Talk:List of active Royal Navy ships/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

David, your statement "any other examples other than the Invincible?" is exactly why Invincible should be included. I am unable to think of another vessel held in reserve the way Invincible will be unitl 2010. You should at least include it somewhere on the page, to reference it. There is still crew assigned, so maybe "every bit of scrap" should be included. Thanks.

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

Thanks. It is a very well put together section. ch

I was wondering why Aircraftcarriers go by R (R01, R09, et cetera), and not by A? And why are there no Battleships commissioned?

A is for auxiliaries. As for battleships? Let's see: oh they've all been scrapped. David Newton 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Battleships! ROFL - they were last used in the 1940s... *rolls eyes* David 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Battleships? - the correct response would be "because there arent any to commission!" JonEastham 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Though surely it is in modern times known as a ship of the line? David 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Date

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)

Landing Craft of the royal Navy

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)

Also HMS invincible should be included, as it is part of the fleet until 2010. After 2010 it should then be removed from the list. A note can be attached explaining that it is in active reserve but it is still part of the fleet and I believe it would be factually incorrect not to include it regardless of personal opinions. I say this because there are a number of examples of ships in other navy articles that are in the same position as invincible but are included in the current ship sections of that article. For example Jeanne d'Arc (R 97). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.79 (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Scale of pictures

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)

INVINCIBLE

For gods sake HMS invincible is part of the royal navies force structure, it will be withdrawn in 2010 we all no this!! On the royal navy website it’s listed on other encyclopaedias its listed why can’t it be listed on here? A note explaining its status is fine but it’s just factually incorrect not to list it. It seems to appear and disappear every month. we must make these articles as close to fact as possible. if the official line is she is still part of the fleet then we must assume that she is. just because joe down the pub or an newpaper article based on a annomilous source says that she isnt is not good enough! because these are not reliable sources. if she was decommisioned she would be removed from the the active ship list simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Invincible has been decommissioned. The RN and the government just don't like to shout about it and "forget" to update their website. It is currently mothballed with an 18-month reactivation period. It has basically been scrapped. David (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Its in extended readiness not been decommissioned. When a ship is decommissioned it has no crew, it is put into inactive reserve and is then deleted from the force structure. invincible is still part of the force structure, has a small crew maintaining it and has a 18 month work up period to get it deployable (include crew sea training). How you can possibly say that its basically been scrapped is one of the most laughable statements i have read for a while. If it was basically scrapped it would be in the breakers yard being dismantled but its not its position is as I explained above. Whether you think there is no difference well fine but there is a difference and this is meant to be a encyclopaedia not a well I think its really this conspiracy theory tosh site. No wonder most universities ban there students from using this site as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Invincible has been decommissioned and is highly unlikely to see service again. The whole "extended readiness" lark is just government public relations babble which the media and joe public buy into. Anyone in the government or RN who says that it's part of the "active force" of the RN is either lying or deluding themselves into believing Invincible is anything more than a decaying hulk of metal. Rather than attacking Wikipedia, thinking that it's all tosh, you should perhaps read into things more. Invincible has gone. The government/MoD/RN love to say that it hasn't, but it has, because it's embarrassing that this ship, which was fine to stay in service until 2010, had to be scrapped to save a bit of money. Nothing to do with "conspiracy" or whatever. This site says it as it is, unlike I'm afraid the RN site, which regularly likes to pretend it still has ships in service which it doesn't, or continues to have projects underway which have been scrapped. Or saying that the government will order more Type 45s, when it won't. etc.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ceremony_takes_place_for_decommissioned_Royal_Navy_flagship

This article (List of active Royal Navy ships) is a list of active Royal Navy ships. It does what it says on the tin, as such. Invincible is not active in any way. HMS Victory is a more active ship! David (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It can't be listed because it has been cannabalised to keep the other carriers running. There is no chance of it rejoining active service. It is scrap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.117 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Extended Readiness Debate

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)

i guess what readiness means is the time in which a ship needs to work up to be deployable. Also ships thats that are under going refits and upgrades are considered to in extended readiness. All ships have a readiness cycle. and each ship progresses through this cycle you will find many royal navy ships at various readiness states. for example a ship whos crew is on leave will be at lower readiness than a ship preparing to deploy and so on. also obviously a ship undergoing a major refit will be at an extremly low readiness as its would require a long time to get it to a state where it can deploy. my opinion is that only including ships at high readiness would require almost constent editing as ships move through there readyness cycle. (even if this infomation was actually available which it isnt for extremly sensible reasons.)Kieranlocke (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never really understood why mothballing is become so taboo in this country. It’s actually quite prudent to keep ships that you don’t require at the moment but might in the future. The American navy’s mothballed fleet is actually twice the size of its active fleet. Can you imagine the tabloid headlines if that was the case in this country. Also another point I would like to make is that we have always operated 2 invincible aircraft carriers with one in refit so there hasn’t actually been a drop in capability and the active 2 are not going to have any more refits bar an incident as they are coming to the end of there service lives.

Kieranlocke (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Type 45

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)

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)

I see. i no she is expected to undertake some more sea trials with the navy but i wasnt sure if she would be commisioned when the navy receieved her or not. i seem to remember type 45s included on the list at one point but they promptly disapeared as they were no where near to service. Kieranlocke (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Type 42 destroyers

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/fleet-today/ Take alook at the newly updated Royal navy surface ship list.

It clearly states 3 Carriers and 7 destroyers are in the fleet......... 194.46.184.30 (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Royal Navy's fleet list is notoriously inaccurate... check their Type 42 page instead: here. Southampton was decommissioned a while ago. There are just the six Type 42 destroyers commissioned and of them Nottingham is inactive. As for the carriers - we've been through this time and time again on Wikipedia. Invincible is a rusting hulk laid up in port, being salvaged for spares to keep the other two going. It's never going to go to sea again. David (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS Invincible, is in ER, still with her commission and crew. Why then under Aircraft carriers is only (2) given? Shouldn't that be changed to (3)? David, you gave the Link heredo bear in mind this only gives the names of ships available to the Royal Navy for operations at relatively short notice (less than 1 year).

However it dose not give the names of ships which can be added to the fleet at a longer time scale. HMS Southampton is one of those ships.

This brings me to HMS Dauntless which was delivered over the MoD on the 3rd of December 2009, she therefore should be included under the Type 45 Destroyers section. (just as astute is included in the list).

It seams in the sections of the Russian navy, Indian navy, French navy, Chinese navy and even the US navy, ships in HMS Southamptons status are Included so why not in the Royal navy? I say, in the German Navy ship section, ships which haven't even been built are included!!!

Using the basis of the Royal Navy web site I think Hampton should be Included. Bro5990 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS Hermes was in a worse position than HMS Invincible is currently in. Even to this day Invincible is in better condition than Hermes (Viraat) in the Indian Navy. Last I heard Invincible can be brought into operational status in 10-12 months. She isnt a rust bucket.Bro5990 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, okay, firstly why the bold text? Are you trying to deliberately stir a heated argument? Because that's childish and that sort of thing shouldn't belong on Wikipedia.

This article is a list of active Royal Navy ships. HMS Invincible, though still commissioned, isn't active. A while ago there was a debate here about whether it should be mentioned at all on this list. In the end the compromise was to list it as in reserve, but not as an active ship. The Royal Navy has two active aircraft carriers, hence the (2) rather than (3).

Many of the lists for other countries' navies are inaccurate, because as with other military related articles on Wikipedia they are ruined by nationalistic input. This article is neutral, fair and accurate. I see from your userpage that you are a military fanatic - I suggest you refrain from attempting to bolster the UK's capabilities on Wikipedia beyond what is the truth. I am a great fan of the Royal Navy and a British patriot, but I hate it when people put rubbish on Wikipedia for the sake of childish, nationalistic armchair general horseplay.

I will once again remove Southampton from the list. It is not longer commissioned. If you can provide a source which says that she is still commissioned and/or in reserve (to be used once again) then please do post it. David (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it takes two to make a heated argument. The Bold text is to put added meaning and/or point-out my points. At the end of the day if you have a problem with bold text ill stop. Agreed. It doesn't make much difference if Southampton is included or not, her capabilities wouldn't bolster the Royal Navy capabilities much more than the ability to patrol low intensity areas. I was just adding she IS available if need be (after all she hasent been out of active service for more than 8 months). I do however find it funny that you feel she would never sail again. Lets say another Falklands occurred, Invincible and Hampton would be brought into service as we saw happen in 82. Hence why the Royal navy has included them in the list of surface fleet vessels.

I just think it give wiki readers the over all picture. I also don't respect your calling me a military fanatic. So lets not argue OK? : )

Bro5990 (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You must show a source saying that Southampton is not decommissioned and/or is held in reserve. It does make a difference if Southampton is included or not. She is decommissioned and as far as I'm aware (unless you PROVE otherwise) she isn't in reserve and is not expected to ever be used again. David (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As the 1st guy posted. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/fleet-today/

please tell me if its not avaliable then why is it here. Show me a source where Hampton ISNT avaliable, im sorry but im dead set on using the ships from the RN Bro5990 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bro5990

The fact that she's disappeared from the RN's Type 42 page, and that the official RN link from the foot of HMS Southampton (D90) gives a 404 should give you a clue. I'm also intrigued by your repeated reference to "Hampton"; I wonder which ship you mean? Perhaps not Southampton but Hampton (or Northampton or Littlehampton)? David Biddulph (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DECOMMISSIONED - now, Bro5990, stop it. David (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

re: David Biddulph - the link to the RN's (former) HMS Southampton page also does not work from the RN's official fleet list. Basically they've just forgotten to remove the ship from the fleet list... it is - as anyone who has been following the RN and its website knows - a notoriously unreliable list! David (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? now you mention it yes ive never seen the 404 error!!! appologies, i was wrong. though why the 87 commisioned ships there are clearly 88, which are you not counting? Invincible?Bro5990 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there are 88 commissioned ships (including Invincible)... the 87 figure must have come from the days of not counting Invincible, which though inactive is still commissioned. David (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about landing craft, it would be good to include these under ampibious units just to show how many we have. other navys have them includedBro5990 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are they RN or RFA? (I'm guessing Royal Navy... in which case I suppose they could, though a note should be added that they are not commissioned vessels technically.) David (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Commissioned Ships

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)

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)

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)

Yeah that sounds good. David (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Additions of ships in build

User:Recon.Army has again brought this issue up by adding ships in build or on trials to the list before they are commissioned. His justification on my talk page was that 'The article deals with a list of active ships of the Royal navy, not just specifically commissioned ships. The list also clearly defines commissioned and non-commissioned ships any way.' In the case of Ambush, which has not even been launched yet, this is a strange definition of 'active'. The Royal Navy also has a number of ships which it has decommissioned and is awaiting to dispose of, either by sale to other countries, for scrapping, or by disposal as targets in exercises, etc. The clear consensus is for these ships not to be listed as active. Similarly the presence of ships that are in reserve are also contentious, and again the consensus to avoid arguments or original research has been to maintain these ships in the list (with the notation of their status) until such time as they decommissioned and officially cease to be active warships. This reasoning with the definition of active as being commissioned has been historically applied to ships in build/trials. As discussed before, given some users habitually try to include ships that are being worked up for commissioning, a section used to exist where these ships were listed and kept apart from the totals for each type (which incidentally only include the commissioned ships in the final total), from which they could be added to the main list as and when they commissioned. Given the previous discussions I think we ought to revive this for now. Benea (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS Dauntless and HMS Astute have been on this list for months and months. HMS Daring was also on the list before her commission. I may be wrong to add HMS Ambush, but she recently got her commanding officer and crew and is due it be launched any time now for sea trials and commission next year. I was premature to include her, granted. But the title does not specify a list of commissioned ships. Recon.Army (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also this consensus was between two editors out of many editors who edit this article. I would like to hear from more editors before a decision is made as the article has been this way for many months and up to now no-one has had any problems until today. Recon.Army (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see you've reverted again Recon.Army, since this is now under discussion, and given that there was consensus, the onus is on you to see if it has changed. I've asked for some more input to help build some consensus. Benea (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because something has been on the list 'for months and months' without anybody mentioning it, doesn't mean it belongs there. I believe the proposal to have a seperate section for ships working up, with the 'main list' being only for commissioned ships, is logical and makes sense. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically there has been considerable debate over what makes an active ship, such as whether one in reserve can count, or one in build, or one under refit, and so on. The basic rule of thumb used (and described at the top where it says 'In total there are 86 commissioned ships in the navy..') is to use the commissioned ones, so to avoid OR which occasionally crops up when referring to ships that are still in navy hands but have been decommissioned, not yet commissioned, etc. I agree about the relevance of including ships that will enter service imminently, such as the ships now being trialled, but they ought not to be included with the lists of commissioned ships while this practice of using 'commissioned' ships as our yardstick is retained. Looking at the article now it can easily be inferred that there are three Daring class destroyers in commission instead of one. It can confuse readers and may have lead to your error in trying to list a submarine not even launched yet as active. This is why the separate list was used in the past, though I think a user took it out some time ago on the grounds that they are not strictly active. Benea (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Commissioned and Active mean the same thing, any ship that isn't commissioned isn't under the command of CINC and therefore isn't active.

Ships that are not in commission may remain with the build contractor, so still privately owned and commanded by a commercial master, or they could be with Defence Equipment and Support, if they're in refit and post refit workup when they're under the command of CDM.

Essentially if a ship is not clothed in a White Ensign, or a Blue RFA ensign, she's not commissioned, so is not available for military tasking. that takes Invincible out of the equation, 18 months notice for sea doesn't constitute active.

ALR (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This topic appears to have been argued time and time again with no real consensus being achieved because every new section on this talk page seems to just restart the topic. Perhaps it maybe a better option to move this article to List of commissioned Royal Navy ships and thus do away with the ambiguity of the title (especially as the first sentence pertains to 'commissioned' ships). The RN do not assign 'active' and 'inactive' to their vessels, as such it is factually incorrect to be doing so. They are either commissioned or un-commissioned. If a move is not supported by others then my feelings lie with removing HMS Dauntless, HMS Astute and HMS Invincible from the current list. JonEastham (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support move to List of commissioned Royal Navy ships. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Active is a widely used term and I see nothing wrong with including ships soon be commissioned. A decommissioned ship in reserve is unlikely to be put to sea again and is a totally different thing all together. Dauntless, Diamond and Astute are more available for active military service than HMS Bristol, yet Bristol is in commission and only active as a training vessel. I support the move to List of commissioned Royal Navy ships as only commissioned ships will be included in the articles list. This way newly delivered ships in sea trials soon to be commissioned can be put under a separate title near the end of the article. This was proposed by Benea, but that doesn’t realy apply to this article List of active Royal Navy ships. Recon.Army (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, "active" to me implies that the ship is actively serving with the fleet, not in some state of construction or undergoing trials. I too support a move to the new title. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Faced with the same dilemma List of current ships of the United States Navy was created especially to cover the most ships as possible without restricting ourselves to only one type of ship according to status. It therefore contains commissioned, non-commissioned, under construction and ships in the planning stages. "Current" can say a whole lot more than a definition of "active". --Brad (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brad gives a good point, adding current in the title would be better as the article can therefore contain commissioned and non-commissioned ships as done in the USnavy article. It's worth thinking about. Recon.Army (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to reduce accuracy in the article, the RN has commissioned ships, as highlighted in the UK we don't use the term active. I'm afraid that current strikes me as even more lax than active.

Commissioned is a clear and verifiable inclusion criteria, with the caveat that forthcoming or planned commissioning could be accounted for in the text. That way we avoid the farcical listing of ships that are awaiting disposal.

The key point is probably, what are we trying to communicate here? Is it just a random list of ships that have been used by the RN recently and may be used by the RN in the near future, or is it a list of ships that are available for tasking? There may need to be some debate around what readiness state is viable for inclusion for those ships and submarines that are not in commission due to refitting or docking down. Ninety days notice for sea is pretty standard.

As an additional point, if we move to commissioned then that brings in shore establishments that are commissioned and clothed; Drake, Nelson, Caledonia et al.

ALR (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion would be to remain with commissioned ships only on the main list. A second list could be re-added if necessary. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A ship under construction or trials is not an 'active' ship in any naval sense of the term. I would first suggest moving the article to the "commmissioned ships" as suggested by JonEastham. At the new title, there may be scope for a section of ships "about to be commissioned" for vessels with definite, short-term entry-into-service dates. -- saberwyn 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The title including "current" would seem a good solution. List can be split into commissioned ships, those working up, those under refit and those under construction. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tonnes and Short tons

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)

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)

Well any navy buff or brain box might know a thing or two about it. Recon.Army (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Then could you please tell me why on the official US Navy web site it is using Short tons for the Nimitz class carriers? The link I have just given shows displacement in both short tons and tonnes (metric tons). If you also take a look at other classes of ships in the US Navy, such as the Burke class DDGs, the unit used is Long tons. Can you explain this?Recon.Army (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

navy.mil uses short tons for all its commisioned carriers (except G.R.Ford). Its also uses short tons for other classes of ships and other classes are in Long tons. This has nothing to do with the general public. It is also not odd the navy.mil gives the displacement for the USS Alabama in Long tons, as like I said, navy.mil uses Long tons for alot of the displacement of its fleet. Now im sure you can do the math, navy.mil gives 97,000 shot tons for a nimitz class carrier. A rough est of 97,000 shot tons into Long tons would be aprox 85,000 long tons, give or take 2,000 long tons. Off target of around 16,000+ long tons from the 101,000 long tons given on wikipedia. I'm sure you can see some thing is wrong with these figures somewhere. The question is, is the official figures given by navy.mil wrong or is wikipedia wrong? My guess is some editor has got their figures and tons mixed up. Recon.Army (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Defence review and cuts

I found my edits being reverted. I present the Defence review article which states "a surface fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers, providing military flexibility across a variety of operations, from full-scale naval warfare, to providing maritime security (for example protecting trade and energy supplies) and projecting UK influence (for example through their visible presence or supporting building the capacity of regional partners). These will include six Type 45 destroyers, a highly capable air defense destroyer whose missile system can protect both naval forces and UK sovereign territory, and the current Type 23 frigates. Both ship types operate the Merlin helicopter and the Type 45 can also operate the Chinook helicopter. As soon as possible after 2020 the Type 23 will be replaced by Type 26 frigates, designed to be easily adapted to change roles and capabilities depending on the strategic circumstances;" MOD article. So according to the review the 19 ships are the Six Type 45 destroyers and 13 Type 23 frigates. Also there are other cuts with respect to the amphibious forces etc which can be edited by the editors. Bcs09 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it's not been specifically stated that the T22 class will be decommissioned, although I agree that's the most likely approach as offering the greatest cost saving. They will take time to be decommissioned, as they're currently rostered for patrols and the programme will need reshuffled to accommodate their removal from the fleet. They'll go one-by-one, but for the moment they remain in commission.

ALR (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems it's quite clear which one will be decommissioned because after the 6 T45's and 13 T23's (These are said to form the backbone of Royal Navy fleet) the total of the said 19 ships are reached. The remaining including the T42'S and the 4 T22 frigates will be decommissioned. Bcs09 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But of course we don't yet have 6 type 45s. Presumably by the time all the 45s have come into service, all the 42s and 22s will have gone. Given their roles, it would seem logical that the 42s will be the ones which wait around until they are replaced in turn by the 45s, and one might guess that the 22s might go before most of the 42s, but so far we haven't seen anything that says that specifically. David Biddulph (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its true that nothing is clear about the dates. Don't know whether the defense review meant immediate decommissioning to save costs. Otherwise what is the need to mention it. Note that the Type 42's are not mentioned in the defense review to avoid the flak. They knew that' it's going to be decommissioned very shortly and hence not even mentioned it in the review. A very nice way to present the review.Bcs09 (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which may not be much as of today), the plans as of March last year were that the remaining 22s would be in service until 2019-2022, while the 42s were due to go out of service from 2009-2013. David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear doesn't meet the needs of No Original Research. I was discussing it with a couple of colleagues and we're all pretty much in agreement, deleting the T22s removes a significant level of support cost; design authority, CL Seawolf etc . The T42s are already going to be decommmissioned in the very near future anyway, so there is no additional saving there.

The main point is, though, that they're still in commission, so belong in this article until such time as they're decommissioned.

ALR (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The point being missed is the Strategic Defence Review states the Royal Navy surface fleet is to be cut to 19 surface combat vessels over 5 years, not immediately. The Type 42 destroyers and Type 22 frigates will be decommissioned over a period of 5 years, not immediately. The Type 42 destroyers and Type 22 frigates will be removed from this article as and when they are decommissioned over that 5 year period. Also, a further 4 Type 45 destroyers in addition to the 2 already in service are due to be commissioned over that 5 year period and will be added to the article as and when they are commissioned. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we would be best simply removing the ships when they are taken out of service. Adding notices stating that the ships are to be taken out of service based on what is currently speculation is not a good practice, especially with the T42 as they are going out of service, SDSR or not. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Ships should only be removed from this list when they are decommissioned. The list should be determined by Royal Navy sources rather than speculation. Bcs09 seems to have been under the impression that all Type 42 destroyers and Type 22 frigates were to be decommissioned immediately. The SDSR never stated that the Type 42 destroyers and Type 22 frigates would be decommissioned immediately. The SDSR stated that the Type 42 destroyers and Type 22 frigates would be decommissioned over 5 years, with unspecified dates for each ship. The Type 42 destroyers were being decommissioned gradually anyway as new Type 45 destroyers are being commissioned to replace them and the Type 22 frigates will be retired slightly earlier than planned. Four new Type 45 destroyers will join the fleet by 2013 to complement the two Type 45 destroyers already in service. Quite vivid blur (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The only ship going immediately is Ark Royal. David (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the SDSR mentioned cutting the escort fleet to 19 ships by 2020. Meaning the T-22s will be decommissioned in the later part of this decade. Also the government still talks of building up to 16 type 26 frigates coming into active service after 2020. So lets not just assume what size the Royal Navy escort fleet will be 20 years from now. 194.46.234.70 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Flagship transferred

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)

New ice Breaker

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)

It will be added to the list upon commissioning on 23 June. David (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ok cool sorry kieran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.191.251 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)