Template talk:Astute class weaponry

Naval mines?
Is there a reference for naval mines? I wasn't aware that there were any in the UK inventory, so where will she get them from? Shem (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Harpoon
I've removed Harpoon. The ref ref for Astute's commissioning confirms that the armament is Spearfish & TLAM. David Biddulph (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

38?
The Royal Navy fact file doest say up to 38 weaponsOther dictionaries are better (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know - at the same time as you were adding this comment, I removed the reference. I'm fairly sure it used to say so, but I imagine it's been removed from the RN website. I've put another reference in. Shem (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There seemed to be continuing confusion. I reverted a change from 38 to 36;  the statement I read on the referenced page says "A total of 38 weapons, including Spearfish torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles, can be carried.", so I'm not sure where the 36 comes from.  If there were any lingering doubt, a number of more official sources can be found with a Google search. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. Shem (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/--"There is capacity for a total of 36 torpedoes and missiles" This is the source which you guys referencedOther dictionaries are better (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your link is broken. The link in the template says 38. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh I meant this. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/ (copy and paste error)Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrected link. The number in the ref currently given in the template is supported by numerous official sources, so seems more credible unless we find support for the number given on the page you quoted.  Other official sources quote numbers as large as 58, but I think we can safely discount that as a misprint. :-) - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the reference should be changed. Currently you refer ("up to 38") with reference to naval-technology.com (which you now say is not accurate) So you should changing it to an official source.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, & done. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)