Talk:List of active Royal Navy ships/Archive 1

message: This site is not correct.  It should not just list commissioned vessels if the title is going to be "Current Royal Navy Ships", because there are other vessels that have crews but are not in commission.  Example: HMS Invincible is held at a low state of readiness until 2010, has a small crew, but is not in commission, but available for return to the fleet.
:: Actually this site is correct.  HMS Invincible has been cannibalised for spares and inoperable.  It is headed for scrap and not to be listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.117 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm sorry, but this page is most correct. "Current Royal Navy ships" means just that - ships commissioned to the Royal Navy at the moment. We can't just start including every bit of scrap the Royal Navy owns. And by the way - any other examples other than the Invincible? I think you're clutching at straws here. David 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im curious about whether HMS Bristol should be included in this list, its currently in it, but as far as I would classify it, since its had all ability to move with the removal of its engines, radar equipment etc, would this not make it a hulk and not a ship. And its status as a commissioned ship, whilst im not sure about, is quite dubious. JonEastham 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bristol, Victory and Caroline are all commissioned ships, though as you quite rightly point out I doubt they would ever be used at sea again! Caroline is likely to be decommissioned soon (as a ship - to be replaced by a "stone frigate"). David 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Very well - I will include right at the bottom of the page a "In Reserve" section. David 19:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A is for auxiliaries. As for battleships? Let's see: oh they've all been scrapped. David Newton 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Battleships! ROFL - they were last used in the 1940s... *rolls eyes* David 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE:Battleships? - the correct response would be "because there arent any to commission!" JonEastham 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact there is, technically, one battleship in commission in the Royal Navy. That's HMS Victory, a battleship of the line. However I don't think that's what the questioner meant somehow! David Newton 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though surely it is in modern times known as a ship of the line? David 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

message: The page says
complete and correct as of February 2007
It's now September, any problems with updating the month to "September" (be bold) Mike Young 14:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: hi there i was wondering if there was any room on this article for mentioning the types and numbers of landing craft that are currently in service with the royal navy similar to the french navy article. I have the information with me at present taken from the royal navy hand book (2003) which is the most up to date source of information i have found.
the types of landing craft Utility (LCU)in service are:
LCU MK 10 - number of vessels 10 (Pennent numbers 1001-1010) entered service 1999.
LCU Mk 9 - Number of vessels 3 (Pennent numbers 701, 705, 709) entered service 1960-1970 (most have left service with hms fearless and intrepid).
The types of Landing Craft Vehicles and personnel (LCVP)in service are:
Griffon 2000 TDX(m)hovercraft- Number of vessels 4 (Pennent numbers 21-24) entered service 1993.
LCVP MK4 -Number of vessels 19 (Pennent numbers 8031,8401,8403-8,8410-20,8621,8622)entered service 1986 (others of the same type are operated by the british army and serve in the falkland islands.)
LCVP MK5 - Number of vessels 23 (Pennent numbers 9473, 9673-9676, 9707,9708,plus 16) first 7 entered service 1999 a further 16 ordered in 2001 and entered service 2002-2003.
i would edit the article myself but i firstly do not have the skill currently and also do not wish to tread on anyones toes.
regards kieran Locke  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.79 (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Landing Craft of the royal Navy

message: In regards to the sihoulettes of the Type 42s, I knew the batch 3s were longer, but I thounght only by 6 ft or something! Is the scale right? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale of pictures 

message: Right, I come into this debate as someone who does not edit the Royal Navy pages, but as someone who has a pretty detailed knowledge of the Royal Navy. I am going to set out the arguments for and against including ships at Extended Readiness, and then conclusions:
FOR excluding ships at Extended Readiness:
- the ships are not operational, have no crews and are not maintained to a condition where they can be used for service imminently. Therefore, it would be incorrect to include them in a list of current ships when that would imply that they were available for use.
- they are not Operational, they are stated to be in a different state: a state of Extended Readiness
- there is no obvious distinction for a ship being 'In Reserve' (we have no Reserve fleet now), and so all ships are in commission
- for political reasons, the government is unwilling to class ships as 'decommissioned', even if to all intents and purposes they are
AGAINST excluding ships at Extended Readiness:
- these are still commissioned ships
- there is no clear official way of knowing what ships are at Extended Readiness or not. We know of HMS Invincible because of her stature and importance, but only through media and MoD statements. She is still in the Navy List, is still in commission, and still has a crew. Other ships are still in the list, despite being at Extended Readiness - for example, 3 older Type 42 destroyers. So we can't categorically know about Extended Readiness, because there is no register or official statement covering all ships.
- on virtually every other Navy's page on Wikipedia (with the exception of USA and perhaps Germany), ships which were at a state equivalent to Extended Readiness (or worse... half the Russian ships are rusting away at the moorings) are included. Is it being accurate to exclude UK ships at Extended Readiness, when all the other navies have theirs included?
- HMS Victory is still in commission, and she is not at Extended Readiness. Why isn't she in the list? Or HMS Caroline which hasn't been out the dockyard for decades? Or RFA Rame Head which until recently was rusting into nothingness in Fareham Creek?
Balancing these things up, I feel that we should include ships at Extended Readiness (including Invincible, Exeter and the other Type 42s, and so on) - but indicate that they are at Extended Readiness. For me, they are commissioned in the Royal Navy; they are on the Navy's list; some still have crews; they could return to service - this makes them current Royal Navy ships, albeit mothballed ones.
These are only my thoughts, but I believe we need as many people as possible to set out their views, for a solution going forward.
HibeeJibee (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended Readiness Debate

message: According to the MOD and navy news Daring will be handed over to the navy next month barr any delays. will she be added to the list then or when shes declared ready for front line operations which maybe a few months later? i thought i might get this debate going now so everyones agreed and happy in time lol. 
Kieranlocke (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect Daring to be included when she's commissioned, and not before.  It appears that commissioning is expected on 23 July 2009.  David Biddulph (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Type 45

message: This debate over which ships to include is not new, it has been discussed before. After all the arguments that arose over the status of certain ships the compromise was that this list is for commissioned ships of the navy, thus removing any OR and POV over whether or not to include ships working up, on trials, in reserve, etc. Simply, if a ship is in commission, she is counted an active ship of the Royal Navy for the purposes of this list. If she has yet to be commissioned or has been decommissioned, she is not. If the Royal Navy decide they need to reactivate ships they had decommissioned, or need to bring ships into service they are currently working up sooner than expected, they will commission/recommission them, and they can be added/re-added to the list. Ships in commission but in reserve are included in the list, with a note. Southampton has been decommissioned from the navy, and should not be on this list, but the as yet uncommissioned HMS Astute (S119) and HMS Dauntless (D33) should not be listed here either. Is this an arrangement that is still working for people or does this need revisiting? For my own part, putting the not yet-commissioned ships in with the commissioned ones opens the door to these sorts of arguments, that ships like the decommissioned Southampton ought to be included as well. Benea (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with you. However there is a difference between including ships which have just been decommissioned (and with no plan to put them back into RN service) v. ships which have just been built and have been delivered to the Royal Navy, undergoing advanced stages of sea trials and are almost certainly going to be in commission very soon... i.e. Astute and Dauntless, which are both very much "active" in that they are undergoing advanced stages of sea trials and under Royal Navy command and are at sea. Whilst listed, with a note saying when they are to be commissioned formally, they are not counted in the tally of commissioned ships. I think that's fair, though it's something that needs careful attention and should perhaps be reviewed. David (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a section where the ships that had been delivered and were being trialled were listed separately, with a note of their expected commissioning date. Thus they are listed and considered 'active', but kept separate from the commissioned vessels, and so avoided the problem of users adding the decommissioned but as yet undisposed of vessels, which I agree should not appear in this list article. How about restoring this section for Astute and Dauntless, and moving them up to the general type lists on their commissioning dates? Benea (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that sounds good. David (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioned Ships 

message: UK uses tonnes (commonly known as Metric tons) and the USA uses Short tons (known as tons). However both units are very different in weight. 
Looking at US navy articles for Nimitz class carriers it appears the figures are mixed up, unless I'm missing something. So I went on to the official US Navy web site to look up the unit the US Navy uses and its actual tonnage according to the US navy. Thus I got this; "Displacement: Approximately 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load."
This is a very different figure from the un sourced figures used on the wikipedia articles such as USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77). Also that article is using Long tons which again is a different unit from the Metric and Short tons mainly used by the UK, USA and world today. Long Ton is mainly a dormant unit and as far as I know is rarely used by the US Navy or Royal Navy.
Long ton is also much heavier than the Tonne (metric ton) and the short ton. Long Ton is an old unit used many years ago later replaced by the more simple and easy to use Tonne and short ton. Long ton is still used in the UK and USA but privately and often during trade between countries that use the tonne when trading with a nation which uses the short ton. 
These articles need the appropriate figures in place. The future Queen Elizabeth class carrier is 65,000 tonnes (71,500 Short tons), Nimitz class carriers are 97,000 short tons (87,900 tonnes). Both these figures are according to the official web sites of each navy. Recon.Army (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats this got to do with the list of active Royal Navy ships? Perhaps a better location for this discussion would be WP:Ships? JonEastham (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well any navy buff or brain box might know a thing or two about it. Recon.Army (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the US Navy uses long tons for all warship displacement; it was standardized with most countries by the Washington Treaty of 1922. The USN definitely does not use short tons for ship displacement. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Presumably because it's a website intended for the general public, which uses short tons. Look at DANFS, which uses long tons for USS Iowa ; oddly enough, the navy.mil website gives the displacement for USS Alabama in long tons as well. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonnes and Short tons

message: Just heard on British Forces News the flag has been transferred to HMS Albion.  Note the changes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.117 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagship transferred 

message: hey guys this just announced on the mod website thought i could be included on this page its a temporary replacment for endurance. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NavysNewIcebreakerOfficiallyNamed.htm would edit it myself but not sure where it would in patrol ship? in its own section? kieran  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.191.251 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be added to the list upon commissioning on 23 June. David (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ice Breaker