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.

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)

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)