Talk:Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
New section needed on service availability since commissioning
[edit]A new section is needed on service availability since commissioning. This is particularly important with only two ships in this rôle. S C Cheese (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Somewhere, and I can see that from Australia, there is a bungle and the ship is being cannibalised as it says elsewhere. She will be out of action for long - if that is to be believed. Failures must not be swept under the carpet; in this sector that amounts to deceiving the population. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:50B8:CF93:1AD8:9D7C (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- I just thought maybe the propellers are made of titanium, or partly. Russia and China have an edge in titanium processes so as the ship is part of the war planning against these, there could be a supply issue. At the time of commissioning the enmity between the West and Russia/China was not as active as today. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:50B8:CF93:1AD8:9D7C (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Both out of action again. 213.31.166.19 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
GA status
[edit]It's been 11 years since the last review, perhaps time for a reasessment? Figured I'd bring it up here first before going to GAR, so... thoughts? - wolf 23:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of service in 2069
[edit]A parliamentary written response confirmed that the carriers are expected to serve until 2069. This should be added to the article.
Source (I don’t know if UKDJ is considered reliable): https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/out-of-service-date-confirmed-for-aircraft-carriers/ 2A00:23C4:E851:C701:25B4:6A8D:676F:9214 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Program criticism
[edit]this section should be removed. It does not make any valid point Ncox001 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. A major public procurement of this type will always have opposing arguments. And this one wasn't run particularly well, increasing the critcism. What is there is valid in my opinion, and probably should be expanded on, for example the struggle of the RN to fully crew all of its fleet and the related slow procurement of F-35s. Mark83 (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles