Talk:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


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. (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? 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)

I've added a "citation needed" tag to the claim in the article that the ship will be named after Elizabeth I, rather than Elizabeth II (or even, I suppose, the late Queen Mother). I've not managed to find any sources on the Royal Navy website that talk about which queen the name refers to. Dricherby (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The badge shown on the ACA website and on the RN website includes the monogram E R and the Tudor Rose. This would support the suggestion that the namesake is Elizabeth I. Furthermore the motto of the ship is stated as Semper Eadem which was the motto of Elizabeth I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
HM Ships are never named after a reigning monarch. As a rule they are only ever named after people who are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If the ship was named for the current sovereign, it would be called Queen Elizabeth II. The name "Queen Elizabeth" follows on from the 1915 battleship of that name, which was commissioned before the current Queen was born. At that time there had only been one Queen named Elizabeth, so no numeral. Also, as others have pointed out, the ship's badge is the Tudor Rose of Elizabeth I, and the motto is that of Elizabeth I. I will remove the "citation required" marker.Lord Mauleverer (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
These are all good points, but a citation is still required. – Smyth\talk 21:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of HMS[edit]

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)
The same does apply to the Royal Navy. If you look at their page about the Astute class submarines [1], they list the five boats as HMS Astute, HMS Ambush, Artful, Audacious and Anson. The first two are commissioned, so have their "HMS" prefix; the last three aren't, so don't. But it makes sense to use the HMS prefix on Wikipedia, rather than renaming the article at some point in the future. Dricherby (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg[edit]

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)


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 (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pennant numbers[edit]

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[edit]

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. (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been countless parliamentary questions in Hansard about this. I believe the burden of proof here falls on you and I don't think a speculative article in the Herald that ignores the SDSR and recent information qualifies as a reliable source. Also, I at no point said the second carrier would be used, please read what I said again. I also suggest you read the SDSR section regarding the carriers and bear in mind the Hansard responses that explain how selling it is looking less likely (There is no country to buy it!). G.R. Allison (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As it has been stated by the minister of defence, the second carrier (POW) will be most likely stay in a state of high readiness, basically meaning she will be ready incase of a global conflict or an invasion of sovereign territory i.e. the Falklands. Hope that helps. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, people , if you look at the F-35C page, the F-35 will come first, followed by the carrier.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of this becoming a forum, when does the UK take first delivery of an F-35C? G.R. Allison (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, money was always an issue. You all really need to read what put on these pages and what was talked on the discussion page. They are now saying 2030 and only 1 fully operartional. The other mothballed never having all the equipment needed to operate a carrier installed. There was a lot of hot blown about these carriers and a blind could see three years ago it would never happen.Jacob805 00:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the one fact that the Government has never altered its position on since the defence review in 2010 is that only one carrier will be required on active service. From the sources I have consulted (and despite much speculation), it is not totally clear which one this will be. Thom2002 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Its in the article, confirmed last month that POW, will be built to a CATOBAR configuration, and will be the active carrier. The fate of QE is uncertain. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, as you say it does seem clear from the interview with the First Sea Lord that only the POW will have a clear future as an active aircraft carrier in the Royal Navy. Thom2002 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is safe to say, the QE will never carry fixed wing aircraft F35B canceled and no catapult system installed, helicopter ship or traning vessel.Jacob805 11:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talkcontribs)

No it is far from safe to say that. See answer above from the First Sea Lord "[T]he fate of QE is uncertain". Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
More light on the future of HMS Queen Elizabeth is due in 2015. An MoD study is likely to be completed before 2015 to asses the cost and feasibility of refitting HMS QE to a CATOBAR configuration, both carriers would swap in and out of extended readiness. TalkWoe90i 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There is also the option of a conversion to STOBAR rather than CATOBAR the F35C could work then. Does anyone anything about the planned Arrester system, is it likely to traditional hydro-pneumatic or linear motors like EMALS? See Linear_eddy_current_brake#Linear_eddy_current_brake.

Aster Missiles?[edit]

Not really sure about the Naval Technology source on whether the QEs will have Aster missiles.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest news[edit]

In case editors have missed it:

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.

We should have this conversation in only one place, not three. See:
Makyen (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In-service date[edit]

Further confusion on the in-service date, see the latest Hansard written answer referred to in the infobox. Conflicts with various other dates elsewhere in the article, given previously from the SDSR and elsewhere. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are the dates when the ships are handed over to the Royal Navy, who will then spend about 3 years on each running trials and whatnot. David (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
From Defence Management 25 November 2011 Current planning assumptions will see HMS Queen Elizabeth put to sea in 2016, Admiral Stanhope said. [2] Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue is "in service date", whilst she is planned to sail on trials in 2016 there are then Contractor Sea Trials, handover, Part IV First of Class Trials, Commissioning then work-up. In principle she's in-service when she's commissioned although Ocean was used for Disaster Relief work in the Caribbean when she was on her Part IV.
I'd also caution against making much of that report. First delivered a pretty wide ranging talk, pitched at an approriate level for the audience. The main thrust of that report is that the RN doesn't have enough manpower to operate all of the platforms it will have, and the manpower requirements of a flat top probably aren't sustainable given the other commitments. He was expressing the questions that he, and his successors, have to answer around how we square the circle of sustained commitments and hugely reduced manpower; how does the RN deliver a full spectrum of maritime capabilities with 23000 sailors and 6000 Royal Marines? One of the potential answers is "don't provide a full spectrum of capabilities"... which could include the "placing QE in a reduced state of readiness".
ALR (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mothballed immediately[edit] Phd8511 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be more useful to look at the Public Accounts Committee report directly rather then rely on media reporting from a "defence" correspondent who'd be unlikely to recognise an aircraft carrier if it had a big flashing neon sign on top.
The more important points in the PAC report are a recognition that the SDSR significantly increased programme costs and risks, and injected an operational risk into UK Defence by deleting carrier strike capabilities some ten years before they'll be recovered.
The issues about what will happen to the N7 programme for the CVF are not really covered in the report, there are quite a few caveats there about their conclusions.
ALR (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Class Redesign[edit]

According to an article dated 10 May 2012 the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced that the Royal Navy will order the STOVL 'B' variant in preference to the carrier capable 'C' variant. His reasoning is that to convert the Queen Elizabeth class carrier to 'Cat and Trap' configuration would delay service implementation and double the cost of the carriers. He stated that the carriers will now be completed in the STOVL configuration with a ski-jump which will permit continuous carrier availability throughout the life of the ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djandersonza (talkcontribs) 16:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

More news[edit]

£6,2 bn for the one carrier... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

£6.2 bn for two. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: When do they decide she will be comissioned[edit]

So QE has been named and will begin trials etc, so which dated (that is stated) will be her commissioning date? Or rather, how do you define the commissioning of a ship? Thanks.Phd8511 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect there isn't actually a firm date for commissioning yet. Argovian (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
We'll know its been commissioned when the Royal Navy issue a press release saying its been commissioned. Thats a primary source, but generally a pretty reliable one for straight-forward factual information such as when a particular ship has been commissioned. Per WP:CRYSTAL, there's not much point in speculating a whole lot further about a future date *unless* there are reliable sources clearly indicating a particular date of commissioining. Thom2002 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Height of the Class[edit]

Does anybody know what the height of the new Aircraft Carrier will be from the Water line to the highest point? Please can I have a source aswell. Keoghoe (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ships Company[edit]

The first few members of the Ships company joined in October 2012. Although officially the Senior Naval Officer (SNO) Captain Simon Petitt RN is the Commanding Officer of the first ships company of HMS Queen Elizabeth. (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)