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. 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; â€œType 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.