Talk:Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier/Archive 3

Tonnage
I've updated the tonnage as the original 65k lt was passed 2 years ago, the ship currently displaces 'floated' at 71k lt and expects to displace 74k+ lt during trials. Twobells (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable source, and it's not affiliated with the RN. - BilCat (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who says that a source has to be affiliated with the Royal Navy? As long as a cite is from the legitimate media or an industry journal then it is completely acceptable. Twobells (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, not a reliable source. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have heard many people say that the carrier weights around 70,000 tons rather than 65,000 tons Keoghoe(talk) 07:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes many people do, but are there any reliable sources to back it up? Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem so, but it keeps coming back. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, I've been involved with the carrier programme for the last year or so in a press related role in Rosyth and Glasgow, I'd just like to point out that the vessels will be around 70k tonnes when they first go to sea, I'll try and find a reliable source for this. GRA (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Further to my above post, I think this clarifies. The Royal Institute of Naval Architects published this article (may need to use cache for this) http://www.rina.org.uk/article1258.html and they still use the figure in their talks, as do BAE at the press events. Furthermore, this source also make the claim, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/queen-launch-hms-queen-elizabeth-supercarrier-july/ GRA (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost correct, I believe the current weight prior to loading is 71,732911761 tonnes (70600lt) and that following loading will be approx 76203 tonnes. I am using IHS, Defence IQ and Defence Industry Daily for my data. Twobells (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What Really Is The Problem Re: Term 'Super-Carriers'?
The term is employed by the builders, by the press, by defence journals and by politicians, all with numerous cites, so exactly what IS the problem with using the term? We have to have parity with other articles which employ the term as well as the Super-Carrier page. I've read all the arguments against adding the term; however, they all seem specious. 'Only' the British press, 'only British politicians' 'only the builders', (second largest defence contractor in the world) I would think that is far more than enough and you know what is so strange...no-one and I mean no-one creates a fuss over USN CV's being described in the same way. Twobells (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's because the American CVNs are undoubtedly supercarriers. Argovian (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Oh I get it, only US carriers can use that term, hmm, what do you base that on considering the American press first applied the term to Royal Navy ships? Sorry, but jingoism has no place on Wikipedia. Twobells (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While they are supercarriers by definition, there's really no need to mention it in the lead. The article already mentions that many refer to them as such. GRA (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dimensions
Noticed that some of the dimensions quoted in ref. No. 11 (Royal Navy) don't agree with those in the article. Tried to edit o/a length to 284M and o/a width to 73M as per ref 11 but has been reverted ? (SM527RR (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC))

Affordability and Manning
Noticed some articles in the press questioning whether the UK can afford to keep these ships, their aircraft (particularly a full complement of F35 fighters) and their escort ships in service.

Also, there have been some articles in the press that indicate the Queen Elizabeth (in particular) will be commissioned and in service before the UK has F35C fighters in sufficient numbers, and that possibly the US Marines will be flying their fighters off these carriers in the 2018-2020 timeframe.

Perhaps the article should be updated to reflect this information if it is deemed sufficiently reliable. 75.140.95.142 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are always articles in the press questioning whether Britain really can achieve this, that or the other - it's a national past-time for our media to play-down (and usually completely mis-understand) the capability of/procurement for HM armed forces (particularly the Navy, in modern times). The UK can easily afford two aircraft carriers - from 2015 the UK is the world's fifth largest economy - it's more a question of what future governments decide to splash out taxpayers' money on (despite an increasingly insecure world, our politicians are certainly not prioritising defence expenditure). As for the F35... we're getting the B variant, as are the US Marines, and these will trickle into the Navy/RAF in the coming decade or two. No doubt the US Marines will be flying their planes off the QE-class... but what's actually wrong with that? Argovian (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons
"over three times the displacement of its predecessor, the Invincible class. "

Comparing these ships to an Invincible-class aircraft carrier which was built at a time when carrier were considered obsolete and only sneaked through defences cuts as a "through deck cruiser" and not an aircraft carrier, is I think less than useful.

It would be better to compare them with the last true aircraft carries the Royal Navy had the Invincible-class aircraft carrier in particular HMS Ark Royal (R09).

It only needs to be a sentence, but while the new class is bigger it is not so much larger that it is 1950s-1970s forerunners. This would allow for better like for like comparisons such displacement, deck sizes, aircraft and crew numbers.

-- PBS (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Displacement
When the ship was floated out of Rosyth for the first time in 2014, the Royal Institue of Naval Architects were able to survey the ship for the first time properly. By measuring water displacement we revised the design figure from 65,000 tonnes to the more precise figure of 70,600 tonnes. The head Engineer at Aircraft Carrier Alliance David Downs confirmed this in an interview. Despite this Various sources - the Royal Navy website most notably - use the design specification rather than the exact figure. The same is done for speed (25knts+ as opposed to the exact figure ((she has already been tracked on AIS exceeding 30knts))). As a result despite the popularity of the 65,000 figure, the new 70,600 figure is the most up to date and straight from two primary sources - the ACA and RINA.

If you have a more modern figure based on a new survey rather than re-publishing of older data, please post it here. The 65k figure has been used for almost a decade, so it will take a while for the new, more accurate information to become as widespread.

Until we have a new source we should continue to revert to the most recent hard evidence. STKS91 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Following on from this I have no made the page more clear as to why we have different weights. The reader should now be able to understand the difference between the design weight of 65k and the estimated operating weight at 70,600. Including both of these weights rather than fighting over one or the other seems to be the best policy. The information box continues to have the higher figure as this is closer to an operation weight rather than the empty delivery weight. STKS91 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless you have a link to a reliable source to support everything you've posted here, it's irrelevant, as it's considered original research. You haven't "debunked" anything, and if you have an issue with a source attached to an article, than it falls to you to contest it at the reliable source noticeboard. Beyond all that, even if you do find a source, that is considered reliable and has information that conflicts with a current source, that doesn't automatically dismiss (or "debunk") the current source. You need to post your source here, along with whatever changes you intend to make, for discussion of the community. You then wait for the discussion to conclude before you make any changes. Whether you "think" you are right or not, there are policies and guidelines here that must be followed. You don't go and post whatever edit you please, and then continue to revert that edit in, ignoring all advice and rules. That's called edit warring and it's disruptive. Just because you are inexperienced here, does not make you immune to the rules.- the WOLF  child  21:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * STKS91 you need to provide a source for you edits. Otherwise they are just not acceptable. Please take note of Thewolfchild's advice before editing again. Regards -  Gallo glass  21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The new information was sourced when it was removed by thewolfchild on the 12th. My current edits were cited and reffered to an exisiting source in the artice


 * In this article, we have a figure that overrides the 65k one we had previously. The source used by thewolfchild to make his edits predates the revision made in 2014, and as explanied this is an empty weight. What consensus did thewolfchild have before removing this more up to date information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by STKS91 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So to summarise, we have a source that explicitly overrides the 65K figure, the source is primary as it comes from the lead engineer or the builders. And it is based on work done by the Royal Institute of naval architects when they surveyed the ship in 2014. There is no original research in this whatsoever. Unless you have any evidence to provide showing that a new survey has been done since 2014 then we can use the newest figure. Rather than having only one weight, my aim is to have the operational weight of 70,600 in the data box and make reference to the design weight of 65,000 in the article. This way we can return the article to the standard it was in pre 12th Jan, and make improvements so that there is no longer confusion over the two figures. STKS91 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * STKS91 Your source appears to be from 4 years ago. The existing reference is current as of January 2018 and supplied by the Royal Navy itself. -  Gallo glass  22:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * x3
 * The source I added is current as of 2018. I replaced outdated, and conflicting sources that were 5 & 6 years old. I even explained that with my edit. The source you claim to have is from 2014... it's 6 years old! And have you posted my source at WP:RSN yet? (good luck with that by the way, "royalnavy.mod.uk" is pretty solid). You can't remove perfectly good sources just because you don't like them. You need to slow down, and learn how things work here. Beyond your edit-warring, did you notice the broken citations you left behind? (the big red "error" notice in the reference section). You've now been reverted by another editor. Are you going to continue edit-warring with him as well? Just relax, and allow some other editors to join the discussion and see how it plays out. The page won't blow up if your info isn't posted on it for a day or two. - the WOLF  child  22:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

- Have you even read your own source? I just had a look at it; Question by interviewer: "The ship was originally expected to weigh 65,000 tonnes, but is now thought to have a displacement of 70,600 tons. What caused this discrepancy?"

Answer by engineer: "The displacement of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers upon delivery to the customer will be approximately 65,000 tonnes, which is the same as the predicted displacement when we started the manufacturing phase, although the design allows for weight growth in excess of 70,000 tonnes through the service life of the ship due to upgrades."

There is nothing else in that article about the ship's displacement, and certainly nothing that supports your statements above. It confirms the displacement of the ship, on delivery to the Navy, as 65,000 tonnes, and goes on to say that will increase during the life of the ship with modifications and upgrades, (which I had already also stated). The ship is brand new, they just got it, it was just commissioned last month. How many times do you think it has been deployed, then sent back to the yard for re-fit, in the last 5 weeks? Please stop this nonsense already. - the WOLF  child  23:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The ships Empty weight is without crew, fuel, ballast, stores, munitions, aircraft, deck vehicles, personnel transfer boats. The Ships do not need to go in for refit to reach 70,600. This figure is their operational weight as determined by the RINA. If you look at the talk archive for this page then you can see we had someone who works in the press office of the ACA providing us with links. both to the RINA article on the subject (behind a paywall it seems) and the UKDJ - a defence journal that references it. I belive this was the source that you decided to remove? On top of this we have a government department in charge of defence procurement using the correct weight a few months ago when she launched: https://twitter.com/DefenceES/status/879353887957938176


 * Once again, it seems my approach would be the clearest to all, state the empty weight in the design section with the operational weight in the infobox. With a description of the reason for the changing weights through the life of the ship. I don't understand how a clear explanation for the two weights would be a bad thing. STKS91 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * - Once again, Wikipedia's content is supported by reliable sources. The source you tried adding when you kept changing the displacement value in the infobox, came no where near supporting you edit. I wrote out the applicable content of your source above, and if anything, it clearly supports the currently noted displacement. You can list as much 'stuff' that goes on board as like, but without a source, (including that meaningless twitter post), it's called original research. I am reasonably certain this has already been made abundantly clear to you. Asking others to go searching through talk page archives to find your sources for you is, quite frankly, ridiculous.


 * Look, we get it... you don't agree with the current displacement. But unless you can come up with a reliable source (on your own, without asking others to do your homework) that clearly states the displacement you are claiming, you are shit out of luck. I really don't know what you expect to accomplish here. If this is really that important to you, then your time and energy would be much better spent searching for sources to support the changes you want. If you find one, then post it here, along with your proposed changes, and the community can review them and decide if they are worthwhile additions to the article. If so, then someone can make the changes for you, since you've been warned not to edit that content any further. If you can't find a source, then you might as well move on to something else. In the meantime, you should really take the time to better familiarize yourself with the editing guidelines here. - the WOLF  child  21:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Five not four galleys
One for Junior rates, One for senior rates, one for officers, one for carrier strike group staff and one for aircrew.

Sammartinlai (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * - WP:SOFIXIT. - the WOLF  child  03:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources now citing ‘70,000’ long tonnes following statistical updates from RN
I think we can safely increase the tonnage as various sources are now citing R08 as displacing 70K + long tonnes following the ship’s arrival in New York harbour. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sources? This has been discussed so many times in Archive 1 and Archive 3. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, when first built the QE-class carriers weighed in at 65,000 long tonnes; however, since the various improvements numerous sources state the fact that now, both R08 and R09 weigh in at over 70,000 long tonnes each. Roland Of Yew (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Update?
Thee is nothing about the current state of it, or where commissioning has got to - can anyone update? "assume responsibility for the continuing carrier trials of the F-35B in 2019 " < future tense, but now past.

Cheers, Lockstock75 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier
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 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier'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 "facts": From HMS Prince of Wales (R09):  From HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08):  From Royal Navy:  

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 ⚡ 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Do the QE or POW have an EW suite?
Do the QE or POW have an EW suite? There's no mention of it in the info panel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.53.31 (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, to a small degree but there's no primary source for this. Imperialpeace (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

naming
is carrier named after "Queen Elizabeth I"?, I thought it was the current queen, Queen Elizabeth II  ? abelljms (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the lead of HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08), she is actually named for a WWI ship, and that ship was named for Elizabeth I. -  wolf  23:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)