Talk:List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theList of frigate classes of the Royal Navy article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In what article was the Future Surface Combatant lised as "Type 44 (Emerald class)" it was only really a study so it should stay under the title Future Surface Combatant. "Type 44" doesnt even follow the previous types of the royal navy frigates it would either of been a "type 24 or type 25". "type 44" is also too close to the naming of the "type 45 destroyer" so i doubt it would of been used. Also i thought that it was in the early building stages of ships that they were actually given names and this only continued to be a study. i have also searched the internet for evidence of this and have found none.Corustar12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That type 44 was about the horizon common frigate i found a website mentioning it. Well the is a quote from a navy spokesman saying "its not common and its not a frigate" because it was being designed for Anti Air Warfare and not Anti Submarine Warfare. Why would the navy skip twenty type numbers when they had been following the system for twenty years.Also the navy didnt actually count the horizon common frigate as a frigate.I think it should be left as Future Surface Combatant with out type number or class name.By the type system the Future Surface combatant would of been based on surface warfare and anti submarine warfare like the type 21,22,23 while the horizon common frigate was based more on anti air warfare which went agaisnt the norm of royal navy designations.Corustar12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its obvious they are different projects they were being designed for different roles from reading on the internet today ive found that a type 43 destroyer refered to a type 42 ship with a sea dart on the rear and the landing pad in the centre and the (CNG) because of its role as a AAW was given the type number 44 if thats the case when it was cancelled that led to the type 45 class destroyer which leads us to the present destroyers. So the current frigate replacement no matter its working title is still only a paper study. It still has data from the RV triton trials completed several years ago so it may either be a type 45 derivative or it could turn out to be a trimaran design. Also the FSC project seems to of been a purely British project and the CNG was multinational.Corustar12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes it was cancelled but there still seems to be studies going on but under different names ie medium vessel derivative,global corvette so something may actually come out of one of those projects. its a shame really these projects used to all be mentioned on the mod website but after the last white paper they were removed as was alot of army and raf projects. i think any replacement for the type 22 batch 3's and type23's is going to be a long way off especially with money being spent on cost over runs of the astute and type 45 then theres the new CVF to pay for. so the navy has chosen to SLEP the type 23's to extend there service lives.Corustar12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC) sorry didnt know how to add name.[reply]
As this is a page concerned with frigate classes, rather than individual ships, would it perhaps make more sense to separate theList of sail frigates of the Royal Navy section of the article into its own page, as it has the potential to become very long.Martocticvs17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. You will see that I have greatly expanded the list of frigate CLASSES to encompass all from 1748 up to the steam era. But it would make more sense to separate out theList of sail frigates of the Royal Navy section of the article into its own page, as you suggest. Please create the page and its appropriate links, and I will put in individual entries. It should end up, I hope, something like theList of French sail frigates page.Rif Winfield18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Surprise that has just been added to the list of sail frigates a genuine vessel or the fictional one? There are no references at all in the article, so this and the other statements can't be checkedViv Hamilton21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a genuine frigate - but I have corrected the date from 1794 to 1796; this former French frigate was captured by theInconstant on 20 April 1796. If you want more detailed references, see p.225 of my 1793-1817 book referenced in the article.Rif Winfield18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that this article has now been re-titled "HMS Surprise (1796)" which is more accurate. The convention you mention of using launch dates is fine for vessels that were built for the British Navy, but not for ships acquired (by capture or purchase) after they were originally built; in those cases it is the date of acquisition which counts. Otherwise you would have some extremely misleading entries, with vessels being listed under a date many years or even decades before they entered RN service.
Let me quote one example. During the 1793-1814 Wars, two Spanish frigates were captured and commissioned into British service under the name HMSHamadryad. The first was the ex-SpanishNinfa, built in 1794-95 at Mahon and captured by the RN in April 1797; she served several months as HMSHamadryad before being wrecked on Christmas Day 1797. The second ship to bear the nameHamadryad was captured in October 1804. This was the ex-SpanishSanta Matilda, built at Havana in 1778; she became the second HMSHamadryad and was in British service until 1815. If launch dates only was the criterion, the ex-Santa Matilda was launched long before the ex-Ninfa, but was undoubtedly the second HMSHamadryad chronologically. I'm sure you would take the point.Rif Winfield13:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the assessments under MILHIST and SHIP. The assessment pages of both projects state that lists are assessed as for other articles (other than progressing to featured list). The assessment should not be NA, which should be used for templates and disambiguation pages that do not need assessing.Viv Hamilton08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be 1799 or 1800 instead?--Filll 12:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Should be 1800, as the prototypeLeda was launched on18 November1800. Thanks, I have corrected this.Rif Winfield15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is missing from the list of frigates. Her is her individual information:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Naiad_(1797)— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.201.133.223 (talk)16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1794 Artois Class. Is there any information on the fate of this ship?Geoffreybrooks (talk)17:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this section of the article really add anything? It is incomplete and seems to only repeat information given earlier in a more useful manner.Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
