This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Is there a reference for naval mines? I wasn't aware that there were any in the UK inventory, so where will she get them from?
Shem (
talk) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Harpoon
I've removed Harpoon. The refref for Astute's commissioning confirms that the armament is Spearfish & TLAM.
David Biddulph (
talk) 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I know - at the same time as you were adding this comment, I removed the reference. I'm fairly sure it used to say so, but I imagine it's been removed from the RN website. I've put another reference in.
Shem (
talk) 09:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
There seemed to be continuing confusion. I reverted a change from 38 to 36; the statement I read on the referenced page says "A total of 38 weapons, including Spearfish torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles, can be carried.", so I'm not sure where the 36 comes from. If there were any lingering doubt, a number of more official sources can be found with
a Google search. -
David Biddulph (
talk) 10:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks, David.
Shem (
talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the corrected link. The number in the ref currently given in the template is supported by numerous official sources, so seems more credible unless we find support for the number given on the page you quoted. Other official sources quote numbers as large as 58, but I think we can safely discount that as a misprint. :-) -
David Biddulph (
talk) 12:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I think the reference should be changed. Currently you refer ("up to 38") with reference to naval-technology.com (which you now say is not accurate) So you should changing it to an official source.
Other dictionaries are better (
talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Is there a reference for naval mines? I wasn't aware that there were any in the UK inventory, so where will she get them from?
Shem (
talk) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Harpoon
I've removed Harpoon. The refref for Astute's commissioning confirms that the armament is Spearfish & TLAM.
David Biddulph (
talk) 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I know - at the same time as you were adding this comment, I removed the reference. I'm fairly sure it used to say so, but I imagine it's been removed from the RN website. I've put another reference in.
Shem (
talk) 09:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
There seemed to be continuing confusion. I reverted a change from 38 to 36; the statement I read on the referenced page says "A total of 38 weapons, including Spearfish torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles, can be carried.", so I'm not sure where the 36 comes from. If there were any lingering doubt, a number of more official sources can be found with
a Google search. -
David Biddulph (
talk) 10:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks, David.
Shem (
talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the corrected link. The number in the ref currently given in the template is supported by numerous official sources, so seems more credible unless we find support for the number given on the page you quoted. Other official sources quote numbers as large as 58, but I think we can safely discount that as a misprint. :-) -
David Biddulph (
talk) 12:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I think the reference should be changed. Currently you refer ("up to 38") with reference to naval-technology.com (which you now say is not accurate) So you should changing it to an official source.
Other dictionaries are better (
talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply