Jump to content

Talk:Astute-class submarine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Astute on the shiplift

I have add a link a pic of HMS Astute all most ready —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs).

That's an artist's concept, not the actual shot of the ship itself. John Smith's 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
yes it is it's from the BAE Systems it's going to be launch on 8 June 2007—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs).
We don't need a silly artist's impression. Just leave it out, please. John Smith's 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
it's a Picture read the bit of text below the Picture it say's Astute on the shiplift [Picture courtesy of BAE Systems]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs)
I know what it is! And it's not required! Wait until next month then we will have a real picture. John Smith's 18:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
it will do intill then—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs)
It is a duplicated picture! Look at the first external link - the picture is there as well. Stop spamming the picture or I will have to report you. John Smith's 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
ok report me then—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs)
My apologies. What I meant was, if you continue to revert I will have to report you. You haven't done anything wrong yet. By the way, please sign all your comments. John Smith's 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
ok i put it on HMS Astute (S119) page ok—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs)
If it makes you happy, I won't get involved with it anymore. However I hope you will not insist it stay there after the launch. John Smith's 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
not if there is a better Picture when it is launch then yes change it but it will do for now sorry i wish i put it there frist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs)

fleet submarines

The Astute is what the RN calls fleet submarine (or what US Navy attack submarine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk) 18:36, May 25, 2007?

More ship names

Any details on possible names for hulls 5 onwards? HMS Anson page claims the eighth ship to bear the name HMS Anson will be an Astute-class launched in 2014, is this true or false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.237.25.210 (talk) 21:19, July 28, 2007‎

Complete speculation at the moment. David 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.submarinersassociation.co.uk/docs/InDepthIssue33.pdf, the fifth boat of the ASTUTE class will now be called ANSON, and the sixth AGAMEMNON, reversing what has previously been expected. However, I suggest more official confirmation (e.g. the keel laying on 19 September mentioned in the same item) is forthcoming before the article is updated. Ic451uk (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Now confirmed http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NavysNewestAstuteClassSubmarineNamed.htm Ic451uk (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've renamed the articles in question, and I hope updated the relevant other places where the names are listed. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Further Orders

Who decided it would be a good idea to use The Guardian as a source for saying the order would be restricted to 4 boats? In actuality, long lead items for boats 5,6 and 7 have been ordered already. In defence matters general newspapers(British especially) are rather unreliable sources, especially the Guardian. They even called them ships *sigh* Someone should edit that out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.106.112 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text to make it less factual and more "possible". If you want to you can just remove the text yourself - I wouldn't object. John Smith's (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The latest Defence Committee report says "based on a 7 boat Astute programme, subject to affordability", [1] so what we have now seems about right. Rwendland (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Long lead time items have to be ordered so that construction once given the go ahead isnt unduly delayed, that doesnt however mean that a firm commitment has been made and construction can be cancelled at any time and fabricated parts used as spares or stored for mid life refits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.138.141 (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sensors

There is a rather random selection of sensors on this page. While nobody can deny that the main sonar and the Visual System are notable, why on earth do the Echo Sounders rate three mentions? I don't want to suggest that the Echo Sounders aren't important - all the Combat Systems equipments are important - but there are many more notable systems, such as the Radar, the Environmental Sensors, the Comms system, the Navigation system, etc., etc..

I would suggest that just because somebody knows (or thinks they know - there are no citations for these claims) that a particular system is fitted, that is not necessarily a reason to put it on this page and certainly not necessarily a reason to put it in the summary box, the 'design' section and the 'general characteristics' section. Rather you need to consider whether the system is notable (i.e. is it a particularly important system, like the main sonar, or is it unusual to this vessel, like the Visual System) before it gets put on the page at all. And if it does deserve to be on this page, you need to consider if it is important enough to appear outside the 'General Characteristics' section. I would suggest that only the most important systems deserve to get into the summary box.

81.156.149.231 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Displacement

Some disagreement over displacement. Some sources say 7,200 tonnes, some 7,400, the following give 7,800 (submerged) – See Royal Navy: "When fully stored HMS Astute displaces 7800 tonnes of sea water (equivalent to 65 Blue Whales or nearly 1,000 Double Decker buses);" Defence Procurement Agency: "Dived displacement 7800 tonnes;" BAE Systems: "7800 tonnes submerged;" Defence iQ: "displacement of 7,800 tons submerged;" Naval Technology: "Displacement 7,800t (dived)." GwenChan 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

All BAE press releases after June 2007 state 7,400 tonnes. Successful First Dive for Astute 31 Oct 2007 Astute Leaves for Sea Trials 16 Nov 2009 Two of the best - Dauntless and Astute on sea trials 19 Mar 2010 UK Government Go-Ahead for Fifth and Sixth Astute Submarines 25 Mar 2010 Ic451uk (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment struck, as Ic451uk seems to have cleared this up. GwenChan 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Accidents

This is no place for a list of accidents to affect the class; a quick survey of RN ships and submarines shows that a very limited number of incidents are recorded in class articles, and that's too much (example - HMS Trenchant (S91) sank the FV Antares in 1990 and ran aground off Australia in 1997 - this is not recorded in Trafalgar class submarine, nor should it be.) If HMS Astute (S119) runs aground, that should be in the article on the submarine, not the class. Where do you stop duplicating data? List of submarines of the Royal Navy? Submarine? The grounding is clearly notable in HMS Astute (S119), but not in Astute class submarine. Shem (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, please do not call my rationale nonsense, it is categorically not civil. As I said in my rationale, it is common, Project Manual of Style endorsed, practice on other 'class' articles such as aircraft, locomotives and I would bet even some supercars, to note significant accidents and incidents in the class article. To suggest this is 'duplication' implies people are going to waste their time opening every single boat/ship article to find a list of accidents and incidents for the class - this is patently absurd, and not an example of harmful duplication at all. The info in this class article was a proper, short summary, of the detailed info contained in the actual boat article. As you point out, the practice is even already done on some other ship class articles. If you think there has been a prior discussion to specifically not do this for ships, please show me where, because it is not barred by the Ship Project MoS, and I think you individual argument is pretty weak, and all you are doing here is starting an edit war [2][3], and creating straw men (when did I ever attempt to add this to list of RN submarines for example?) I will not return the violation by carrying on your edit war, and I will instead do what you should have done, and requested a Third Opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Third Opinion. (I'm just a regular editor offering my opinion. Feel free to listen or ignore as you see fit). I think in principle it is useful to have a list of accidents in the class articles. Many factors that lead to accidents relate to the design of vessels or the way they are operated, rather than to unique characteristics of the particular vessel that had the accident, so it adds value to have a view of the accident history at class level. Of course given the short history of this class there isn't a lot to write about so far as far as accidents go, but all the same I think this material should be left in the article. Thparkth (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Thparkth has a point with the idea that many accidents are caused by something that is common to the class. However, I think that any accidents that are listed on the "class-level" article should be accidents that were caused by some aspect that is demonstrably common to the class, and that common aspect should be discussed along with the description of the accident. Accidents that were caused by a unique flaw in one type of ship (or a flaw in one particular ship), where that flaw is not common to the overall class, do not belong in the class level article. SnottyWong speak 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. We should wait until the cause is determined. If it was some fault with the ship's navigation equipment etc. then it is a class wide issue & needs a mention on this article. If it was an error by the ship's crew then it does not. Mark83 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't it? What possible reason is there to expect readers to have to open 7, 10, 20 individual ship articles, instead of including a brief summary list in the class article, just because it wasn't class related? This looks like simple obstruction to the reader, for zero benefit to the encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well it seems to me there is a general consensus that class-wide issues (such as the "trouser leg" issue affecting the Trafalgar class submarine) should be at the class page, while accidents affecting individual submarines and not attributable to a class defect should be at the individual submarine article. It seems sensible and encyclopaedic, and I'm assuming this to be a valid Third Opinion (and Fourth & Fifth, actually). I'll make the changes. Shem (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Christ. You don't even know the cause even is yet, and yet you've just used this 'class fault' rationale to remove it a third time. All this for a two line section. God knows what you will do if there were any more incidents, and someone created the article List of Astute class submarine accidents and incidents, which despite what you seem to think, would be a more than notable topic for a list, per WP:LISTS. Although the more sensible reader would ask, why isn't it just hosted here? I bet you would even stop someone including that link as a See Also in this article, although again, God only knows why. Duplication has to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard for excluding a two line section from an article like this, rendering it completely and utterly devoid of any indication whatsoever for the first time reader that the incident ever occured, in full expectation that they are understanding enough to realise what they are expected to do to collate such info once the class really gets going. I won't bother asking again what the actual, reader focused, sensible, reason behind this removal is, I know when I am being given the run around. I deliberately avoided the use of the term 'encyclopoedic' because it is well known that on Wikipedia, that has about a hundred different meanings, depending on who you ask. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, it is a 2-line section. Relax. It's unlikely that 4 other editors are conspiring to "give you the run around". Whether or not it's perceived as "encyclopedic" is less important than whether or not there is consensus for it. I think everyone will agree that if the 2-line section remained in this article, it wouldn't be the end of the world. What we're trying to prevent, however, is establishing a precedent that can and will become problematic once the class really gets going. Duplication and redundancy are a slippery slope, and are not appropriate in all cases. If we allow duplication of accidents in the class article, then what is stopping us from duplicating those accidents again at Submarine, Royal Navy, Ship, Watercraft, Craft (vehicle), Vehicle, etc. What criteria do you use to draw the line? SnottyWong yak 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What criteria? How about 'it would be incredibly stupid, nobody would ever do it, and nobody ever even said they wanted to do it'. You claim there is consensus here, fine, but it's pretty obvious that nobody here has really considered the actual impact on the reader of completely ignoring accidents and incidents in this article. It's a classic case of editors editting for editors not readers. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong has a point here. Of the Swiftsure class four had incidents, some minor some major. None of which are listed at Swiftsure class submarine. To do so would involve a sizeable section in that article. Providing a thorough account in each boat's article is the way to go in my opinion. Mark83 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
A sizeable section? Four sentences at most. In contrast to readers not having a bloody clue about it at all when reading the class article, unless they click HMS Sceptre (S104), HMS Swiftsure (S126), HMS Sovereign (S108), HMS Superb (S109), HMS Spartan (S105) and HMS Splendid (S106). I can't even be bothered to check if those articles all have a consistently named Accidents section, let alone find and read about the specific incidents themselves. I think the only way to describe such a ludicrous arrangement of content is suboptimal. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
"Four sentences as most."?? To describe nuclear propulsion & collision incidents? Very doubtful. Mark83 (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
To summarize, not describe. Just like what used to be in this article. Two sentences here, two paragraphs at Astute 119. Simple. MickMacNee (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The principle is that this is a page about the class; class-wide problems should go here. Issues with particular submarines should go at the articles on those submarines. A reader wanting to find out about the grounding of HMS Astute will go to the article on the subject, and if he comes here first, he'll find it's only a click away. Reader-centric editing is what we're aiming for - try typing "Astute grounding" into the search box, and you'll see what I mean. And it's a bit rich to seek another opinion and then gripe away when they don't agree with you. Shem (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2010 (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) 22:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This RN page describes the armament of the T boats (the only current RN SSNs). - David Biddulph (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't remember exactly where I saw them now, but I have seen several sources detailing this and one article explaining the rationale for removing the sub-harpoon from the inventory. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but I feel a source must be added. Onthe RN's web page, they still list the Harpoon as in service on the Trafalgar SSNs[1] Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/weapon-systems/harpoon/index.htm
I notice that your link also says that it's in service on the Swiftsures. :-) - David Biddulph (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, well yes but there's no absolute source that says the RN doesn't use sub-launched Harpoons anymore. Theerrfore, for the wiki pages of the Trafalgar and Swiftsure SSNs, I placed citation needed. Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 13:59, 8 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)
Thanks a lot for that link. Have been looking around for ages. Shall i put it onthe main article page? Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that the source claims that Harpoon will still be launched from air and surface units - when the air launched Harpoon capability is now gone with Nimrod, and the new Type 45 Destroyers are fitted "for but not with" Harpoons. Seems like this capability might quietly disappear from the fleet.BobThePirate (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the Hansard entry only says that the Harpoons were planned to be withdawn from service. It also says that Astute would have the capability to fire Harpoons. Do we know if they have that capability? John Smith's (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why I am doubtful on the wiki entries on the Trafalgar and Switftsure SSNs that state that the Harpoon is a "former" weapon. But without any other definite source, the Hansard written question adds something. Thanks again to Shem1805. Wikipeida is generally not reliable (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Not withstanding all the chaff on the internet about Astute and sub harpoon, have a look at this article from Navy Matters ("It is currently planned that the Astute Class will also have the capability to fire the Sub-Harpoon anti-surface warfare (ASuW) weapon developed by McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Company (now part of Boeing). Sub-Harpoon is an anti-ship sea-skimming missile with maximum velocity in excess of 0.8 mach and range in excess of 70 miles. However, the existing Sub-Harpoon inventory is due to be withdrawn by the end of 2003 on the grounds that it is ill-suited to littoral operations and subject to restrictive rules of engagement. It is still being considered whether RN submarines should retain a capability to fire the new Harpoon Block 2 missile which has increased capability.") Shem (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, with all the sources including Hansard there is no definitive answer. With or without harpoon on Astutes or T45s they will still be fitted in the T23 frigates so the RN will still maintain a capability. There aren't enough missiles to go around the fleet anyway, so a lot of the 8 tubes on most T23s are actually empty. Still that it doesn't address the question of whether the Astutes can or will use sub-harpoon. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? I'd say two reliable sources say that Astute is capable of firing sub harpoon, but that the Royal Navy doesn't have any. I'd say that's pretty clear, actually. Shem (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
How reliable is Navy Matters is arguing that the Harpoon is not suited for littoral waters? the US Navy's SSNs are still armed with them and are planned for littoral combat. to Antartic, yes the Type 23s are the sole "owners" of Harpoons now. But that's not "plenty"to go aroud 13x8 tubes. Foxhound66 (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0037.html is this trustworthy--it says sub-harpoons are still launched Foxhound66 (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not have been trustworthy when it was written, but it's obviously not up to date. It refers to "... and the remaining Swiftsure Class submarines." - David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How do i edit the weapons info box?

How do i edit the weapons info box?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Astute class weaponry? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ungratefulness.Phd8511 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Hansard records had changed the url. The They Work For You entry was just repeating the information in their own format and gave the new link on that page. Your link also lost the information about when it was said and by who. Although the Hansard link was dead, the remaining info would allow readers to find the original. If the They Work For You url had changed it would have been difficult to find out what the source had said at the time. There's a commentary on the subject Wikipedia:Bare URLs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
At least I bothered to find a link. No thanks.Phd8511 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've made 400+ edits in the last 30 days, tens of kilobytes of contributed text and hundreds of citations - I haven't been thanked once in that time. All I can say is, don't expect praise for every little edit made, else you will be disappointed over and over when it does not come; thanks is something that comes rarely and unexpectedly, not on cue. Kyteto (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Speed

What should we say about the speed of the class. Contenders are:

  • Royal Navy website in 2013 "up to 30 knots"[4]
  • Guardian quoting MoD in 2012: "capable of speeds in excess of 20 knots… although her top speed is classified."[5]
  • Guardian: "MoD boasted the Astute would be able to make 29 knots when the submarine was commissioned"[6]
  • Telegraph/Guardian: "it is unable to reach its intended top speed" "apparent mismatch between the nuclear reactor plant and the steam turbine sets, putting the submarine speed below par "[7][8]

What should we do? I'd suggest saying "20+ knots" or "20-30 knots". Rwendland (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

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/features/feature1224/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/
    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 10:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 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 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ajax name

There is a discussion on the HMS Ajax (S125) talk page about the name of the 7th boat of the Astute class. Please don't make changes here until a consensus has been reached there. - theWOLFchild 11:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

at Talk:HMS Ajax (S125). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Boat 7 HAS ALWAYS BEEN BOAT 7

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/march/18/160318-hms-artful

"HMS Astute, HMS Ambush, and now Artful, are the first of the Class to be accepted by Navy Command, which is responsible for operating all of the Royal Navy's vessels. The next two submarines in the Class, Audacious and Anson, are currently being built in Barrow, with Agamemnon and the unnamed Boat 7 to follow."

Do I have to say it out to you frogs in the well? Other sources erroneously call it Ajax!

Phd8511 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down, the all caps/'shouting' is not necessary. As has already been discussed at Talk:HMS Ajax (S125), there are plenty of sources that state both ways and there has been no definite or conclusive proof to resolve the dispute either way. The article has long been titled "Ajax" and there is no consensus to change it. There is no need to get upset about this, it isn't hurting anything or anyone and it'll get sorted out sooner or later. Just relax. - theWOLFchild 03:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astute-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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

Is this an article or a press release? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the question, if that makes sense! There are some NPOV issues in the language. I inserted a section on accidents, which might be part of restoring some balance. Similar issues in other military articles, e.g. on F35.

TonyClarke (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Despite the euphemistic Americanisms I couldn't help dissolving into giggles about the vaunted "efficiency" of the builders being followed by the usual litany of incompetence, negligence, corruption, unconscionable delays and vast cost inflation. :)) Thanks

for today's additions, all that and they were written in English too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astute-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:

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) 03:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astute-class_submarine/Archive_1&oldid=1136535555"