Talk:United Kingdom Carrier Strike Group 21

Composition
There's a comment about a "wholly[-]British" strike group -- which eventually becomes clear, this isn't, as there's a US destroyer and fighter squadron involved. The statement is doubtless strictly correct as stated (that the capability now exists, even if this isn't one as such), but could be made clearer. The given source doesn't seem to give the full composition: the article USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) supplies a couple of sources that might also be useful here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement say's that a wholly British strike group hadn't existed for almost 40 years, in reference to the fact that one now does– the UK Carrier Strike Group. The USS The Sullivams, and HNLMS Evertsen although part of this deployment are not a component of the strike group as an organisation. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever MOD official sources say, until the RN can demonstrate sailing, to far distances, a RN*only* group with carrier, CSG staff, escorts, aircraft, submarine if thought required, and RFA, such a capability does not exist. Just a CSG staff does not a national-only-capability make. We could arguably invoke WP:THIRDPARTY and remove those particular official statements. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree; if a new battalion of the army is formed, you don't say that the battalion's capability doesn't exist until it has been deployed. Show me where it says the capability of a naval formation does not exist until its been deployed. The CSG had its initial operating capability declared on 4 January 2021– that is *just* the British elements, therefore the capability is most definitely there. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, can you show me some internal British Army documents saying that a new battalion is in-all-respects-ready-for-deployment on the day after the formation parade? They're not made public, because FOC, not IOC, is not achieved on Day 2!! Any new unit would get at least six months before its first deployment. You will note for example that the new HQ of 77 Brigade was formed in January 2015 but did not reach operational capability before April 2015. No, I am making a point on a talk page, not referencing anything, because I *disagree* with the official public statements.
 * At a deeper level, my concern is with your confusion between having a Commodore or Rear Admiral holding a post which (used to be) Commander UK Task Group --> many different names --> Commander Carrier Strike Group, and confusing that with having a fully effective national only carrier group. You will see that there's been a only two or three years' broken chain between Third Flotilla, UKTG, Dep Com UKMARFOR, Carrier Strike Group etc - it only went away after the "Invincibles" decommissioned, which is equivalent to the post you linked above, but that did not mean there was a fully capable carrier task group, especially in the last nine months or so of the last Invincible-class when they would have been posting officers and ratings off the ship. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's not achieved on day 1 or 2, but IOC has been declared for the CSG. Make your point all you want, but that's your opinion that contradicts both primary and secondary sources. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of secondary official internet news stories; no primary source apparent saying the force has capability. Not with a bolted-together squadron of 10 USMC, 8ish British aircraft, that have not operated together in strength, with some RN and now an attached lot of USN weapons loading crews, all just operating together for the first time. I shudder to think about their sortie generation rate just now. This is why my point remain that it takes time. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary source is the Royal Navy/Ministry of Defence declaring Initial Operating Capability. As per the MoD, IOC is "the state achieved when Military Capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form", so per the MoD, the strike group has been deployable since January. Thank you – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 23:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth 617 and VMFA 211 were doing joint training at Marham and a 14 aircraft took part in Exercise Joint Warrior (operating off QE and live firing) and Crimson Warrior in 2020, so it wouldn't be the first time for the two units together 'in strength'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The declaration of IOC, in the sense you put it in, is a statement. WP:PRIMARY says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." This is generally correct, and the key phrase is "close to an event." A primary source for something like this could be the reports of the carrier's department heads, and the other ship COs; the air unit heads; QE's captain's report; the report of the commodore commanding the carrier group; and/or the Commander Fleet Operational Sea Training's report in the matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Submarine
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/royal-navy-nuclear-powered-submarine-astute-calls-in-australia/

Is HMS Astute.

2401:7400:6004:CAAA:B4EB:8112:9C80:4DE0 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)