth now sea trial 2017 and flight trials 2018.... service date can only be after these trials are completed. As for the Prince of Wales in can only later 2018 and 2020 respectfully.Jacob805 07:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

QE will start sea trials in 2014 as per the RN's website. Philip Hammond MP moved the date forward after better progress being made in recent months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.103.240 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect - you're misreading the headline here : Defence Secretary Pushes Carrier Build Forward - that Hammond speech from 2 weeks ago makes it clear the timetable is as Jacob805 said. 86.31.251.4 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the lead with the latest information from the Secretary of State for Defence. Since the Secretary of State was silent on the topic of the Prince of Wales, I have removed this information from the lead. One would assume that the POW will commence sea-trials after the QE, but in the absence of any sources I think it best to say nothing. Thom2002 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

PS for any editors new to this source, the first para states "The Carrier is then expected to leave the dockyard in 2014 before beginning her sea trials with the Royal Navy." While factually accurate, this statement is somewhat misleading as the the SoS goes on to say, "Our operational Lightning II Jets are due to arrive in 2016, a year before the HMS Queen Elizabeth sea trials, and the first flights off her deck will start in 2018.” Thom2002 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent Royal Navy publication - (Royal Navy - Global Force) - mentions HMS Queen Elizabeth will be launched in 2014, handed over to the Royal Navy in 2016 and operational in 2018. Regarding the 2018 date, on page 24, the second last paragraph reads: "However, the biggest game changer will be the introduction of the new Queen Elizabeth II class of aircraft carriers with the F-35 Lightning II. A switch back to the short take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) type, as opposed to the conventional carrier version of the aircraft, means that the first of the ships is now expected to be operational by the end of 2018. Further to this, the move means that both carriers are likely to be commissioned and may even be capable of operating together." However the publication does assert that Queen Elizabeth will be available for operational duties only in 2020, suggesting that between 2018 and 2020 the Royal Navy will be re-writing the doctrine on carrier strike.

Interestingly a figure of £70 million (per annum) is given for the cost of "maintenance and a skeleton crew for the second ship" Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This document is internally inconsistent. In a number of places it refers to the IOC (initial operating capability) of the QE as being 2020, despite the rather optimistic 2018 figure picked out by Antiochus above. In view of this, the document should be viewed with some caution. Thom2002 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thom2002, I was actually reinforcing your earlier posts in this thread and the "2020 IOC" date given in the articles info-box. I know there has been a little trouble in the past determining which date to use (I.e 2018 or 2020) - but the general thrust of the RNs latest publication is that while Queen Elizabeth will be handed over to the Royal Navy by 2018, initial operating capability wont be until 2020 - as you said too. I don't think you and me will always disagree! I forgive your oversight/misinterpretation of my intent. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha, fair point! Cheers Thom2002 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Could be worth a mention, the Royal Institution of Naval Architects put the estimated displacement of the aircraft carriers at 70,600 tonnes, 4,600 tonnes more than original estimates. However I would say actual displacement will be better known when the ships are in service. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news81394.html?WT.mc_id=DN_News

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Propulsion

There are four Converteam 20MW Advanced Induction Motors (no 2 as previuosly stated) - according to this site http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=894:converteam-ships-first-36-mw-generator-for-new-british-aircraft-carrier&Itemid=230 , and they are aranged in tandem (so maybe this was a source of confusion?) I guess 2 drive each propeler? It wouldn't make sense than 110 MW installed power would run 2x20MW --Pawlin (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

QE Class self defense systems

I have noticed that both "Phalanx CIWS" and "Miniguns" have been placed in the Armament section. Is this redundant? The Phalanx system utilizes a "minigun", but is there a separate placement of these that I am not aware of? I am aware that conventional machine guns will be mounted, but miniguns too? I would appreciate a verification (and/or needed edit) for this, as my knowledge is weak in the subject. 69.115.29.7 21:28, 19 October 2013‎

Phalanx is a radar-guided 20mm gun mostly intended for last-ditch defence against missiles; traditionally the RN has used manually-aimed 30mm miniguns to protect against swarms of small boats. These have now been automated with a TV-guidance system as the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun so there's been some convergence but they're still regarded as distinct systems. Although Phalanx uses a minigun it's never referred to as such, it's always a CIWS.86.27.38.182 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

- Rotary barreled gun. "Minigun" refers exclusively to rifle-cartridge rotary barreled guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.139.223 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

PoW news

The Prime Minister has just announced that HMS Prince of Wales will be brought into service so that the RN has a carrier at any time. Argovian (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the articles. Just a friendly remember - talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. By editing the article (and citing) that's job done in my mind. Mark83 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Supercarrier Status

The Queen Elizabeth class are supercarriers according to the following sources from ministers, BAE, the Royal Navy and the MoD.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmordbk1/30908w01.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70315-0009.htm</ref>

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nS9att6AcskJ:www.baesystems.com/magazine/BAES_026641/in-a-class-of-her-own+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

These sources are deemed reliable and do not conflict with the rules of references.

No minister has ever described the vessels as "super carriers". The Royal Navy have never described the vessels as "super carriers" (republishing a single Defence Equipment & Support press release on the RN website aside). So this is a question of WP:DUE. Yes, of course the supplier will describe their product in that way, the media will, and there is an isolated example in a press release from a civilian agency of the MOD (which itself was almost certainly largely drafted by BAE). But no-one at the true official level, or at the military level has ever done so - is that not telling? Thom2002 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

PS I've done a little more research. Against over 3000 hits on the RN website for "Queen Elizabeth Class", there are only 2 press releases that use the terminology "super carrier", and I believe these are republished D&ES press releases. Plus not a single ministerial source that I can find. So the overwhelming evidence is that these vessels are not officially referred to as super carriers. Thom2002 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

PPS for completeness, there are also a total of 3 hits for "supercarrier" (all one word) - on the RN website - they all refer to Nimitz class vessels. Thom2002 (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To put a couple of other points into the mix, what do we mean by Super Carrier anyway? Is it sheer displacement, is it the operational capability of the air wing, is it how we fit the vessel into a wider Air/ Maritime/ Ground environment?

The WP article seems to think only displacement, and even then these vessels don't reach the threshold identified.

I rather agree with Thom2002 on this one, the fevered imagination of some media luvvies writing a press release doesn't really make it as far as I'm concerned.

ALR (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the BAE systems website, the firm only ever referred to its product as a 'super carrier' once, in a the title of single press release, "super carrier takes shape", which has subsequently been deleted from the site. A search for 'super carrier' or 'supercarrier' on the current version of BAE's website returns 0 hits. Thom2002 (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair points chaps. I'll retract my points in support of putting it in the lead. The article stating it is sometimes referred to as a supercarrier is accurate enough. Thanks! :) G.R. Allison (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

thought i would add something even though this is a old debate. the term super carrier is not an offical term anyway and has only ever been used in the media. the us navy does not call its carriers supercariers officaily. so any carrier could be technicaly be called a supercarrier by its media as there is no universally agreed criteria. kieran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.123.65 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, calling this a supercarrier is really a British press and enthusiast's delusion. Its a VSTOL ship that can't carry catapult aircraft. As such, it is not remotely comparable to the US Carriers, which hitherto have been the only ships refered to as Supercarriers. Its more comparable to the America-class amphibious assault ships, though somewhat larger. This is a silly claim. No real harm done - leave it there if you like - it will just be a cause of mirth. Along with a few other over-gushing military enthusiast's comments on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.112.240 (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, you are talking nonsense, the term 'super carrier' was first applied to Royal Navy vessel HMS Ark Royal < by the US press (New York Times) back in 1938, the fact that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers employ VTOL rather than catapult has absolutely no bearing on the issue. As for suggesting the class is not comparable to US carriers is laughable itself, I point you to what very senior USN officers have said on the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince Charles. Twobells (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed it back to aircraft carrier.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

? Um, I suggest you read what I actually wrote Antiochus the Great, I disagreed with the fact that it is 'only' the British press that refer to the new carriers as 'Super Carriers, British legislators and international defence journals all refer time to time to 'Super Carriers'. Also, there is nothing anywhere in Wikipedia that states that particular countries newspapers are not valid for citation; and, if I was to suggest that editors could not use citations because 'they were only in the American press' there would be an uproar. Finally to suggest that of all the newspapers in the world the British free press cannot be trusted is a perversion and astonishing bias. Twobells (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

While I, personally, agree regarding the status of these ships, this article and the Supercarrier article should agree. To quote from that article regarding the QE class:

"These ships are referred to as supercarriers by British legislators and the news media."

— Makyen (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen an article this week in the British News Media where they didn't know the difference between a monkey and an ape. Them confusing a tank and an APC - that's a really common one. Newspaper journalists are generalists with almost complete ignorance of every specialism they write about. Its part of their business of selling newspapers to be overeffusive about the British armed forces and it's weapons. They latch onto the word Supercarrier for these ships as it suits that purpose. And apart from them selling themselves, not newspapers, the same can be said about parliamentarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.66.65 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, IHS Janes describes the Queen Elizabeth-Class as 'super carriers'. Twobells (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Twobells, it would be wise to seek consensus here first before editing the article - especially as it is quite apparent from the above discussion that many editors are unlikely to agree with your changes. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot help that editors from outside a naval or defence background do not understand the complexities and for the record it seems that the main person in disagreement is you Antiochus the Great while the others seem in agreement and it certainly does not help when you revert legitimate edits including citations with the word 'nope' as your reason for reversion. Twobells (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that we mention (and only once "per article") that the QE carriers are sometimes / by some referred to as supercarriers. Argovian (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, there has to be parity between the articles, we cannot show negative bias just because they are British and it does seem to be negative, I am starting to believe that certain editors are showing national jingoism in their adamant disapproval of using the term being applied to non-American carriers when the term was actually first applied to Royal Navy ships by the American press. Twobells (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is showing "national jingoism" it's you. Argovian (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? How is that? All I'm doing is trying to practice parity among articles across wikipedia. However, exactly why are you so adamant that the term shouldn't be applied to this class exactly ??