Talk:Dolphin-class submarine

Type 800
The Dolphin class is not the Type 800. Type 800 is/was a 800t design, an evolution of the Type 206A. The Dolphin is an evolution of the Type 209-1300/1400. See HDW's homepage, image "Submarine Evolution". - Alureiter 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So it seams that ideally there should be two pages for two significantly different submarine classes.79.180.231.14 (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The two classes and two pages being for the 1999 Dolphin, Leviathan, and Tekuma mod of what the article calls the 209 class and those three newer boats now entering service that will probably be called the Tanin class of modified 212 class design. The commonality and reason for calling both Dolphin class is that they are sourced from Germany and they are in Israeli service.79.180.100.185 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

on types. the TR1700 ( sold to Argentine ) are actually slightly larger.ZwergAlw (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The original 3 non-AIP boats are indeed slightly smaller, although their displacement is larger. the 6 AIP boats operational and on order are larger. Note the citation saying that the AIP Dolphins are the largest submarines built by Germany since World War 2. Simon Adler (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DONATIONS?
Why is Germany funding these submarines? --MoRsE 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * are there any sources for the claim the ships were donated?
 * Here: (in german) -- 84.165.255.114 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The english article in says "$1.27 billion, a third of which will be financed by the German government". Financed doesn't mean donated. Does the german text indicate explicit donation? -Poli 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The first 2 Submarines were donated by the germans; The third was payed half-half by Germany and Israel; The 4th and 5th were payed 1/3rd by Germany and 2/3 by Israel, but were the most expensive ones.
 * like always: WWII or some pseudo-arguments like "German firms 195.243.51.34 (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first ones were DONATED = delivered as gift free of charge by the country that, among others, got its passports forged by the recipient. That said, even if they were PAID for, in whole or in part (as the successive ones), by the recipient, the manifacturer is stil giving away (donating) access to a privileged military technology that the recipient may be missing or unable to achieve (with all their great militaristic technology, the recipients were still running trashbins of th 1970s). To make it more evident - an atomic bomb isn't worth 3 millions or 30 millions of USD. A nuclear device isn't worth the cost of manifacture. An atomic bomb is worth strategic status and deterrent power, the access to a privileged club, which are priceless and rarely sold by a country that isn't more than friendly to another that isn't more than trustworthy. History will judge if this was the case. As a side note, this submarine isn't a nuclear missile but it is a awesome way to deliver it a 2nd strike in mutual assured destruction (or a pre-emptive strike you will gladly call a self-defense afterwards).

Israeli-German cooperation.
All sources available to me (including usually reliable online sources such as www.naval-technology.com) indicate that the Type 212A uses an EADS-developed FL 1800U as the EW system. This is also established on the Wikipedia article on the 212A. Furthermore, the online source cited in the previous version of the Dolphin article references a 1998 Naval Forces article which is only dealing with the Dolphins. AFAIK HDW *did* incorporate Israeli Timnex 2 for the Type 214 submarines exported to Greece, so maybe that is the source of a mixup here. 82.83.196.97 12:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"nuke" sub
at the end of the article it says thatthere is a nuclear armed sub in the red sea. however, no one knows if they even have nuclear weapons, and the stats on these subs say nothing about missel capabilites, just torpedos. shouldnt it be changed to it being supposudly nuclear armed or such? Joesolo13 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "nuclear missiles" refers to the Popeye Turbo submarine launched cruise missile wich is launched by the 633mm torpedo tubes. Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Article about the Dolphins and specifically Leviatan
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4120185,00.html

I thought this article might be of some use to improving the article. It's an interview with the captain of the Leviatan. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
Regardless of what the source says, Israel does not confirm that it has nuclear weapons. It's quite a bold statement to report what the Israeli Navy has "decided" to do with its nuclear weapons, when the Navy explicitly does not confirm that they exist. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically correct, however, it is widely known in the various leading militaries of the world that there is no doubt Israel is a nuclear power, with both land and submarine launch capabilities. Citations along these lines are always debatable, but as a former USN SSBN nuclear engineering officer, the U.S. Navy tells us that Israel is indeed a nuclear-armed state. They wouldn't be wrong about that, there's just too much intelligence pointing to that fact, and I'm sure behind closed doors frank discussions along these lines have taken place between our defense officials and Israel's. Israel cannot conduct a nuclear test, for political reasons (such a test would set the Arab world on edge), and until they did or made an official statement that they are nuclear weapon capable, to some there will always be doubt.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Or Israel has pulled the greatest intelligence PR operation of all time. They have convinced the world they are a nuclear power, gaining those benefits, when in reality they are not. It is the kind of operation they are famous for.

Israel vs. Germany
How exactly does an Israeli speak for German government policy? We have the story from both sides so why not cover both sides? Hcobb (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let's cover both sides. Flayer (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

error?
200 kg or 200 kT warhead? --88.153.188.26 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * fixed; reportedly these can have a variable one to 200 kiloton nuclear-detonation warhead, with a maximum six pounds of plutonium - if the average warhead is even 100 kilotons the damage from sixteen detonations would be catastrophic to any country in terms of casualties, infrastructure, economy, long-term medical problems ... depending on the targets. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Hammerfilmfan (I really fancied Ingrid Pitt BTW :)) I dont doubt for a moment that Israeli tech can make and deploy variable yield warheads. Its just we have no cites stating that yet, so I changed it to the more verifiable, in terms of the source given, 6kgs of plutonium. I think that would be around 200 kilotons in yield. This Israeli SLM seems to be a single warhead design, although its not impossible this mysterious weapon could be MIRVed in some way, given the strongly suspected Israeli ability in warhead minaturisation. We also have no idea whether it is actually a cruise missile of the POPEYE type or some kind of minaturised SLBM. The LORA (missile) could well be the design template for the latter. Its also very likely the missiles range has been greatly increased since the original 2001 reported test, which is ancient history given technical advances in Israeli missile tech over the past decade. 100-200 kilotons seems to be the average warhead in MIRVed ICBMs and SLBMs now, the old 1+ megaton warheads were forced on designers, due to the inherent inaccuracy of early ICBMs. Cheers Irondome (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated material
I removed the following sentence, unrelated to Dolphin-class submarines, from the article: "During the first Gulf War, it was revealed that German firms had assisted Iraq with modernizing its missile and chemical weapon programs thanks in part to lax enforcement by German customs[20], which led to protests in both Germany and Israel." A long-time wikipedian thanked me for the deletion. Then an anon user reverted the deletion -- with a claim that the sentence is needed to give context to the preceding and following sentences. In my opinion, the preceding and following sentences stand strongly on their own and are generally unrelated to the sentence in question. M Carling 09:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This sentence was a consensus part of the article and in place for at least four years in a different sentence structure. Without this information the surrounding sentences are without context.  Please do not continue what appears to be edit warring, while I trust you were acting with good faith instinct a double revert without discuss or consensus is bad form. Solomon(for now)109.64.148.191 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * it appears that it was wikipedia being slow to update, there is no double delete in history but the undo-revert has not posted, apologies to Mcarling, striking my error.

Solomon(for now)109.64.148.191 (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Syrian claim to have sunk an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine
My edit posting this claim was deleted in exactly one minute by Irondome. I can only presume that with such alacrity, Mr. Irondome may not be a volunteer editor, but might rather be working on the payroll of one or the other military establishments. Nonetheless, if you google on syria sinks israeli submarine, you will get over 300,000 hits. Might be fair to mention the claim, no? JPLeonard (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On WP we have watchlists, based on our interests and input. A patently unreliable source, picked up by NO other media outlet on the planet, claims a fantasy, incidently merely hours after the IDF destruction of material destined for an internationally recognised terrorist organisation. You are full of BS on so many levels, its hard to know where to begin. Do you really think you can keep such a thing quiet in such an open democracy as Israel? You obviously have comprehension issues as to the real world. Do you percieve "hits" as an indication of reality??. Get real, or stop editing. I would suggest the latter. WP is better of without you. Your bizarre and offensive conspiracy complex marks you out as a troll. Irondome (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No secrets in Israel? Who are you kidding? Israel has no secret services? Indeed, Mr. Irondome, I see here that you take your name after an Israeli defence system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome. Perhaps you yourself are in the open democratic Israeli military intelligence? Yeah, open democracy - sure thing as long as you don't happen to be Palestinian maybe. I think most people by now think of Israel rather as a theocratic garrison state than an open democracy? My edit only reported that this was claimed by a Syrian source. It didn't take a stand on whether it was true. So why do you get so excited about it? Number of hits I noted as an indication of being worthy of mention, not as a measure of reality. Famous works of fiction may have enormous traffic, for instance. And thus they earn their place on Wikipedia as well. I don't think you actually denied that you are working for the military. If you aren't, then why don't you use your real name? Finally, you are forced to resort to profanity and insults in answering me, which I don't think does much to support your case. As for me, I am neither a troll nor on a payroll, of that much you may be sure. JPLeonard (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Administration informed. Irondome (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy about getting into a dispute and I see that I did not follow the guidelines of assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. I would have done better to protest the revert on the grounds of the matter itself and avoiding any personality issues. Sorry about that. It did rather surprise me that my Undo was reverted in one minute flat when the original edit was a week or so ago. The reason given for the revert was reliable source. Are Syrian sources considered a priori unreliable? I also see that someone else has mentioned the rumors around this incident on this talk page in May. So there are probably more people out there that think it might be worthy of mention. To me, what Irondome might have done is instead of reverting it, he could have briefly put his POV on the matter there in terms of why the story should not be believed. JPLeonard (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC) JPLeonard (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Soapbox and Assume good faith come into play here. Your outrageous accusations angered me, and I used intemperate language, which I retract. Are you prepared to retract fully these claims, that I take extremely seriously? I note the apology. That is a start.We are volunteers here. We have bots, but most articles are watched. That is to revoke possible vandalism, etc. Do not be suprised by the immediacy of a revert here, often almost in real time. I would suggest you take the matter up at the Reliable sources noticeboard Irondome (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Soapbox. Here was the original edit.
 * Syrian News reported that a Syrian Warship attacked and sank an Israeli Dolphin class submarine in 150 meters of water on May 2nd, 2013 off the Syrian coast in Syrian territorial waters. The submarine was reportedly sunk by a homing torpedo.

As far as I can tell, this is deprecated as rumor because the news source is Syrian. That seems unfair. Also Syria is a protagonist in the major war going on the last two years, so there would be a problem with neutrality to banish all Syrian claims about the war from Wikipedia. Such an unbalanced position would make Wikipedia a platform for the war propaganda of one side over the other. Speaking of propaganda, what provoked the argument were the tags on your 2 reverts, which I feel broke the rule against being polite to newcomers. These remarks offended me as being arrogant and partisan. "Fantasy regime propaganda has no place in an article. RS?? Propaganda.)" "RS issue, obvious wish-dream and you cant keep these things secret in a democracy)"  On this very talk page there is another instance where an editor says, "a double revert without discuss or consensus is bad form." Wouldn't it be good form if you follow that advice and also my suggestion, to undo the deletion and add your caveats to the story as you see them? JPLeonard (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved 3rd party comment: SyriaNews.com  appears to  be largely  driven by  propaganda and may  not  be reliable. Web results for other news sources appear to  still  question the authenticity  of the report of the sinking. For an encyclopedia, such  incidents are probably  best  left  out until wholly  verified as fact  and substantiated by  reliable sources such  as leading national  mainstream  printed newspapers, and TV news sources such  as the BBC and CNN, and official  government  sources.  Inclusion  should be decided on  consensus of a discussion  by  several  participating  editors. Help  can be requested at  the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, while logjammed discussions on  content  issues can seek  resolution  at Mediation. See alsoVerifiability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * SyriaNews.com appears not to be a reliable source of anything other than propaganda. M Carling 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the post on SyriaNews states that the allegedly sunk submarine was of unknown type, rather than specifying a Dolphin, also that the report hasn't been corroborated by any other primary source. However, "wholly verified as fact" is too high a standard for the fog of war that surrounds the Syria crisis. "Leading mainstream" media are part of the NATO/allied war effort against the Syrian government, and have been guilty of far more extreme distortions and vicious propaganda fictions than this report by SyriaNews, whether it's true or not. Case in point, repeated attempts by the controlled mainstream media to accuse Assad of using chemical weapons, when CW were in fact used by US proxies, precisely in order to invent a pretext for a massive bombing of Syria. I just checked Wikipedia 2013_Ghouta_attacks and find it reasonably balanced on this, giving the Russian and Syrian view that it was a "rebel" attack due mention. On issues like 9/11 I have in the past felt that Wikipedia itself and its body of editors are not neutral, but are a virtual part of the western military-industrial-media complex. I'm a realist and I realize that sometimes it will tend to be like that. The best we can do is try to be neutral, it's not humanly possible to be completely neutral. JPLeonard (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello JPLeonard, your points are well-taken, and thanks for improving wikipedia. Appreciate your calmness, but as with any real-world controversy in politics or religion, it is important to speak softly and gently -- Irondome misinterpreted your joke about CIA handlers, in much the same way you interpreted Ironhold instantaneous response time, and that led to the conversation getting off on the wrong foot.  Let bygones be bygones, and reset your good-faith-o-meter.  (And yes, User:Irondome needs to please tone down their adjectives -- WP:NICE is not made of rubber.)  The core problem is that the internet is text-only, so it is hard to assume good faith and to WP:IMAGINE... but it is super-important in tricky areas like the topic of the Middle East.  Anyhoo, please don't leave, but do your best to follow  pillar four as firmly as you can, and if others do not, do your best to work it out with them.  It looks like you and Irondome are on speaking terms again, so I'll get to my point.  :-)
 * As some other folks have pointed out, SyriaNewsDotCC has no editorial board (it is a blog not a newspaper or online-magazine). All the contributors are pseudonyms, as their own site will tell you.  Those that *do* give an indication of their purpose, explicitly say they are only reporting "my opinions and experiences" or in one other case their intent to document "war crimes committed by foreign fighters in Syria".  Of course, that does not mean the contents are not true.  But it does mean that the website cannot qualify as a Reliable Source ... which is wikiJargon for "some board of professors peer-reviewed it and/or some board of professional editors fact-checked it" and has literally nothing whatsoever to do with truth or falsity.  Does this make sense?  The problem is not that they are Syrian... the problem is they are not actually *officially* affiliated with any journalistic or governmental or even semi-governmental-aka-rebel bodies (Syrian or otherwise).
 * Wikipedia articles cannot just take the word of somebody writing on an anonymous blog, because the hundreds of millions of wikipedia readers trust you and me and the other wikipedians to only put sentences into wikipedia that somebody else was already paid cold hard cash to fact-check. (That said... "wholly verified as fact" is not wikipedia's requirement... all we need is "wholly verified as fact-checked, which is a much lower bar to hop over.)  On your other point, there are a lot of hits you can get by googling, it is true, and that is worth something, see WP:GOOG, but it does not override the need for a Reliable Source.  Was the sinking of the sub reported on one of the Syrian government websites, or in a traditional Syrian newspaper?  Iran also has media, such as presstv.ir which sometimes carries such stories.
 * My advice is, skim through the top hits, and see if you can find somebody who is reporting the story, that has a paid editorial board. That is what is necessary, for a sentence to be sourced.  In particular, the source does *not* have to be in English (Arabic or Hebrew or whatever is fine -- we just find some editor to translate), and does *not* have to be part of the Mainstream Media... but it does have to be an 'official' source in some fashion, and SyriaNewsDotCC themselves is purely anonymous and non-editorial-checked, so we have to find some other source.  Hope this helps.
 * p.s. One final note, if we cannot find a source during November 2013, all is not lost... WP:DEADLINE applies.  If the sub really was sunk, eventually the evidence will mount up, either by some journalist or government officially reporting the story, or by the warfare ending which allows the folks at SyriaNews the safety to drop their anonymity and come forward.  Wikipedia is for the ages; it may not give readers today the whole truth, but the goal is for it to eventually have the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worthy of inclusion just as we mention other military systems in popular culture, such as fiction movies or TV commercials, to present the articles in Syrian media as a media phenomenon. A sentence like "There have been several cases in Syrian media of of claims of Dolphin class submarines being sunk(give dates and newspaper name) by the Syrian navy in the course of the civil war." much as we mention the alleged submarine basing and vehement denial by Bahrain. The publication of the rumors and availability on the internet is primi facia evidence that the newspaper associated with the URL published the allegations making encyclopedic mention about the editing of the newspaper interested in Dolphin class boats and not really about alleged sinkings. Solomon(for now)79.181.2.242 (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that just as we place a lot of reliance on SOHR (one staff office, based in London) for reporting about estimates and information about SCW, the same level of trust should be extended to Syrian News (main editor: Arabi Souri) as well for reporting of version of events from the Syrian perspective, for otherwise we would be guilty of adopting differential standards, which will only violate the neutrality of this platform. We are not on Wikipedia to judge or interpret facts, we are here to inform people that "look these reports too exist and if you don't believe it, then feel free to check out the primary source." In the fog of war, often local journalists acquire immense importance, reporting from areas where mainstream, established newspapers dread to send their reporters or might not have informants there. In that case, their contribution cannot bbe effectively sidelined by citing a rigid guideline to discredit their work. Like they say, "Truth is the first casualty in War". Yes, agreed mainstream media did not pick up the news, but then there could be several explanations for this and the inference that this report was fabricated on whims of the reporter is not logically derived or justified at all. There could be the fact that this information was gleaned from an intelligence operative who might face serious troubles if his name is revealed, there could be that SANA was instructed to not air this news to manage foreign relations at a time the government was beleaguered with proxy war on several fronts, it could be that Western media were hesitant to report this on their platform without having the means to personally verify this report on the ground, and indeed, the situation was indeed so volatile at that time, that a lot of reporting coming out of the country was picked from certain Twitter handles of independent local journalists on the ground. I am not claiming that an Israeli sub was definitely sunk, all I am saying that such a claim by Syrian Intelligence merits mention. We are an encyclopedia and our respect is premised on the perception that we are neutral. This claim, I was told, was picked up by certain Arabic newspapers, whose credibility I cannot venture to comment on, but my local point-men seem to trust it to a great deal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a primary source of information from diverse perspectives, and interests. The very fact that this news was circulated in the Syrian society is a proof that this was definitely a media phenomena, and deserves a brief mention, with attendant circumspection of course. (No conflict of interest involved, I am a sports editor back in my country.)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dolphin/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dolphin-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604012228/http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm to http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, the Dolphin 2 class ships are now in Israel... https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/israel-uboot-101~_origin-39cb664a-06ee-484b-8990-6a00fc045b89.html 62.144.81.203 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dolphin-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120601050735/http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8903191388 to http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8903191388

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dolphin-class submarine. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021081137/http://israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=426&ArticleID=663 to http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=426&ArticleID=663
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222054116/http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/12/05/spy-tool-commander-touts-strategic-role-of-new-israeli-submarines/ to http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/12/05/spy-tool-commander-touts-strategic-role-of-new-israeli-submarines/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701111917/http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/6604962/iai-seeks-foreign-investors-to-develop-new-missile-warship to http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/6604962/iai-seeks-foreign-investors-to-develop-new-missile-warship
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213015723/http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/the%20gulf%20war%20-%201991.aspx to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/the%20gulf%20war%20-%201991.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226033617/http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/applications/military-governmental-vessels/submarines/ to http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/applications/military-governmental-vessels/submarines/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Name of the RAHAV vessel
On the page, the vessel name RAHAV is translated as "Splendour". Splendour sounds like a poor google translate. The name should not be translated. RAHAV = RAHAB, a mythical sea monster, like the other vessels Whale and Crocodile. See also Isaiah Book Chapter 51, 9: "Art thou not it that hewed Rahab in pieces, that pierced the dragon?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Shoval (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * correct. איתן (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)