Talk:Frigate/Archive 1

Frigates before modern USN
''can someone add something to do with frigates before the modern US navy apparently invented them? not that there were warships before the 20th c. or anything''

(originally on The_Epopt homepage:)

Hi Epopt --

Sorry for ranting on your frigate page. i don't even know if you're American, but for the life of me I can't see why you started with current bloody American warships. Do you know how many times I have to excuse Americans for their insularity to my European friends? Sorry -- it's just that I kind of expected something about naval warfare when I read it -- and unfortunately, in my mind, the first thing I see is Trafalgar -- not big friggin' grey metal hulks. Did see a Trident once, though...VERY impressive. About two miles off, and the conn tower still looked enormous. Done ranting now, Sorry...but could you please round out your ship articles to reflect the bigger picture? JHK

Um, I think that we need to completely seperate the two frigate pages, one for actual sailing frigates (ending with the ironclad frigates, and second we need to have one for modern frigates. Not only do modern frigates and sailing frigates have virtualy nothing to do with each other, not in role, not in evolution, and not in design of contruction, most people who are interested in one, don't really care about the other.

second, we should probably include a picture of The USS constition on top, because she is one of the few actual sailing frigates left, and appearance wise she's a classic example.

also, i think this goes for all kinds of ship articles, i really think that someone needs to research life abord a sailing frigate and add it to the article, many kids looking up the information might want that. (likewise for a ship of the line) most people who read about these ships probably don't quite understand how crowded, noisy, messy, and quite frankly disgusting life can be aboard naval ships. Now often did they show up in port? what were their berthing accomodations like? pictures might help if anyone can visit USS constition or some other extant frigate and take some. Where did they eat? etc.74.138.203.143 (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a bloody blast! Not only is this, in theory, at least, a collaborative effort, but you're also not paying me enough to stay up late tonight to finish this article to your specifications.

Sorry Epopt --

If you've seen some of the crap I have to deal with, you'll understand the impatience, I hope. The articles are very good -- I just think they should have more info than the somewhat narrow definition you've provided (which is very well-written and informative). Just hoping you'll add to it later, since you obviously have more than a clue about this stuff. Again, my apologies. Shouldn't log on when worn to a frazzle fighting the unwinnable.

Frigates of Trafalgar
My apologizes for the snippy and boldface reply. I will expand this and the other ship-type pages over the next few days. But if you know something about the frigates of Trafalgar, please add it! --The Epopt
 * I wish I knew more -- used to be good on the Napoleonic wars. Now, I can't even remember if Nelson was on a Frigate or a ship of the line... :-( JHK

HMS Victory and Oldest commissioned ship
HMS Victory is a ship of the line. - not a frigate


 * See! I knew it was one or the other, but not sure enough!  Thanks, rmherman!

HMS Victory was built in 1750's so it is older than the USF Constitution. And why is it USF not USS? --rmhermen


 * Sure, it's older, but is it still under commission? And it's USF, "United States Frigate," because that's how it was designated "Back In The Day," and the Navy is rather tradition-bound, so they haven't changed it. :) -- EdwardOConnor


 * Actually, let me partially take that back. It seems like it can be written USF or USS.


 * Actually it is always "USS." In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt signed a law requiring that the names of all commissioned ships of the United States Navy be prefaced with the qualifier "United States Ship" or the initials "U.S.S."  Before then, "USS" was common, but not universal, with other designators like "United States Frigate," "United States Bark," "United States Navy Ship" (please note that this is not the same as the "United States Naval Ship" which prefaces the names of modern vessels of the Military Sealift Command), etc.
 * Iceberg3k 12:52, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the US Navy's Official site for Constitution, she is the oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world. (See http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/shiphistoryx.htm) So I stand by my original statement.

The second oldest warship afloat is British. See http://www.hms.org.uk/bestlinks.htm

-From the page you mention: The official website of HMS VICTORY which is the oldest commissioned warship in the world, and is still manned by Officers and Ratings of the Royal Navy. She is now the flagship of the Second Sea Lord and Commander in Chief Naval Home Command.

So certainlstill under commission and older than the Constitution. I don't know how the US Navy justifies its claim. --rmhermen


 * But is she afloat? I thought Victory was in drydock. Constitution is in Boston Harbor.

- I think you've got it. Pretty strange to have a flagship in drydock but so it is. --rmhermen

Indeed, USS Constitution is the oldest floating warship - HMS Victory was damaged beyond economical repair by Nazi bombs during the Second World War, but the Royal Navy's pride in her is too great to scrap her, so they held her together with cables, put her up in a drydock and named her the flagship of a naval official who never goes to sea.
 * Iceberg3k 03:48, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

i remember hearing somewhere if victory was to go in water now after all these years in dry dock she would begin to rot quite quickly. so victory is the oldest commissioned warship while constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat i think shes the flagship of the second sea lord not the entire fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardOConnor (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 November 2001 (UTC)


 * This is always a humorous discussion. Victory is a museum display or more simply an oddly shaped wooden frame building - it doesn't go anywhere like a ship does (even if irregularly as in the case of Constitution) and is staffed by civilians (sure there are a token number of RN personnel assigned as she is the "flagship" for something or another - but if they expect her to take part in the next Falklands campaign, they're in for a shock). If you visit Constitution, you find her manned by real USN personnel who really drill to operate the ship (granted its a skeleton crew as she no longer operates a full gun deck - even us "insular" Americans have figured out we can't take out anyone with smoothbores anymore).


 * If it helps I think the Trincomalee is the oldest British ship still afloat - she's about 1817 IIRC, which still makes her about 20 years younger than Ironsides. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Frigate illustration
The illustration is far from perfect - but since it would end up as an orphan otherwise, I placed it here. It is also a bit on the large side, and could beling in rigging instead (but that article has enough illustrations as it is). I've left it here for such time that something better comes along... Egil 11:07 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

List of frigates
There are an awful lot of frigates in the world, the list should probably be separate from the article proper. Stan 17:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I moved the frigate classes to List of frigates. I'd like to add a little something on the Royal Navy frigates when I have the time, as the current article seems to be centering really only on American frigates. Oh and on HMS Victory, from what I hear if she was moved out of dry dock she would sink basically. USS (or USF) Constitution has apparently had a number of rebuilds over the decades which is how she is still stable enough to stay afloat. It's a pity about Victory, as i'd of liked to of seen her take to the waterlike she did 200 years ago, so that she be along side dozens of ships in the proposed International Fleet Review (I think it's a review) for the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar next year. SoLando 10:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The list of frigates only lists CURRENT ships. can we rename it "list of current frigates" (perhaps do the same for other ships types) as well as having a page on ships that no longer exist? separate pages for each country with more than 5 ships say. SpookyMulder 12:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The List of frigates is actually filled with ship classes that are no longer in commission. Do you mean frigates of the Age of Sail? SoLando 15:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, all frigates would be on the list of frigates page, but only current ones (including those in reserve, as museums etc.) would be listed under "current frigates" page. Is that OK? each type of ship would have a "current..." page as well as a total page. you could make a current ships for each navy set of pages, also, that would link to the current ship types page? There seems to be 2 list of current frigate pages currently! SpookyMulder 13:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The List of current frigates does sound quite confusing because some of the ships have been scrapped during the 1970s and 1980s. How about a List of frigates being moved to List of frigates of the Age of Sail, or something along those lines, and List of current frigates being moved to List of modern frigates to make it less crowded, instead of grouping Age of Sail frigates with "modern" frigates in the List of frigates page and make the List of frigates into a disambiguation page? SoLando 14:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * no more disambiguation pages. links should know where they're going:)

perhaps group modern frigates with ships they're more similar to, such as destroyer excorts or destroyers (is there a difference, anyway?)

sail frigates evolved into early steam frigates and then sort of died out along with sail battleships. both were replaced by ironclads and armored frigates around 1860, so they have nothing to do with modern frigates. I guess you could group modern frigates with destroyer escorts, since DEs stopped being built around the same time as modern frigates started, correct?

You'd have:
 * carriers and seaplane carriers
 * amphibious/helicopter carriers
 * battleships (sail and steam)
 * sail frigates and early steam frigates up to about 1875
 * large cruisers (armored, battle- and heavy)
 * small cruisers (protected, light and missile)
 * destroyers
 * Subs
 * DEs and modern frigates
 * corvettes/sloops
 * smaller types

each of these groups has a single evolutionary line. each type with more than a certain number of ships (most of them) would be divided up into major countries on individual pages plus one page for countries with fewer than say, 5 ships of the type. How's that sound?

You could also have one page for each of the above types "List of current..." and each country could have a "current ships" page also, which would all link to the individual or ship class pages. so you could try to find a ship through type, or country. SpookyMulder 10:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mostly frigates are used for a more general-purpose role (most famously the Leander-class) while destroyers tend to be large and used for more single-role purposes, mainly anti-air warfare. So there is a significant difference in their roles. The term "destroyer escort" is a more American name, and the roles that the DE was used for was basically fulfilled by the frigate in the RN. I may be wrong but I think the DE was simply renamed to frigate in USN service?. I would recommended retaining the current system, whereby what you have is as follows:


 * aircraft carriers
 * amhibious/helicopter carriers grouped with LPDs and other amphibious warships
 * battleships grouped with battlecruisers
 * cruisers grouped together
 * destroyers
 * frigates grouped with DEs, corvettes and sloops
 * smaller vessels grouped into seperate categories
 * submarines

Maybe add a new category/categories for sail warships? Also, grouping major countries warships types is a good idea, and I think, has been completed for the RN and it looks good. Personally I would like to see major countries warship types remain on a single page with the "minor" countries so as to get as many links as possible to the ship types, rather than decrease them.SoLando 14:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that doesn't make sense. The larger vessel ( ie the destroyer ) would have more space for multiple capablities, as well as greater speed and range. The smaller vessel has to be more specialised. In the RN frigates are ASW and destroyers are anti air AND ASW ( but not maybe so good as the frigates ). I would put the list as


 * cruisers ( only the largest navies these days )
 * destroyers ( larger escorts )
 * frigates grouped with DEs, corvettes and sloops ( smaller escorts )

I read somewhere that the USN decided to call it's ships DE and not frigate becuase the relevent Admiral didn't like the old fashioned name. David.j.james 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK but for a start, battlecruisers descended directly from armored cruisers (see Blucher for eg). It doesn't really make sense to include them a longside battleships. Historically they weren't, and they were built at the same time as the battleships so you'd get a confused building order. There are too many cruisers from 1879-1945 for them to be all on the one page. that's the only reason for breaking those up. Corvettes and sloops also, during WW1 and WW2 there were hundreds of these and they really aren't the same as destroyers. if you group them all together you could only list classes and again, you'll get a jumbled building order. It's important to show the evolution of the ship types to give an idea of where each class of ship fit in, historically rather than just grouping them into pages of similar sized ships. Torpedo-boats are one I forgot. With helicopter cruisers such as Vittorio Veneto, I guess you'd have to decide whether their main purpose was to carry choppers, or to act regular cruisers. the russians had some of those ships which really should be on the carriers page, so i suppose the italian ones should also, unless you want to put the Kiev class with LPDs rather than carriers?

Your list doesn't mention sail frigates/corvettes. if they're not on the same page as modern frigates/corvettes, they really need their own pages. There were a lot of these ships between 1700 and 1850 so they really deserve their own page I think.

What do you mean by "keeping major countries ship types on the same page as minor countries"? You mean one single page listing ALL cruisers of the world? that's gonna be really long.

on the page "Cruiser", you'd have each major country linked there, plus an additional one for all the minor countries. purely because otherwise it's gonna be a really long page. see the bottom of "Battleship" for an example. SpookyMulder 06:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I concede that it does make more sense to have battlecruiser classes on the "cruiser" page. Yes, there were an immense, and startling amount of corvettes and sloops constructed, to the extent that even having them on their own page could be too large. How about simply including the classes but omitting the individual ships? And placing them on the "frigates" page which is their closest comparable ship type, at least it was during WWII?

Vittorio Veneto and similar vessels were more primarily used for the role of helicopter cruiser, than the more traditional role of a cruiser as her armament was quite small (76mm). The Russian carriers were more similar to aircraft carriers than the Italian Vittorio Veneto and the two Andrea Dorias. The Russians did have a similar class to what the Italians had, the Moskva-class, so that should be placed with the helicopter/amphbious carriers.

On sail frigates, I did mention that "Maybe add a new category/categories for sail warships?"

What I meant was in regards to the "Cruisers list" was that the major countries should have their page ((List of cruisers of the Royal Navy]] etc) linked to on the "List of cruisers" page, in place of linking specific ship types on the List of cruisers page if the list does becomes too large.SoLando 17:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK. so you'd have some cruisers on the "list of cruisers" except for certain countries.... I guess. see the bottom of "battleships" though and tell me if that is OK for other ship types as well? i think it looks neater, and also you can get to any country just with one click rather than 2.

corvette classes only could be listed, i suppose, although i think it's valuable to list individual ships as well. it kinda looks odd to have "unique" ships named but all the rest listed en masse under their class name.

I don't see why you'd list corvettes and frigates on the same page though. they're not the same type of ship, and they had different purposes. SpookyMulder 05:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In general, if a navy identifies two types and they're not subtypes of a third more general type, we should make two lists - otherwise we're in the position of second-guessing the pros, not a good place to be in unless one is personally a world-recognized authority. Another thing to do is to total up numbers from Jane's or wherever, and think about how one would organize if all the lists were to be complete. (Personally, I no longer like to make new lists unless I can get them to 90-95% very quickly - what good is an incomplete list? If something is missing, you don't know if it's because it doesn't exist or if it's because the list is incomplete.) Stan 17:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True, but unless you want to spend hours at a single sitting adding all the ships in a type, they'll be done over a few weeks. The whole point of this encyclopaedia is that it is continually updated, anyway! You're right about how many ships are in a class (that's why I divided the battleships lists up but grouped nations with less than 5 ships.) individual ship types can be done the same way (grouping helicopter cruisers with amphibious carriers for eg)

I think the frigates page should have mention at the start that there were several distinct time periods and several distinct types of ships known as frigates. another type was even earlier than sail frigates. small oared boats were known as frigates. perhaps around 1550 or so? there were also merchant clippers built to similar designs (Blackwall frigates). like east indiamen, frigate sized ships could be taken over by the navy and armed. several of these ships had gun ports for the purpose. I noticed merchant ships don't seem to be discussed much. perhsps I've just overlooked the pages. SpookyMulder 14:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The modern Frigate arose during the Second World War as an improved anti-submarine vessel with better performance - speed and range - than the preceding Flower-class corvette, Castle-class corvettes and the Black Swan-class sloops. An example would be the River-class frigate (and derived Tacoma class) of 1941. Other examples would be the Loch-class frigate and the specialised anti-aircraft Bay-class frigate. Frigates had the advantage over destroyers of being able to be built by civilian dockyards as they used normally available ship's machinery rather than the specialised and expensive steam turbines that a destroyer used. They could thus be built in any commercial dockyard of sufficient size rather than being restricted to the naval ones which were already working at capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph is navigational aid
Please do not remove the first paragraph as it functions as a quick navigational aid to the other articles in the rating system series. Thank you. Petersam 21:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revert of SpookyMulder's edits
I reverted SpookyMulder's edits to the "Lists of frigates" section for several reasons: I've retained the addition of the Greek frigates list and the note at the top of the list, and added a note about merging the Italian city-states into a single "List of Italian Sail Frigates" --Carnildo 21:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It removed the entries for two nations with existing lists - the US and Peru
 * 2) The new colors make the table much harder to read; in particular, the redlinked entries are hard to see.
 * 3) It removed the "List of" prefix for all the redlinked entries.  Since this is a list of lists, all articles linked to should have titles of the form "List of x"

One Question Still Remains
Even when I was qualifiying ESWS, I never did figure this out to the extent I would have liked to. What defines a firgate? Is it "somewhere between a cruiser and a destroyer"? Is it displacement? Is it mission? Or is it too nebulous to really tell, and it's just "whatever they decide to call a frigate must be a frigate?" Izuko 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All I can add is that it varies over time and between (and within!) navies. Emoscopes Talk 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit to "Modern Frigate Section"
From the 1950s to the 1970s, a few Cruisers from World War Two underwent conversion and had AAW missile capabilities (launcher, radar, fire control) added. Most of the USN new built commissioned ships with the AAW capability were designated and classed as guided missile frigates. Ther hull prefix was DL. Perhaps this was meant as Destroyer, larger, or Destroyer Leader. With the AAW capability, they matched the WWII cruisers in the modern capability. These were built on destroyer-style hulls, (maybe a slight bit larger). None were as large as the WWII era cruisers. In the mid- 1970s as the last of the World War Cruisers were approaching retirement, the US Navy was projected to only have one(1) cruiser by 1980.(the USS Long Beach) So in 1975, most all such ships were reclassified as guided missile cruisers (CG / CGN). This totaled 26 ships of the following classes: Leahy, Belknap (18 Conventionally powered), and 8 nuclear power ships of the following classes: Bainbridge, Truxtun, California and Virginia.

The smaller Farragut-class, at that time was reclassified as guided missile destroyers (DDG) from DLG. in 1975. This ship was probably reclassified due to smaller size, crew size below 500 personel, <500 feet in length, and perhaps at that time also being trated as a smaller ship with commanding officers on frist command tour and rank of commander. The Post World War II Destroyer Escorts were at that time called Ocean Escorts- at the same time all Ocean Escorts wer reclassified as Frigates. All of these were primarily specialized for ASW, and intended as convoy escorts, not member of carrier battlegroups. The has a lower maximum speed that the destroyer (<30 knots). As a cost saving measure, they has slightly less maneuverability, (only one propellor)( significant cost savings, but a lack of propulsion redundancy, a potential problem) {a problem only found in US Ships, many European ships of comprable size and capability did have two prouplsions - propellor.)Another factor here was the newes Ocean Escorts/Frigates were as big as the oldest US Navy Guided Missile destroyers (Adams-class), but lesser capability for an AAW mission. In addition both were larger than an WWII era destroyer.

This may sound to some as informative enough to be on the page, not in talk- lack references to support this, and not a highly experienced Wiki user, Also still need some tags/links here.
 * Wfoj2 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional- I failed to search. See United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification   Wfoj2 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

La Rieuse
Is the caption for the pic of the French 30-gun ship really accurate? To me it looks more like a 10-gun vessel. If the protruding objects in the image are crewmen, it must've been tiny.

Peter Isotalo 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Artistic license? It is a sketch, not an engineering drawing. --J Clear 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are clearly limits to the usefulness of overly simplified illustration when it comes to encyclopedic articles. I've removed the picture.
 * Peter Isotalo 05:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On balance I'd leave it in. Even if the crew are out of scale, the masts and rigging might be accurate, and we could do with an illustration of the earliest frigates. The Land 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But there's already a much better picture of a late 17th century frigate in the article. And what exactly is an oar frigate anyway? The article doesn't tell.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a big difference between early 17thC and late 17thC frigates. The 'oar frigate' was a meditteranean oar-and-sails vessel - same kind of idea as a galleass. The Land 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Flemish privateers from the Spaniard Netherlands
Some authors point out that the frigate from the Age of Sail derived from the vessels of the Dunkirker privateers from the Spaniard Netherlands in the early & mid-17th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain that the Dunkirkers frigates came before those of the Dutch republic, in spite of what Geoffery Parker says. In fact I think it is likely that the Dunkirkers calling their vessels frigates led to the Dutch applying that name to their own frigate type. What we need here is some careful Belgium and Dutch based research here from people who can access sources in the original languages.
 * Text from James Henderson's "The Frigates" (Adlard Cloes, 1970). p.15: The first English ship to be called a frigate was the "Constant Warwick", about 380 tons, launched in 1646. According to Samuel Pepys, who was in position to know, she was built on the lines of a captured Dunkirk privateer.
 * Text from Brian Lavery's "Nelson's Navy" (Conway Maritime Press, 1989),p.17: The old great ships were not of immediate tactical value in this conflict [the 1642 English civil war], for the main task was to defeat the royalist gun runners and commerce raiders. To do this, small fast ships known as "frigates" were copied from the Dunkirk privateers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

South African Frigates
I do not know how to edit a table. Would someone who can do so please add Valour class frigate in the "current" column. Roger (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please Roger (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

SAS Mendi of the South African Navy has been added to the image list.Bcs09 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sail frigate" versus "modern frigate"
I'm thinking, if sailing frigates and modern frigates are related only by name, then should the two be split into different pages? Masterblooregard (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I would go it myself, but I don't know how. 81.187.148.35 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Galley Frigates
Added a small section to origins giving brief details on this type of Frigate, citing the Charles Galley as a known example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.252.48 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

North Africa and Turkey
The article says: "Note that Algerian, Tripolitan and Tunisian sail frigates are listed under Turkey".

I would like to ask why?

If we are talking about frigates operated by these countries from independence till now, they shouldn't be listed under Turkey by any means, on the other hand if we are talking about thier frigates before independence, I don't think we should combine them with Turkey either, because at that time there was nothing as Turkey, the whole area was called Ottomon Empire, with this said, I suggest we add Algeria, Tripoli (Libya) and Tunisia to the table and we replace the names of these nations with "Ottomon Empire" for sail and steam frigates.. Thanks 203.135.190.6 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Length in feet of a frigate?
When describing the length of a frigate, the article says that the length was the same was that of a ship of the line, and links to the ship of the line article. However, that article doesn't really have much in the way of the length or breadth of a frigate. Can we get some more details on this, please? I'd add it myself if I knew it.(216.15.62.119 (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Those details are provided in each of the frigate class articles. This is because there are so many frigates and adding details in this frigate article will make it very difficult to maintain. For details of the frigate and their dimensions are provided in their respective articles.Bcs09 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Chinese Frigates???
I am offended and distressed that no one had even addressed Chinese frigates in the 'modern/current' frigate platforms. I wonder why even New Zealand is there considering it is an OPERATOR not a BUILDER of frigates. China's frigate-record is quite considerable, considering it had operated the Chengdu, Kianghu, Jinan class, and currently operates Jianghu, Jiangwei and Jiangkai class. This is absurd to see no mention of China.
 * Image of the Type 54A added.Bcs09 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Placing Shivalik image in the modern frigate section
Note to all : I closed the topic below because the anonymous editor in question is a troll and his bias is apparent in the matter is apparent. His dissenting opinion has been acknowledged but in the interim, consensus was that the image of the Shivalik class should stay. If anyone wishes to discuss the topic further, please start a new section. Vedant (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some editor is having problem with the Shivalik class image. What's the opinion of other users. What about replacement of Sachsen image with that of Shivalik in the Further development section. The Sachsen image already exists in the Gallery. I do feel that Shivali image is a better one with a complete view.Bcs09 (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Sachsen class is a more notable example of a modern frigate than Shivalik class is. And as only one image can fit in the section the image should be of the most relevant class of frigate. The Sachsen class image is closer and clearer than the Shivalik class image. Besides, you're only adding the image because it's of an Indian frigate. See Bcs09's contribution history. It is a single purpose account, to spread Indian nationalism. 88.106.73.119 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your point on this. Shivalik is a very modern frigate. The Sachsen image is not providing a better view. What you mean by Indian frigate. Indian frigate cannot be there or what. What's your problem with Indian frigate. I do contribute to Indian articles. So what's your problem. Improving article related to India or missing and Indian frigate from the frigate site is not nationalism. You got it wrong there because you view that Indian frigate cannot be there. That's what you believe. Please correct it.Bcs09 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to spoil your party 88.106... but how does one decide which is the "most relevant class of frigate" without bringing nationalistic bias into it? --Nosedown (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One decides which is the "most relevant class of frigate" without bringing nationalistic bias into it by choosing the class of frigate which is the most relevant and notable, regardless of origin. Bcs09 has a contribution history of only adding Indian nationalism to articles. I'm not German so I think I can say I'm not being nationalistic when I say that an image of the German Sachsen class of frigate is the most relevant and notable. Nationalism is not allowed on Wikipedia if you didn't already know. 88.106.73.119 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't have any bias, then I present you a bow shot of the Shivalik class frigate. A very close clear image of the frigate. Shivalik long shot.jpg. It seems you are so keen for a frontal view of a frigate. What's your opinion?Bcs09 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll take your word and believe that you don't have any nationalistic bias in favor of Germany while declaring that the Sachsen class is the "most relevant and notable". But sorry, this is an encyclopedia and we go by credible sources. So, if you say that Sachsen class is the most relevant and notable, you'll have to back it up with verifiable and credible sources. That said, I don't mind having the Sachsen image up there not because it is "most relevant and notable", but because I simply don't care. However, I would like to point out that almost all of the images are from European and American navies and for the sake of a global perspective, an image from an Asian navy would be more appropriate. --Nosedown (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you will find from my IP that I'm from the United Kingdom, not Germany. However, you also appear to be from India, just as Bcs09 is, hence you both support an image of an Indian frigate for not other reason than it being Indian, which is nationalism, and nationalism is not allowed on Wikipedia. Again, origin of the class of frigate is not important, what is important is how relevant and notable the class of frigate is. I've added a source along with the caption now. 88.106.125.154 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Shannon Walker currently lives in space. So, I guess she is not an Earthling. Come up with a better argument to showcase your lack of nationalistic bias. Secondly, naval-technology.com is not a credible source. Thirdly, I never specifically suggested adding an "Indian" frigate to the article. Fourthly, I can present a list of academic sources here to highlight the notability of several Asian frigates (provided I'm able to spare the time to do so). Fifthly, going by the quality of your English, I can very well claim that you are not from the United Kingdom. And lastly, as I said before, I don't care which image is ultimately added up there. My job was to provide a suggestion. Whether to take it or not depends upon how people want to serve their nationalistic bias. So, good bye and good riddance. --Nosedown (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, 88.106.73.119. Don't fight. So you want the German frigate there. Right. So be it. I will add the Shivalik image in the other list. But still I don't understand why is the Sachsen image better.Bcs09 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This IP-hopping user has a history of failing to assume good faith and also appears to be removing images related to India from a myriad of Wikipedia articles. Please see this, this, and this and this for more insight into the matter. It's somewhat apparent said user has a pro-UK, anti-India bias and is using Wikipedia for this purpose.

It also appears that this user has basic competence problems such as the inability to interpret factual data when looking at this edit. It also appears that said user doesn't understand Wikipedia policy. Nationalism is not discouraged on Wikipedia, just nationalistic editing and POV-pushing. I recommend that said user not be taken seriously as per WP:DNFT until he either contributes productively, develops some semblance of competence and/or registers for an account instead of hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Vedant (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Vedant, as for wp:AGF, your account history points to your account being a single purpose account, to spread Indian nationalism on Wikipedia. You are continuously edit warring with various Chinese editors over various articles concerning fighter aircraft and other India and China related articles. Have you ever made an edit to Wikipedia that wasn't Indian nationalism? Bcs09 replaced a long standing image of a De Zeven Provinciën class frigate without consensus on 16th May 2010 . 88.106.124.243 (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)\
 * Please look at at the edits I've made to the articles before blindly accusing people of POV-pushing. I challenge the factual accuracy of many claims, be them Indian, Chinese or hell, even Fijian. If you're angry because I pointed out your trolling, I suggest you take the matter elsewhere. Have you made an edit to Wikipedia that anyone can consider constructive? Have you demonstrated the basic tenets of competence? Do you have any words in your vocabulary other than "Indian nationalism"? In your case its a resounding NO on ALL THREE COUNTS. I urge you to take your pointless quipping to a website that's more appreciative of trolling/garbage contributions (which appears to be something you like to indulge in).  Vedant (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You know... your comments seem familar, infact they almost echo comments made by another user. Perhaps it's most interesting that this user and your IP often edit with minutes of each others edits on pages like London. Anyways, I will keep the speculation to a minimum. :) Vedant (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * These other IPs and accounts have nothing to do with me. Yes I'm an IP but that doesn't discount me from editing Wikipedia like you seem to think so. Being an IP invalidates my edits does it? I think it is your edits which are invalidated by the fact your account is a single pupose account with a contribution history which is 100% Indian nationalism. You appear to be engaged in edit wars most of the time by the look of your contribution history, mostly with Chinese editors on fighter aircraft, tank and other military articles and India or China related articles. It seems as though you edit war with any editor who denies you from adding your Indian nationalism POV. Just how many other editors have you edit warred with exactly? It appears I'm just another on that long list. 88.106.101.204 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've removed numerous links to images that are related to India without providing a rationale and I've proven your pattern. Because I've done this, you accuse me of perpetrating Indian nationalism which doesn't sound like a very sound premise on which to base an argument. I have every right and reason to question your objectivity based on these past edits. I've had disputes with three users, User:By78 (who is indefinitely banned) Ao333 (a user with an admitted offsite and colourful blocok log) and NoBiasPlease (a possible sock who edit wars because he doesn't like facts). If you want to stop sounding like a broken record, review their contribution histories. This debate sounds very similar to the one on Anti-satellite weapon and you sound very similar to User:Yattum who contested a well sourced and written edit and ofcourse received a 24-hour block for edit-warring. I really wonder who practices "nationalistic" editing and who really is the edit-warring troll. Vedant (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean to say that the some Chinese editors indulge in POV with regard to article on fighter aircraft, India, China articles? Any image can be replaced if it seems appropriate with a better one. In this case it is better to have a Shivalik class image. The latest one. You had objection and you wanted a German frigate. A discussion was started, but you seem to discuss other things rather than about the images. No one else objected to the Shivalik class image. So a consensus was reached. If you are so adamant and cannot tolerate an image of and Indian frigate, that's sad.Bcs09 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the original long standing image before it was changed by Bcs09 without consensus on 16th May 2010




 * The HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën, is commissioned in 2002, whereas the INS Shivalik in 2010. The images cannot stay without a change for ever. If any other modern frigate gets commissioned, the Shivalik image get replace with that. Bcs09 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 88.106.124.243, I think now don't have any valid objection to the placing INS Shivalik image in the modern frigate section.Bcs09 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Found a solution, why not use parser functions that will rotate the three frigates. The idea adopted by Mr.Binoy in the India article can be utilized here to solve this issue. Do you have objection? I hope not.Bcs09 (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bcs09, if you want to change the image you need to gain consensus. WP:BRD means that if you change an article and someone reverts that change you need to gain consensus before changing it back. 88.106.101.204 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Making an edit did not require any consensus if it is made into an article. But if there is any objection to that change, yes then a consensus need to be reached. But in this case you were not reverting but was inserting a new image.Bcs09 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I restored the article back to the original image before Bcs09 changed it without consensus and before all of this began but Bcs09 and Vedant insist upon changing the image so that it absolutely must be that of an Indian frigate, with no other reason than is for changing it. There are plenty of various new frigate classes which there could be an image of but once again Vedant's and Bcs09's extreme Indian nationalism shines through. They won't even be reasonable and just have the image changed to that of another frigate. I suggested an image of a Sachsen class of frigate if they wanted the image changed as it's probably the most relevant and most notable. But no, it absolutely must be Indian. Their accounts appear incapable of anything other than adding Indian nationalism POV to articles. 88.106.101.204 (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again your revision objection came late after your attempt to insert another image failed. I still don't understand what's your logic for not inserting the Shivalik image. POV must not affect insertion of an image or removal of one. I don't think that the Sachsen image is best suited. For the time being it's Shivalik image that is most appropriate. We can have the image of F125 when it arrives.Bcs09 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I do think that the latest frigate commissioned is the Shivalik class frigate. If I'm wrong please correct me and we can have the image of that frigate. Your objection that the frigate image cannot be there becoz it's Indian is nonsense.Bcs09 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that having a picture of the very latest frigate is so important, as that will change regularly. However the picture of the Shivalik adds more to the article than the picture of the German frigate - not because it is one nationality over another, but because it is a side view, and right above it is a front view of another frigate. The Shivalik picture does more for the reader wanting to see what modern frigates look like, whereas the picture of the German vessel really doesn't add anything to the photo directly above where it was placed. In this case the better photo wins, regardless of what nationality the vessel is. I think consensus is pretty clear here - when the only dissenting voice has nothing to say but 'this is nationalism' then it is time to implement the consensus and stop feeding this troll. (full disclosure - I am not Indian. I don't even know any Indian people. Nor am I German.) Weakopedia (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable argument. I would request that someone other than User:Bcs09 and I and preferrably someone who is not of Indian origin make the edit because I really want to put this issue to rest and shut the troll up. After all, he's probably going to start elsewhere soon (maybe Stock market). Vedant (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is probably best - within a reasonable time I will restore the image, unless a different consensus should emerge here. Weakopedia (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose an image being picked over another simply because of nationalism. The most relevant image should be picked. The Sachsen class is more relevant than the Shivalik class. Weakopedia you are not neutral as you are Indian yourself, judging by the fact many of your edits are Indian related. 88.106.101.204 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Even a cursory look at my contribution list, or userpage, would show that none of my edits have been related to India in any way - so your alegations are completely unfounded. I think we are done assuming good faith here. Weakopedia (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Shivalik image is very suitable, attractive, and helps show a global perspective. I also find 88s "arguments" to be very shallow. Apart from the external stealth features visible for both ships, most of what matters nowadays is invisible in images anyways. Please note that 88.106.74.159 (which seems to be the same person) has brought this up on talk:Germany here, which seems to be surprising for someone opposed to nationalism on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, 88. has been canvassing in even stranger places such as Talk:Pakistan. He didn't notify Talk:India, so I find it very hard to assume good faith on his part. I also don't think the Sachsen class is in some way more representative of modern frigates than the Shivalik, but we could substitute the gallery image of Shivalik for the Sachsen - we certainly don't need the same image twice. Huon (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Sachsen class is a better example because it has AESA radar, while the Shivalik class doesn't. The Sachsen class is a notable anti-aircraft destroyer, as is the De Zeven Provincien. which also has AESA radar. 88.106.80.24 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the above user's obvious and apparent bias, refusal to assume good faith and personal attacks, I hope no one will object if we close this topic. Vedant (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

LIST Russia
In the list there is no Russia, only under old ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.120.178 (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Garbage
"The later 19th century battleship thus developed from the frigate rather than from the ship of the line."

Wrong. It developed from a type of ship that, due to naming conventions soon to be abandoned due to being ridiculously outdated[1], was for a short time referred to as an *armoured* frigate.

In terms of functionality (being big, well armed, fighting a pitched battle against others of its type) the ship of the line is clearly the ancestor of the battleship.

The frigate's purpose - being light, fast, good for patrolling & reconnaissance - is performed these days by a type of ship called ... a frigate.

[1] Largely concerning the number of gun decks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.167.210 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Battleship developed from frigate; not ship of the line
Just wanted to bring to attention that the article in "Ship of the Line" directly contradicts what is said in this article, which also links to it several times.


 * A ship powerful enough to stand in the line of battle came to be called a ship of the line (of battle) or line of battle ship, which was shortened to become the word battleship.[1]

I don't know enough to comment on which is more or less correct just yet, if I have time to find out I will. Otherwise any takers.AnyyVen (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Have removed the sentence as unsourced. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Split some content into subarticles?
As was suggested above, how about splitting some content into child articles? Seriously, frigate from 300 years ago and today share very, very little in common besides the name. We already have a separate article on Steam frigate (and per the comment just above, shouldn't armoured frigate redirect there, not here?)]]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Misleading terminology and omissions
Generally, in relevant publications the term 'heavy frigate' describes the 18-pounder armed 36 and 38 gun frigates introduced by the Royal Navy at about the time of the American War of Independence. The type was later adopted by the French, Spanish, Americans, Danes etc., and eventually became the 'standard type of frigate'.

See, for example:
 * Robert Gardiner, The Heavy Frigate, Conway Maritime Press, London 1994.
 * Gardiner, Robert (2000) Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars, Chatham Publishing, London.
 * Rif Winfield, British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1714-1792, Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley 2007. ISBN 978-1-84415-700-6.
 * Rif Winfield, British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1793-1817, 2nd edition, Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley 2008. ISBN 978-1-84415-717-4.

The American 24-pounder, 44 gun Constitution class frigates are often termed 'super-heavy frigates' in modern scholarship, or are included within the term 'heavy frigate', but are not the exclusive examples. Concerning the 'super-heavy' 24-pounder armed frigate, the Americans were far from the only builders of these ships, and were not the first. The first 24-pounder armed 'super-heavy frigates' were in fact Swedish, designed by the naval architect Chapman. The French also built a few of these large frigates, such as the Egyptienne and the Pomone. Pomone was used as the model for the British 24-pounder frigate Endymion. The Turks also had a least one such ship, the Bader Zaffer.

I think the article needs to change. Urselius (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)