Talk:List of active Royal Australian Navy ships

message: While http://www.epicos.com/epicos/portal/media-type/html/user/anon/page/default.psml/js_panename/News+Information+Article+View?articleid=73097&showfull=false%20and%20http://media-newswire.com/release_1043923.h is doubtless correct in stating that 11 ships have been named, only 8 have actually been commissioned into the RAN. The media release for the most recent ship to commission, HMAS Broome, is available at: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6365 and states that she is the 8th ACPB to commission. The three boats which have been named will be commissioned in the future once they have completed their trials and the Armidale class patrol boat article has the approximate dates this will occur according to the most recent Defence Annual Report. The www.epicos.com article clearly states that the Childers and Wollongong "will be handed over to the Royal Australian Navy in the coming weeks" so they cannot yet be in commission. --Nick Dowling 10:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the article states that the boats haven't yet been handed over the the RAN. Given that 7 of the 8 ACPB's currently in commission are out of service due to a serious mechanical fault and one of the boats (Maitland) has already commissioned late due to this fault we can't be confident that their trials will go well or that they'll enter service on the planned dates. In short, these ships are not yet units of the RAN and there's no reason to jump the gun by adding them. --Nick Dowling 07:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Armidale class patrol boats in commission as at 22 Feb 07

message: I have noticed that there is also a List of Royal Australian Navy ships article. I suggest that we merge this article into the other one and alter the list of former ships to reflect the structure of this article. Other views? -- AlexanderFrancis (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral on the merge, because each list serves a different purpose. This list lists all commissioned ships by class, while the other list lists all ships alphabetically and (where several carried the same name) date of entering service. The 'sorted by class' feature of this list is covered by the categories attached to the individual articles. -- saberwyn 05:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: The list states that the HMAS Balikpapan was commisioned on 21 January 1983, ten years after its sister ships even so it gave the class ist name. The Balikpapan article states that the ship was commisioned on 8 December 1971 by the Army and on September 1974 by the Navy. Just a mistake or am I missing something? Calistemon (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an error. Changed. -- saberwyn 04:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commisioning date of the HMAS Balikpapan 

message: I disagree with the inclusion of an "aircraft carrier" section in this article. I undid its intial inclusion, but was reverted, with a hidden note stating  As such, I've brought it here for further discussion.
My issues are three:
#The list's scope is "ships currently commissioned andor in service with the RAN". Having a section for ships not currently in service (whether listing ships or simply saying "Nothing to see here, move along citizen") falls, I think, outside that scope. I think having it also promotes the misconception that the RAN is, recently was, or soon will operate carriers, rather than dispelling it, particularly in its prominent location as the first post-lead section.
#Including the section is a precedent to add sections for other ship-types Joe Citizen thinks the navy has, either because they've been operated in the past, or alternately because "Every Real Navy In The WorldTM " has them. Do we add a "Destroyers" section now because we operated them until 2001 and will again after 20-fingers crossed-14? The idea that the destroyer  is a cruiser, battle cruiser, or battleship is one I've had to dispel on regular occasion as a tour guide aboard, so should we add sections for those? How about one to address the fact that the RAN doesn't operate nuclear-powered 'boomer' submarines because of political and infrastructure barriers? Where should the line be drawn?
#On numerous occasions, I've witnessed off-wiki (either innocent ignorance or deliberate agenda-advancing) attempts to add the "aircraft carrier" description to ships that aren't aircraft carriers. The most common victims of this are Tobruk and the two Kanimblas, although extreme examples include the conviction that everything with a helo deck (down to and including the Leeuwin class survey ships) is and should be defined as one. This will get worse when the Canberras enter service (they look like carriers, sound like carriers, and .... "whaddaya mean its not a duck?") and would hate to provide an easy target for delibrate attempts to advance this view.
Thoughts? -- saberwyn 03:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely, and have removed it. This is obviously an article about the RAN's current ships, so a section about ships the navy hasn't operated for 30 years (about 1/3 of its entire history!) is out of place, and I don't think that anyone would expect to see it. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft carrier section

message: If we're going to include the sail training ship Young Endeavour in this list (which seems to be supported by silent consensus), we should think about what (if any) other non-commissioned vessels operated by the RAN should be added to the list. So far, my thoughts on the matter are:
* The Craft of Opportunity Program requisitioned Minsweeper Auxiliaries (MSAs) be included in the list
* Small craft, such as the LCVPs or the Fantome class survey boats probably fall outside the "ship" scope of the list, although I could be persuaded otherwise
* Although naval bases are considered ships (see stone frigate), I think it would be silly to include them here
Thoughts? Other suggestions? -- saberwyn 03:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning towards including the small craft - Jane's Fighting Ships and The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World include them in their listings of the RAN's warships, and I think that we should aim to be as comprehensive as those 'gold standard' sources. I agree with you on the MSAs (though are any still in service?) and bases. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Bandicoot and Wallaroo are still active...don't know about any of the other MSAs. -- saberwyn 09:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Bandicoot and Wallaroo are in reserve, but get woken up every now and again to handle the berthing of American nuclear-powered vessels. They are no longer used for minesweeping (which is why I've whacked them down the bottom instead of in the "Patrol and Mine Warfare" section), and the rest of the COOP minesweepers have gone. I've also added Ocean Shield to the bottom section (which I've retitled "Non-commissioned vessels"), as it doesn't fit the usual scope for an amphibious ship. -- saberwyn 07:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Entries to add?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of active Royal Australian Navy ships. 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/20110927143919/http://www.austal.com/ja/media/media-releases/11-08-12/Austal-Awarded-Cape-Class-Patrol-Boat-Contract.aspx to http://www.austal.com/ja/media/media-releases/11-08-12/Austal-Awarded-Cape-Class-Patrol-Boat-Contract.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914185553/http://www.austal.com/Resources/Deliveries/7ebab93a-7d00-486e-92af-abe350840971/ccpb-brochure-may-2013-web.pdf to http://www.austal.com/Resources/Deliveries/7ebab93a-7d00-486e-92af-abe350840971/ccpb-brochure-may-2013-web.pdf
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) 05:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: E.g. Its "HMAS Cannberra", not Canberra. Its incorrect and is disrespectful. Additionally alignment with the left appears much more ordered and appropriate in conjunction with warships given names. 193.115.78.52 (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean i agree,  these are the true names, these ships aren't casually referred to as Adelaide, or Hobart, its "HMAS Adelaide" & "HMAS Hobart". I've been meaning to change this for a while, thankyou. Luke848 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've aligned all tables to the left, and provided warships their offical, GIVEN name.