Editing Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier (section)

===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>}}