Talk:List of active Royal Australian Navy ships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of Armidale class patrol boats in commission as at 22 Feb 07[edit]

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)[reply]

Since the boats are handed over to the RAN, it can be added in the list. commissioning is a simple ceremony which if required can be done in few minutes in a simple ceremony. Regarding the trials it will all go well. If there is any problem we will remove it from the list. You can add it to the list if required and mention in bracket (Undergoing trails). That will be better rather than hiding the information of the boats being handed over to the navy. Chanakyathegreat 14:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

HMAS Manoora[edit]

HMAS Manoora is still in Commission as of 31 Mar 2011. It is a little bit premature to remove her name from the list of Australian ships. Not to mention unfair to Naval tradition which will still consider Manoora a warship until the moment her Ensign is hauled down for the last time. I am restoring her to the List. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I removed her because I felt that as the ship has been out of service since September last year, and there's almost no chance of her returning to active operation, she no longer fitted the scope of the list. On consideration, you're right, we should wait until the RAN can get around to actually paying her off.
However, do you mind that I've now replaced the Manoora photo with one of Kanimbla? It'll save having to strip andor replace the image when Manoora is finally decommissioned. -- saberwyn 03:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the change of picture it makes sense. On that note though, is it entirely necessary that the picture representing the class is of a ship currently in commission? Perhaps not important in this particular case but may be pertinent when dealing with the smaller craft such as the ACPBs for which we may not have a stock picture of each boat. -- AlexanderFrancis (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figure that if we can, it helps. If/when we find ourselves in that situation, a note in the caption should suffice. -- saberwyn 05:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USN Hull Classification Symbols vs. Flag Superiors[edit]

In the list we have used an inconsistent method of referring to each ship. Some, e.g. the frigates, are referred to using the USN Hull Classification Symbol, i.e FFG, while others use what I can only describe as a form of Flag superior; i.e Success which is referred to as OR 304, but is an AOR if we were to use the USN system. Similarly the LCHs are referred to as L 127 etc but would be LCH 127 if we followed the same method as the Frigates. I think we should select a method and ensure consistency, Which method do we prefer? -- AlexanderFrancis (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought I have realised that not only is it inconsistent it could be incorrect and is probably very confusing because the first 4 Australian FFGs were granted US hull numbers during their construction so Sydney (FFG 03 in our current list) is actually FFG-35 as far as the US is concerned. I propose that we change the list to read HMAS Darwin (F 03) etc to remove any similar confusion and to restore consistancy. -- AlexanderFrancis (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick with the 'RAN Pennant system', because its what they use. Compare the RAN webpage infoboxes at HMAS Parramatta (looks like USN hull number classification), HMAS Betano (British pennant number flag superior system), and HMAS Childers (abbreviation of class name). Even though it doesn't appear consistent when looked at with a USN eye or an RN eye, these are the pennants that work for the RAN, and to change them would be to introduce inaccuracy.
Also, for all intents and purposes, the USN hull numbers are where the ships slotted in to US construction programmes, and mean diddley-squat beyond an interesting bit of trivia covered in each ship's article. -- saberwyn 05:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, it seems a very confusing system that RAN has. I wonder if perhaps the articles on the Navy website were incorrectly or inconsistently written (by different people perhaps?), but without any further evidence I agree that you are right and it should stay as it is. -- AlexanderFrancis (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Commisioning date of the HMAS Balikpapan[edit]

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)[reply]

Looks like an error. Changed. -- saberwyn 04:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft carrier section[edit]

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 Aircraft carrier section is included as Australia has a history of operating aircraft carriers and some readers may not be aware that these ships are no longer used. A quick sentence to clarify this may assist readers in avoiding a wild goose chase. As such, I've brought it here for further discussion.

My issues are three:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 HMAS Vampire 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?
  3. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Entries to add?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've aligned all tables to the left, and provided warships their offical, GIVEN name.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_active_Royal_Australian_Navy_ships&oldid=1212901654"