Jump to content

Talk:HMS Daring (D32)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BAE Systems yard at Scotstoun?

[edit]

I assume that "BAE Systems yard at ScotstounBAE Systems yard at Scotstoun" refers to BAE Marine YSL? Alai 00:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shipbuilding?

[edit]

Is there any real shipbuilding left in the N.E. of England? Or anywhere in England for that matter?

e mail systems

[edit]

All current FF/DD's in the RN have e mail systems and some allow all members to browse the internet, so this is not the first ship to be so fitted. --

ipod charging point

[edit]

Hmm, ipod charging point = POWER SOCKET! The media interest over it is just ridiculous

Phalanx fitting?

[edit]

Why are the "2 x Phalanx CIWS (to be fitted by 2011-2015)" listed in the "provision for and fitted with" section when they are not actually fitted yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.88.72 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Fixed. Shem (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The article seems to be biased towards the Daring/Royal Navy. For example, the claim that the ship is the most advanced anti-aircraft in the world is completely unsupported and does not cite any kind of source, the radar system is described as "world-beating", etc. The entire article is written more like a patriotic news article than an encyclopaedic article.

Claiming it as "the most advanced anti-aircraft in the world" is even more ridiculous considering that its main anti-aircraft missiles are still undergoing testing and yet to be fitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.88.72 (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisitus 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, TheMongoose 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, the only people qualified to speak on her capabilities are the Royal Navy and BAE, until she sees combat we cannot know how she'll stand up. As a British man, I feel safer at nights with her around though ;-) 77.99.233.169 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the only people qualified to speak on her capabilities are the Royal Navy and BAE" That is why I guess the only source for this dubious sentence is the Times90.9.24.105 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brought to you by the same folks that gave the world the Sheffield class (Type 42) - oh yeah, sleep safe Brits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more balanced view would be to include some kind words from another UK newspaper, The Register (to be honest, have no idea if this is a New York Times or New York Post, but considering this is Wiki - who cares!):
"There's nothing wrong with buying stuff from overseas, of course, particularly missiles. Britain has never really acquired the ability to build proper guided weapons that genuinely work. The performance of the all-Brit Sea Dart and Sea Wolf missiles in the Falklands was embarrassing, and nowadays they are completely obsolete*. PAAMS should be a big improvement, though it certainly doesn't dominate "hundreds of miles" of airspace. It can knock down low-flying stuff out to 20 miles at most, and higher-flying targets to perhaps 75.
"Still, though, we could have bought cheaper. And better, and bigger - all at the same time. Consider the 9,000 ton uprated "Flight IIA" Arleigh Burke class destroyers now coming into US naval service. They carry two helicopters to the Type 45's one, and 96 missiles to the Type 45's 48. They can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets hundreds of miles inland, too - typically the main useful employment for surface warships in modern wars. The American ships bristle with other useful weapons, and can be upgraded to shoot down Scud-type ballistic missiles of the type favoured by rogue states.
"By contrast the Type 45 is a one-trick pony which will only be of any serious use in the event of another Falklands War scenario where a big fleet is caught without proper air cover. Other than PAAMS, all it has is some rather unimpressive gun mounts."
In case there are those who protest that this article is dated compared the "London Times" article cited in this article, this story is dated about eleven months after the Times article so presumably trumps it. At a unit price maybe twice that of a Burke, these bad boys look like a really good deal. Sleep tight Brits!

In answer: 1. Can't fire TLAM - that's what submarines are for, to sneak up under water and fire deep into enemy territory, as opposed to a surface ship, even the USN has refitted SLBMs to fire TLAMS instead! 2. 48 missiles seems plenty, if they can be replenished at sea. 3. 2 helicopters, as opposed to 2 ships carrying 1 heli, what's the difference? 4. Dominate the sky - well can AEGIS track a surface skimmer more than 20 miles out? So what's the point of more missile range. 5. About the Sheffield (poor taste considering that people DIED in the Falklands BTW), well I could say the Perry class was also useless against Exocets, and that in 1991 a Type-42 actually saved an American ship from an Iraqi missile 6. Sea Dart and Sea Wolf are tested and proven even in 2011 - Edinburgh has been extended in life. Again, there were PLENTY of successes in the Falklands, and by mentioning something not relevant to this article you are showing yourself up as an ignorant yank, which is an embarrassment to you country.

Conclusion = yes the Type-45 is claimed to be the best, and by current knowledge it is deserving of that claim. And yes they cost a lot, but you guys have the advantages of industrial might, that's all. Stop bashing the Brits under an IP or a discredited user name. Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.223 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa football club

[edit]

The affiliations for HMS Daring are listed at the Royal Navy Website. While some liaison between ship and team are attested in the media, that doesn't, as far as I can see, make it an official affiliation. I welcome a properly referenced correction! Shem (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... this whole "other" section is just pure junk, the one ref does not by any means support the claim that the ship and crew have "close ties" with the team... indeed, I doubt they're even aware of such a claim. I've added tags to ask for clear verification of these claims. If none are forthcoming I wouldn't have a problem just removing the entire dubious section quite speedily; particularly in view of the time it has remained unchallenged thus far. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sub section removed as per above... I think 11 years is quite long enough for unsourced nonsense like that.M R G WIKI999 (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gym facilities

[edit]

I've removed the short section on gym facilities. It used to read:

Another feature will be the introduction of a dedicated multi-gym on board, necessitated by the fact that, due to the structure of the ship, it is impossible to run continuously around the deck for exercise.

Clearly it is unverified, and therefore subject to removal. It is speculative, and it is inaccurate. Every RN ship of any size has some form of gym, and many of them are "dedicated", whatever that means. HMS Scott has 3 "dedicated gyms" on board. It is impossible to run round a Type 22, due to the structure of the ship - Daring at least has a massive flight deck, making it valuable for exercise when the ship isn't at flying stations. Ships that do have continuous decks also have "dedicated" gyms. The whole paragraph is errant nonsense, but far more importantly, it isn't even notable. Shem (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shem. I agree with you that the multi-gym paragraph isn't notable. Not even a little bit notable. And what is a multi-gym, and how does a multi-gym differ from common or garden gym?. I presume (with no evidence in support), that this ship class was the first British warship to be designed since female sailors began to serve at sea. As such, gym facilities would be designed accordingly, as would accommodation, rather than adapted as in older designs. That might be worth considering as notable. Where I differ with you is the tone you adopted over the mention of the enclosed structure of the ship. I thought it insulting, and your comments were not addressed to me. Anyone with eyes that function can see that the stealth design eliminates a continuous circuit of the deck. While it's true that other ships in other navies, the Type 22 and others are similar in that respect, it may be a reasonable comment to make in a well-structured article. Why that should be worthy of the verification put down escapes me. Next thing we'll have someone on these pages demanding 'verification' that the ship/boat is painted. And painted grey. 217.42.218.28 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking a gym (short for gymnasium) is just a room, albeit one dedicated to sporting activity. A multi-gym is a piece of kit that enables a number of different exercises to be done on the apparatus, some single user examples shown here and some multiple user ones here. The point is to maximise the variety of exercises that can be done in a given space. That might be significant if the facility to exercise outdoors is more limited than before.
Given that a gym is a room I would not be surprised if, on a warship, the room is used for other purposes some of the time. So a dedicated gym would be one that can only be used for sport/exercise. Given that a multi-gum is a piece of kit then it is by definition dedicated. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First all-electric?

[edit]

I've just reverted an edit that claimed that Daring is "the first ship in the world with an all-electric ... power system i.e. it has no gearbox". This is bunkum, of course. See ships such as USS Langley (CV-1). Furthermore, the source given says that she is "the first front-line warship to use all-electric propulsion", which is not what the edit says, and is also demonstrably false. In any case, such claims should probably go in Type 45 destroyer rather than this article. Shem (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there must be some sort of obscure caveat to that statement. Jhbuk (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I reverted at the same time the (unverified) claim that she is the most fuel efficient ship in the Royal Navy, which is patently false (compare Ocean and Scott with their medium-speed diesels) and would have to be hedged around with caveats anyway (measure it in kg of fuel per nautical mile, and a small ship - a patrol boat for example - will win every time). The revert also got rid of some video clip links - see WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Shem (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iPod Docks and Charging Points

[edit]

I doubt the T45 has got iPod docks and charging points. This is press misunderstanding. Standard 3-pin power points and 3.5mm aux inputs maybe. iPod docks? Nah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.68.211 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, this would appear to be the only really superior capability that this class offers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry off?

[edit]

The heraldry for the crest reads: "On a Field Black, an arm and a hand in a cresset of fire all Proper." Shouldn't that be: "On a Field Sable...?" Or am I doing that wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.215.14 (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

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/news/news122572.html
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newshms-daring-to-participate-in-ballistic-defence-trials-with-us
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b 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 12:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Daring (D32). 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on HMS Daring (D32). 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:

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

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Daring_(D32)&oldid=1213116093"