Talk:Bird-class patrol vessel

Although I was the one who added the information on the Canadian Bird-Class, I now realize that they are actually a completely different class. Could someone give me some direction on moving the Canadian content to a new article, and perhaps differentiating the titles? Cadet Pilot (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've taken out the information (you are right, they are a different and unrelated class). If you want to create an article for them, it would be Canadian Bird-class patrol vessel, as per Naming conventions (ships), and examples United States Porpoise-class submarine, etc. Benea (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hansard links and mention of unseaworthiness
The note that these vessels were considered "unseaworthy" interested me, but it appears all the Hansard links (the links to government proceedings) are now defunct. I found the following in Hansard myself; "Those vessels suffered primarily from a design fault in that they were short and fat. They were not seaworthy and, because of their short profile, in winds of more than force 5, 80 per cent. of the ship's company would be seasick and flat on their backs, and the ship could hardly be described as operational." - Sir Richard Ottaway (Lieutenant, RN, Ret.) - column 238, Defense Estimates, vol.46, 19/07/1983. The complete record can be found here (as of 28/12/2022): https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1983-07-19/debates/662b1ebb-29ac-4ab7-92c6-fd5e3d097fd0/DefenceEstimates?highlight=%22bird%20class%22#contribution-dc804250-0fa9-405b-bd4b-b98534c3aff9 185.69.144.210 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)