Editing Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier (section)

==Background==
In May 1997, the [[Premiership of Tony Blair|newly elected Labour government]] led by Tony Blair launched the [[Strategic Defence Review (1998)|Strategic Defence Review]], which re-evaluated every weapon system, then active or in procurement, with the exception of the [[Eurofighter Typhoon]] and the {{sclass|Vanguard|submarine|0}} [[ballistic missile submarine]]s. The report, published in July 1998, stated that aircraft carriers offer:<ref name="sdrfullpdf">{{cite web|url=http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf |title=Strategic Defence Review |access-date=8 July 2008 |publisher=Ministry of Defence |pages=143–144 |date=July 1998 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110326175735/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf |archive-date=26 March 2011}}</ref>
* The ability to operate offensive aircraft overseas, when foreign bases may not be available early in a conflict
* All required space and infrastructure, as even where foreign bases are available infrastructure is often lacking
* A coercive and deterrent effect when deployed to a trouble spot

The report concluded: "the emphasis is now on increased offensive airpower, and an ability to operate the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles. When the current carrier force reaches the end of its planned life, we plan to replace it with two larger vessels. Work will now begin to refine our requirements but present thinking suggests that they might be of the order of 30,000–40,000&nbsp;tonnes and capable of deploying up to 50 aircraft, including helicopters."<ref name="sdrfullpdf" />

===Design studies===
Initial [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Defence]] (MoD) design studies for what was then the ''Invincible'' class replacement were conducted in the mid-1990s.<ref name=eandg>Eddison, J.F.P., Groom, J.P., 'Innovation in the CV(F) - An Aircraft Carrier for the 21st Century', in ''RINA Warship '97 Conference ('Air Power at Sea')'', Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA), 1997</ref> Options considered at this early stage included the possibilities of lengthening the hulls and extending the life of the existing ''Invincible'' class ships, converting commercial ships to carriers, and the construction of purpose-built new aircraft carriers.<ref name=eandg /><ref name=mcr>Campbell-Roddis, M.E., 'Hullform & Hydrodynamic Considerations in the Design of the UK Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)', in ''RINA Transactions Part A4 2017'', Royal Institution of Naval Architects, December 2017</ref>

On 25 January 1999, six companies were invited to tender for the assessment phase of the project&nbsp;– [[Boeing]], [[British Aerospace]] (BAe), [[Lockheed Martin]], [[Marconi Electronic Systems]], [[Raytheon]] and [[Thomson-CSF]].<ref>{{cite news |first=Alexander |last=Nicoll |title=US companies bid for $2.5bn ships deal |work=Financial Times |date = 26 January 1999}}</ref> On 23 November 1999, the MoD awarded detailed assessment studies to two consortia, one led by BAe (renamed [[BAE Systems]] on 30 November 1999) and one led by Thomson-CSF (renamed [[Thales Group]] in 2000). The brief required up to six designs from each consortium with air-groups of thirty to forty [[Joint Combat Aircraft|Future Joint Combat Aircraft]] (FJCA). The contracts were split into phases; the first £5.9&nbsp;million phase was for design assessment which would form part of the aircraft selection, while the second £23.5&nbsp;million phase involved "risk reduction on the preferred carrier design option".<ref>{{cite news|title=Shipyard in running for Navy contract |work=The Belfast Telegraph|date=24 November 1999}}</ref>

In 2005 [[BMT Group|BMT]] announced it had tested 4 different CVF hull form models and assessed them for propulsion efficiency, maneuverability, seakeeping and noise signatures. It also investigated skeg length, rudder size, transom stern flaps and bulbous bow designs. The basic Delta concept went through many further iterations and development before the design was considered sufficiently mature by late 2006 for detailed cost estimates to be drawn up prior to ordering long-lead items.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/|title=Development of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier – a design history|publisher=navylookout.com|date=2 October 2018|access-date=19 May 2022}}</ref>

===Capability requirements and ship size===

The vessels, described as "[[supercarrier]]s" by the media, legislators and sometimes by the Royal Navy,<ref>Supercarriers:
* [http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2011/May/27/110527-Steel-cut-for-second-super-carrier Steel cut for second super-carrier | Royal Navy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306231744/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2011/May/27/110527-Steel-cut-for-second-super-carrier |date=6 March 2014 }}
* {{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmordbk1/30908w01.htm |title=Order Book Part 1: Written Questions |work=House of Commons |date=8 September 2003 |access-date=13 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150613194515/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmordbk1/30908w01.htm |archive-date=13 June 2015 |url-status=live }}
* {{Cite Hansard |house=House of Lords |title=Armed Forces |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030130/debtext/30130-10.htm#30130-10_head0 |date=15 March 2007 |column_start=879 |column_end=881 |speaker=[[Arthur Lawson Johnston, 3rd Baron Luke|Lord Luke]] |access-date=31 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201044009/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030130/debtext/30130-10.htm#30130-10_head0 |archive-date=1 December 2017 |url-status=live }}
* [http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/April/10/120410-Queens-Elizabeth Giant piece of HMS Queen Elizabeth jigsaw slots into place | Royal Navy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120516215611/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/April/10/120410-Queens-Elizabeth |date=16 May 2012 }}
* {{cite web |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huge-sections-of-new-navy-carrier-joined-together--2 |title=Huge sections of new Navy carrier joined together |work=Ministry of Defence |date=11 April 2012 |access-date=13 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208144207/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huge-sections-of-new-navy-carrier-joined-together--2 |archive-date=8 December 2015 |url-status=live }}
* {{cite news|title=Go-ahead given for work to start on supercarriers|date=20 May 2008 |work=[[The News (Portsmouth)|Portsmouth News]] |url=http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/hands-off-our-base/Goahead-given-for-work-to.4099975.jp|access-date=23 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090122080439/http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/hands-off-our-base/Goahead-given-for-work-to.4099975.jp |archive-date=22 January 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> have a full load displacement of an estimated {{Convert|80600|t}}<ref name="HMSQE" /> each, over three times the displacement of its predecessor, the {{sclass|Invincible|aircraft carrier|4}}. They are the largest warships ever built in the United Kingdom.<ref>{{cite web|title=HMS Queen Elizabeth |work=Wärtsilä |url=http://www.wartsila.com/en/references/HMS-Queen-Elizabeth|access-date=5 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111113020239/http://www.wartsila.com/en/references/HMS-Queen-Elizabeth |archive-date=13 November 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> The last large carriers proposed for the Royal Navy, the [[CVA-01]] programme, were cancelled by the Labour government in the [[1966 Defence White Paper]].<ref name="james19991">{{cite journal |url=http://www.naval-review.co.uk/issues/1999-1.pdf |title=Carrier 2000: A Consideration of Naval Aviation in the Millennium&nbsp;– I |author=James, D. R. |journal=The Naval Review |date=January 1999 |volume=87 |issue=1 |page=3 |access-date=1 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120426045355/http://www.naval-review.co.uk/issues/1999-1.pdf |archive-date=26 April 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> In November 2004 [[First Sea Lord]] Admiral Sir [[Alan West, Baron West of Spithead|Alan West]] explained that the sortie rate and interoperability with the United States Navy were factors in deciding on the size of the carriers and the composition of the carriers' air-wings:

{{Blockquote|The reason that we have arrived at what we have arrived at is because to do the initial strike package, that deep strike package, we have done really quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters, and that is what has driven the size of it, and that is to be able to deliver the weight of effort that you need for these operations that we are planning in the future. That is the thing that has made us arrive at that size of deck and that size of ship, to enable that to happen. I think it is something like 75 sorties per day over the five-day period or something like that as well... I have talked with the CNO ([[Chief of Naval Operations]]) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. For example, in Afghanistan last year they had to call on the French to bail them out with their carrier. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers, which is this figure at 36. He would find that very useful, and really we would mix and match with that.|Admiral Sir Alan West, evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, 24 November 2004<ref>{{Cite Hansard|access-date=30 December 2011 |house=House of Commons questions 540 – 559 |date=24 November 2004|title=Examination of Witnesses |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdfence/45/4112404.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111127114042/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdfence/45/4112404.htm|archive-date=27 November 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref>}}

===Aircraft and carrier format selection===
On 17 January 2001, the UK signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the [[United States Department of Defense]] (DoD) for full participation in the [[Joint Strike Fighter]] (JSF) programme, confirming the JSF as the FJCA.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=883| title=Signing of U.S./U.K. Memorandum of Understanding on the Joint Strike Fighter| date=17 January 2001| work=U.S. Department of Defense| access-date=1 January 2012| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110529184734/http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=883| archive-date=29 May 2011| url-status=dead}}</ref> This gave the UK input into aircraft design and the choice between the [[Lockheed Martin X-35]] and [[Boeing X-32]]. On 26 October 2001, the DoD announced that Lockheed Martin had won the JSF contract.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=1 January 2012 |last=Bolkcom |first=Christopher |publisher=CRS Report for Congress |title=JSF Background, Status, and Issues |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA472773.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121202052544/http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA472773 |archive-date=2 December 2012}}</ref>

On 30 September 2002, the MoD announced that the Royal Navy and [[Royal Air Force]] would operate the STOVL F-35B variant and that the carriers would take the form of large, conventional carriers, initially adapted for STOVL operations. The carriers, expected to remain in service for fifty years, were designed [[for but not with]] catapults and arrestor wires. The carriers were thus planned to be "[[future proof]]", allowing them to operate a generation of CATOBAR aircraft beyond the F-35.<ref name="han30103">{{Cite Hansard |house=House of Commons |title=Future Aircraft Carrier |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030130/debtext/30130-10.htm#30130-10_head0 |date=30 January 2003 |column_start=1026 |column_end=1028 |speaker=[[Geoffrey Hoon]] |position=Secretary of State for Defence |access-date=31 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201044009/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030130/debtext/30130-10.htm#30130-10_head0 |archive-date=1 December 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> The contract specified that any conversion would use US C-13 [[steam catapults]] and Mark 7 [[Arresting gear]] as used by the American {{sclass|Nimitz|aircraft carrier|0}} carriers.<ref name="hobbp344">{{Harvnb|Hobbs|2013|p=344}}</ref> Four months later on 30 January 2003, the Defence Secretary, [[Geoff Hoon]], announced that the Thales Group design had won the competition but that BAE Systems would operate as prime contractor.<ref name="han30103"/>

The Secretary of State for Defence announced the intention to proceed with the procurement of the carriers in July 2007.<ref name="announce">{{Cite Hansard |house=House of Commons |title=CSR and Aircraft Carriers |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070725/debtext/70725-0007.htm#07072570000993 |date=25 July 2007 |column_start=865 |column_end=867 |speaker=[[Des Browne]] |position=Secretary of State for Defence |access-date=31 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170910220556/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070725/debtext/70725-0007.htm#07072570000993 |archive-date=10 September 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> The contracts were officially signed one year later on 3 July 2008, after the creation of [[BVT Surface Fleet]] through the merger of [[BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions]] and [[VT Group]]'s VT Shipbuilding which was a requirement of the UK Government.<ref name=Contractsigned>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7483942.stm |title=New contract 'will secure Rosyth' |last=Keane |first=Kevin |publisher=BBC |date=3 July 2008 |access-date=3 July 2008 | location=London}}</ref>

===Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010===
{{main|Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010}}
On 19 October 2010, the government announced the results of its Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). The review stated that only one carrier was certain to be commissioned; the fate of the other was left undecided. The second ship of the class could be placed in "extended readiness" to provide a continuous single carrier strike capability when the other was in refit or provide the option to regenerate more quickly to a two carrier strike ability. Alternatively, the second ship could be sold in "cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability".<ref name="sdsr-factsheet9">{{cite web |url=http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Factsheet9-Carrier-Strike.pdf |title=Fact Sheet 9: Carrier Strike|date=19 October 2010|publisher=HM Government |access-date=27 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120817213607/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Factsheet9-Carrier-Strike.pdf|archive-date=17 August 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>

It was also announced that the operational carrier would have catapult and arrestor gear (CATOBAR) installed to accommodate the carrier variant of the F-35 rather than the short-take off and vertical-landing version.<ref name="sdsr">{{cite web |url=http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf |title=Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review |date=19 October 2010 |publisher=HM Government |access-date=19 October 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101222022127/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/%40dg/%40en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf |archive-date=22 December 2010}}</ref><ref name=FG_UK_swap_JSFs /> It was decided to use the next-generation [[Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System]] (EMALS) catapult and [[Advanced Arresting Gear]] (AAG) instead of the more conventional systems which the design had originally been specified to be compatible with.<ref name="hobbsp345">{{harvnb|Hobbs|2013|p=345}}</ref>

The decision to convert ''Prince of Wales'' to CATOBAR was reviewed after the projected costs rose to around double the original estimate. On 10 May 2012, the Defence Secretary, [[Philip Hammond]], announced in Parliament that the government had decided to revert to its predecessor's plans to purchase the F-35B rather than the F-35C, and to complete both aircraft carriers with [[Aircraft ski-jump|ski-jumps]] in the STOVL configuration.<ref name="10 May 2012 announcement text" /> MoD sources indicated that the cost of installing EMALS and AAG on ''Prince of Wales'' would have risen to £2&nbsp;billion, of which about £450&nbsp;million of which was the cost of the equipment and the remainder the cost of installation.<ref name="hobbsp345"/> The total cost of the work that had been done on the conversion to a CATOBAR configuration, and of reverting the design to the original STOVL configuration, was estimated by Philip Hammond to be "something in the order of £100&nbsp;million".<ref name="Hammond on Radio 4">{{cite web |url= http://fullfact.org/articles/how_do_you_solve_a_problem_like_an_expensive_aircraft_carrier-27178 |publisher=fullfact.org |access-date=20 May 2012 |author=Bentley, Matt |date=11 May 2012 |title=How do you solve a problem like an expensive aircraft carrier? |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120630092904/http://fullfact.org/articles/how_do_you_solve_a_problem_like_an_expensive_aircraft_carrier-27178 |archive-date=30 June 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> In later testimony before a parliamentary committee, [[Bernard Gray]], Chief of Defence Materiel, revealed that even though the carriers had been sold as adaptable and easy to convert for CATOBAR, no serious effort had been made in this direction since 2002.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_committee_carrier_badness/|title=The truth on the Navy carrier debacle? Industry got away with murder|first1=Lewis|last1=Page|work=The Register|access-date=7 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111125058/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_committee_carrier_badness//|archive-date=11 November 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015===
<!-- Deleted image removed: [[File:David Cameron with Admiral Zambellas and Stephen Watson at Downing Street.jpg|thumb|A model of a ''Queen Elizabeth''-class aircraft carrier in the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street on 16 July 2015.]] -->
{{main|Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015}}

On 23 November 2015, the government published its 2015 SDSR which confirmed its plans to bring into service both ''Queen Elizabeth''-class aircraft carriers, with one to be available at all times.<ref name=SDSR2015>{{cite web|title=National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478933/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_web_only.pdf|publisher=HM Government|access-date=17 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151124082813/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478933/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_web_only.pdf|archive-date=24 November 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> The review also confirmed that one of the carriers would have enhanced amphibious capabilities. The government also reaffirmed its commitment to ordering 138 F-35 Lightning IIs, although the specific variant(s) was not mentioned. The review stated that 24 of these aircraft would be available to the aircraft carriers by 2023.<ref name=SDSR2015 />

=== Future Maritime Aviation Force ===
On 24 May 2023 during the 'Combined Naval Event 2023' conference in [[Farnborough, Hampshire|Farnborough]] 'Project Ark Royal' was announced. This project would "explore the widespread fielding of uncrewed aviation across the surface fleet, with a specific focus on future carrier aviation"<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Scott |first=Richard |date=2023-06-01 |title=UK explores cats and traps retrofit to QEC aircraft carriers |url=https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cne-2023/2023/06/uk-project-ark-royal-catapult-aircraft-carriers/ |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=Naval News |language=en-US}}</ref> The purpose of the project was to enable the operation of high-performance unmanned strike and support systems and potentially fixed-wing aircraft through the phased introduction of aircraft launch and recovery equipment for those types of aircraft.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Leone |first=Dario |date=2023-06-10 |title=Royal Navy Considering Adding Catapults, Arresting Gear to Queen Elizabeth-class Aircraft Carriers to operate F/A-18E/F, F-35C, Rafale and high performance uncrewed strike and support systems |url=https://theaviationgeekclub.com/royal-navy-considering-adding-catapults-arresting-gear-to-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-to-operate-f-a-18e-f-f-35c-rafale-and-high-performance-uncrewed-strike-and-support-systems/ |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=The Aviation Geek Club |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Network |first=MI News |date=2023-06-09 |title=U.K Considers Refitting Its Aircraft Carriers With Catapults, Arresting Wires |url=https://www.marineinsight.com/videos/u-k-considers-refitting-its-aircraft-carriers-with-catapults-arresting-wires/ |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=Marine Insight |language=en-US}}</ref> This phased implementation was described by Colonel Phil Kelly, Head of the Royal Navy's Carrier Strike and Maritime Aviation as "moving from [[STOVL]] (short take off vertical landing) to [[STOL]] (short takeoff and landing), then to [[STOBAR]] (Short takeoff but arrested recovery) and then to [[CATOBAR]] (catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery)".<ref name=":0" /> These changes would necessitate the eventual installation of catapults, arrestor gear and an angled flight deck as previously envisioned in the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review with the carriers having been built for but not with this capability.<ref name="han30103" /><ref name="sdsr" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Newdick |first=Thomas |date=2023-06-02 |title=Royal Navy Wants To Refit Its Carriers With Catapults, Arresting Wires |url=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/royal-navy-wants-to-refit-its-carriers-with-catapults-arresting-wires |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=The Drive |language=en}}</ref>