Ship names of the RAN

[Mick73]

Being of army stock but with interest in all of the services. I do have a question or two.
With thr two new LPH's one of them is going to be called HMAS Canberra (Sorry, but I don't remember the other name for the other ship).
However given that this class of ship is going to be big news in the near future I was wondering why isn't the first ship named HMAS Australia then HMAS Canberra?
It seems that most RAN ships have city/town names and some like HMAS ANZAC (which is strange having an historic Army name...and no I am not picking a fight on this point). However would or should we have a ship named (again) after the country?
So if anyone who is Navy more navy minded than myself shed some light on the reasons why or why not for the names.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Being of army stock but with interest in all of the services. I do have a question or two.
With thr two new LPH's one of them is going to be called HMAS Canberra (Sorry, but I don't remember the other name for the other ship).
However given that this class of ship is going to be big news in the near future I was wondering why isn't the first ship named HMAS Australia then HMAS Canberra?
It seems that most RAN ships have city/town names and some like HMAS ANZAC (which is strange having an historic Army name...and no I am not picking a fight on this point). However would or should we have a ship named (again) after the country?
So if anyone who is Navy more navy minded than myself shed some light on the reasons why or why not for the names.

I don't think we should and here's 1 reason why. The ship would be named:

Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS) Australia, which sounds a little silly to me...

 

[Big-E]

Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS) Australia, which sounds a little silly to me...

It's better than HMAS Wagga Wagga...

 

[Mick73]

Her Majesty's Ship (HMS) Queen Elizabeth II (or HMS Myself)
Her Majesty's Ship (HMS) Prince of Wales (or HMS My son) what happens if/when he becomes king...do they change the name to His Majesty's Ship(HMS) The King Charles (or HMS Was the prince, Now the king and I)..??

Now considering we have had 3 ships bear the name "Australia" and were to have a fourth...why stop now...big ship, big island, big name!

So if it didn't sound silly to 3 generations. What's wrong with it now??

 

[Padfoot]

Her Majesty's Ship (HMS) Queen Elizabeth II (or HMS Myself)
Her Majesty's Ship (HMS) Prince of Wales (or HMS My son) what happens if/when he becomes king...do they change the name to His Majesty's Ship(HMS) The King Charles (or HMS Was the prince, Now the king and I)..??

Now considering we have had 3 ships bear the name "Australia" and were to have a fourth...why stop now...big ship, big island, big name!

So if it didn't sound silly to 3 generations. What's wrong with it now??

Mick, not sure if you're referring to the RN's new carriers? If you are it's pertinent to point out that both names are very old and traditional names for RN vessels and have nothing to with the current Monarch - or her son. The first Prince of Wales was a 74-gun third-rate and was launched in the mid 18th century. The first Queen Elizabeth was the lead ship of the Queen Elizabeth class of battleships. She was the first of the oil fired battleships and she was named after Elizabeth I; as will be the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

 

[scraw]

As Padfoot said it's more HMS (The) Prince of Wales as opposed to HMS The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Slight distinction but there you have it.

As to HM Aussie ships ANZAC was picked because our Kiwi friends were buying them too. In the meantime I'd love to see city names get dumped for a while, they're the beige of ship names. Perhaps keep Canberra as a nod to history and the fact it's the capital, either that or get the Yanks to resurrect USS Canberra.

 

[Mick73]

Mick, not sure if you're referring to the RN's new carriers? If you are it's pertinent to point out that both names are very old and traditional names for RN vessels and have nothing to with the current Monarch - or her son. The first Prince of Wales was a 74-gun third-rate and was launched in the mid 18th century. The first Queen Elizabeth was the lead ship of the Queen Elizabeth class of battleships. She was the first of the oil fired battleships and she was named after Elizabeth I; as will be the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Yes, Iwas referring the new RN CV's but I was making a point as to why it would be silly sounding a new ship in the RAN as HMAS Australia. My intent was not to rubbish the names of other ships but to demostract my point. Even though the RAN history is no where as long as the RN we do have traditional names for our ships and I think we should use them or use more aboriginal names...which makes them sound unique from other countries navies
By the way the RN names their ships with a bit more class in my opinion.
HMS's Battler, Attacker, Hunter, Chaser, Fencer, Stalker, Pursuer, Striker, Searcher, Ravager, Tracker and HMS Slinger.
Mick out!

 

[Todjaeger]

Mick, not sure if you're referring to the RN's new carriers? If you are it's pertinent to point out that both names are very old and traditional names for RN vessels and have nothing to with the current Monarch - or her son. The first Prince of Wales was a 74-gun third-rate and was launched in the mid 18th century. The first Queen Elizabeth was the lead ship of the Queen Elizabeth class of battleships. She was the first of the oil fired battleships and she was named after Elizabeth I; as will be the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Regarding the upcoming HMS Queen Elizabeth, it will be named after the current sovereign according to tradition. The first capital ship launched during a monarch's reign has traditionally been named after the sovereign. Take the HMS King George V from WWII for instance. There had apparently been some discussion about one of the Invincible class carriers being named after the Queen, but it was decided that the Invincibles weren't capital ships.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Being of army stock but with interest in all of the services. I do have a question or two.
With thr two new LPH's one of them is going to be called HMAS Canberra (Sorry, but I don't remember the other name for the other ship).
However given that this class of ship is going to be big news in the near future I was wondering why isn't the first ship named HMAS Australia then HMAS Canberra?
It seems that most RAN ships have city/town names and some like HMAS ANZAC (which is strange having an historic Army name...and no I am not picking a fight on this point). However would or should we have a ship named (again) after the country?
So if anyone who is Navy more navy minded than myself shed some light on the reasons why or why not for the names.

The name HMAS Australia has only been used by the RAN for its largest fighting ships. The first (1913/24) was our only battlecruiser and the next (1928/54) was a heavy cruiser (sister of course to the first HMAS Canberra). It was intended to use the name for the replacement aircraft carrier for HMAS Melbourne (HMS Invincible) that was agreed just before the Falklands Conflict but the cancellation of the sale left the RAN without a standout major combat vessel.

I would love to see the name Australia reappear but it should be for a substantial fighting ship. The question is whether or not the new amphibious ships can be classified as major combat vessels. From what I have read of the specifications I believe that by regional standards they can. The ships should be ideal for carrying taskforce headquarters units and thus operating as flagships. The potential is certainly there for them to carry ASW helos (Seahawks/Seasprites) along with army armed recce helos (Tigers). In addition their capacity to carry and land troops in itself could be considered to qualify them as combat rather than support vessels. The fact that the names Canberra and Adelaide have been chosen suggests that the RAN sees them as major units (otherwise names associated with earlier amphibious vessels or of Australian amphibious operations would surely have been chosen). Hopefully the ships will be reasonably armed but I suspect, given the funds allocated to them, that they will probably be armed comparatively lightly. It would also be good (though probably unlikely) if the RAAF would devote some of its F35 order to the VSTOL version (providing this version actually enters service!) so that these could be deployed on the LHDs if circumstances required. Maybe in the future!

Personally I would like to have seen the name Australia used instead of Adelaide with the latter name being allocated to a fourth Hobart class DDG.

 

[Mick73]

Well maybe we can have the first AWD named HMAS Australia. That would be a capital ship, right?
I do think one of the LPH's will be used as a light carrier, with a small number of F-35's...thats if we get the Spanish designed ship. IMO it gives the RAN more options in a time of war.
It would be good the get the RAN's FAA back on the ORBAT. It would be only wise that if we did deploy a task force, that it had fighter CAP and CAS for support.
Having been on the ground with no air support or naval fire support, apart from helo's (with a 60-90min round way flight). It does make things a bit hairy when you have a opposing force that is not playing by the rules.

 

[Padfoot]

Regarding the upcoming HMS Queen Elizabeth, it will be named after the current sovereign according to tradition. The first capital ship launched during a monarch's reign has traditionally been named after the sovereign. Take the HMS King George V from WWII for instance. There had apparently been some discussion about one of the Invincible class carriers being named after the Queen, but it was decided that the Invincibles weren't capital ships.

-Cheers

Thanks for that, Todjaeger, I wasn't aware of that. As this is a tradition surely the new carrier should be named HMS Queen Elizabeth II, should it not?

 

[icelord]

First hobart class is to be HMAS Hobart, with the Fourth sepcualted as HMAS Melbourne IV
And wats wrong with city names on RAN vessels, who here would not want to serve on HMAS Bundy Bear(HMAS Bundaberg for official classification)^_^

It's better than HMAS Wagga Wagga...

I like the wagga wagga, that way getting drunk and beating up ppl is part of its heritage

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for that, Todjaeger, I wasn't aware of that. As this is a tradition surely the new carrier should be named HMS Queen Elizabeth II, should it not?

I believe it will be named Queen Elizabth II. And following tradition, the 2nd of Class is Prince of Wales. Though depending on how things go with design & construction, it may end up being Charles III. Hopefully not though.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Well maybe we can have the first AWD named HMAS Australia. That would be a capital ship, right?
I do think one of the LPH's will be used as a light carrier, with a small number of F-35's...thats if we get the Spanish designed ship. IMO it gives the RAN more options in a time of war.
It would be good the get the RAN's FAA back on the ORBAT. It would be only wise that if we did deploy a task force, that it had fighter CAP and CAS for support.
Having been on the ground with no air support or naval fire support, apart from helo's (with a 60-90min round way flight). It does make things a bit hairy when you have a opposing force that is not playing by the rules.

More or less general rule, Carriers (not light, escort, or heli), Battleships and Battlecruisers are all considered Capital ships. Heavy cruisers on down aren't, so an AWD wouldn't be a Capital ship. Right now, only the US, India, France, Russia and Brazil are fielding Capital ships. Either in the form of Carriers or Battlecruisers. And given the relatively small size of the Brazilian carrier, that might not be considered a Capital ship anymore. I believe it's only around 27k tons IIRC.

-Cheers

 

[Mick73]

Ok so an AWD is not a capital ship, however the RAN are never likely to have one so something has to be used as the Flagship so why not one of a the LPH's or one of the AWD's and bang on the countries name.
The only thing that would not go down well would be using PM's name's!
HMAS Bob Hawke or HMAS John Howard...that would really making them into big floating targets...I shudder at the thought!

 

[Todjaeger]

Ok so an AWD is not a capital ship, however the RAN are never likely to have one so something has to be used as the Flagship so why not one of a the LPH's or one of the AWD's and bang on the countries name.
The only thing that would not go down well would be using PM's name's!
HMAS Bob Hawke or HMAS John Howard...that would really making them into big floating targets...I shudder at the thought!

I believe the Battlecruiser HMAS Australia was the only Capital ship Australia has ever had. And I agree, it is unlikely that Australia will ever get one again. By way of example, the only Capital ships now used by the USN are the CV & CVNs. It would be nice if Australia could get one, just not very likely any time soon.

As for a flagship... The role of flagship has changed a great deal. The flagship used to be literally just that, the warship that flew an admiral's (or commodore's) broad pennant. By flying the pennant, other ships in the fleet or squadron knew which ship had the CO when signal flags flew issuing orders. Also, the enemy force knew which ship had the commander, so they tended to be the largest (and by extension toughest) ship in the fleet.

Now a days, with taskforces being used, what is looked for is a command ship with sufficient C4ISR resources. More often than not, that will mean a larger vessel that way the command staff doesn't interfere as much with the actual operation of the ship while keeping track of the various taskforce members and any contacts they may have had. As a result, a command ship is less likely to actually engage an enemy directly, the way Battleships or Ships of the Line used to. As a result, a number of navies have "flagships" that are definately not Capital ships and frequently couldn't stand up to a modern frigate. The USN Blue Ridge command ships come to mind. However, the Canadian replacement replenishment ships are also planned to have a Command & Control feature and I don't believe they will have a weapon larger than a 20mm CIWS.

The LPH are likely to be used as a command ship given the size and room that can afford for a command staff & equipment, but I don't anticipate a permanent flagship being named.

-Cheers

 

[FutureTank]

I have a problem with naming a navy ship after a city which has Lake George for the largest body of water

It seems to me the name of the shp should reflect its use, and in this case the ships will be homes to a lot of great Australians where they will eat, train, be with mates, and sleep for extended periods of time. So I think one should be called HMAS Warnie because he is a great Australian who has slept with a lot of people
Cheers

 

[FutureTank]

Seriously though, what is wrong with naming Navy ships in honour of people? HMAS Monash and HMAS Blamey.

 

[Mick73]

I have a problem with naming a navy ship after a city which has Lake George for the largest body of water

It seems to me the name of the shp should reflect its use, and in this case the ships will be homes to a lot of great Australians where they will eat, train, be with mates, and sleep for extended periods of time. So I think one should be called HMAS Warnie because he is a great Australian who has slept with a lot of people
Cheers

Maybe a Sub would be better for Warnie

Nothing wrong with naming them after military people just not PM's or government people etc. I mean who would want to go down on HMAS Pauline Hason after it hits a reef!:

 

[FutureTank]

Someone may correct me, but the Queen is the only woman Navy names ships after
HMAS Australia would be one nation though