Navy's new "Pointless Frigates"


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) 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 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.


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.


Lantern Swinger
Montigny-La-Palisse said:
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.
His CV is somewhat worrying... said:
Armed Forces Career:

University Air Squadron, RAF 1988-91

Royal Navy officer 1993-2004

* Navigator, HMS Quorn 1994-96
* Long Mine Clearance Diving Officer course 1996-97
* Ops Officer, HMS Middleton 1997-98
* All-arms Commando course 1997
* Executive Officer, HMS Bridport 1998-01
* Officer in Charge, Southern Diving Unit One 2001-04
* Joint Improvised Explosive Device Disposal No. 1 Operator course 2001


Cambridge University (Engineering degree 1988-91, St John's College)
Islington Green Comprehensive


War Hero
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.


War Hero
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.


Lantern Swinger
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 ;)


Lantern Swinger
I can see what FF/DD stand for, but why FF and DD? Why not just F and D?

Bone questions R us...
Toucan said:
I can see what FF/DD stand for, but why FF and DD? Why not just F and D?

Bone questions R us...
As with many things, we and NATO have followed US Navy policy:

USN Ship Designations said:
Nomenclature History

Warships in the United States Navy were first designated and numbered in system originating in 1895. Under this system, ships were designated as "Battleship X", "Cruiser X", "Destroyer X", "Torpedo Boat X" and so forth where X was the series hull number as authorized by the US Congress. These designations were usually abbreviated as "B-1", "C-1", "D-1", "TB-1," etc. This system became cumbersome by 1920, as many new ship types had been developed during World War I that needed new categories assigned, especially in the Auxiliary ship area. On 17 July 1920, the designation system was revised so that all ships were now designated with a two letter code and a hull number, with the first letter being the ship type and the second letter being the sub-type. For example, the destroyer tender USS Melville, first commissioned as "Destroyer Tender No. 2" in 1915, was now re-designated as "AD-2" with the "A" standing for Auxiliary, the "D" for Destroyer (Tender) and the "2" meaning the second ship in that series. Ship types that did not have a subclassification simply repeated the first letter. So, Battleships became "BB-X" and Destroyers became "DD-X" with X being the same number as previously assigned. Ships that changed classifications were given new hull numbers within their new designation series...

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts