Talk:Trafalgar-class submarine

Untitled
I removed the following as with submarines (submerged) displacement is purely a factor of size, so isn't remarkable:

but the increased displacement of around 800 tons suggests that a significant amount of extra equipment has been added.

Dan100 15:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * But increased size gives increased volume which means more space to put extra equipment in. Any time a warship's displacement is increased it is because they have added more equipment to the design. They don't make them bigger just for fun, you know. BobThePirate 19:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No more Harpoons on RN Subs?
Where is the source that says RN SSNs do not fire/carry sub-launched Harpoons anymore?Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This RN page talks about the armament of T boats. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a huge amount of guff spouted about sub harpoon in RN submarines on the internet, but read this extract from Hansard to understand why and when they were removed. Shem (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Trafalgar class submarine hyphenation - a polite request
Recently this page and the associated article has been moved twice to "Trafalgar-class submarine" with the hyphen added. This was an undiscussed move. Royal Navy Submarine classes do not use a hyphen (or any other nation to my knowledge). The non-hyphen standard is the format used by the Royal Navy, by Janes Fighting Ships and many other official sources. Please do not change this without first seeking consensus. Moves should generally be discussed beforehand on article talk pages or preferably at WP:SHIPS. Sincerely, Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  07:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's already been discussed, and the consensus was to use the hyphen (though the discussion did not involve many users). See WT:SHIPS for further details on the current moves. - BilCat (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi BilCat. Thank you for pointing me to the discussion, I hadn't seen it. I added my thoughts to the discussion, although it doesn't seem that a consensus really was actually reached frankly. Until then, mass bot-changes should be held off. Regards Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  10:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading the discussion link you forwarded it seems that actually it may be the case that the hyphen is warranted after all. I shall wade out of this concern at this point. Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is dumb. I've never seen ANY other source use a hyphen like "Trafalgar-class". Frankly all it does is make the title look awkward, like it has a pointless apostrophe in it. BobThePirate (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an obligation to get it right rather than follow incorrect usage. And besides, it should in fact be "Trafalgar class" but "Trafalgar-class submarine".  The clear, simple guidance is at WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines, a consensus exists, and it's not difficult to use.  Shem (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It SHOULD be "Trafalgar class submarine". That's how it is used pretty much everywhere else, and how it has always been used on every ship class article I've ever seen on wikipedia, even. Still, I long ago stopped trying to argue such things because I know how pointless debate is once those with power make up their minds. Do as you please. BobThePirate (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with BobThePirate on this one. The hyphenated form is...adjectival, or something: the "Trafalgar class", but "a Trafalgar-class ship". And I suggest it be taken to the bot request page, where there's at least some hope of changing some minds. (Given past experience, I have real doubt of that, but...)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you say or do, the Powers That Be have made their minds up. BobThePirate (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The current consensus is being challenged at WT:SHIPS. - BilCat (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a discussion going on there, I will copy my reply from there to here: "Frankly I can't believe that I am taking part in a lengthy discussion on the minutiae of hyphens. Whatever the merits or otherwise, I certainly think that having a non-hyphenated title looks better to the eye, (as in "Trafalgar class submarine" rather than "Trafalgar-class submarine). Jane's FS, the Royal Navy and others certainly don't hyphenate so surely that is enough for us not to worry too much about it here? Unless there is a clear consensus with definable and logical reasons given for a change, I think we should just maintain the current status quo (that being no hyphen, although this article has now been changed 3 times in the past few days). There are bigger fish to fry frankly." Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  08:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any decision made yet? BobThePirate (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't the title been fixed yet? I'd do it myself if I knew how. BobThePirate (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Trafalgar Class weapons load
The article states that the T-boats have "Space for a combination of 30 weapons". What is the source for this? As far as I am aware they only have room for a weapons load of 25 torpedoes/missiles. The only way to increase that would be to sail will the tubes also fulled loaded (which would then bring the load upto 30). However even if this were done, it is not usually considered to be a part of the weapons load space. Any comments? Antarctic-adventurer (talk)  09:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IDK what RN practise was, but USN boats (in WW2, anyhow, & I've no reason to believe that's changed) sailed with full tubes, & counted the tube loads. Why wouldn't RN?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Propeller for Trafalgar
For what it's worth, Trafalgar was indeed built with a propeller, as a search of the curiously well informed modelling forums (eg ) will show! Proving it with good references is difficult, given the rather hidden nature of these things. Shem (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User Toddy1 asked me about this on my user talkpage since I was the one who added the comment about Trafalgar having had a conventional propeller, and not a pump-jet propulsor. The original reference source I added to backup this was a webpage, and he urged me to find a more reliable source. When I got back home and referenced my library, I added the latest source (a book-based reference work). I also have at least 5 other books which also reference this as being the case, but I only added the one source. I notice he added a "dubious" tag, which is fine, except I would point out that unless he has a source that says it is dubious, it is just his opinion, and no more valid that any of the referenced works on the subject. So it would seem that there are many sources that say Trafalgar had a propeller, and none so far which claim the opposite.  Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  17:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed in the "dubious tag" edit by Toddy1 he wrote: "The claim that the Trafalgar had a propeller instead of a pump jet is dubious - more reliable sources say that they all had pump jet". What are the more reliable sources? Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  18:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I weigh in to support the modellers? These are guys with meticulous sources, because a lot of them are building dead accurate reproductions. Some of the car guys can cite paint codes! Being able to cite for something so basic as prop/no wouldn't raise a sweat, so if the master modellers are saying it, I tend to believe it, forum or no.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * THis question was answered before you asked it at User_talk:Antarctic-adventurer--Toddy1 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mines on Trafalgar Class subs
Please see my discussion here .I don't think the boats carry mines.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Trafalgar-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/20141109062739/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.13283/changeNav/3533Royal to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.13283/changeNav/3533Royal
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141109054347/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8238/changeNav/3533 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8238/changeNav/3533
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141109053625/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.2981/changeNav/3533 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.2981/changeNav/3533
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110324151148/http://www.navynews.co.uk:80/news/1121-missiles-target-libyan-air-defences.aspx to http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1121-missiles-target-libyan-air-defences.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141016212545/http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1123-royal-navy-blockade-forces-gaddafis-gunboats-off-the-ocean.aspx to http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1123-royal-navy-blockade-forces-gaddafis-gunboats-off-the-ocean.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141109113206/http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1140-top-bombing-pulverises-gaddafis-ammo-bunkers.aspx to http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1140-top-bombing-pulverises-gaddafis-ammo-bunkers.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141109113343/http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1142-home-in-triumph-submariners-mark-successful-libyan-mission.aspx to http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1142-home-in-triumph-submariners-mark-successful-libyan-mission.aspx

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 22:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Some questions/comments
The infobox contains the following information: SSE Mk8 launchers for Type 2066 and Type 2071 torpedo decoys, RESM Racal UAP passive intercept, CESM Outfit CXA, SAWCS decoys carried from 2002

Could someone tell me please what all these abbreviations stand for? I did a little Googling, but couldn't find out: SSE, RESM, UAP, CESM, CXA, SAWCS. I'm thinking maybe that the ESM in RESM and CESM stands for "Electronic Support Measures". If that's the case, what do the R and C stand for?

Brief explanations (and links) in the article of of how these countermeasures work would be useful.

Do the Astutes not use these countermeasures or has this information just not been added to the page for the Astute-class subs?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If you look at the dab page SSE you will see that it includes the entry Submerged signal ejector.
 * RESM would be radar-band electronic support measures.
 * UAP is, I think, just a model designator; you'll see some information at https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/
 * CESM would be Communications Electronic Support Measures
 * CXA is, I think again just a model designator
 * SAWCS is Submarine Acoustic Warfare Control System; information at http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/180/-northrop-grumman-wins-$15.4-million-contract-for-uk-submarine-torpedo-defense-system.html
 * --David Biddulph (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much DB, gives me stuff to look up/Google. Btw what's a "dab" page? Any idea if the Astutes use any of these systems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing "dab" is short for "disambiguation"?

Tenacity 6-part drama
This is BBC's Vigil, isn't it? Suggest updating