Talk:Type 42 destroyer

996 track extractors and FP weapons

Two notes. Firstly, 996 LFA was on the 23s and has been replaced by LFE; the 42s have LFB for their 996 track extractor.

Also, the armament now includes 2 x Mk 44 Minigun and 4 x L7 GPMG for close-in force protection purposes.

Jrwlynch (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sea Dart Missile System

Can we really say that an action that occured in 1991 proves that this missile system is not obsolete in 2009? Does anyone have any more recent sources to back up this claim? Also, should this claim really be made in the type 42 article or should it be maintained solely in the Sea Dart article?

I vote to remove this sentence as it stands.

Munchingfoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

Isn't the engagement referenced the only time a missile has shot down another missile in combat? It's worth noting that fact, but it is true that Sea Dart is certainly an ageing system. How about replacing it with something like this : "Sea Dart remains the only missile which has ever scored a hit on another missile in combat conditions, although it is considered increasingly obsolete today." BobThePirate (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the Sea Dart is obsolescent and a success scored 18 years ago can be relevant on a historical point of view but not enough to say that the weapons system can cope with the current threats. The referred sentence should be either rephrased or removed. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It really does not matter whether editors think Sea Dart is obsolescent or not. What matters is what quotable sources have stated.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the reference to batch 3 ships having 40 Sea Darts. I can find no source that says that. All ships had 22 Sea Darts. --Two way time (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

References, sources, citations?

Hi All, I wonder how an article of this length could be written without having access to verifiable sources? Can the "key" editors that contributed to this article please add citations, references, bibliography as appropriate? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From User talk:Justin A Kuntz

I have reverted your reversion on Type 42 destroyer.

Where there is a difference in what several sources say, it is not original research to have footnotes saying what the differences between the sources is.

Where there are several sources that you would expect to be reliable, it is appropriate to record what the differences in sources are using inline citations - this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.

The is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check whose aim is having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Reverting multiple references goes against this project.

The bulk of the text of the articles on modern RN warships have no citations whatsoever and frequent errors. Perhaps it would be better if you put your effort into improving verifiability by replacing unsourced material with material backed by proper inline citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? WP:OR. It would not be OR if someone said this figure is more accurate than this one and we report that opinion. It is OR when that is your opinion. Please do not revert again. If you disagree take it to AN/I but you'll find that I'm correct. Justin talk 20:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have taken account of your objection and have removed the following from the edit you object to:

• Change the statement in the footnote from This section is mislabelled - it is the first part of the table that is continued on Hansard: HC Deb 23 October 1989 vol 158 c360W to This section is the first part of the table that is continued on Hansard: HC Deb 23 October 1989 vol 158 c360W.

I am not really sure why you object to my pointing out an error in the internetization of the original paper source - but I have taken account of your objection.

• I have deleted the statement Clearly the figure from Hansard is the most reliable.

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough but my edit summary pretty much told you what was wrong with your edit in the first place. There was no need for the message on my talk page or the reversion. Justin talk 20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My belief is that if I revert an edit by someone I believe is acting in good faith, that it can be beneficial to explain why. By each other explaining our positions, it is possible to come to a compromise acceptable to both.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad this was resolved, but Toddy you crossed the line in your reply to Justin. He explained why he reverted and he's done more reference finding for British military articles than you'll ever know. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it 113 or 114, confirmation please

Which is the correct number for the gun, is it 113 or 114 and if this number is disputed lets have the debate about it here. Many of the destroyer articles have been changed to 113 aswell, so if theres a clear source saying its 114 they will need reverting too. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the article on the gun itself. Rcbutcher (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just read the RN website so yes should say 114, will undo the changes that were made to other destroyer articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The royal navy website here [1] says its 114, so the gun article must be incorrectly saying 113. Do you have a source for the 113? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[2] Nope its 114mm. Justin talk 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The other article was in error due to the template, its 114 mm, its been corrected. Justin talk 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

4.45 in = 113 mm : 4.5 inch is just a name, not a specification. The reference from Janes Ammunition Handbook 1999-2000 :

[3] Rcbutcher (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be following what the Royal Navy website says, even if that means we remove the sentence about it actually being 4.45 as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less what some moron who maintains the RN website puts up there. "4.5 inch" is just a convenient name, not a calibre. 4.45 inch = 113 mm = the actual bore. Give me a few days and I'll get you a photo of a shell with calipres on it showing the exact size. Then will you believe it ? Rcbutcher (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No i would rather have the details listed as shown on the Royal Navy Website, the fact it says 114 on there can not just be some minor mistake. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a mistake. The gun is known as a 4.5" gun. 114mm is the equivalent metric measurement. However, the bore of the weapon is actually 4.45", or 113mm. Therefore it is often referred to (incorrectly) as a 4.5" (114mm) gun. So, this is its common name, but the bore is 113mm. See this website for a fair explanation - read to the bottom of the page. Rcbutcher is technically right, but you could also call it by it's common name and not be wrong. I'd suggest "4.5 inch gun" linked to the right page. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Decimal_or_fractional_inches for other examples of weapons whose metric equivalent isn't quite right. Shem (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

active service

Hms Edinburgh returned from her final deployment in March 2013. There are no longer any type 42's in active service in the Royal Navy.

Active service is usually held to mean 'in commission' for wikipedia purposes. Edinburgh does not decommission until June, as the article acknowledges. The report is on the ship's return from her "final overseas deployment", and does not say anything about active service or not. Benea (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

References

batch diferences

Could be possible to explain the differences between batches ? particullary one and two ? many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Type 42 destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111202001434/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/The-Fleet/Ships/Destroyers/Type-42-Destroyers to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Destroyers/Type-42-Destroyers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Cramped Ships

I am American, Navy veteran, and naval Enthusiastic. Compare this ship to the US Perry class FFG.- Both are near the same size physically -displacement, length, beam. See my table- Bold for significantly more space required - greater capability of the ship

equipment	UK Type 42	US FFG-7
length	463 ft batch 3	453 ft
beam	48 ft	45 ft
displacement	4200/ 4800	4200
missile	Sea Dart 22 or 40 missiles	Mk 13 40x SM-1/harpoon
main gun	114 mm fwd	76 mm amidships
CIWS	Phalynx	Phalynx
helicopter	1x Sea Lynx	2x SH-60
propulsion	4 gas turbines	2x LM2500 gas turbines
shaft/ prop	2	1
electrical power	4 diesel generators	4 diesel generators
torpedo tubes	2 triple 12.75 in	2 triple 12.75 in
Radars	both 2D & 3D air search	only 2D SPS-49

Wfoj3 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Just a polite reminder that talk pages are to be used to discuss editing the article, not as a place for general discussion on the topic. Mark83 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)