Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

Construction

OK am I missing something here the bow section lower block 01 was delivered and lower block 03 has just been delivered. So where is lower block 02 presumably they will be joined 1-2-3-4? Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lower Block 02 is being built in Portsmouth and Lower Block 04 is being built in Govan. There's a block diagram here showing how the bits fit together. Halmyre (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know but is it still at Portsmouth or in Scotland? It makes no sense to build 01 and 03 first and then store them waiting to join them together with 02 unless its already been delivered. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when did defence procurement ever make sense?!? I think 02 is due for delivery early next year, and 04 a bit later. Presumably there's a sheet of instructions, an allen key and a helpline contact number to help join all the bits together. Halmyre (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above A&P Tyne have completed their section of the flight deck and hangar which goes on top of lower block 03 [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All kinds of potential reasons why there might be a consolidation. The blocks need to be kept somewhere and there may be higher costs in leaving them at the build yards than moving them. The barges might be the critical path, there may be architectural reasons for assembling in that order.

Given that the programme management is a BAeSystems responsibility my money would be on lowest cost, for them.

ALR (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest news

In case editors have missed it:

• Defence Management

• Portsmouth News

Not only is the government now looking to have both carriers in service (see quotes from a MoD minister of state), but the news articles also confirm (and go against what is erroneously written in this Wikipedia article) that at the moment the Prince of Wales will be fitted for cats n traps, not the Queen Elizabeth.

Please can this Wikipedia article be updated/corrected, with the two news articles above given as references? I will leave it to someone else as I am not a contributor to this article (though I have contributed to other RN articles). Thanks. David (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Its still only speculation from the links "A MoD spokesman confirmed: ‘Our current planning assumption is to convert HMS Prince of Wales in build but no firm decisions will be taken until late 2012." Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but surely that needs rectifying on Wikipedia, which currently states the exact opposite. David (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles do not need changing.

You have made a faulty assumption that the people writing the articles you have linked know what they are talking about.

The second article can be discounted because they have clearly not bothered to read SDSR2010. SDSR2010 explicitly states (page 23) that the QE will have catapult and arrestor gear installed. Further, it states that the in-service date for the QE will be delayed from 2016 to 2020. The second article gets both of these issues wrong along with other inaccuracies. In addition to multiple inaccuracies wrt. SDSR2010, it states that the F-35B is designed to takeoff vertically. The F-35B is a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). It is not intended to routinely takeoff vertically.

The first article you linked is slightly better, probably just due to brevity. However, it clearly takes things out of context and makes unwarranted assumptions (as if the writer might have read the SDSR2010 document, but filtered it through their own assumptions). Another possibility is that the writers of these articles just read about what SDSR2010 says rather than actually reading it (particularly the inaccurate speculation articles written slightly prior to the release of SDSR2010).

Another possibility is that the articles may have picked up some chatter from people who want to change the strategic direction to not having catapult and arrestor gear installed on the QE resulting in the QE being in-service earlier to allow testing of other systems.

Effectively, the only thing the articles say is that another look at the issue of the second carrier's fate will be taken in SDSR2015. SDSR2010 already explicitly stated that the fate of the second carrier would be revisited in SDSR2015 (bottom of page 23).

We should keep the Wikipedia articles with what has been announced as the official strategic direction unless it becomes clear that the official strategic direction is not actually being followed. Obviously, if the UK government states that their strategic direction has changed, then we should incorporate any such changes.

Makyen (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know that since the 2010 SDSR there have been several statements made in Parliament on the lines that the government have yet to decide which carrier will receive cats n traps? Further, even the Defence Secretary, in Parliament, has stated that it is the ultimate intention to fit both carriers with cats n traps? Essentially there is far greater uncertainty on the issue than what you and Wikipedia state - the SDSR is even vague on the matters and is riddled with inaccuracies, often switching (and possibly confusing) between Queen Elizabeth the ship and Queen Elizabeth the class. David (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David, there still seems to be some uncertainty and vagueness about what is planned at the moment. Better not to make too many assertions in the article where the sources are inconsistent. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

This Wikipedia article is already vague, and currently reflects the uncertainty that exists. It does not make any assertions beyond what has been explicitly stated by the UK government. If there is a consensus that additional text is desired to explicitly state additional points of controversy, then we can discuss the specific things that are desired to be included.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. It is not desirable that we include every little back and forth that occurs in a political controversy, particularly one that will go on for at least five years. However, we should include major shifts in political and strategic direction.

The specific question which was raised in this thread was did the "news" articles linked justify changing this Wikipedia article. My opinion is no. The articles linked get their verifiable facts wrong on multiple points, and do not actually show a change of direction on the part of the government. In general, getting such facts wrong tends to indicate sloppiness (at best), a significant bias, or intent to enhance controversy. Getting easily verifiable facts wrong in these news articles, causes me to highly discount everything that they state. It should also be noted that they quote people who are clearly not considering the fact you mention of the Defence Secretary stating that both carriers will have cats and traps. Further, while there were two articles linked, the first article appears to be based completely on the second article. Thus, there really is only one base article (someone makes this point in the third comment on the first article).

As to fitting both carriers with cats and traps: I stated 10 months ago (see archive page 2 of this page) that the strategic direction stated in SDSR2010 made it ridiculous to fit only one carrier with cats and traps. It was the consensus at that time that we would keep the article text vague as to the status of the second carrier given the less than explicit contents of the SDSR2010 document.

If you have a reference for the statement you mentioned by the Defence Secretary, then we can include that as a quote. I recall seeing something along these lines and thought the article had been changed to include what was stated at that time. However, I see that it does not currently reflect such a statement.

David, you have presented arguments both that we should say that only PW will have cats and traps (news articles) and that we should state that both will have cats and traps (Defense Secretary unreferenced quote). Perhaps you should pick one point of view, or the other. I am not trying to get down on you personally, it is just hard to determine what you are attempting to argue we should say when you explicitly present two different positions.

It is not unreasonable for us to include the fact that there is political controversy as a result of the change in strategic direction stated in SDSR2010. It is, however, inappropriate for us to provide a blow by blow description of such controversy.

Makyen (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The "two different positions" are not mine, but what seems to be coming out from the MoD! All I am saying is that there is no official public line as to which of the carriers will be fitted with cats n traps, or whether both will, or whether one will for now and the other later (I suspect this latter option is what will happen). The articles on Wikipedia should reflect this uncertainty, demonstrating to the reader that the plans are in a state of flux, and that all that is certain is the UK is building two carriers of which one or both will be (initially) fitted out in such a way. David (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PoW to be fitted with cats n traps, not the QE

Right, we now have confirmation of what I previous stated - it will be the PoW that will be fitted out to fly the F35 and not the QE.

Away from the massive progress being made with shipbuilding, work is progressing with the programme to convert the second of class HMS Prince of Wales to fit Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE) for the operation of the F35C fast jet aircraft.

The guy works for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. He knows what he's talking about. I will be changing this and the QE/PoW articles shortly. David (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree that you can reach that conclusion based on what's in the article. It's reasonable to assess from there that PoW is being fitted with the launch system, it's not possible to assess that QE will not be.

I'd make a general observation about the over-reliance on Original Research based on snippets of information in media sources. It's overdone. It would be more useful to reach a stable state based on reliable sources, and stick with it until a reliable source comes up with something conclusive one way or the other. This continual sniping isn't particularly beneficial for the article.

ALR (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I genuinely believe that the article as it stands does not tell the truth! It doesn't even hint at the possibility that actually it will be the PoW that will have the F35s onboard, and not the QE. David (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a lot more than that wrong with the article... It's quite confused but given the nature of the talk page I'm reluctant to start any significant reworking.

ALR (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

David, as has been mentioned, the blog to which you link merely states that PoW will have ALRE and does not comment on the QE as to CATOBAR, or not. SDSR2010 made it clear that the QE would be CATOBAR. The article currently reflects this. At the time, the consensus was that SDSR2010 was not clear as to the CATOBAR status of the PoW. Over the last year, additional sources have clearly indicated that PoW will be CATOBAR (using EMALS). The article states that EMALS will be installed on PoW, but does not make it clear that having EMALS means that PoW will be CATOBAR (this can be, and should be, more clear in the article).

You have not provided any reputable source which indicates that the QE will not be CATOBAR. SDSR2010 was very clear that the QE will be CATOBAR. We have other sources, and at least one quote, in the article stating that the QE will be CATOBAR. SDSR2010 is currently the official government policy. Without extremely clear and reliable sources indicating that the QE will not be CATOBAR it is inappropriate for us to state in this article that the actuality is different from the official policy, or that the official policy has changed. The article remains clear that the ultimate fate of the PoW is uncertain and is to be revisited in SDSR2015.

The situation will certainly be revisited in SDSR2015. Both which one will be kept as the operational carrier, and the use of the other carrier will certainly be revisited multiple times in the future. You appear to have been convinced of a single point of view based on speculation by a variety of parties, none of which are in a position to actually make a statement as to what government policy is, or will be, regarding the fate of the QE.

We should primarily stick to what is stated as government policy as outlined in SDSR2010 until such time as there are clear reports that the government's policy has changed. There is nothing in any of the sources you have referenced that indicates that the policy has changed.

This is a controversy which will be ongoing at least until SDSR2015, if not until well into the 2020s. Wikipedia is not a news service. We should stick to what has been reliably reported, and not go off on tangents with every new speculation.

NOTE: I am not saying that the blog you linked to above is speculative. However, it merely confirms that PoW will have ALRE (only implying that it will be EMALS, which is already stated in this article) and does not make any assertion regarding the QE being CATOBAR, or not. The fact that you have put it forward as reinforcing the position you personally take (that the QE will not be CATOBAR while the PoW will) when in actuality it actually says nothing as to the status of QE being CATOBAR indicates that you are looking for confirmation of a position which you have already taken rather than being objective. Please take the time to step back and be objective.

Makyen (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's leave the article until the government officially reveals what is going on. Which should be in 2012 or so... not in 2015 (when both carriers will be quite far down the construction stage already). Frankly you put far too much faith in the SDSR 2010, which was a rushed job, and which is not clear itself (swapping between "carrier" and "carriers"). Ho hum. David (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The SDSR was a rushed job and it's very clear that the review team were directed by Fox on the answers he wanted. However it is what underpins current policy and it's more authoritative than news media speculation on what's a reasonably dynamic situation.

I'm not convinced that it's an "either/ or" debate at the moment and there is likely to be another government change in the meantime.

ALR (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But the QE and PoW ships will be too far down the construction route for changes in 2015 already. Decisions on what their decks will be like, etc, will have to be taken, well, now. The QE is being assembled right now and in 2015 will be already a largely completed ship! The decisions are/have being taken and surely will be announced by the end of 2012. And I doubt there will be a change of government by then! David (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be structurally complete in 2013. The way plans seem to be at the moment is that PoW will be fitted with cats and traps and QE will get them upon first refit. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be what's happening, though it would be nice if the government just came out and said it! Many seem to see the in-service dates of 2020 and 2023 and think that they'll only be finished construction then... the truth is that QE will be swimming about (on early sea trials, without any aircraft or weapon systems) in 2016 already. David (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

However, from a WP perspective that remains speculation until someone with a degree of authority publishes something that can be used without synthesis.

From an operational perspective what's important is whether the launch and recovery systems are available when she's commissioned. Information available at the moment indicates that QE will have the kit, however as reasonably observed other sources indicate this may not be the case. We don't even have anything in the public domain about whose decision it might be when the kit is installed. It may be Government Furnished Equipment or it may be funded by the ACA. There are different options around how much of the supporting infrastructure might go in during the build stage, and that has a bearing on whether the balance can be installed during a routine alongside maintenance period or whether it'll require docking down.

OF course most major programmes like these have a maintenance period immediately following commissioning to retrofit all the kit that didn't go in during the main build period.

ALR (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In-service date

Confusion; see Talk:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08)#In service date. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Before the SDSR the in-service dates were 2016 for QE and 2018 for PoW. However post SDSR the Royal Navy will use the CATOBAR configuration, thus pushing back the in-service date of PoW to 2020 (Allowing time for the fitting of EMALS).

As the First Sea Lord M.Stanhope said last month, HMS QE will be put to sea in 2016 as originally planned. QE will initially undergo sea trials before enabling the Royal Navy to train a competent crew, which will be ready to be transferred onto HMS PoW in 2020.

As of now, HMS QEs fate after 2020 seams undecided, however the SDSR clearly stated one carrier will be kept in active service while the other is placed in extended readiness. So it appears that HMS QE will have to be fitted with EMALS during her period of extended readiness from 2020 - 2024, by which time HMS PoW will be due to enter maintenance and enter will extended readiness after maintenance is complete.

HMS QE will replace PoW as the active carrier and PoWs crew will transfer to HMS QE. The Royal Navy can no-longer afford to keep running 2 carriers and the 2 separate crews for 2 carriers, so both carriers will have to swap in and out of extended readiness and share a single crew.

This is currently what the Royal Navy are doing with HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. — Woe^{(talk with 90i)} 15:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that all sounds about right! David (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a nit, but SDSR2010 did not clearly state that one carrier would be placed in extended readiness. What it did clearly state was that the fate of the second carrier was undecided. It mentioned that extended readiness was the current plan, but that there were other options (e.g. selling the second carrier). In addition, it clearly stated that the fate of the second carrier would be revisited in 2015.

Obviously, the situation is continuously developing. Thus, what is stated at this point may, or may not, be what comes to pass.Makyen (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Equally the SDSR wasn't set in stone. It was a rushed piece of work that had a clearly political agenda and has now been demonstrated to be a steaming pile of sh!te fairly fundamentally flawed.

The point that Adm Stanhope was making around ability to support the manpower and skills base in a force of c30k people, as well as the straightforward headcount demand.

ALR (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier build.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier build.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Angled Flight Deck?

Is the flight deck going to be an angled one? Any proof?Phd8511 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - see the images displayed at the Aircraft Carrier Alliance site [2] and several update from the MoD and Hansard. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But perhaps not on the QE herself.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/lifestyle/carriers_precise_future_is_still_up_in_the_air_1_3541250

Hcobb (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)