Talk:Type 22 frigate

message: These characterisitics are too complex and messy to be displayed as bullet points, they really need to be tabulated, is there an agreed standard table for this before I go to the effort of doing it? Emoscopes 06:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Get the table layout from HMS Indefatigable (1909), its the defacto standard for RN ships in my experiences (ie I use it). There are sophisticated templates out there but they are a lot more effort and templating isn't kind on the wiki servers. GraemeLeggett 10:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I drew up a template anyway Template:Royal_Navy_(escort), but if it isnt good to use it as a template, it might be nice to have an agreed standard table layout and terminologies. I personally get a bit irked when I find "americanisms" like FFG or ASW creeping in to Royal Navy terminology, and it would be good to know what units to use (imperial over metric?) etc. Emoscopes 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Smart looking template though. Templates are good for nav boxes if they are open to expansion eg the British missile one. If you do find those americanisms wikilink them so at least the non-American can pick up on the meaning. I also favour the rule for technical writing - before using a abbreviation spell it out at least once. eg "Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)". There is a lot of argument over the Imperial/Metric issue, but arguing over precendence of two numbers is largely pointless compared to getting some content down in the article. What I do is if I have only one set of numbers I put them in. If I have both I put the second in brackets afterwards. If I do the conversion from imperial to metric I don't get carried away with accuracy (whats 6 inches or 15 cm when its not specified if the length is at the waterline or the tip of the prow).GraemeLeggett 10:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

message: The last couple of lines on the Avalability section look wrong:
"HMS Sheffield 2012 – to be superseded by a T45 Destroyer" 
"HMS Coventry 2001 – to be superseded by HMS St. Albans, a T23 Frigate."
Should that 2012 be 2002? Starfiend (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The text reflects the ref. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability 

message: The table says HMS Cumberland was ordered 27 October 1984 and laid down 12 October 1984, two weeks before she was orderd. Is this really correct? /Esquilo (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Cumberland''

message: A pair of L/60 Bofors were fitted in the first batch for patrol and junk busting on summer Indian Ocean deployments, but proved expedient in the Falkland were T22 captains considered they interfered with concentrating on Seawolf setup.
Regards to all.
Notreallydavid (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly garbled sentence 

message: Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself can answer this question. Why are Type 22s commonly referred to a frigates, yet in declassified official documents in the National Archives, they are repeatedly referred to as destroyers? One example being a MOD (Navy Department) document DEFE 69/1545 "Nuclear weapon deployments at sea (WE177)" Enclosure E77 page 8 dated 20 Aug 1982, and declassified 30 November 2018. This reference is one of many in this document and numerous other declassified documents to the Type 22 as destroyers with stowage capacity for three TNWs.
Can someone explain? George.Hutchinson (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: TNW = Theatre Nuclear Weapon and in this case the WE.177A weapon used as ether an air-dropped strike bomb from a carrier or as a NDB (Nuclear Depth Bomb) for ant-submarine use delivered by ship's helicopter. A Type 22 had deep protected storage for 2 TNW and a less protected storage for 1 ready-use weapon. Source the London Navy Dept archives.George.Hutchinson (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: A question