Talk:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08)/Archive 1

Name
Does the name of this vessel refer to Queen Elizabeth I or Queen Elizabeth II? If there is any verification of this question, it should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Cabot (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I presmume it is going to be named in honour of Elizabeth II, since it is due to be launched for her diamond jubilee, but it will not have the name QE2, since the connotations with the passenger ship. Rob.derosa 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It refers to Queen Elizabeth I firstly because there was a Battleships named HMS Queen Elizabeth and secondly because The Queen Elizabeth II was a Passenger ship (QEII) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.44.188 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Cunard liner was named the Queen Elizabeth 2, and was not named after the present monarch, otherwise they would use the Roman numerals. Check the entry for the liner if you don't believe me. Douglasnicol 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Which leaves me wondering, has the Royal Navy given an explanation as to why the ship won't be called HMS Queen Elizabeth I? With the previous ship to carry the name that made perfect sense; in 1913 there had only been one Queen Elizabeth, so there could be no possible mistaking who the battleship had been named for. But now that there's a Queen Elizabeth II, one would think the Royal Navy would want to make it immediately obvious which Queen Elizabeth they were naming their first supercarrier after. If there is an official explanation, then we need to include it in the article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article (and the others like it) shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. It's a guess about something that doesn't exist. Wiki-Ed 12:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's generally known that these will be the names of the carriers - the MOD uses the names HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales in its official videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.70.158 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a "citation needed" tag to the claim in the article that the ship will be named after Elizabeth I, rather than Elizabeth II (or even, I suppose, the late Queen Mother). I've not managed to find any sources on the Royal Navy website that talk about which queen the name refers to. Dricherby (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The badge shown on the ACA website and on the RN website includes the monogram E R and the Tudor Rose. This would support the suggestion that the namesake is Elizabeth I. Furthermore the motto of the ship is stated as Semper Eadem which was the motto of Elizabeth I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.40.42 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * HM Ships are never named after a reigning monarch. As a rule they are only ever named after people who are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.220 (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If the ship was named for the current sovereign, it would be called Queen Elizabeth II. The name "Queen Elizabeth" follows on from the 1915 battleship of that name, which was commissioned before the current Queen was born. At that time there had only been one Queen named Elizabeth, so no numeral.  Also, as others have pointed out, the ship's badge is the Tudor Rose of Elizabeth I, and the motto is that of Elizabeth I.  I will remove the "citation required" marker.Lord Mauleverer (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * These are all good points, but a citation is still required. – Smyth\talk 21:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The article currently cited for the namesake seems to be to be talking about the previous ship of the same name. A clearer and more definitive citation would be welcome. Many recent press articles talk of the current Queen and her namesake aircraft carrier, and more importantly a recent primary source, namely a November 2017 article on the Royal Navy website said that "Her Majesty the Queen will formally commission her namesake aircraft carrier" (though admittedly that could be argued to be true under a loose definition of the term 'namesake' even if the carrier is named after QE1). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that someone has changed the namesake to Queen Elizabeth II, with quite a convincing-looking cite from the Royal Navy. But there are numerous equally reputable sources that claim the opposite: for example UK Defence Journal clearly says "The name HMS Queen Elizabeth is a continuation of an historic Royal Navy name dating back over a century and the vessel herself is not named after the current monarch." The Telegraph mentions "Henry VIII, whose daughter the ship is named after". I still suspect that the problem is that "namesake" can mean "named after" but can also simply mean "bearing the same name". Perhaps the actual solution is the one mentioned by the New Indian Express: "The ship is named after both the current monarch and England's Queen Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558 to 1603"!!! If nobody replies to this talk entry shortly, I intend to update the article to clearly state the ambiguity and the discrepant sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * with quite a convincing-looking cite...? wtf? You think it's fake? The info is direct from the Royal Navy itself, from a Ministry of Defense website. And it's current, as of 2018. It doesn't get anymore reliable than that. These are the guys that named the ship, so it would seem they are in a better position to state exactly who the namesake is, more-so than say, the "New Indian Express", (and their info from last year). At this point, you need solid consensus and better sources (if that's even possible) to change the info regarding the name. - the WOLF  child  11:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, of course I don't think it's fake (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't seriously suggesting the New Indian Express as a more reliable source). But given the number of equally convincing but discrepant sources (including the Royal Navy page previously used as the cite for Queen Elizabeth I as namesake), I continue to think there's a probable issue with  simply meaning "sharing the same name" rather than "named after". Unfortunately I can't find a primary source saying which monarch the ship is "named after", though there are plenty of secondary sources that say she was "named after" Elizabeth I. On the other hand the vast majority of sources that point to the current monarch merely use the term "namesake". Rosbif73 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, keep an eye out, and likely some sources will come along at some point to clarify just who or what the ship is named for, I, II, or both... or maybe not even named for either Queen, but named in honor of the battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913). That's happened before. But as it is now, we have a recent and reliable source that states this carrier is named for QEII. So I suggest just leave it be, and keep looking. - the WOLF  child  13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Spoken to RN press team officer about the use of namesake in that article, the reply was: "‘Namesake’ does not mean we are saying it’s named after Elizabeth II specifically, it means something has the same name, which it does. But I will look to make the connection (or lack of) clearer in future stories." 86.145.163.145 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to insist, but we don't have a recent and reliable source that states this carrier is named for the current queen, we have a source that says the ship is her namesake, which could well simply mean that they share the same name, and other sources saying that the ship is named after the Tudor queen. And, as pointed out above, there is also indirect evidence via the motto, badge, tradition of not naming ships after living people, etc. So yes, I'll keep looking, but in the meantime I don't think it would be inappropriate to document the doubt. Anyone else have anything to add before I do so? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No apology necessary, this appears to be of real importance to you. But I also see that you are relatively inexperienced, so I'll try to help you out here with this. I'm not sure what you're planning on "adding", but we don't "document doubt". This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. We post information supported by reliable sources. Your personal interpretation of the term "namesake" is just that, your person interpretation, or 'opinion', and we don't post opinions. Your "indirect evidence" is also known as "original research", and we don't post that either. As I said above, we currently have info that is supported by a reliable source, and for the time being, that's what we'll go with. And, again, in the meantime, we can keep searching for updated information, via reliable sources, that either corroborates the info we have, or corrects it. That's how Wikipedia works. If you are considering making any unsupported changes to sourced info, I would strongly suggest you post your suggested changes here on the talk page first, for the community to review, comment on and if necessary, form consensus. We don't want to cause any unnecessary disruption to the article. Cheers - the WOLF  child  20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I've sat and mulled this over. Personally, the more I look at this, the more I'm convinced there's sufficient evidence that the ship is named for the Tudor queen, and my personal interpretation of the term "namesake" is borne out by Oxford and Cambridge; apart from Wiktionary, the only dictionaries I've found that include the "named after" meaning are American. If you still disagree, here's what I think could be done to document the discrepant sources: I'd remove "named for current reigning monarch Queen Elizabeth II" from the first line of the article (I'm unsure as to what best to do with the namesake line of the infobox), and change the first line of the "Naming ceremony" section to read as follows:

"Queen Elizabeth was named at Rosyth on 4 July 2014, by Elizabeth II . It is unclear which Queen the aircraft carrier is named after: although numerous sources state that the ship is named after her predecessor, Queen Elizabeth I, with whom the ship shares its motto and badge, many other sources refer to the current queen as the ship's namesake."Rosbif73 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Whilst looking for a cite for the crest and motto I found another Royal Navy page that clearly states "the ship is named after Elizabeth I" Would you agree that is sufficiently clear? I'm tempted to suggest nevertheless adding a sentence explaining the diverging sources, maybe even pointing out the primary meaning of "namesake" in British English, but I suspect you'll tell me WP:NOR to that! Rosbif73 (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the reply, it appears you put a lot of effort into it. One thing I have to say straight off is, no... we don't put things like "it's unclear if..." in an encyclopaedia. Also, I had a look at your navy source, and aside from being 4 years old, it's not clear if they are referring to the battleship or the carrier. The source that is attached to the article now is current, and is certainly considered reliable. I appreciate all the research you did with the dictionaries, but in the end, it just supports your interpretation, which is still original research. To change the article, (meaning the sourced content in both the lead and namesake parameter of the infobox), you would need at the very least, a just-as-current and reliable source (likely more than one) that clearly states "this carrier is named for Queen Elizabeth I". Even then, you would need to post it here on the talk page, along with your proposed changes for discussion, and would need consensus from the community in support to change the article. I understand you don't agree with the current content, and may even find it frustrating, but that is how Wikipedia works. It's not always perfect, but it's the best way to ensure information is factually correct and accurate. Cheers - the WOLF  child  20:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll keep looking! Let me just point out that 2014 sources correspond to the date of the ship's naming, so their date alone does not make them any more or less reliable. And more generally, I fail to see why an encyclopedia shouldn't be allowed to say "Sources disagree" and give a neutral overview of the possibilities, rather than stating just one disputed fact. I note WP:AD which says The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if [...] There are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims. If there's a better place to continue this meta-discussion, I'm happy to take it elsewhere! Rosbif73 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is the correct place for this discussion. And I have even stated above my thoughts on the issue, (that perhaps this ship is named in honor of the battleship 'QE', instead of either queen, which might explain the lack of roman numeral and Tudor rose in the crest), but we don't have any sources to support that. Definitely keep looking though! It would be great to have a source that clearly states who the ship is name named for, (if not QE II), that would satisfy everyone.


 * In the meantime, if you would like to propose, here on the talk page, an addition to either the "Naming ceremony" section, or a new "Ship's name" sub-section in the article, go for it. Other editor's can review it, perhaps add suggestions, and if there is consensus to add it, then in it goes. Just know that without sources, it will likely be viewed as original research, and if you add sources, but also add your own interpretation of them, that could be a problem as well. And watch out for un-encyclopaedic words and phrases, we want to convey supported facts, not opinions, suspicions, gossip, innuendoes, etc. Cheers - the WOLF  child  16:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the source cited does not say that the ship is named after Queen Elizabeth II. It flat-out does not say that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.24.6 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, others would disagree with you. But, you are free to try and find a recent, reliable source that either confirms just who, (or what) the ship is named for, or failing that, sources that confirm the ship is not named for the current Queen. If you find anything, post it here for us to look at and we'll go from there. Have a nice day - the WOLF  child  08:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Spoken to RN press team officer who wrote the article about the use of namesake in that article for issues outside of Wiki, the reply was: "‘Namesake’ does not mean we are saying it’s named after Elizabeth II specifically, it means something has the same name, which it does. But I will look to make the connection (or lack of) clearer in future stories". The term has been taken incorrectly it seems, have amended accordingly.86.145.163.145 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Really? Because I also spoke to the "RN press team officer that wrote the article" and he told me that was exactly what 'Namesake' meant, and that the ship is named for Elizabeth II. Then I spoke to the RN press team manager, then the communications director for the Ministry of the Defense, then the Chief of Staff to the First Sea Lord, then the Private Secretary to the Sovereign and then, finally, I got to speak to the old gal herself, The Queen... and they all confirmed that the ship is named for her. But, unfortunately, I can't use any of that to support any changes in content to the article, because it's considered original research. Please don't remove sourced content for hearsay. Before you make any further changes to this, or any other article, please read Wikipedia's policy of sourced content. Thank you - the WOLF  child  23:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a published source at https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-press-team-confirm-monarch-hms-queen-elizabeth-named. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty convincing, recent and reliable to me! Short of an original press release on an official MOD site, we're not going to get a much clearer statement than that. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea why the above user is being so rude, speaking to the RN pres steam to clear that up is surely a good move to help us here? There's a very recent article from the UK Defence Journal (linked to by others above) so will put it into article. It's obvious now that the use of the word namesake isn't being used to say she was named after the Queen. Additionally, OR or not, the aboves effort should surely settle this here at least? GRA (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to me, I was not "being rude". And, no... "speaking to the RN pres steam" is not a good way to "help us here". That is original research, and articles can't be edited based on such hearsay. Please do not encourage that. If you noticed, I've asked any interested users above to find a reliable source (RS) to confirm which the queen the ship is named, or if it's named for the previous ship. Now that RS has been found (only yesterday btw), the article can be updated accordingly and properly. Problem solved. - the WOLF  child  15:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dimensions
Why are the statistics on this page almost completely different to those on the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier page? Moreover, why is the length listed in feet whilst the rest of the dimensions are listed in metres? 81.179.71.209 23:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably because they are from different sources released at different times. As to "feet", itwas probably added by a user more familiar with Imperial measuremenets, or was in the source too. Whatever the reasons, currnet sources need to be found, and both Metric and imperial measureemts added. - BillCJ 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of HMS
In the USN, "USS" is not added until the ship is actually commissioned. Does the RN have a similar practice, or can the HMS prefix be used at any time during development? - BillCJ 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect the same would apply to the Royal Navy, but this is Wikipedia... The article is about an as-yet non-existent vessel so I don't think it should be here at all to be honest. Also I'm not sure that either of the names are universally popular within the RN, particularly the latter which doesn't have a very illustrious history. Wiki-Ed 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The same does apply to the Royal Navy. If you look at their page about the Astute class submarines, they list the five boats as HMS Astute, HMS Ambush, Artful, Audacious and Anson.  The first two are commissioned, so have their "HMS" prefix; the last three aren't, so don't.  But it makes sense to use the HMS prefix on Wikipedia, rather than renaming the article at some point in the future. Dricherby (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg
Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue has been dealt with. The rationales are now in place. Woodym555 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Project delayed 1-2 years
You might want to change your dates, due to the lack of funds both these carriers are delayed 1-2 years. With the current state of affairs, in the UK, The MoD has delayed the program dec 11,2008


 * Updated thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The carriers have not been delayed 1-2 years. This is a typical tabloid mistake that you expect from by the pathetic UK media. The carriers are under construction but the in-service dates have been put back. There's a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.253.216 (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pennant numbers
Looking through the very latest photos and video - which is well worth a watch! - the pennant numbers for these two vessels are now known. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be R08 and have deck code Q, while HMS Prince of Wales will be R09 and have deck code P.

Would there be any objections to mentioning this in the QE-class articles? I would also change the name of the two ships' articles to include their pennant numbers rather than "CVF" as present. It would also be great if anyone can find documentary evidence of the pennant numbers/deck codes, so that the information can be more properly referenced.

Exciting times. :) David (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Super-carrier? Admiral Kuznetsov
A recent edit removed reference to the Russian ship as being the first super-carrier fitted with a ski-ramp, and the term super-carrier is defined (in wikipedia) as being over 70,000 tons, but both these ships are around 65,000. It looks to me like the Kuznetzov reference should be rettained, subject to the super-carrier definition. Would anybody care to clarify this aspect? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no formal definition of a supercarrier. It's just that any very large carrier tends to be acknowledged as such. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

F35C
Did they say the carrier variant (F-35C) or just that they were chaning to CATBAR aircraft? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mothballed, sold and never to carry aircraft
I hate to say I told you so, but here it is (Carrier will be completed sail three years without aircraft and mothballed, to be sold)I would mind updating this page but certain individuals have their POV about this page, so I think it is only right that they update it. I tried to base my entries on fact, but they were just removed. Quote "One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday" jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that point Jacob is that the first carrier will come into service AT THE SAME TIME as the F-35C, the in service dates were moved to allow for design changes, now BOTH ships will be finished (and not sold) when the aircraft are ready and will not need to sail without jets. This is all public domain knowledge. HMS Queen Elizabeth will have British aircraft embarked. When writing in an encyclopedia, up to date facts usually help. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is again and now they are stating that there is a possibility that the first will be sold by 2015. It also states that at least one will be held in mothball, never to see aircraft. Please give us a link that states your side. As this page says nothing about second carrier being used.http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/bungle-fear-as-aircraft-carrier-bill-soars-2bn-1.1098610 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been countless parliamentary questions in Hansard about this. I believe the burden of proof here falls on you and I don't think a speculative article in the Herald that ignores the SDSR and recent information qualifies as a reliable source. Also, I at no point said the second carrier would be used, please read what I said again. I also suggest you read the SDSR section regarding the carriers and bear in mind the Hansard responses that explain how selling it is looking less likely (There is no country to buy it!). G.R. Allison (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As it has been stated by the minister of defence, the second carrier (POW) will be most likely stay in a state of high readiness, basically meaning she will be ready incase of a global conflict or an invasion of sovereign territory i.e. the Falklands. Hope that helps. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, people, if you look at the F-35C page, the F-35 will come first, followed by the carrier.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of this becoming a forum, when does the UK take first delivery of an F-35C? G.R. Allison (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, money was always an issue. You all really need to read what put on these pages and what was talked on the discussion page. They are now saying 2030 and only 1 fully operartional. The other mothballed never having all the equipment needed to operate a carrier installed. There was a lot of hot blown about these carriers and a blind could see three years ago it would never happen.Jacob805 00:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BazJ43na_UI

It's worth pointing out that the one fact that the Government has never altered its position on since the defence review in 2010 is that only one carrier will be required on active service. From the sources I have consulted (and despite much speculation), it is not totally clear which one this will be. Thom2002 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its in the article, confirmed last month that POW, will be built to a CATOBAR configuration, and will be the active carrier. The fate of QE is uncertain. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim, as you say it does seem clear from the interview with the First Sea Lord that only the POW will have a clear future as an active aircraft carrier in the Royal Navy. Thom2002 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is safe to say, the QE will never carry fixed wing aircraft F35B canceled and no catapult system installed, helicopter ship or traning vessel.Jacob805 11:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)
 * No it is far from safe to say that. See answer above from the First Sea Lord "[T]he fate of QE is uncertain". Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * More light on the future of HMS Queen Elizabeth is due in 2015. An MoD study is likely to be completed before 2015 to asses the cost and feasibility of refitting HMS QE to a CATOBAR configuration, both carriers would swap in and out of extended readiness. TalkWoe90i 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is also the option of a conversion to STOBAR rather than CATOBAR the F35C could work then. Does anyone anything about the planned Arrester system, is it likely to traditional hydro-pneumatic or linear motors like EMALS? See Linear_eddy_current_brake.

Aster Missiles?
Not really sure about the Naval Technology source on whether the QEs will have Aster missiles.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:13, 28 May 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.
 * We should have this conversation in only one place, not three. See:
 * Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier.
 * Makyen (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In-service date
Further confusion on the in-service date, see the latest Hansard written answer referred to in the infobox. Conflicts with various other dates elsewhere in the article, given previously from the SDSR and elsewhere. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are the dates when the ships are handed over to the Royal Navy, who will then spend about 3 years on each running trials and whatnot. David (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From Defence Management 25 November 2011 Current planning assumptions will see HMS Queen Elizabeth put to sea in 2016, Admiral Stanhope said. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is "in service date", whilst she is planned to sail on trials in 2016 there are then Contractor Sea Trials, handover, Part IV First of Class Trials, Commissioning then work-up. In principle she's in-service when she's commissioned although Ocean was used for Disaster Relief work in the Caribbean when she was on her Part IV.
 * I'd also caution against making much of that report. First delivered a pretty wide ranging talk, pitched at an approriate level for the audience.  The main thrust of that report is that the RN doesn't have enough manpower to operate all of the platforms it will have, and the manpower requirements of a flat top probably aren't sustainable given the other commitments.  He was expressing the questions that he, and his successors, have to answer around how we square the circle of sustained commitments and hugely reduced manpower; how does the RN deliver a full spectrum of maritime capabilities with 23000 sailors and 6000 Royal Marines?  One of the potential answers is "don't provide a full spectrum of capabilities"... which could include the "placing QE in a reduced state of readiness".
 * ALR (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mothballed immediately
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/29/royal-navy-carriers-impaired-use-public-accounts-committee?INTCMP=SRCH Phd8511 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be more useful to look at the Public Accounts Committee report directly rather then rely on media reporting from a "defence" correspondent who'd be unlikely to recognise an aircraft carrier if it had a big flashing neon sign on top.
 * The more important points in the PAC report are a recognition that the SDSR significantly increased programme costs and risks, and injected an operational risk into UK Defence by deleting carrier strike capabilities some ten years before they'll be recovered.
 * The issues about what will happen to the N7 programme for the CVF are not really covered in the report, there are quite a few caveats there about their conclusions.
 * ALR (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Class 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) 16:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

More news
£6,2 bn for the one carrier... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28153569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.36.40 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * £6.2 bn for two. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: When do they decide she will be comissioned
So QE has been named and will begin trials etc, so which dated (that is stated) will be her commissioning date? Or rather, how do you define the commissioning of a ship? Thanks.Phd8511 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect there isn't actually a firm date for commissioning yet. Argovian (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll know its been commissioned when the Royal Navy issue a press release saying its been commissioned. Thats a primary source, but generally a pretty reliable one for straight-forward factual information such as when a particular ship has been commissioned. Per WP:CRYSTAL, there's not much point in speculating a whole lot further about a future date *unless* there are reliable sources clearly indicating a particular date of commissioining. Thom2002 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Height of the class
Does anybody know what the height of the new Aircraft Carrier will be from the Water line to the highest point? Please can I have a source aswell. Vulcan44 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ship's company
The first few members of the Ships company joined in October 2012. Although officially the Senior Naval Officer (SNO) Captain Simon Petitt RN is the Commanding Officer of the first ships company of HMS Queen Elizabeth. 86.185.70.210 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sea trials
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nations-flagship-takes-to-sea-for-the-first-time JessPavarocks (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was added to the page. Kablammo (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We prefer secondary sources where possible. --John (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think her majesty's government made up a story about the carrier going to sea for trials??

Royal Navy [of the United Kingdom]
I agree that Royal Navy is only used for the UK's navy, but I still think it is helpful to say UK in the opening sentence for readers who may not know this. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary. It is clear from the introduction, not to mention the rest of the article, which navy we are writing about. Kablammo (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Speed
27.1 kt, per ukdj.: HMS Queen Elizabeth exceeds stated maximum speed on trials  Kablammo (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Two islands
The only visually striking thing about the ship. I was looking for some mention in the "design" section. Can anyone add an explanation?Pieter1963 (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this sound ok?

The ship has two superstructures, or islands, one for the running of the ship and one to oversee flying operations. The islands can take on each other's function in an emergency. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How about instead of "running of the ship", it says "one for ship's navigation and operations and the other for flight control and aerial operations"...? just my 2 cents - the WOLF  child  20:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting. What is the basic philosophy behind it though? Don't similar ships manage with one? I think it would be good to address these questions. Just found the answers in your link. Thank you. I can obviously edit it myself now with this info if that's okPieter1963 (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it allows for more deck space, as opposed to one large island. Can't remember where I heard or read that though. - the WOLF  child  01:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Pieter1963, I think the article above, explains it all and I cannot add anymore to it. Sammartinlai (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Westlant18 has concluded
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2018/november/22/181122-f35s-leave-hms-qe

Sammartinlai (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Far too much of this article reads like an outlet for MoD press releases, right down to detailing events in the past as though they are yet to happen, and now also whitewashing of the negative behavior of members of the commands and ship's company involved. Is some of it also a WP:COPYVIO? Looks likely. Needs a lot of work. MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not "whitewashing", that's correcting ridiculous commentary that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Get over it. - wolf  22:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This was not my intention when creating this section. Just to say Westlant18 is over. Gosh. Sammartinlai (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning the end of the event. It is very useful to note such changes. MPS1992 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The mention of six sailors being arrested is trivia (albeit trivia mentioned in quality RS, which shows how their standards have fallen). Such an event is not unusual when any large ship gets to port. As the article is about the ship and not the antics of a few members of the crew I am removing it in toto Lyndaship (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Concur that it's trivial and should be removed. WP is not news, and that's really all this is. The original comment that I removed, "the crew of Queen Elizabeth had their first taste of combat", was certainly over-the-top and uncalled for in an encyclopedia,ie. "ridiculous commentary". - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the original comment began with "While in Florida, the crew of Queen Elizabeth had their first taste of combat when they were involved in "fighting and urinating" during trips to local bars.". I edited it as soon as I saw it, but that set him of on a bizarre revenge-by-mass-revert-spree that didn't stop until a 4RR report was filed. Then he immediately got in a dispute with Sammartinlai over some templates and then finally went quiet. Thank you and  for stepping in and helping to clean that up. - wolf  04:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is getting silly
There's too much news getting added to this article even likely future arriva!s sourced to a Twitter feed. Also does a general reader need to know that a certain area has some heads? The article needs a major prune so that only information of lasting importance remains Lyndaship (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the trivial details, mainly primary sourced, are not needed. Not so sure about relevant and unusual details regarding ship layout et cetera. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Westlant 18 and 19 and future Westlant
Maybe shift them to create a new article/page ? BlueD954 (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Tonnage"
The marine traffic site:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:5618808/vessel:HMS%20QUEEN%20ELIZABETH

linked from the ship's IMO number, states the "gross tonnage" is 65,000. That is figure is actually the vessel's displacement, not GT. There would be no reason to have the ship assessed for gross tonnage. That tonnage error has been propagated to Wikidata, but I removed it. That does not mean that it won't appear elsewhere. Kablammo (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto3": From List of Freedom of the City recipients (military):  From Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present):  </ul>

Reference named "auto2":<ul> <li>From Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II: </li> <li>From List of Freedom of the City recipients (military): </li> <li>From Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present): </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Operational history
I think this section is getting way too detailed. There's no reason to have 5 large paragraphs solely on the Westlant exercises. I propose we reduce the amount of detail and perhaps condense the Westlant deployments into one subsection, otherwise we're going to have an extremely lengthy section when the ship actually takes on operational deployments. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"A" vs "An"
Undid revision 1021282395 by SmartyPants22 (talk) It's "an", because 'Indian' starts with a vowel (i.e. an Indian port).

I edited the page to correct a very simple mistake: from "to a, as yet unknown, Indian port" to "to an, as yet unknown, Indian port"

The edit has been reverted (twice) by the same user, asserting that it should be 'a', not 'an'.

If the clause "as yet unknown" is removed, the line would read "to a Indian port", which is incorrect. "Indian" starts with a vowel, so it should be "to an Indian port". Adding in the elided clause results in "to an, as yet unknown, Indian port".

Mikepyne (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I apologise; don't really know what I was thinking, probably had a bit of a brain fart lol. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 12:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)