Talk:List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy

"Type 44 (Emerald class) Future Surface Combatant — cancelled"
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.Corustar 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This definitely used to be working title referred to on http://www.naval-technology.com/ . I used to administer a site on the Royal Navy around the time that they were still in on "project horizon" (1997-8), and recall it well. Bearing in mind this was long before the mention of Type 45 and D names in the public domain it seems unlinkely to just be a coincidence.
 * Unfortunately I see a google search and a search of http://www.archive.org/web/web.php no longer turn up anything, all references appear to have been obliterated from the web. There is however a mentions of a type 44 frigate  in this journal article; http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(cdkpuc55rzwfegbo5b0yc255)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,9;journal,20,21;linkingpublicationresults,1:108496,1
 * While I am now left doubting that the title Emerald was official and anything but industry speculation, Type 44 is certainly contiguous. (see Type system of the Royal Navy) Type 4* are air defence escorts, Type 43 was the last documented proposal, and Type 45 the next utilised number. Type 44 is therefore highly likely to be a working title of the CNGF. My suggestion is to remove the mention of Emerald and refer to it as the Type 44 Common New Generation Frigate (Project Horizon) or such like. Emoscopes Talk 04:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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.Corustar 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The future surface combatant (FSC) and common new generation (CNG) are not one and the same. FSC is (was, it's been cancelled) a future study to replace the Type 23. CNG was a design to replace the Type 42 as an AAW system, ultimately being cancelled and replaced with the Type 45 / Daring design. That's where the confusion lies! I believe the Type 44 was referred to as such for only political reasons. Emoscopes Talk 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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.Corustar 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Type 43 is covered in "Vanguard to trident" by Eric Grove. A fascinating ship, basically seems to be two Type 42 front ends welded together back to back, with the helicopter facilites amidships of all places! (and with 4 sea wolf systems none the less!) From what the book says it was intentionally designed as "what the navy wants but will never get" to illustrate the shortcomings of the Type 42. Again, Type 44 was techincally a destroyer, but for some sort of euro-political reasons was referred to as a frigate; Type 45 uses the same radar and weapons systems developed for Type 44, just on a larger, more suitable hull. FSC was cancelled in 2004 as far as I know. Emoscopes Talk 00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.Corustar 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC) sorry didnt know how to add name.


 * in case you havent already visited, this is a fascinating and very comprehensive site; http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ . I didn't realise that the Type 23 were being given a SLEP, I'll go read up on that, interesting to see what they might do to them. Emoscopes Talk 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

List of sail frigates
As this is a page concerned with frigate classes, rather than individual ships, would it perhaps make more sense to separate the List of sail frigates of the Royal Navy section of the article into its own page, as it has the potential to become very long. Martocticvs 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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 the List 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 the List of French sail frigates page. Rif Winfield 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

unreferenced template
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 checked Viv Hamilton 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a genuine frigate - but I have corrected the date from 1794 to 1796; this former French frigate was captured by the Inconstant on 20 April 1796. If you want more detailed references, see p.225 of my 1793-1817 book referenced in the article. Rif Winfield 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have taken the unreferenced template off the page.  Viv Hamilton 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the link - the article is named HMS Surprise (1794) in accordance of naming ship articles with when the ship was built Viv Hamilton 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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 HMS Hamadryad. The first was the ex-Spanish Ninfa, built in 1794-95 at Mahon and captured by the RN in April 1797; she served several months as HMS Hamadryad before being wrecked on Christmas Day 1797. The second ship to bear the name Hamadryad was captured in October 1804. This was the ex-Spanish Santa Matilda, built at Havana in 1778; she became the second HMS Hamadryad 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 HMS Hamadryad chronologically. I'm sure you would take the point. Rif Winfield 13:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that the article name has been changed, I've changed the link to 1796, from 1794 so that it links direct to the article rather than via a redirect. The point before, was that the link was wrong so showed as red, as though an article didn't exist and it didn't direct the reader to the article Viv Hamilton 14:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Project assessment
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 Hamilton 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Leda class date
Should it be 1799 or 1800 instead?--Filll 12:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Should be 1800, as the prototype Leda was launched on 18 November 1800. Thanks, I have corrected this. Rif Winfield 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

HMS Naiad
She is missing from the list of frigates. Her is her individual information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Naiad_(1797)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.133.223 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Diana
1794 Artois Class. Is there any information on the fate of this ship?Geoffreybrooks (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sail frigates – alphabetically
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)