Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] wording

Just a minor nitpick: It says at the beginning of the article: "The two vessels are expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015". I'm assuming two vessels are to be built, but is not stated anywhere. Wouldn't it be beter if it said: "Two vessels are to be built and expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015". I'd correct it myself, but I'm not really sure if only two of them are going to be built. --Jsf 04:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] franco-british

What do you think about that new kind of Franco-British collaboration after the Iraqi war?

[edit] The title of the page is Royal Navy CVF programme.

Can the Eurofighter be deployed on aircraft carriers of Britain and France?

Much of the Future French aircraft carrier entry appears to have originally come, word for word, from a website that I write and maintain. I have no particular problem with that, but should point out that French plans have moved on considerably since early 2004 and the entry needs to be updated. In particular the French deuxième porte-avions (PA2) design will be entirely separate from the UK's CVF design, although they may end up sharing a few systems. The PA2 project is being fast tracked and on 24 January 2005 the French MoD announced that a Design Phase contract worth approximately €100 million had been awarded by the defence procurement agency, DGA, to DCN and Thales Naval France - who are acting as joint PA2 prime contractors. Other major manufacturers such as Alsthom-Chantiers de l’Atlantique and EADS will also participate in the study which should complete in summer 2005. Further detailed engineering design work should be finished by the end of 2006. It is hoped that the design will be sufficiently developed and de-risked for the French MoD to be able to place the actual order for the ship in October 2006. Official sources have indicated that the PA2 definition and design work will cost about €500 million in total - and the 2005 Defence Budget includes €167 million for definition studies and de-risking, presumably including the contract awarded in January. Construction work, which is expected to cost about €2 billion, will begin in 2008, with sea trials starting in 2013 prior to official completion and commissioning in 2014, and an in-service date of early 2015. [Richard Beedall, 26 April 2005]

I have removed the extensive information relating to the French version of the carrier to Future French aircraft carrier. The edits of 213.140.6.103 seem to suggest that the programme is some Gallic masterpiece of which the Royal Navy has been thrown scraps. May I remind the anonymous user that the carrier design is for a Royal Naval vessel, which France have latterly decided to copy. Also, while the design is from a French company (Thales), Geoff Hoon, in announcing the awarding of the contract paid tribute to the British companies involved, including BMT Marine who were largely responsible for that design. Mark 19:14, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget that Thales' French citizenship is dubious. It is partially British, just as BAE SYSTEMS has almost as much shareholder base in North America as it does in the UK. -Joseph
well Thales isn't partially british, a visit to their web site shareholding will clarify it, Thales employ 60000 peoples, only less than 1/6 works in UK, BAE is mainly US shareholders as bases,Thales is even french state owned,so never sell independence!
For the record Thales Group is less than 1/3 State owned.GraemeLeggett 09:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Copy? French built (without non-french help) 4(or 5 I don't remember well) nuclear TRUE aircraft carriers! while Britain achieved only some helicopters/harriers carriers (invincible class ships are funny but don't call them carriers please) and I am not sure that did that without US help... but you do not misinterpret to me! I did not want absolutely to speak badly of Grande Bretagne, I wanted to only add a few more precision inasmuch as often famous that reading on wikipedia is easy to confuse pages "in English" with "English pages"... hour although it loves a lot your country (guilt yours that you have invented this wonderful language) sure times the nose contorces... I understand that everyone must pull water to its flour mill but that on the page of the future English aircraft carriers not there were practically references to her super cousin with camembert-krauts taste, seemed to me a few "by side" after that in France it has succeeded a tremendous hell inasmuch as this "copy" like you called it will cost several workplaces in France, and if DCN joins with Thales would mean annhilating of the newborn German naval heavy industry, the idea that the good German cousinses (I mean west germans of course... we do not like borussian ;-) remain with one hand of behind and one do not render me happy, to you not? therefore after that we have poured all this blood of futures vacates to you in order to favor English heavy naval industry that is in free fall (thoughts to the Rover/RollsRoyce/Bentley/MG drama etc...) that if also in the naval field it collapses that fairies? since we also love ours beyond sleeve cousins (excluding the future boys we even vacate you of the unit propulsion nuclear to the DCN, they we do not love you a lot, believe me! :-p). Mistake? task not, however is, without null removing to the prestige of navy of her majesty that of it you say to specify that the English ship, of English production will take advantage of to full hands the French technology matured in the past years in the field of these ships therefore we specify it, CLEARLY that the English version will be initially an helicopters carrier, while that French will be aircraft carrier (you know? the flyng machines with the wings!) from endured, and that only successively, perhaps, the shipd will be prepared for the upgrade of the bridge to launch for the aircrafts and that aforesaid bridge of launch has been planned to 200% around the comprension(we hope all) of the errors made on the De Gaulle carrier, ok? Thanks and may God saves Wayne Rooney (after Zidane of course... ;-) 213.140.6.103
I don't know how you're counting, let's look at post-war French carriers. Arromanches was an ex-Royal Navy ship, Lafayette and Bois Belleau were ex-US Navy. Clemenceau (1961) and Foch (1963) were the first purpose built carriers launched from a French shipyard - both conventionally powered. Charles de Gaulle is the eighth French carrier and first (not 5th) to be nuclear powered. You state that over the same time frame all the UK has managed are the Invincible class. Remember that the Invincible class represent a trough in UK carrier aviation from the peak of HMS Ark Royal (R09) and HMS Eagle (R05) and the five strong Centaur class.
"English production will take advantage of to full hands the French technology matured in the past years in the field of these ships" - Perhaps the most laughable statement, please don't get me wrong. I'm not xenophobic, I am happy to see collaboration of this sort and wish it could be extended to allow Europe's military capabilites to be extended. However, France cannot claim an unassailable position in aircraft carrier technology, the failures of CdeG are huge. She was laid down in 1989 and launched in 1994. Only ten years on has a viable capability been established. She broke her propeller on her first deployment and the replacement is lying in a French naval yard waiting to be fitted. Meanwhile her top speed is limited while she sails with a temporary propeller from the Foch class. You state that the CVF class ships will enter service as helicopter carriers, I doubt it. If the 2012 target is met the carriers should have early production models of the F-35 (at a baseline state.) Even if the ships enter service and the planes are delayed operations could continue with the Harrier GR9 force at a much higher tempo than on the Invincible class.
Finally, regarding your comment on UK manufacturing industries. Yes various companies are in trouble and many famous names are in foreign hands. However contrast the fact that a French (though I take Joseph's point) company is allowed to bid for a British aicraft carrier project with the outdated, protectionist and nationalisitic behaviour of the French government regarding Alstom. may God save Wayne Rooney (after Zidane of course) Mark 23:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am not claiming about unassailable positions infact... I was claiming about a sort of very strong efforts to compete, equalize and surpass foreigner technology that makes Franco-German quite unique in Europe, and our great desire should to see, one day, an Great Britain more European instead of the US personal chihuahua... we need you my dear! (and we do not like chihuahuas).
"an Great Britain more European instead of the US personal chihuahua.", - so you would rather we were the French Poodle? Douglasnicol 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: You are wrong, the launch system of the CVS will be never finished in time for the completion of the british ships... this because starting from "the bad experiences" that France made on the De Gaulle launch system problems leads to the choice of a developing of a new kind of aircraft launch technology, it should be electromagnetic, if I'm not wrong, and the F35 version deployed on british carriers will be the "VTOL ONLY". Now, I like englishmen but like the other billions of humans on this planet I don't undertand british humour... what you mean for laughable statements? :-) mmmm, no no. don't explain me, better! And for the nationalistic old style industries I'd like to remember to you that the FrancoGerman Airbus (with also belgium, spain and italy inside, of course) in only 20years outperformed and ridiculized the rest of entire world aircraft industry... that same thing that the FrancoBritish Concorde made 20years before, the partner nation changes, the leader nation NO. Maybe it's time for england to discover a thing... that you ARE european and YOU should protect better your NATIONAL industry, instead of selling to extracommunitary countries... and that US is not UK, englismen are not americans and viceversa. Fortunately there will be soon an European organisme (based in germany of course) to protect the European National industry: in few words with the help of Germany the very strenght French Nationalism will evolve in a stronger European Nationalism (90% FrancoGerman of course... but there's still the 10% place for you :-) powered by the Euro and pushed by Strasbourg/Bruxelles (2 francogerman cultural kind towns... :-) We are building a new world where to compete with Europe should be impossible and UK got a ticket to enter (Metrification, Euro, Political compatibility, stop following the US in the deepness of the shit brown)... so why the British are still so far from our point of view? what should we do to make you more happy? :-) tell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.103 (talk • contribs)
You really are in a European federal fantasy land. I had to correct your Eurofighter edit which claimed EADS was 100% in control of the project, BAE SYSTEMS has a 33% stake. You now claim Airbus is an alliance of France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Italy. Please take the time to visit the Airbus corporate website which will inform you of the correct ownership of the company: 80% EADS 20% BAE SYSTEMS. If you are so keen on closer integration of Europe why are you so eager in all your contributions to ignore British participation in European programmes and make sweeping generalisations about French and German ownership of such programmes. Let me correct another statement "in only 20years outperformed and ridiculized the rest of entire world aircraft industry... that same thing that the FrancoBritish Concorde made 20years before."
First let me say I cheer every contract Airbus wins over Boeing and am very proud, as a European, of Airbus' current No.1 position in the civil airliner market. However factually you are wrong, it has taken Airbus 20 years to reach such a position, it has not been the case for twenty years! And Concorde is only a technological and aesthetical marvel, as far as the aircraft industry goes Concorde was an expensive mistake.
With all due respect YOU are wrong, you state that the launch system will delay the entry into service of the CVF ships. That is wrong, the (British) ships will not be fitted with any launch mechanism as they will operate the STOVL variant of the F-35. These will operate in the same way as the Harriers off the Invincible class. i.e. take off run under their own power aided by a ski jump at the bow of the ship, landing will be vertical. The ships will only be fitted with launch equipment & arrestor gear if a conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft is deployed at a later date - at which point systems such as electromagnetic launch should have matured. NOTE: CVS is the designation for the current invincible class, i.e. Antisubmarine Aircraft Carrier. I'm not aware what designation will be given to the CVF ships, possibly CV for multi-purpose or CVA for attack carrier.
Finally, since you seem intent on bringing politics into this could you explain what fantasy you have of a European Union dominated by France and Germany. Those days are over, the summit on the Constitution was proof enough of that when M.Chirac and Herr Schroder were forced to withdraw their candidate for EC president - not a great sign of Franco-German dominance. By the way, the first time I've heard of German participation in France's aircraft carrier programme is your post. I have to say with only one source and Germany's recent history of defence procurement I find it unbelievable (remember it was Britain leading the charge for the Meteor missile while Germany delayed and delayed committing to the programme. Likewise the German delays to the A400M.)Mark 01:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would characterize Airbus' position in the aircraft industry as not exactly 'domination.' I believe that Airbus has essentially taken McDonnell-Douglas' place in the commercial aircraft market, with Boeing keeping it's place. The two will probably swap for a while, unless EMBRAER or Bombardier start thinking bigger, or the Russians get serious about aviation. In any event, I believe that the pages should be kept separate for now, but once French participation is formalized (it is not yet), then perhaps a single page should be created to encompass the entire program, since it appears that they will have much in common. And the French carriers will indeed have arresting gear and catapults--in fact, I would not be surprised if these are the magnetic catapults from the new US carriers, since the French bought their existing catapults from the US for the CdG. -Joseph 03:28, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
Fair point Joseph, I was simply taking issue with "FrancoGerman Airbus .....in only 20years outperformed and ridiculized the rest of entire world aircraft industry" as inaccurate. Dominance was the wrong word, I just wished to reflect that it was only recently that they acheived the no.1 status - a status that both Boeing and Airbus expect to fluctuate in the future. The reason I sepearated the pages was that the accurate and factual information for the Royal Navy vessels was included with the highly speculative contributions of 213.140.6.103 - which were presented as fact. I hope you didn't confuse my contribution to this page - I always expected the future French carrier to have arrestor gear, in the 01:33, 23 Jun post I was denying 213.140.6.103's assertion that Royal Navy vessels would be delayed due to arrestor gear/launch equipment. As I said it is expected that the RN carriers will only be fitted with arrestor gear/launch equipment at some later date, when EM launching has been pioneered on the USN's CVN-21. Mark 11:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You know, I don't think I want to know what our EU propaganda minister has been smoking. He tells the UK (BTW its the UK not just England) to get away from US control but then says we should effectively tie ourselves to France and Germany. Douglasnicol 22:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

wow, I can only laugh at the strange little frenchman...nice try at winding up the brits. The only problem is that your country is in freefall on the world stage, so how did you expect us to take you seriously? At any rate, we shall see about PA2 in time, who knows, that money might end up being spent on the "RMI" (french dole) of those happy citizens who set those charming little "bonfires" in your cities ;) aaah sorry, I know I'm giving him the attention he craves, I just couldn't resist. Will

Will, saying that France is in freefall on the world stage is just laughable, when half of your warships are to be mothballed due to lack of funding http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml. You should thanks Tony for your nice coastal defence force. ;)

This whole thread has turned into a slanging match. This is not a forum! If any more posts are left here which are not 100% about improvements to the article (which is what this talk page is for) I will remove them. Mark83 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many F-35s will it carry?

There appears to be a continuity problem in the article - the 'background' section states that each carrier will field around 42 JSFs, but later on in the article, in 'carrier air group', the number given is 30. Does anyone know which is the correct figure? Nick Worth 12:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

According to MOD site, the total is 40 aircraft including strike, reconnaisance/control and helicopters. GraemeLeggett 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
40 aircraft seems to be an awfully small number for a ship of this size. It's about 2/3 the size of an American Nimitz-class carrier, yet will have less than half as many aircraft. Unless it's just a matter of cost-cutting by limiting the number of JSFs purchased, that makes very little sense. 71.203.209.0 05:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The 40 aircraft number might be what will be carried, however, there could be capacity to carry more if needed in times of need. I believe HMS Invincible carried more than its normal complement during the Falklands conflict. Douglasnicol 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I read an article about this. The UK likes the policy of "surge" operations apparently. Given that the RN and RAF plan to buy 150 F-35s and assuming 100 of these will be active after they've all been delivered, the UK could fill both CVFs to capacity during war time - and the chances of the two carriers being operational at the same time and at full capacity are miniscule. In summary there should be more than enough Lightning IIs to go around. Mark83 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Your're right for the small number of aircrafts : the Charles de Gaulle (R 91) also have 40 aircrafts, and it's 38, not 60 000 tonnes. The reason is probably the conventionnal propulsion. It takes a lot of room, while nuke propulsion is very compact. Conv. propulsion seems a very stupid idee to me. These carriers will enter service around 2015, so they may remain in service to, say, 2065 (assuming a 50 years lifetime, as the nimitzs). World oil production will peak around 2020 at the very best. Operating such large oil-powered vessels will be awfully expensive after peak oil, will crude likely well above 100 dollars per barrel.
That's even more stupid since the Royal Navy have good nuclear reactors in production for its submarines. I regret my country chose to join this program, instead of building a second Charles de Gaulle - though the CDG design have its limits.
Good point about oil price. Though the UK ruled out nuclear because of cost. Presumably nuclear is a very high up-front cost (and end of life charge), while conventional power is relatively cheap to buy and slightly more expensive to run. Mark83 23:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That pretty much covers the difference between the two. Given the diminishing supply and ever-increasing demand of oil, though, nuclear seems more attractive than ever these days. Most countries can't afford the start-up costs for a nuclear warship, but Britain and France certainly can. My guess is the choice of conventional carriers is all about politics: it's harder to get the politicians to approve a project when the bulk of the cost has to be paid right now rather than years down the road, even if deferring the cost means paying more in the long run. 71.203.209.0 08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say a lot of politicians also want to pander to the anti-nuclear crowd, the type that go into hysteria when the word is even mentioned. If you ever read the column Rosie Kane of the SSP writes in the Sunday Mail, you continually get such nonsense as 'the UK has enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over', and politicians like to pander to that type. Douglasnicol 14:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree. The present government has announced it will maintain the current nuclear deterrent and replace it when necessary. It has not only committed itself to finishing the Astute class nuclear attack subs already ordered by the previous government but is likely to order four more. No British minister could stand up and make political capital from the carriers being conventionally powered given that record. In summary the government has much to be embarassed about with its defence procurement record, "pandering to the anti-nuclear crowd" is not one of those. Mark83 16:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well there must be some reason. The Governments defence strategy seems odd at best, regiments being cut, yet there being ever more troop deployments. Of course, one reason for a non-nuclear propulsion might be to accomodate other nations if the carriers were deployed overseas, as some ports won't allow a nuclear powered vessel to dock there. Douglasnicol 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The stated reason is cost (e.g. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/) and I see no reason to doubt it. Sure nuclear sounds cheap, they could use the Astute PW reactor which doesn't need to be refuelled. That ignores undeniably higher purchase cost, possibly higher maintainence (I don't know) and for sure higher decommissioning costs. Don't forget the RR Marine Trent technology is two generations more advanced than the Invincible Class' Olympus turbines and will offer far greater flexibility than those. Mark83 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
While most sources say a Nimitz Class' air wing is 85 aircrafts, they currently carry only about 70. 50 fighters + 20 support. So: 60,000t/100,000t * 70 = 42 aircrafts isn't that bad, especially when operating together with a USN carrier group as the US carrier will be able to provide the surveillance, refueling etc. services the CVF lacks.82.135.4.222 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

US Navy carriers, particularly the Nimitz class are designed to operate up to 127 F/A-18 -sized aircraft, though this fact not well known or even advertised, except in publications such as those from the US General Accounting Office, where this organisation has drawn up comparisons in operating and support costs and utility of conventional and nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Cat Balou 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Maximium 40 aircraft "CVF dimensions are: 65,000 tonnes at full displacement; 284m (931ft) length x 73m (239ft) width at flightdeck level; 6m from keel to masthead – 6m taller than Nelson's Column; 11m max draft (keel to waterline); 9 decks deep + Flight Deck; 40 aircraft."

from 25 July 2007. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/FactsheetTheRoyalNavysFutureAircraftCarriers.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.61.72 (talk • contribs) - BillCJ 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that there is a difference in approach between USN and RN carrier operations. Every photograph you see of a USN carrier in operational service will include parked aircraft on the deck; RN carriers only carry aircraft on deck when conducting flight operations (or in rare cases, such as Operation Corporate, where the need for aircraft numbers outweighs concern for the aircraft conditions); even then there will be only the bare minimum - aircraft currently preparing to fly, or aircraft recovering from flight. As soon as it is practical, aircraft are brought below the flight deck.
When you consider the sheer number of aircraft you can park on the deck (especially since some degree of overhang is possible, which is not available to aircraft in the hangar), it is no great surprise that the RN will carry less aircraft than the USN. And since the RN operate generally farther North (or farther South, such as the Falklands Campaign!) than the USN, where weather conditions are likely to often be more extreme, it is probably a wise idea to be a little wary of deck parking.
Johno (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

Sources definetely need to be cited for the statement about the naming of the carriers. JDH Owens 10:42 21 December, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CVF

The lead says, "CVF, literally Aircraft Carrier Future". How does CVF mean that? Markyour words 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well...the only thing I can think of is that CV is the abbreviated Naval Designation for a conventionally powered Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear ones like the Nimitz class and the CDG being CVN's), I assume the F means Future, though like any designation, that could be a speculation. Remember MRCA at one time meant Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, though a lot of jokers started calling it Must Replace Canberra Again. :) I digress though, CV is a carrier designation, CVN a nuclear power carrier, BB Battleship, BC-Battlecruiser and so on. Douglasnicol 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

According to AcronymFinder.com, it means Carrier Vessel Future, which would make sense to me. http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=CVF&Find=find&string=exact Axeman

So I was right? It does make sense. I assume once the vessels are launched (assuming the government doesn't cancel them due to more Armed Forces slashing), that they will take up the standard designations of CV, or at least that is how they will be identified in 'trade texts' like Janes. The F is probably an addition to the project name. Douglasnicol 15:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The Hull classification symbol page says: The "CV" designation was originally derived from cruisers, since aircraft carriers were seen as an extension of the sea control and denial mission of cruisers. The "V" designation for heavier than air craft comes from the French verb "Voler" (to fly). Contrary to popular belief, the "CV" hull classification symbol does not stand for "Carrier Vessel." Since 1935, "CV" has been a two-letter, unitary hull classification symbol, meaning "aircraft carrier."
As it is a British project the CV can stand for anything the MoD wants it to. The Hull Classification is chiefly a US thing and would not feature in a Royal Navy ship's pennant number. GraemeLeggett 10:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"Carrier, Vehicular, Future" doesn't make sense. I believe it to be an error on the MOD page quoted [1] as other official web pages state it does indeed stand for "carrier vessel future" [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Also "CVF" is nothing to do with pennant number is it? It's just a designation and the ships will be given "R" pennant numbers. Mark83 12:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair point, I accept Hansard over an MoD site, though the pennant comment was in reference to the US use of CV which features in vessel names. GraemeLeggett 13:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well Hansard isn't always to be relied on - for example when quoting an MP. They frequently get things wrong, for example calling BAE Systems "British Aerospace" years after that company merged into BAE, using the wrong designations for planes, etc. However in this case the DLO and the Defence Select Committee glossary are pretty authoritative. Mark83 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crew numbers

Article here about automation. Ojw 11:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger (CVF and PA1)

On the basis of this article (and other similar ones, the two articles should be merged. Perhaps a new name should be chosen. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree. There is a lot of stuff about this carrier that makes it specific to the UK (mostly the "back story") and making a French and British carrier from the same design is not yet confirmed. Furthermore, there are likely to be differences between the two since the British government has cut out basically every system from this and every other ship its built while the present government has been in power that isnt absolutely necessary (armour, defence, etc). The French government does not have a tradition of doing this. 88.105.250.248 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I also disagree. The Future French aircraft carrier article discusses many things not relevant to the British carrier, e.g. the history of French carrier procurement and why it's in this position now, the choice of powerplant, the French alliance and construction. The same is true regarding the CVF article. There is a large discussion on the history of the procurement, the different options considered and the carrier alliance — of little or no interest to someone interested in the French carrier. Finally the carriers have yet to be built. Unlikely as it seems both Britain and France could pull out. Mark83 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

umm... it means enter servace if it meant built it would say 'layed down', also this is the Royal navy CVF

[edit] Merger (CVF and Queen Elizabeth class)

Separate merger request from above. Two overlapping articles. This article will likely need to assume the name of the other one if that becomes the official name. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Mark83 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Roche-Kerr 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done (redirected Queen Elizabeth class to here). If someone wants to add "may be called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HM..." to the intro feel free. I didn't because it's still speculation as far as I am aware. Mark83 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking bets

We're never going to see them made, what the hell is going to support them?? I can't see the MOD mothballing HALF the fleet to save costs and then suddenly build two massive carriers! This country is a joke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheMongoose (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

This country is far from a joke and changing ship type numbers (both in absolute and relative terms) is a constant process. The MoD will most likely build the new carriers because of the sheer need for them during operations (both peaceful and not) and because the Invincibles are coming to the end of their lives, thus either increasing maintenance costs (including necessary upgrades) or requiring them to be replaced by a new class (as the CVF is intended). The issue with current fleet downsizing, which I am personally against, is that the UK's power projection is centred around the Submarine Service, carriers, and things like HMS Ocean. Frigates and destroyers, while still necessary, are deemed to be needed in fewer numbers, while the Submarine Service is stilled needed to fire Tomahawks. This may seem a bit silly, short-sighted, and the lack of an increase in submarines with a corresponding increase in demand is maddening, but it's present Government policy. This does not mean, however, the UK shant be getting new carriers. Roche-Kerr 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not a forum. If you want to add doubts about whether they will ever be built please do so, and reference it. Also, TheMongoose, it appears you are reading the headlines of a story without delving into the facts. From what I know Roche-Kerr's response is of a more factual nature. Mark83 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote; "After a wave of announcements in relation to the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) project at the end of 2005, it seemed that 2006 might... just might ... be the year when the project finally got approval to proceed to the manufacture phase. But it was to end in tears. A failure for the MOD and industry to agree the projects cost (£3.6 billion budget vs £3.8 billion bid on offer) despite over three years(!) of detailed negotiations led to a planned Main Gate submission being embarrassingly pulled at the last minute in late October. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Lord Drayson, then also resurrected a previous demand that the UK naval industry restructure itself as a pre-requisite for the carrier order. This restructuring has proved far more complex to agree than expected (although talks certainly began as far back as 2004, if not earlier behind closed doors), and is agreement is now pencilled for 2007 - believe it when it's signed." TheMongoose 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you're quoting it doesn't look authoritative ("might... just might ..."/"But it was to end in tears."/general grammar and punctutation). Also Drayson didn't "resurrect" the consolidation plan as suggested, it was part of the Defence Industrial Strategy announced in 2005 with the aim of making naval production viable. It's true he's using the carriers as a carrot though. Mark83 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

- From the Independent; The Navy might also have to wave goodbye to the project to build two aircraft carriers of over 50,000 tons. It is now evident it is stretching the UK's capacity to build such ships - the welding alone would require a huge import of labour from Poland. The Navy in its present diminished state probably does not have the manpower to man or maintain such vessels - and by all accounts underestimated the crew levels in the original prospectus. Instead of the projected 1,500, they will need at least 3,000. Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the CVF as much as you would, but I honestly believe its not going to happen - certainly not two of them. The climate is just wrong, its like CVA all over again TheMongoose 19:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my point from the start. There is an article which provides a thorough analysis of the problem of UK procurement and doubts whether the carrier would be built. That would be a good reference for such a point in the article.
On the general issue, I might be naive, but the Falklands argument still stands in my opinion. Invincible was about a year away from being sold to Australia because of defence cuts and looked what happened. Given the UK's stated defence posture I really can't see how the MOD would fulfill that without carriers. I am pro-nuclear deterrent, but the cost of it seems unreal. I read an interesting article about UK/US defence relations which said the UK really cant afford to continue to modernise its armed forces AND maintain a nuclear deterrent as currently, i.e. the UK would be a more useful ally to the US if it scrapped the replacement and invested it in conventional forces which would allow them to become more interoperable. Like I said I'm pro-nuclear, but a few tactical nuclear Tomahawks on every SSN seems more sensible than a full strategic system. -- Notice I'm not taking my own advice about this becoming a forum :) Mark83 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 70m beam?

The value of 70m for the beam of CVF, given at the Mod website, cannot be correct; the beam of the much larger Nimitz ia only 41m. Presumably it is actually the width overall. I have substituted the figure given at www.globalsecurity.org. Regards, John Moore 309 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New information provided by MOD at http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/FactsheetTheRoyalNavysFutureAircraftCarriers.htm

"CVF dimensions are: 65,000 tonnes at full displacement; 284m (931ft) length x 73m (239ft) width at flightdeck level; 6m from keel to masthead – 6m taller than Nelson's Column; 11m max draft (keel to waterline); 9 decks deep + Flight Deck; 40 aircraft."

The USN designs its ships with small beams to fit through the Panama canal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.105.33 (talk • contribs)

Remember that beam is measured at the waterline. A beam of 70m would imply a length-beam ratio of only 4:1, which is out of the question in a major warship. The image accompanying the article clearly shows a much greater length-beam ratio. Having revisited globalsecurity.org, I find that, as I suspected, 70m (give or take a metre) is the overall width and/or the width of the flight deck. Regards, John Moore 309 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unreliable site

the globalsecurity.org site has made alot of claim that are flat out wrong, the home base has yet to be select since all 3 base Faslane Devonport and Pompey are currently under review and its possible that one will be cut if one is decided to be cut its most likely Pompey or Devon since faslane is specialised for the nuclear deterrent. it also claim that provisional names have been set the is not true beyond the likelyhood that one will be called Ark Royal no name has been chosen, particularly not Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales this is internet rumor nothing more. the most popular names in the fleet are Churchill Hood and Trafalgar however if portsmouth were to close it is almost certain that one would be called Portsmouth and in all likelyhood its sister Plymouth. futher the British planes are still currently know as JSFs and Tempest is the current frontrunner in names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.105.33 (talk • contribs)

[edit] 82.26.105.33 reversion

I have reverted all of this user's edits.

  • The user complained about the naming section being unreliable and then introduced a mass of weasel words and rumour.
  • Changing F-35 > JSF. I don't see the point. No claim here is being made about the RN service name. That's just what the aircraft happens to be known as at the minute. If you want to introduce a UK specific designation use the correct one, JCA.
  • Removing a reference for no reason
  • No edits summaries to explain major changes. Mark83 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

you obviously are a classic armchair admiral since the project is probably gonna go the way of the CVA. as far as i known the navy not even given provisional names is while walter mitty's like yourself like to make out your experts and have "inside information" so far no name have been set so all are rumour. for the Planes i been a brylcream boy but as i heard it the RAF was the only ones calling it JCA. The RN estimates are the only official dimension not the fanwankry of a much of airchair admirals on a site for and by airchair admirals. since Pompey or Devonport could be closed this year its a bit premature to start saying where ships that won't be service for another ten years will serve. http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=1737&ArticleID=2052226 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/devon/6157032.stm maybe try serving a few years in the fleet before offering your expert opinion then you might know a thing or two Capt Jack Doicy 23:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, starting off by hurling abuse at others sort of weakens your credibility. Your angry because I reverted complete rumour?? That's interesting. I haven't served in the Royal Navy, that's true. However that doesn't exclude me from contributing to this page. I know a lot more about the defence industry than the average man on the street. Having said that I have never pretended to have "inside information" -- all my contributions are based on public sources. Nor have I ever added my "expert opinion" - Wikipedia policy prohibits adding opinion. I would love you to give me examples (actual references to my edits) where I have been an "armchair admiral". Mark83 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Further, please read Wikipedia policy, particularly regarding weasel words. The entire naming section you reverted to is the definition of weasel words. "the following names have been suggested" "some names have already been suggested" "The most popular choices in the Royal Navy are" are all uncited. Unacceptable. Mark83 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Without wanting to get involved in this edit war, can I suggest that you cite any assertions you make? I have seen the ships' referred to as HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales in a number of reliable sources, including Jane's Defence Weekly. If this is now incorrect then please provide a source for your claim that they will now be called Ark Royal and something else. If you don't do this it's always going to be reverted back to the names which a citation is provided for. --Nick Dowling 00:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've simple removed everything that isn't true. I think thats the best solution.

when exactly did Jane Defence weekly take over the project pray tell? i was under the assumption that we were still running it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6369655.stm but since you seem to care about the fleet so much write to your MP and get them to put pressure on the government to fund the Armed forces instead of increasely deploying them while cutting there funding. out of interest have you ever even been to pompey or deveonport Capt Jack Doicy 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Nick Dowling claiming JDW was involved in the project! His point was information must be verifiable and use reputable sources such as that. And for the record I do think the Navy deserves more money, however you don't have to have such an opinion in order to be qualified to edit this article, as you seem to think. Mark83 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The RN website states that the carriers' "base port will be Portsmouth, Hampshire" ( http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5529 ). It doesn't provide any names for the ships though. Incidently, I'm Australian so my MP would be a bit confused if I wrote to her about the RN. I did visit Portsmouth last year though. --Nick Dowling 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Since there have been no names confirmed then wouldn't it be better to just say that? ie: Some sources such as JDW claim that the ships will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales however there have been no official announcements to confirm or deny this. If a source can be found suggesting Ark Royal or another alternative then that can be added too but as I understand it a rumour within the RN is just that and if a reputable source was describing such a rumour then I would presume it could be added too. But without confirmation I'm not sure if it should be included. David 20:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BAE Systems CVF website states that the ships will be called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales ( http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/autoGen_106920111951.html ) I think that the builder's website should be considered a totally reliable source on this topic, especially as the alternative is an unsourced rumor. --Nick Dowling 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a expert on the navy, but those names would seem to go against the navy current naming practice. Since except for the town class all ships particularly in development, are named after a letter and that letter is the Ship Class and then all ships in that class have names beginning with that letter, like the I-class Aircraft carriers (the Ark was originally named Indefatiguable) the new D-class destroyers and the E-class survey ships, the V-class SSBN even one offs like the Ocean is considered the O-class. It seems odd the navy would abandon this for USN style names or the navy of fifty years ago particularly since all the other current developments (A-class attack boats) even the aborted ones (T-Class Destroyers) still follow it. also the navy consider it bad luck to name a ship before the keel's been laid down.

James L Williams 06:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Sunday Times 27 November 2005 - "The 65,000-ton carriers would be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales."
  • The Times 15 February 2007 "...raises fresh concerns about the fate of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, two 60,000-tonne carriers which are due to be commissioned...."
  • The Times 29 October 2005 "The two proposed aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales"
  • The Guardian' 17 March 2005 "Weight problems have all ready delayed the Joint Strike Fighter programme and the carriers - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales...."
  • Daily Telegraph 3 March 2005 "the two pounds 3.5billion aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, built by all of Britain's yards and due for delivery in 2012 and 2015."
  • Daily Telegraph 14 February 2005 "They have, however, been provisionally named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales."
  • Press Association 21 November 2004 "will be the largest and most powerful warships constructed in the UK and which will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales"
  • Press Association 25 November 2003 "The Navy's two biggest warships will be named after the Queen and the Prince of Wales, Buckingham Palace confirmed today. The Queen has given royal approval for the naming of the two aircraft carriers due in service from 2012 and to be based at Portsmouth." Mark83 22:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think that we can safely provide and cite names for these ships in the article! --Nick Dowling 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current fleet status

"At present one carrier is in active duty (R2—2 days readiness), one in reserve or refit (R6—60 days' notice) and a third in training or maintenance." - third appears to be in limbo, rather than training or anything else. Removed pending finding out what the current fleet status really is. Dan100 (Talk) 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That text seems to predate HMS Invincible being placed into reserve. She would now take at least several months to activate and AFAIK the other carriers aren't going to rotate through reserve status. I'm not sure how HMS Ocean fits into the carrier rotations, however - at one of the remaining Invincibles has been modified to serve as a LPH while Ocean recieves a refit. --Nick Dowling 08:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power

do you have the source on the choice of power plants so i can add it the article on nuclear navy several of the refs are to broken links thanks Sherzo 02:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg listed for deletion.

This image has been listed for deletion because the nominator believes it is replaceable. I profoundly disagree - the carriers do not exist! If anybody would like to comment on the deletion it is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 14. Mark83 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

SOmetimes I really think people should pass an IQ test in order to be able to nominate for deletion! But seriously, this isn't the first time I've seen images of future products listed for deletion as replacable. If this is replacable, then maybe they can find one of the Gerald Ford, since it doenst exist yet either. Of maybe some of the cities on Mars that might be built in 200-300 years. Or the first interstellar spacecraft. Or... - BillCJ 20:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised what happens with those nominations. A picture of a decommissed UK SNN was deleted some months ago. John Smith's 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, thought better to get some support via here. Mark83 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 40 or 48 aircraft?

Does anyone know for sure how many aircraft these ships are able to carry, I heard it was 36 F-35B for sure, but what else? Some people say it will be 40 aircraft in total but others say 48. Daft, 9:48, 21 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.245.59.142 (talk)

MOD says "The maximum expected Air Group to be embarked is 36 Joint Strike Fighters and four Airborne Early Warning aircraft, bringing the combined weight of embarked aircraft to over 1,000 tonnes." i.e. 40. I remember reading years ago (around 2002) that the RN "likes" surge operations, i.e. in times of war carrying a greater number. Maximum expected Air Group could be read that way - but that's my original research and not useable in the article. Mark83 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Green light" given

I had an edit-conflict with Mjb1981. As he was adding news of the same event, I pretty much kept to my version as it was more detailed. Also I don't think we need to repeat information on cost as that's covered elsewhere. Though I restored the bit on locations as I was wrongly under the impression that those details were already in the article.

By the way, can I please remind contributors to format citations when adding new information? It's really easy to do - just copy and paste existing formatted citations and edit them accordingly. John Smith's (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)