Talk:CVA-01

message: :Image:CVA-01 (2nd).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 (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woodym555 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CVA-01 (2nd).jpg

message: (1) Only one CVAO1 was ever provisionally approved, in 1964 by the Douglas Home Conservative Government. The CDS Earl Mountbatten claimed the CVA01 class and 1-5 carriers were approved, but no more than one was and Mountbatten was notorious among the other Defence Chiefs for claiming government and committee approval for his plans, which existed only in his mind. As the 1950's Army head, General Templer said, 'Dickie your so bent, if you swallowed a corkscrew, it would come out bent.'
(2) Even if the conservatives had held on to office it is doubtful if it would have been built. In 1964 one of the Conservative service ministers, Lord Carrington, told the Navy that a 42,000  ton carrier was about the limit and their remain issues as to whether the CVA01 design was ever finalized or buildable. It simply seems too large for UK naval facilities and their other design issues,such as the steam propulsion, perceived as required for catapults. Nuclear propulsion being rejected on account of cost, servicing req, political issues of port access and disposal and destruction of the life expired  hull.
(3) It is not credible that a 42,000 ton carrier would be limited to 27 aircraft-say 4 Gannet, 5 Sea King , 8 Buccaneer and 10 F-4 Phantom. In 1970 Hermes on 25,000 ton displacement had an air group of 25 in the North Atlantic: 12 Vixen, 8 Buccaneer and 4 helicopters. It is relevant  to note that the original Invincible in 1982 configuration had an air group of 18 - but after the rather solid Chinese walls had been removed and the officers bathrooms reduced from the size of staterooms, air capacity was increased to 27 Sea king and Harriers. The CVA01 designs were intended to incorporate both Ikara and Sea Dart Missile system,but long range a/a missiles were space consuming on a conventional carrier and T82 Sea Dart escorts or USN Cruisers were more suitable for group a/a.
(4) The intention was the mid 1970s Navy would consist of Hermes , Eagle and CVA0l which seems to be  a poorly balanced force. Test were made flying the F-4 Phantom of Hermes in 1970 ,but it was clearly too small. How much longer than Ark Royal, the Eagle could have remained viable for remains debatable. The cost of refitting Eagle in 72-4 would obviously have exceeded 40 million pounds and it had apparently suffered significant damage in running aground in 1971. It remains doubtful if Eagle could have been extended beyond the span of life of Ark Royal and Bulwark although it might have been more viable in 1977-80 in terms of operational reliability.  To be useful, reconstructing the Eagle and Hermes to last till the end of the Cold war with 3D Broomstick radar to replace 984 would have cost as much as the 3 Invincible light carriers as the Eagle would have required new turbines, boilers and electrics.
(5) The most challenging role for the 2nd generation RN carrier fleet was the Indonesian confrontation and it was immensely difficult to keep one of the two carriers available, fully operational and ready to offer conventional and nuclear deterrence. The Admirals who commanded the Far East fleet at this time Peter Hill Norton and Frank Twiss believed a viable RN carrier force was unsustainable and to continue as planned with CVA01 and the Hermes and Eagle in the 1970s would have been a disaster.  Peter Hill Norton. Sea Power and the story of Warships and Navies. Faber & Faber(1982) and Frank Twiss, Social Change and the Navy 1920-1970. , Later Twiss as Second Sea Lord and Hill Norton as First, powerfully backed the Invincible class thru deck cruisers, which in the words of the First Lord in 1970 Le Fanu was only approved after a massive fight, against all odds,121.99.34.140 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they would have come in very-handy in 1982.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAS CVAO1 EVER A VIABLE PROJECT 

message: Is there any real point to the whole section, given that the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier has it's own article? Obviously the impact of the cancellation needs to be covered, but that shouldn't take more than a single paragraph, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any point to the Future Carrier section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on CVA-01. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107082608/http://navy-matters.beedall.com:80/cva01.htm to http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on CVA-01. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915094338/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/britain/british-carriers.html to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/britain/british-carriers.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060307092333/http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_Apr02/article_speller_amphibious_royalnavy.doc.htm to http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_Apr02/article_speller_amphibious_royalnavy.doc.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article asserts that "Had CVA-01 class been built, it is likely they would have been named HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Duke of Edinburgh, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Princess Royal respectively." The cited source, however, only mentions Queen Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh as likely names for the first two ships, and makes no mentions of prospective third and fourth ships, let alone what they might have bene named. — Red XIV (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names