Talk:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08)

Name

Does the name of this vessel refer to Queen Elizabeth I or Queen Elizabeth II? If there is any verification of this question, it should be included in the article.

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

It refers to Queen Elizabeth I firstly because there was a Battleships named HMS Queen Elizabeth and secondly because The Queen Elizabeth II was a Passenger ship (QEII)

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

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

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

It's generally known that these will be the names of the carriers - the MOD uses the names HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales in its official videos

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

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

Use of HMS

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

PROJECT DELAYED 1-2 YEARS

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

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

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

Pennant numbers

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

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

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

super-carrier? Admiral Kuznetsov

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

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

F35C

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

mothballed, sold and never to carry aircraft

I hate to say I told you so, but here it is (Carrier will be completed sail three years without aircraft and mothballed, to be sold)I would mind updating this page but certain individuals have their POV about this page, so I think it is only right that they update it. I tried to base my entries on fact, but they were just removed. Quote "One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday" jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that point Jacob is that the first carrier will come into service AT THE SAME TIME as the F-35C, the in service dates were moved to allow for design changes, now BOTH ships will be finished (and not sold) when the aircraft are ready and will not need to sail without jets. This is all public domain knowledge. HMS Queen Elizabeth will have British aircraft embarked. When writing in an encyclopedia, up to date facts usually help. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is again and now they are stating that there is a possibility that the first will be sold by 2015. It also states that at least one will be held in mothball, never to see aircraft. Please give us a link that states your side. As this page says nothing about second carrier being used.http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/bungle-fear-as-aircraft-carrier-bill-soars-2bn-1.1098610