Navy's new "Pointless Frigates"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by wave_dodger, May 25, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    A colleague pointed this out to me Lewis Page writes yet more drivel, its pretty amazing that someone can write such ill-informed, opinionated rubbish and still expect to be regarded as a serious journalist!

    I love the picture of the T23 with a "30mm for DHOWS", he managed to count the Harpoons but clearly became confused with the VLS Seawolf's :lol:

    And then our expert spouts "Rather, its (a frigate) main job - if it can really be said to have one - is hunting submarines. However, this is actually done almost entirely by the frigate's helicopter*. Anti-submarine helicopters can be (and often are) operated at sea in larger numbers and much more cheaply aboard fleet-auxiliary vessels, so it's hard to see why you would bother buying expensive frigates for this purpose".

    Now there it is, the experience of his PWO training and extensive time on DD/FFs. We hunt sub surface contacts entirely by HELO, never use the Towed Array Sonar, or the Hull Mounted Sonar (or other, CESM, SIGINT assets)...so therefore we can use RFAs and get rid of frigates entirely. :eek:

    Then our illustrious educator has a crack at Harpoon "But eight Harpoons isn't an amount of punch you would need a several-thousand-ton ship with a crew in three figures to carry. Eight Harpoons would call for a fast-attack boat, or a corvette at best. And frankly, given that you're going to need aircraft to find or confirm the far-away targets to begin with, it makes more sense to deliver the munitions by air as well. Carrier jets are a much more sensible option here than frigates: helicopters can also carry powerful air-to-surface weapons."

    I think there are more, and better, ways of identifying OTH targets than that these days. Smacks of a lack of currency and even imagination!

    And displaying signs of utter fantasy: "In general, in a hypothetical battle between a Type 26 combat ship and an unarmed enemy merchant ship carrying several helicopters to the 26's single one, the merchant ship will probably win as it can keep aircraft flying round the clock. The merchant ship can also do a better job at hunting subs, for the same reason."

    So, as the Frigates zipps around at XX knots, slapping Harpoon at the unarmed merchant ship before it can get its helo's airborne; or while its busy engagiong them with Seawolf!! I'd rather be on the frigate...plus has Mr Page even considered the personnel required to support, operate and maintain several armed helicopters from a ship - ah that would be OCEAN!

    More deluded rambling, "A frequent justification for frigates and destroyers is that you need them to protect carriers, but the fact of the matter is that carriers can protect themselves on their own far better than the escort ships can."

    So, a carrier with a limited AA capability, no towed array of its own- doesn't need escorts? So the entire US Carrier Battlegroup concept is wrong, Lewis has said so!

    The final ramblings are interested; “Type 26 is a key component in sustaining a surface warship capability in UK industry," says BAE's surface-warship chief Alan Johnston", Or in other words we need to have some frigates so as to avoid closing our frigate yards, so that we will be able to have even more frigates in future. Tail wags dog: ice-cream licks itself"

    In this Page may have had a credible argument but I don't agree with his stance. At the height of WW2 we were churning out a submarine every 4 weeks, surface ships of varying types in generally 4-6 weeks. These days ships (and aircraft) are so incredibly complex they take years to design and build even if you ignore the MoD contractual snags. Do we or don't we want an organic UK industrial capacity? I suggests its in our national interests to ensure we do, yet Mr Page clearly isn't so sure.
     
  2. He's a clown. Not for the first time he has made himself look a tit to anyone with even a basic understanding of Naval Warfare and RN capability.

    He also writes like an 11 year old.
     
  3. BRILLIANT!!!! What a load of old fart! Made me laugh though; if a little frustrated too.
     
  4. His CV is somewhat worrying...

     
  5. Guns

    Guns War Hero Moderator

    Must. Not. Swear.........F":*ing C&*K

    I really would like to meet him and discuss his ramblings. He has no idea of current maritime operations, is limited in his Naval experience and I suspect some PWO off a FF/DD did his misuses when he was at sea. It can be the only reason I can think of.
     
  6. I had the misfortune to train this feckin cretin on his LMCDO's course, his Daddy was something big in the Telegraph, can't remember what, but this cnut was a typical silver spooned feckin hurah.

    I tried to have him removed from training but was over-ruled, I took solace in the fact that I personally would never have to serve any where near the twat.

    I can't be arsed to explain just how big a cnut this twat is.
     
  7. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

  8. hmmm a few more threads with carefully chosen keywords and we might get the Rum Ration threads about Mr Page to appear first in search engine rankings....

    Not a problem W_D, interesting to see reactions from people who missed the first thread ;)
     
  9. Ha ha - never even served on an FF\DD
     
  10. I can see what FF/DD stand for, but why FF and DD? Why not just F and D?

    Bone questions R us...
     
  11. I say build more carriers, we will need them when we get the aircraft back from the crabs they have been borrowing for 90 odd years!!!
     
  12. As with many things, we and NATO have followed US Navy policy:

    USN Ship Designations

     

Share This Page