Talk:Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier/Archive 1

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)

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)


 * The nationalistic hyperbole is suffocating; to keep this discussion in perspective, please remember the following elite projects:
 * Comet Jetliner. Nimrod AEW.  Nimrod MRA4.  Foxhunter Radar program (although it must said the temporary 'Blue Circle' radar met expectations from the outset).  TSR-2 (Designed with 'super cruise'!). Panavia ADV.  English Electric Lightning.  Rolls-Royce RB211 engine (eventually a fine engine, a trifle too late).
 * CVF Prediction: late, over budget and and deficient in capabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.254.176 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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."


 * 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)

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)

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

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. &mdash;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 &mdash; 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

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. &mdash;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)

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)

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) 04:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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&#39;s 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, thought better to get some support via here. Mark83 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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 Special:Contributions/ (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)
 * The BBC is reporting the aircraft complement as "upto" 36 fighters, 4 airborne early warning and "several EH 101 Merlin helicopters" 83.104.138.141 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"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&#39;s (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture
The pic shows a CTOL layout that wont be build. Needs to be replaced. 86.10.0.187 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that the French will build these carrier for Britain
I had heard that the French were going to construct major parts of both these carriers, due to the fact that Britain no longer has the ship building capacity it once had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

erm thats nonsense im afraid. read the actaul artical. there was a deal floating around that britain and france would share construction work but the french failed to order there carrier and the deal has long fallen through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ship construction delayed
I have contributed to this page, but I understand they have been delayed two years 2014 and 2016 respectfully. Can someone who monitors this page update the page to show the coorect construction dates.Jacob805 (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

50 aircraft "full load"
Where exactly does this 50 aircraft "full load" figure quoted in a couple of places in the article come from? All the official material says 40 aircraft, not 50. Is there a source for this, or is it just wiki-speculation based on the size of the ships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.69.104 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 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 this article and the two ships' 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) 14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Media speculation
A previous revision of this article added a section regarding BBC speculation over the future of the carrier project. In my opinion this sort of media coverage is not relevant in wikipedia. If we were to add every speculation that has come up in the press/media over the course of the CVF project, then that would take up more space than the CVF article itself. However I thought it would be rather rude of me to delete this entirely so I have changed some phrasing and added some additional text to give some balance. An example of this edit is me changing the heading from "Doubts cast over future of project" to "Media speculation over the future of the project."

No further sources need be quoted as I have used the same BBC web article as the original poster.

As stated, my gut instinct is that this should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.176.90 (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Under construction and assembly
If it's of any interest to anyone, the first parts of the carrier have left a shipyard for assembly. It's reported by the BBC here: Aircraft carrier parts leave yard

It's just for the bow section of the ship, but it definitely looks like it's being built. Because of this whole F35C thing I suspect the Queen Elizabeth will use the STOVL configuration for the harriers and will later be converted to CATOBAR for when the F35C comes into service. But the Prince Of Wales will be built for CATOBAR. Speculation on my part and not worthy for the Wiki but interesting stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilMonkeySlayer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sale to India?
It's still 100% speculation, but just a heads up that more sources than The Observer are picking up on the whole "one of the two new Brit carriers to India" theme. See http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/the-british-warship-that-india-wants-quantum-leap-on-the-high-seas_100275595.html. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, hold the phone. I no longer think it is 100% speculation, as many news outlets are beginning to pick this up. See, for examples: http://newwars.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/breaking-britain-may-sell-new-carrier-to-india/, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Politics/Nation/Britain-may-sell-aircraft-carrier-to-India-Report/articleshow/5232803.cms , http://newwars.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/breaking-britain-may-sell-new-carrier-to-india/ (no, probably not all RS', but it's just to show that people are starting to report more on this) — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it IS speculation. Just because other people are reporting the speculation doesn't make it more likely to happen. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that it may not be speculation, and Wikipedia should report what is found in reliable sources. If later it is found that the sale was all just rumors, then a sentence like "a possible sale to India of one carrier was reported in various newspapers in mid-November 2009, but ..." would be justified in the article in the future. I hope this section is satisfactory. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My objections still stand. It's ridiculous to include every single sodding rumour about this project, especially as they're usually doom and gloom. The speculation is still based on "some guy has that said an idea has been considered that might mean that" a carrier was sold. It's nothing new, just a new version of a story how the RN will only have one carrier. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the text because I've quoted four reliable sources; it's mostly speculation, sure, but (a) it's been reported in reliable sources and (b) they say that they have a source within the government. I will also invite WP:MILHIST members here for further discussion. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not reliable sources, they're news outlets. Quite frequently news outlets report on options papers that may or may not be doing the rounds of the madhouse in Whitehall but neglect to mention that what's being reported is an options paper.  They'll also only report on one of the options, position it as fact and neglect to mention that the paper may have recommended something else.
 * Of course the other possibility is that it;s being trailed to see what the responses are, the British electorate are naive when it comes to how military operations work. It may also be a well meaning, but inexperienced staff officer trying to do the right thing and damaging things in the longer term.
 * Notwithstanding that last, until this appears in something more reliable, or we get some indication of what type of positioning is going on inside MoD then the news media is speculation.
 * ALR (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the newspapers are reliable. Also, I think that the attention this is recieving warrants a mention in the article, rumor or not. Also, did you read the second sentence? Various news outlets in India have picked up the story, but all refer to The Observer's story; as of 16 November, the report has not been independently validated by a different newspaper. —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I understand why, particularly in WPland, you see the news media as inherently reliable, I'm afraid that I'm somewhat sceptical of both the story and the reasons why it's in the press at the moment. We have a single source, and at the moment I would say that it has undue weight.  My main concerns:
 * Where did the document that the Observer are claiming documents this come from, and how far through the staffing process was it? If it was a fully formed options paper then that's very different from the notes from a scoping workshop.
 * Where in MoD did this come from. The office of the Chief of the General Staff or the office of the Chief of the Naval Staff, DESO or the Equipment Planners.  If DEP then was it from the surface warfare and aviation people?  All of those originators put a very different complexion on the debate.
 * If it was in an options paper then what are the other options and is it positioned as the comedy option that nobody will actually take? The way an options paper is structured is that anything from three to nine options are compared and contrasted, leading to a recommendation.  The recommendation is framed with a do nothing and a couple of comedy options, just to get a sense of perspective.  In isolation discussing one option is meaningless.
 * Was this paper being presented to the approvals group?
 * There is no mention of the implications of the sale, an options paper would have both benefits and disbenefits outlined. The disbenefits of something like selling off a deck are signfificant and would potentially be included in the article.
 * Whilst it's verifiable that the Observer claim that they have a source I don't think that anything more is usable, at the moment giving the topic a sub-section is undue weight. I think the fact that you feel the need to throw four sources, all tracing back to the same single source probably reinforces the view that it's weak content.  Is the story that MoD are credibly looking at a sale, or are you wanting to write about the fact that the media are writing about it?  It seems to be the latter at the moment.
 * ALR (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per request for outside comment: Just a reminder that our inclusion criterion is "verifiability, not truth". While the news report is indeed speculative, it's also verifiable and therefore meets the inclusion threshold. We still need to be mindful of WP:UNDUE, so I agree it doesn't merit much space at the moment, but mainstream newspapers are generally regarded (rightly or wrongly) as WP:RS. It's the sort of information that could eventually be written into a section dealing with the issues around the construction of the vessels, if when they're launched. EyeSerene talk 08:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would caveat your suggestion that journos are inherently reliable as being generally accepted. The sourcing guideline is very weak around that and whilst information professionals treat them with some considerable degree of scepticism.  All we can verify is that the Observer says something.
 * ALR (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we can only verify the Observer said something, which is not notable. Let's revisit this if the MoD say they are considering selling the carrier. If not then I don't see why it should be included. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"we checked with the MoD today and they said that "we have had no written expression of interest from India" in buying one of the carriers." David (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is becoming increasingly clear that the newspaper industry does not have a clue what it is talking about, we have had to discuss two different articles saying very different things which turn out to be inaccurate. There for i think we should oppose ANY additional news story being added to this article unless it is by a decent source like the BBC. No newspapers! BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, often the BBC get it wrong and/or just regurgitate other news outlets' nonsense or speculation. The situation with the aircraft carriers, and British defence procurement generally, is being reviewed first by the green paper and then by the full review post-general election. Lots of options will be discussed and included, if only to be ruled out. And no doubt many of these options will be jumped on by the media and reported in the wrong light. We know that Queen Elizabeth is being built and will be in service with the Royal Navy; what the situation is with the Prince of Wales is not so clear, but won't be known by us mere mortals until at least just after the general election is over, c. next May. David (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the £2 billion quoted is slightly more than the unit cost it appears that India would be prepared to pay full cost. So I intend to add to the rumour and claim India are looking to buy a carrier of their own as new build and given the current problems they are having acquiring Russian carrier they could well be true.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst the conservative party have not confirmed they are committed to maintaining the two carriers, i find it very hard to think that the defence review or a rather new conservative government would be prepared to be so weak as to sell off a carrier right away. We should not put basic media speculation in the article. Its true the BBC sometimes get things wrong but they are a lot more reliable than national newspapers which print rubbish on a daily basis. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live with the material being removed - I have always favoured looking for source s and confess to being a little speculative when adding the sale to India stuff a day or so ago. If a second independent source turns up then things change of course.  But taking this with the Helicopter Carrier stuff above I think we have got a notable quantity of media speculation which should, perhaps, be recorded?  Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a section dedicated to media speculation listing some of the things hinted at in different press reports and the fact things may not be clear until the strategic defence review is complete following the next general election. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (od) Including these kind of vague speculative reports seems to be a violation of WP:NOT to me - just because something has appeared in the media doesn't mean that it warrants inclusion. This particularly applies to stuff which first appears in the British sunday papers, which are notoriously unreliable (I imagine that the sunday version of The Guardian is above the average, but I'd take it with a lot of salt). Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Although it's right that broadsheet newspapers are not necessarily trustworthy sources, they ironically usually do meet WP:RS (as mainstream, ostensibly fact-checked publications). I agree that they're a weak source at best, and independent verification is desirable, so we need to be careful to attribute any material and present it with appropriate weight. BritishWatcher's suggestion seems reasonable to me; as a work-in-progress and given the shenanigans that go on around most defence projects, I think media speculation is a notable par-for-the-course. Personally I wouldn't go beyond a one-sentence mention that minority speculation has mentioned India as a possible buyer for one of the carriers, but if others would rather see the information removed I have no beef with that. EyeSerene talk 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Which really just highlights that WP:RS isn't useful from an information governance, and indeed professional integrity, perspective.
 * The world of defence acquisition politics is extremely complex, and I for one will rarely believe anything from it until I have seen kit actually delivered. And that's from the perspective of one who has worked in London, Bristol and in the operational environment.  Couple that with the inherent lack of moral courage from our politicians of all hues I wouldn't trust any newspaper on the topic.  The complexity of the environment doesn't suit their need for simplistic stories.
 * ALR (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree, and does the end-users no favours (having been in receipt of some of the wonderful pieces of kit that have come out of the MoD's procurement process). However, for me this is where expertise really is useful on Wikipedia. Not for writing what one knows to be true, but in having the background to be able to evaluate and place in the appropriate context the information one comes across. However, flawed though it may be, WP:RS is still policy... and so, of course, is WP:IAR :) EyeSerene talk 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me about NOTNEWS. I agree with your view, Nick. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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 as other official web pages state it does indeed stand for "carrier vessel future"      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)

CVF does not mean and has never meant Carrier Vessel Future. The MoD press release that stated this was in error and was later corrected. CV is the NATO STANAG designation for aircraft carrier - not Carrier Vessel - it is not an acronym (just as DD and FF are not acronyms for destroyer and frigate). The project has always been known as "Future Aircraft Carrier" which was abbreviated to CVF in the same way that the current anti-submarine aircraft carriers are CVS (although there is, of course, no STANAG definition of F for Future). As noted above, the STANAG is derrived from the US classification system first used in the 1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.25.120 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Would the group of people who keep undoing my correction to the meaning of CVF please realise that just because something made it into official MoD documents does not make it correct. It is clear that whoever released the documents stating that CV stands for Carrier Vessel did not know how the designation system works. Subsequent statements from the Royal Navy (who presumably do understand the system!) have corrected it to Aircraft Carrier and therefore CVF equals Future Aircraft Carrier. There is no need to continue spreading this general ignorance of the NATO STANAG system, even if someone at the MoD was guilty of making the same mistake originally.--AlexCGW (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's been some edit warring going on recently. Can we discuss this here and reach a consensus instead of reverting each other. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider that my naivety. A debate would be welcome providing it is sufficiently well informed. Much of the debate above is either non-relevant or guess work.--AlexCGW (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark83 is a long-time editor, and fairly knowledgeable about British military systems. Note that he does not appeal to his own knowledge, but instead provides specific information from Reliable Sources. Appealing to one's own knowledge is considered Original Research, and should not be used within articles. It is OK to some degree in discussions, but in order to make decisions regarding what should be in the text, reliable sources are needed. Have you looked at the sources Mark83 mentioned? (If you aren't sure how, we can help with that - I'm not assuming you can't, but offering just in case.) Note that the discussion died down for almost 3 years. Presumably, the user making the edits you're objecting to hasn't read the previous discussion either, much less read the given sources. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources referenced contain a variety of conflicting information and some may have changed since the point in time at which they were originally referenced. All current authoritative sources refer to Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) e.g.. The confusion seems to have arisen from ill informed MoD departments failing to check what CV meant, jumping to the conclusion that it was an acronym and making up the meaning Carrier Vessel (presumably because it 'sounded right'). The original MoD press release which announced the ordering of the ships made the exact same mistake but was corrected later the same day to state that CVF is a designation, not an acronym and means Future Aircraft Carrier. Unfortunately the MoD doesn’t seem to have archived that release and there appear to be no copies still in existence on the Web to refer to. Clearly the person who originally coined the term 'CVF' knew what he/she was talking about but it became scrambled as it was passed around the MoD. There appears to have been an effort to undo this in the last two years as most MoD sites now correctly state Future Aircraft Carrier (although there a are few that still get it wrong, and in some cases bizarrely wrong, making yet further permutations).--AlexCGW (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair points. We can cite the link you gave, and a few others too, if needed, and change the text in the Lead. However, for historical accuracy, if an MOD refernce for the "alternate" meaning still exists, that might be mentioned a footnote to the Lead. Hopefully this would lessen the tendencey for users to change the lead again. "Carrier Vessel" is the wrong interpretation, but it did exist - and we can still report that - and probably out to. However, to point out thast it is "wrong" would probably require a verifiable reliable source that actually says that. A statement like " CVF - reported ot mean "Carrier Vessel Future in some early MOD documents/sources ...." is what I would have in mind. It states the historical facts, but makes no jusdgment about it thaqt is not explicitly made in other sources. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that BilCat's recent change quite properly reflects the programme's original name, although it is a significant improvement. It's good that we've settled on a sensible meaning for 'CVF' but the original project name was still 'Future Aircraft Carrier', for which 'CVF' is only an abbreviation. Almost all major MoD procurement projects in their Concept or Assessment phases are named Future ... (e.g. Future Surface Combatant, Future Rapid Effects System, Future Command & Liaison Vehicle). They then get a proper name when the project moves to the Demonstration phase (in this case QE Class Aircraft Carrier; in the case of FCLV, Panther CLV), so I think it would still be useful to someone examining this project from its original inception for the article to correctly and fully state the original project name.--AlexCGW (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "recent" edits of mine you are referring to, but my last edit was to simply place a long rambling uncited explanation (though true) by Buckshot into a ref. My previous edit, simply adding a fact tag to "Carrier Vessel Future" in the Lead sentence, was made after you previous comments, as I noted. So please be specific as to what I did that you disagree with, because I haven't a clue. At this point, the explanations of the definition of CVF, or what name was the "correct" one, remain unsourced. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry - a mis-attributation. The edit in question was indeed Buckshot's. I'll try to find some sources to lay this to rest once and for all. Buckshot's explanation is correct but he didn't put the programme name in, he just explained the meaning of the CVF abbreviation for the programme name.--AlexCGW (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that the [Panama Canal] is only about 33.5 meters wide; not wide enough to accommodate even the 41 meters of a Nimitz-class ship. Nottheking (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Beam (nautical) does not specify at the waterline but at the widest part. A quick glance at infoboxes of other British carriers seems to bear this practice out. A quick look at some DoD defintions gives two types of beam: "extreme" and "waterline" whose meanings are fairly obvious in context. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Displacement and dimensions
Depending on where you read, the exact displacement and dimensions of these aircraft carriers changes slightly.

A most recent official publication by the RN (see here - specifically page 70) has the new aircraft carriers as thus:


 * 65,600 tonnes (65,000 tons)
 * 284 metres long
 * 73 metres wide flight deck
 * "39 metres at its widest point"

Could we use these figures in this article as the publication is new and official? David (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless someone objects I would definitely use them as they are up to date and official. RP459 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've updated this page and will update other pages. David (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Continual addition of strange comparison
An editor keeps adding a comparison between the Invincible class carriers and the Wasp class LHDs. It would be arguable whether this would actually be relevant to the articles for those ship types - i.e why compare a fleet ASW carrier with an amphibious warfare ship, but I see absolutely no reason for it to be in this article - which about a completly different ship. I would argue that such comparisons be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly the only reason I can see to have it in the article is that the 2 ships are relatively the same size, other than that there is no reason to include the comparison. As such I also can find no reason to continue to include the comparison in this article. RP459 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that it should not be included, does not appear to be either notable or relevant to the QE class. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, they serve no purpose and seem to be OR. I have removed the inclusion as it's against invention to inset text than instruct people to vote for it to remain or leave. Suggest > Consensus > Include/Ignore is roughly the convention. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr Allison, you're correct. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I still believe that the information is very much of interest to the article. Cross-posted: I believe the comparison is relevant because, as it is usually discussed, the United States has eleven aircraft carriers to the UK's two, when really the US Navy has eight more of almost precisely the same capability, with additional capabilities besides. I think this fact is worth mentioning where I have included it because that area of the article discusses the British admiralty's reasoning for building new carriers of the same size as what the US Navy considers fully-sized carriers. —166.137.132.54 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it really all that strange? Is it really "original research"? It seems it should be the very purpose of Wikipedia to make such a simple comparison -- that one boat is about the same size as another boat. There are well-resourced articles concerning both boats' capabilities. With the extreme rarity of "flat-topped naval aviation platforms", I was surprised the comparison wasn't already made. I think now it isn't officially made for political reasons, maybe. —166.137.132.54 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I still cant see what the smaller Wasp has to do with the Queen Elizabeth class - perhaps you could make your point clearer and explain what the relationship is between the two, I certainly cant see it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is also wrong the nearest US ship in size to the Invincible calss was the proposed Sea Control Ship, or a whole load of Escort carriers from WWII. Which should perhaps be mentioned but in the invincible class article.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is worthwhile to mention because this section of the article concerns the need apprehended by the British admiralty to build this larger class of ship, the QE, as opposed to continuing with the design approach currently in effect with the Invincible class. It makes sense to most fully say why the ships are going to be bigger. Additionally, the two types of ship in question do not only launch the same numbers of the same type of aircraft, they launch the same numbers of exactly the same aeroplanes -- Harriers -- and/or the same numbers of just about equivalent helicopters. Mentioning this also reinforces to the reader the technology-sharing relationship between the navies of Britain and the United States, as also seen with submarine reactor tech. Giving some shrift to the broader view makes for a superior article, in my opinion. —166.137.132.54 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure what your point is in mentioning the Wasps, other that to say the smaller invincibles can carry as much aircrat, which is not totally accurate. The Wasps are over twice the displacement of the Invincibles, and can carry more aircraft in a pure carrier role thn the invincibles, even though they aren't designed for that role. A ship the size of the Wasp designed soley for the same role as the Invincibles would carry more aircraft than the Wasps. The new America class LHA, which while a little larger than the Wasp, is optimized for carrying aircraft, and will carry a larger load of aircraft because of that, but its still designed to carry marines and vehicles, which takes up some space. This is an apples to oranges comparison that simply doesn't belong here with out a long explanation, which would need to be cited from a reliabel source. - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I assumed this is the article on the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier not the Invincible so I am still confused. I could understand comparison with other JSF equipped carriers, have I missed something are they putting the JSF on the Wasp class. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am confused as well. I don't see why the Wasps are a valid comparison. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mention of previous (current) RN carrier class in comparison to USN
Having read the quotation from the British admiralty about wanting fleet coherence with the United States, it seems quite relevant to compare the present British aircraft carrier with that of America. I included a comparison, and it was twice reverted, for reasons other than the substance of the information provided. Possibly the topic is poorly worded as it is, and deserves its own heading, under which the fact of the matter would be completely explained. It seems impossible to entirely disinclude the information at hand. The ships accorded by the UK as "aircraft carriers" deserve comparison to their peers elsewhere, especially given the British admiralty's own quoted reasoning. —166.137.132.54 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wasp class are not accorded as "aircraft carriers" though by the US navy. I appreciate your attempt to help but I don't see the value the comparison brings. Which quoted reasoning do you refer to? G. R. Allison (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for starting a new topic. I was referring to the quotation from Alan West as introducing relevancy. I typed something else on the talk page of RP459: I believe the comparison is relevant because, as it is usually discussed, the United States has eleven aircraft carriers to the UK's two, when really the US Navy has eight more of almost precisely the same capability, with additional capabilities besides. I think this fact is worth mentioning where I have included it because that area of the article discusses the British admiralty's reasoning for building new carriers of the same size as what the US Navy considers fully-sized carriers. —166.137.132.54 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we need a decent source that makes the comparison rather than insert it ourselves. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Originally planned dates
I recall the originally planned in service date for the first new carrier as 2011 - the date is significant to me for various reasons so I noted it. This was in 1999 or 2000. Does anyone out there have any sources for this? 81.151.224.225 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Design studies
With reference to the query on the date of a late BAE Systems submission for a "hybrid" design, I have found a reference at http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-13.htm that indicates that the submission was in year 2000. It appears that Thales also briefed the MoD on a hybrid design. Would this be authoritative enough?

86.16.134.133 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
As neither (HMS Queen Elizabeth (CVF) nor HMS Prince of Wales (CVF)) has yet been built, both will be built to the same specification, neither will be launched for several years, and therefore have no individual history, it is sensible at this stage to merge both the individual articles into this one. This will reduce duplication across the three closely overlapping articles. Once launched, the ships should perhaps then have individual articles. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see your reasoning, and I'm not too fussed either way - as you say, the individual articles for the two ships will one day definitely be needed, but I don't think having them now is a problem. There are already unique bits of information for each ship and slowly more ship-specific details will be added to the articles. They will have (and to some limited extent already have) individual histories from the start, as they are not being built concurrently, with Queen Elizabeth now under construction, whilst the PoW will be a few years behind (and potentially with a few differences, such as suppliers of particular aspects, eg the flight deck). So there is an argument for keeping the pages as they are now. David (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with all the above really. Some bold removal of common material from the two ship articles would be helpful maybe?  Springnuts (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a possible way forward: it would leave the PoW article being pretty thin (just a brief intro on what it is and what its status is + infobox) but there would be more in the QE article (construction details/updates, on naming... possibly a photo soon). Certainly a clean up of the three articles is needed, whether that means merging them into one or making the three articles generally more concise... that is the question. David (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merges - Per David and Springnuts. - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see the point, but suggest as there is going to be a major defence review after the next election we leave this for now. After all they may not even be built when the bean counters get to work. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Queen Elizabeth is being built as we type, so it would be remarkable if they stopped work on that vessel. David (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly there are precedents for stopping work, both on ships and on other defence projects. Remember TSR2?  But I agree that we should keep the separate pages for now, though tidy up common items where relevant.  David Biddulph (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BOLD I have pared down both articles to the basic, specific information relevant to each ship & left main article links back to this article for class-wide information. This is the way forward I think given that the discussion seems to have stalled so I'm removing the merge tags. Of course we can discuss it more if anyone isn't happy with the tidyups I have done. Mark83 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Springnuts (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks, you've done an excellent job, Mark83 and a better result than just merging as I had originally suggested. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Construction
Could someone clarify the last paragraph under this head. There are two different dates, but the confusion arises because they are referred to as "On the same date..." 86.16.134.133 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Carrier force capability
Has anyone any information about how these two carriers are supposed to be deployed? According to Wikipedia articles, the UK currently has 3 light carriers. Two are in service and one is in reserve. I would be concerned about a UK carrier force where one was in service and the other in refit. Whilst I recognise that the MOD may not have thought this through, and there may be no information, deployability is an issue despite the size of these carriers. I am not concerned with the U.S. CNO's view of UK carrier capability, I am concerned with the UK's unilateral carrier capability. On a slightly different, but connected, issue, can anyone comment on the possibility of a navalised Eurofighter Typhoon as an alternative to a F-35 variant? 86.16.134.133 (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that they'll forgo the "one in reserve" policy for as long as possible. They'll be brand new carriers after all; it should be a while before refits are needed. And by the time a refit is needed, maybe the Royal Navy will be able to afford a third one. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been statements that due to technological advances there will not be the need for as many refits for the QE class as the Invincible class has required. The F-35 is steadily getting more expensive but when you consider development costs it is likely to be cheaper than a navalised Typhoon. Interesting topics raised, but just remember talk pages are for discussing changes to the article. Mark83 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

-What's this a current affairs forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.78.36 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Typhoon taylhooks
Please take a look at Image:Eurofighter 9803 2.jpg and Image:Typhoon 4.jpg. The tailhook is nestled between the rear of the engines. This is commnon for modern fighter-type aircraft, but the hook is used to snag a wire attached to ballast placed at the ends of runways. The hook is nowhere near strong enough to stop a fighter on a carrier. - BilCat (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

-Plus navalising a fighter is a great deal more complicated than adding a tailhook, all the alloys used in construction need to be resistant to salt water corrosion from sea spray, not to mention the landing gear needs to be significantly stronger for more violent arrested recovery landings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.78.36 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Armament
Having just watched a program about invincible classes goal keeper CIWS it made me wonder if the defensive armament for the QE class has been officialy announced as i doubt the vessels will completely unarmed as that was a less on of the falklands, so having googled it i found this site http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ which suggests similar to the type 45 the new carriers will be fitted with for but not with CIWS mounts of some degree and possibly two 16 aster VLS budget depending, it dosnt mention any smaller weapons such as the 20mm carried on the invincibale class nor do i know how up to date this site is with a new goverment in westminster as such i'm wondering if BAE or the MoD have announced anything about this recently. --Delta33 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Defence acquisition news releases etc. aren't allowed during an election campaign & the new government won't be announcing any large contracts I imagine until after the defence review late in the year. Mark83 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't imagine that Purdah is anything to do with this. The Close Range and Close In defence is unlikely to be Aster 15, there is quite a significant system investment in that.  More likely that level isn't thorugh the investment case yet, but I'd anticipate Goalkeeper or possibly the Rolling Airframe Missile.
 * I'd anticipate a mix of CIWS like Goalkeeper and CRWS like 20mm or 30mm as they deal with different threats; CIWS against missiles and aircraft, CRWS against fast moving surface targets. The Goalkeeper can be redeployed from the INVC or LUST.
 * ALR (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it'll be more than likly wait and see after the strategic defence review or some point later on in the shipss constructions for official announcements as their is a whole range of available CIWS systems these days but i do see ALR's point of recycled goalkeepers and 20mm from the current invincibles and if they find some cash possibly a searam but thats pure speculation and has no place here --Delta33 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The SDSR won't be in that level of detail, it'll define whether we continue to operate maritime air at all, the actual weapons fit depends on Fleet N7 and DE&S decisions.
 * ALR (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A note on the origin of "CV" as a vessel type designator. In the American Navy, the letter "V" signifies heavier-than-air, fixed-wing aircraft. Other classifications are "H" for helicopters, and formerly "Y" and "W" for free balloons and blimps, respectively. These letters are most often seen in aircraft and squadron designators: the Osprey designation "CV-22" denotes a cargo aircraft, and "V" was selected to show that the services consider this a fixed wing aircraft, despite its helicopter-like rotors. The CH-53 Sea Stallion is inarguably a Cargo Helicopter. Squadrons are similarly designated: VA-33 is an attack squadron with fixed-wing aircraft, and VF-21 is a fixed-wing fighter squadron. The ship type designator was originally required to differentiate fixed-wing aircraft carriers from ships intended to service and deploy blimps. During WWII, flat-top carriers were designated simply CV for the big ones and CVE for the escort carriers. Newer oil-fired carriers were designated CVA (Carrier, Heavier-than-air, Attack), and the nukes were CVN. British use of the CV designator is somewhat problematic, since the UK does not otherwise follow US practice in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.172.202 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)