HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales

[WSOPWannabe1]

So the Admiralty have finally decided on the new names for the RN's CVF's. What do you think then?? HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.. Not exactly HMS Courageous or HMS Defiant etc.....:confused:

[Archimedes]

Or, if one were being cynical, HMS The Government Will Never Dare Cancel This and HMS Or This One Either.

Been tried before with CVA 01 and didn't work (HMSs QE and Duke of Edinburgh were the names proposed for the first two).

Also, makes it nigh on impossible to take the slightest risk with the carriers, given the prospect for national humiliation if anything happened to them.

That 'Bah! Humbug!' out of the way, it does fit in with RN tradition for naming - just that in the past, the names (Prince of Wales; King George; Duke of York: etc, etc) went to battleships rather than CVs.

[Jackonicko]

Awful! The RN seemed to have found an excellent 'tradition' of naming its carriers after previous aircraft carriers, even managing to resurrect 'Ocean's proud name. What a shame that tradition is being dispensed with.

Glorious, Courageous, Victorious, Eagle, Ark Royal (hasn't the RN had an Ark Royal almost constantly since Henry VIII?), Illustrious, Theseus all deserved to be remembered before stooping to naming vessels after living people, Royal or otherwise.

[Kiting for Boys]

I agree that a ‘real’ carrier name like Furious would be better.

My father served on the last Prince of Wales and told me that the sailors thought that the ship was unlucky because of her name.

Earlier PoWs had been a prison ship to the antipodes and an Edwardian battleship which, they believed, had blown up with much loss of life – probably not true, but people were lost at sea.

My father’s PoW involved him being attacked by those nice people who built my stereo; they sank his ship and tried to kill him.

So, not a good precedent really…

[SPIT]

Being cynical again how's about HMS Tonys Terror ?? and HMS BUSHES B*****ks.:* :oh:

[Archimedes]

Is there a source to confirm this, or does this meet with the 'R' element of 'Pprune'?

It just occurs to me that as well as being terrible names for carriers ( as opposed to Hermes; Eagle; Courageous; Furious; Glorious; Ark Royal, etc) it could be a tad embarrassing for the royals if the CV(F) were to be down-sized or (less likely) chopped on the grounds that the proposed CV(F) of SDR is unaffordable.

Also, if there's a PoW, how long before public demand for an HMS Saint Diana becomes unanswerable?:hmm:

[BEagle]

By the time these little grey dinosaurs take to the briny, surely 'HMS Queen Camilla' will be more appropriate.....:E

[Regie Mental]

Prince C: 'I've spent enough on you to buy an aircraft carrier!'

CMP: 'You've spent enough in me to float one!'

Credit: Ms L Langtry

Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the CVs will have a dual mil/civ role as per one proposal for the new AAR tankers. Anyone fancy a cruise on a Cunard flagged QE III with the largest sun deck in the world. Cabin with a window may be a bit difficult though....

:cool:

[Arclite01]

Is anyone really surprised at this political sop ?

I know I'm not, it's indicative of the way things are nowadays. No reflection on Mrs Windsor but I agree that traditional names are just so much better to associate with.

More worrying is what other equipment programmes will get axed and what other defence cuts will be made to keep these leviatians in the water. I'm a carrier fan but strongly believe these should provide an increase in overall capability not a different capability at the expense of other areas.

And why only 2 ? - 3 is the minimum required to provide a real capability allowing for refits and 1 in home waters with another in transit or out of area.

Before you all throw the cost arguments at me, remember the weasly accountants are past masters at making figures show anything you want them to - so why not in this case ?

Arc

[Gainesy]

If these names are correct, then the Andrew must just be grateful they'll not be dubbed HMS Health & Safety and HMS IIP or somesuch huggy, fluffy PC bolli.:mad:

[steamchicken]

"Prince of Wales"? As in - treetalking poof with a very bad record concerning wives and BAe 146s? And - symbolic ruin of British power, naval disaster, hundreds dead? Brilliant! If one of them's going to be QE, why not another of the QE-class names? After all, Warspite is available, and there's nothing warrier than that. Or what about Formidable (carrier tradition, battle honours, sounds nasty)? Everyone will call it the Charlie anyway...

[Flap62]

One can only assume that if these names are used that it will lead to more abuses of press freedoms.

Imagine the scenario.

If there are problems during the launch and the Prince of Wales requires a little help in being tugged off, are we going to see statements denying that it was all an lie and had never actually happened?

I think we should be told!

[ORAC]

This is going to be very confusing, which one is going to be known as the "Queen"?

[Flap62]

Despite proposed downsizing will the Prince of Wales hold more seamen than current vessels?

For going ashore duties will the PoW carry its small launch at the side or will it be a little tender at the rear?

This whole CVS business is a can of worms if you ask me.

[FEBA]

Horrible names, Makes them sound like ocean cruise liners. By them time these ships will take to the seas the two of them will have popped their clogs. We should have a name suggestion.
How about: HMS Serendipity
FEBA

[ORAC]

Following in the spirit of the original recommendations, how about HMS Pinafore? :}

[FEBA]

HMS Nogginthenog
&
HMS Nogginthenogbad

[BEagle]

Wasn't it 'Noggin the Nog' and 'Nogbad the Bad'?

Always intrigued to know why Earl Mountbottom was known as 'Uncle Dickie' by Charlie boy?

"I'm having trouble with my manservant...."

[FEBA]

BEagle
It's such a long time ago, I'm sure you're right.
All joking aside whilst the senior service is very conscious of it's dwindling public image, making some of its most potent and largest ships sound like cruise liners or names in a train spotters book, is extremly poor PR.
How do we get this changed?
FEBA

[BEagle]

Quite agree.

Perhaps some of our Pusser's chums could post a list of 'available' real aircraft carrier names - Eagle, Hermes etc - which are currently not being used.

I don't personally like the idea of using names which could be confused with cruise liners - although the QE2 served in the Malvinas War - and I certainly don't agree with using Brown Windsor's title for the name of a ship. No doubt it would soon become known as the 'Queen Charles'...??

[Archimedes]

BEagle,

How about two from:

Furious
Courageous
Glorious
Eagle
Hermes
Indomitable
Implacable
Indefatigable
Formidable
Centaur (don't think this is in use)
Glory
Warrior
Theseus
Leviathan

All rather more inspiring than HMS Cunard's Finest and HMS Architecture...

[BEagle]

OK - Eagle and Hermes. Not Indescribable, Inexcusable or Indecipherable!

And anything but Brown Windsor!

[Rex 1100]

agreed with all this QE and PoW are inappropriate names for Carriers...Furious and Courgaeous or Glorious should be the names deffo.

But this is all as nothing as compared to the T45 names, they started off well with HMS Daring...but the next two are to be called Dragon and Defender...and it could well be that a Diana is in the pipeline.... :yuk:

They should have taken an A class prefix and ended up with Ajax, Achilles names redolent of stunning naval triumphs!

[ZH875]

I reckon they should be:

HMS For Sale

and HMS For Sale 2

Because in a few years time .....

[Zoom]

HMS Dreadnought - now that's a name, and one which really seems to take the fight to the enemy? No, second thoughts, not PC, so what about HMS Compromise or HMS Giveway or HMS Donothing or HMS We Will Only Take You On If You Are Much Smaller And Weaker Than Us And We Have Invented Some Pathetic Pretext For Doing So? Yes, that should suit our present foreign policy. :ok:

[jockspice]

I must agree with all others on here; this choice of names is highly inappropriate and whiffs of someone brown-nosing for a knighthood.:yuk:

[Archimedes]

Rex,

The original Daring class destroyers included a Diana, so there is an acceptable precedent (not least since it would be commemorating the previous ship rather than the Queen of Landmines).

And it's probably a better choice than re-using one of the other names from the class: HMS Dainty....

[The Gorilla]

HMS Small and HMS SmallerStill
would be much better names.

There will be a change of HMG long before a single keel is built.

This project, just like Buff Hoon, will be a has been!!

:ok:

[FEBA]

Have the Labour PC do gooders got something to do with this???:yuk:
I'm surprised they didn't think of
HMS Nelson (gedit) Mandela
HMS Gene Robinson (Poof Bishop)
I also understand that french designs for these ships include bidets in the heads :uhoh: Is this true?

I note that all military minded ppruners agree on this point. Is there anybody reading this, with any influence, that can get this changed??? The names to go for:
HMS Furious
HMS Glorious

Now if we send ships with those names into action, then we mean business.

FEBA

[Scud-U-Like]

Or HMS Bigot perhaps?

[BlueEagle]

Years ago as a young Pongo I went on board Centaur, she provided helicopter support for us in Aden, next time I saw her she looked very sad tied up in a Scottish Loch waiting for the breakers, circa1971/2.

I agree, stick to names that mean something and have a RN carrier tradition behind them.

[RubiC Cube]

Assuming that the current CVS will be gone by then, how about "Ark Royal"?

[Rex 1100]

The original Daring class destroyers included a Diana, so there is an acceptable precedent (not least since it would be commemorating the previous ship rather than the Queen of Landmines).
Indeed, which makes me more all the more worried!

Dainty...there was also DECOY (on which my pa served) which I have never thought was a wise name for a ship! I also used to find DIDO (Leander) funny as a small boy! :E

[Flap62]

Scud-u-like is quite right, this is no time for bigotry or homophobia.
We need a name that reflects the sheer, raw, masculine fighting strength of the current Navy.
HMS Michael Barrymore it is then !

[Gainesy]

RN aircraft carriers’ names in order of launch date. Some have been repeated eg Ark Royal. * = ship cancelled. Others were built but sold off before RN service to Canada, India etc.
So, plenty of precedent for non-naff names.

Furious
Vindictive
Argus
Eagle
Hermes
Courageous
Glorious
Ark Royal
Illustrious
Victorious
Formidable
Indomitable
Implacable
Indefatigable
Africa*
Gibraltar*
Malta*
New Zealand*
Unicorn
Colossus
Perseus
Glory
Pioneer
Ocean
Theseus
Triumph
Venerable
Vengence
Warrior
Hercules
Leviathan*
Magnificent
Majestic
Powerful
Terrible
Albion
Arrogant*
Bulwark
Centaur
Monmouth*
Polyphemus*
CVA.01*
Invincible

Escort carriers
Audacity
Pretoria Castle
Activity
Campania
Vindex
Nairana

[Jackonicko]

"Have the Labour PC do gooders got something to do with this???
I'm surprised they didn't think of
HMS Nelson (gedit) Mandela
HMS Gene Robinson (Poof Bishop)..."

Hmmm. I was as hostile to the new names as anyone until I read this bigoted far right nonsense. Perhaps to please those of your ilk HMS Enoch and HMS Oswald (Powell and Moseley, 'geddit'), would go down better.

[FEBA]

Jack
I do not think the majority of the Anglican Church would agree with you.
The PC nature of Nelson Mandela was flaunted in the BBC comedy Only Fools and Horses. I would not call the BBC far right, would you?
FEBA

[Archimedes]

<Dons anorak>

Leviathan wasn't cancelled - it was never fitted out/ completed. IIRC, it was moored somewhere for years, until, in 1968, its boilers were removed for installation in the 25 de Mayo prior to the vessel joining the Argentine navy. It was then scrapped.

IIRC, there were mutterings at some point in the late 50s/early 60s about finishing Leviathan and using her as a commando carrier, but this obviously never came to anything.

:8

<removes anorak>

[Scud-U-Like]

FEBA

Why on earth would "PC Labour do gooders" have anything to do with naming a RN ship after a member of the Royal Family?

The "Anglican Church" probably has a higher percentage of gay people among its staff than any other organisation (even the Royal Navy).

"Only Fools" first aired 23 years ago. The "Nelson Mandela House" gag was very much of the 80s. The show's humour (unlike that of some people) managed to move on.

[A Civilian]

"Only Fools" first aired 23 years ago. The "Nelson Mandela House" gag was very much of the 80s. The show's humour (unlike that of some people) managed to move on.


I agree, when I was at Uni the student union (what an oxymoron) voted to change the "Nelson Mandela" Building into the "No Name" Building :p It was one of those 1990's generation X thingies :ok:

[Impiger]

True Story - during the SDR debate (doesn't that seem ages ago) George Robertson was told that the French had named a carrier Charles de Gaulle to ensure it wasn't cancelled so ours should obviously be the HMS Tony Blair. His response

"I'd be more confident if it was called the HMS Gordon Brown"

Naff names - lets hope the capability isn't equally derisory:(

[doubledolphins]

It is almost certain number one will be EAGLE and two will be ARK ROYAL, providing the present one has gone.

The question is what will the aircraft be called? JSF will have a name. Any Ideas? Firefly or Swordfish, perhaps?

[pr00ne]

Doubledolphins,

Navy types I share the odd dram with are convinced it is to be Eagle and Hermes.

JSF?

Tempest

[ZH875]

Regarding the JSF, doubledolphins writes "The question is what will the aircraft be called?"


I reckon the answer is "between 5 and 10 years late and vastly overbudget."

[Jackonicko]

JSF: The Fergie. Overweight, over-budget and incapable of fulfilling its design purpose.

The two carriers: The 'Pointless' and the 'Unaffordable'

[FEBA]

Well done Jacko
Excellent post, a perfect example of negativity with just a little hint of apathy.
Merry christmas to you :zzz:
FEBA

[doubledolphins]

Agreed, number 2 will be HERMES if the Old Ark is still going but the Navy needs an Ark. As for Tempest, wasn't a Tempest with a hook a Sea Fury?

[Jackonicko]

While I don't have the same ('it's all the fauilt of Labour, the trendy liberals') attitude that you do, I do feel negative about this. It seems like a cynical piece of ill-thought populism, to me, to select these names, and it's a needless and pointless jettisoning of tradition, which should (in general) be carefully maintained.

Moreover, the whole subject of carriers and JSF could only depress the sensible observer, for a number of reasons.

The Carriers are going to be hugely expensive and will lead to the loss of much more important (but less politically visible) capabilities.

Too many people have been taken in by specious and spurious arguments about the supposed usefulness of carriers.

If we need carriers, we need three of them.

JSF is deeply mired, and has suffered alarming weight growth, cost escalation and other technical difficulties, and as an autonomous stand alone platform lacks key capabilities.

People haven't picked up on the aircraft's weaknesses, and the problems any operator will have who do not possess the air power 'infrastructure' which the US can take for granted (F-22s, offboard sensors like AWACS, JSTARS and RJ).

JSF won't be good enough for British industry or for the UK taxpayer, because the right to bid is far from being the same as proper workshare or offset, even though we do (as the only Level splat partner) actually have some guaranteed participation.

Apart from that, I suppose it's a subject which cheers me up.......

[Rex 1100]

It is almost certain number one will be EAGLE and two will be ARK ROYAL, providing the present one has gone.

Ay? I would love this to be true, but why then has MoD briefed that they will be known as QE and PoW??

:confused:

[steamchicken]

Clearly, out of the list, Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, Vengeance and a few others (isn't Triumph a submarine?) are taken. Mind you, Vindictive isn't bad... Arrogant I think we can do without.

[FEBA]

Jacko
Other than, say, free beer, is there anything that you are actually in favour of?
FEBA

[steamchicken]

I thought I'd already dealt with this one..



CVFs Aggressor, Wimbledonian

LPDs Invader, Savage

Type 45 Destroyers Vicious, Venomous, Vituperative, Vengeful, Voracious, Vapid, ******, Whiskysot, Wobbly (thus reviving the V and W Class)

T23 Frigates Repellent, Repulsive, Repugnant, Risible, Ridiculous, Redundant

SSNs Irresponsible, Unjustifiable

MCMVs Suicidal, Foolhardy, Unwise, Quixotic, Idiotic

RFAs Logistician, Bureaucrat, Wave Chiropodist, Fort Futility, Fort Bankrupt, Unwilling Reservist, Empire Insignificant

SSBNs Horrific, Appalling, Terrifying, Radioactive, Troglodyte

STUFT for Embarked Force Support - none owing to lack of Merchant Navy

oh yes....LPH Ocean!

[BEagle]

Is it definite that they're going to be HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Queen Charles.......sorry, HMS Prance of Wales?

Eagle and Hermes it has to be - unless the Ark has been decommissioned by then, in which case Eagle and Ark Royal.

As for JSF...hmm. Osprey? ****ehawk? Shag?

[Archimedes]

It's definite in that a story appeared in the Times on 25th November:

Since I can't seem to get the URL, the key snippets are:

"IN THE finest tradition of the Royal Navy, the two large aircraft carriers that are to replace today’s three smaller warships from 2012 are to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

After months of detailed study by a special committee that examined a long list of suggested names, including a number of instantly rejected ideas — such as HMS Millennium Falcon, HMS Death Star and HMS Galaxy Blaster — the Queen is understood to have given her approval for her own name and that of her son and the heir to the throne to grace the hulls of what will be the biggest warships built in this country. ...

...The carriers will be called the Queen Elizabeth class, and the first warship will be HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The recommendation to give the first carrier the name of the Commander-in-Chief and the second the heir to the throne was made by the Ships’ Names and Badges Committee, which is chaired by Captain Christopher Page, head of the Naval Historical Branch.

The committee’s choice was first passed to Rear-Admiral Nigel Guild, Controller of the Navy, who then sought approval from Admiral Sir Alan West, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, and finally to Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary. Mr Hoon passed the Ministry of Defence’s choice to Buckingham Palace for the Queen’s approval.

The Ships’ Names and Badges Committee considered social trends — and political correctness — as well as more weighty issues such as previous ships of the same name and historical background.

The committee members, who include the naval adviser on heraldry, automatically ruled out a number of previously famous wartime names because of their modern-day connotations — notably the Gay class and Flower class warships.

A defence source said: “The Flower class corvettes of the Second World War (such as HMS Pansy, HMS Meadowsweet, HMS Wallflower, and HMS Periwinkle) were fantastic ships but I think today’s Jack Tar would be less comfortable with a cap badge with the name of a flower on it.”

Among the considerations examined by the committee when it had produced a shortlist were: does the name have a strong Royal Navy tradition; does it have many battle honours; is there a sufficient gap between the paying off or demise of the previous ship of the same name; or is there an unhappy history? A past record of wartime tragedy, however, was definitely not one of the reasons for including a name on the rejected list. "

As far as I can see, though, the Times is the only paper to have run with this, and there's nothing on the MoD website.

[Scud-U-Like]

Perhaps this is a remarkable bit of prescience by the Admiralty. By the time the carriers are launched (ie the projected date of 2012, plus six years of the usual fannying around), Her Majesty might (may God strike me down) no longer be Her Majesty. Surely there will be a public clamour for a fitting memorial. Enter HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Continuing this hypothesis, The Prince of Wales will be a certain pop (albeit 30-something) pin-up, rather than his hapless father (the latter's role being restricted to basking in reflected glory, by launching both vessels).

Well, it's about as near the money as the bollox in The Times.

[Jackonicko]

FEBA,

Free beer for whom?

Yes, there are things I'm in favour of.

I'm in favour of ending this silly culture of penny pinching (and if necessary I don't mind cutting big ticket, glamorous high profile and irrelevant programmes if necessary).
I'd like the UK armed forces to have radios that work, sufficient desert clothing, enough ceramic plates for body armour, etc.
I'd like the RAF to have proper SEAD and a proper Canberra replacement.
I'm in favour of buying (not leasing) A330s as tankers.
I want more C-17s, and I want 'em now.
I'd like to see more Support Helicopters.
I want an end to half-witted PFIs and PPPs.
I'm in favour of procuring Tranche 3 of Typhoon.
I'd like to see the introduction of Typhoon and JSF not being conditional on a further cut in FJ numbers. If necessary I'd buy Gripens or F-16s rather than JSF to ensure that. I'd maintain as many F3s and Jaguars as necessary, and I'd keep them as long as I had flying hours available to do so. I wouldn't spend silly money on Harrier rear fuselages FIRST.
I'd like to see full digital ASRAAM and HMSS integrations on all frontline FJs.
I'm in favour of making AMRAAM work on Tornado.
I'd like to see Litening or Sniper replacing TIALD ASAP.
I'd like to see a much larger number of Frigates and Destroyers (at the expense of carriers and Trident boats and other useless means of empty nationalistic posturing).

I'm in favour of free champagne for all.

Including liberals, black people, asylum seekers and (though it would be conditional on them recognising what they do is unspeakable and unnatural) even shirt-lifters. Hell I'd even let nationalistic bigots in to the party.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I'd like to see a much larger number of Frigates and Destroyers (at the expense of carriers and Trident boats and other useless means of empty nationalistic posturing).

I think you get a lot more warfighting capibility from a carrier than you get from frigates and destroyers. We could have had all the frigates and destroyers in the world in 1982 but without the carriers and Sea Harriers would have been up sh!t creek. The key is a balanced fleet.

You often complain about the dependancy on the US - this will (hopefully) go a long way towards reducing that dependancy.

I find it amazing that there is so much talk about the names, and not so much about real issues - whether the RN will have a large enough fleet to support them, manpower, delays (both CVF and JSF), lack of pilots, abandonment of SDR promises etc.

See also...

CVF delayed thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87384&highlight=carrier)

And of course ...

Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152)

[Scud-U-Like]

Well, Jacko, there's only one thing worse than a bigot and that's a conditional bigot.

Besides, without bu99ery (or, at least, flirtatious allusions to it), what would your feebleminded colleagues on the tabloids do for copy?

[Ian Corrigible]

They turned down the suggestion of "HMS Death Star" ?? Godammitt, it took me hours to think of that one down the pub...

Beags - very droll ! ;)

Steamchicken - priceless !

Back on subject - as a result of the two-ship CVF force, are we likely to see other assets (e.g. Ocean) pressed into service as make-shift carriers more often ? Is she even STOVL-JSF capable ?

I/C

[Jackonicko]

Scud

I obviously needed a smiley, I guess. On a thread about matters nautical expressing more than a joking bias against those making an 'equally valid alternative lifestyle choice' (:uhoh: ) would be unwise......

But I do like the sound of being a 'conditional bigot'.


WEBF

We needed (ASW) Carriers in the Cold War. We needed carriers when the Falklands had no airfield. We don't need them now, but more frigates and destroyers for anti-drug ops, etc. would be very useful.

[Flopster]

... the endless posturing on this here site, and indeed throughout the English speaking media, wouldn't it be more appropriate to name the vessels

HMS Moaning
HMS Whinging

???

The JSF, should it ever materialise as something else as a support program for Lockheed-Martin and make it's way to front line service, could be called

Bitching

Thus establishing the -Ing class of Navy ships and Aeroplanes in one all-encompassing badging exercise.

Or is it just in public you lot bitch, whinge and moan? :hmm:

[Navaleye]

It looks like new carrier are on their way which is excellent news for the armed services. One dividend of the carrier force is that it will allow the elimination duplicate aircraft types in the RAF saving huge amounts of money for the tax payer. A reduced order for the Typhoon for UK air defence and hopefully an increased order for the F35 for mud moving and fleet air defence.

[Phoney Tony]

When they invent the unsinkable aircraft carrier is the time to invest in these outdated methods of waging limited war:

The logistic trail with its vulnerabilities are well documented.

The lose of one of these beasts to an asymmetric threat:

USS Cole – Boat full of chaps with a few pounds of explosives
HMS Nottingham – Boat full of chaps without a few pounds of common sense and a map. And a brief from their captain specifically not to bump into things!
Mines.

Etc etc.

Just think of the consequence of losing one of these things:

Lose of life.
The whole of the air wing.
Prestige. (Especially if named QE2 or PoW).

The drain on the Defence Budget is going to be massive for little gain.

How about HMS Marham/ HMS Kinloss/ HMS Leeming
Just to remind people of places where real capability exists.

[Oggin Aviator]

Why not just bin the Carriers and spend the money on large numbers of shares in the Marriot, Hilton and Holiday Inn hotel chains then our light blue bretheren will always have confirmed places to stay in host nations adjacent to the battlefield? :mad:

Oggin

[Flatus Veteranus]

"...an increased order for the F35 for mud-moving and fleet air defence".

It will not move much mud and there will be nothing for it to defend the fleet against. Waste of money! :(

[Regie Mental]

To really secure the popular vote they should of course have opted for HMS Posh and HMS Becks.

That said I share the concern that these ships will simply be too vulnerable. With the US having withdrawn it's more potent carriers from ops in littoral waters due to the vulnerability to attack from small fast boats or shore based missile batteries, one wonders whether more tomahawks SLCMs would be appropriate.

[polyglory]

Perhaps the names may become secondary, after reading this brilliant thought.

Time Share Carriers (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1327342003)

:*

[Kiting for Boys]

Another chance for Concorde?

And how about Droits de l`homme, just to annoy...

[Small Spinner]

Prince Charles de Gaul.

Drop the Prince bit when the Frogs use it.
And the de Gaul when we use it.

Bingo. :D

Not sure about the HMS QE though.

[Jackonicko]

If they're to be shared with the French, how about 'Agincourt' and 'Trafalgar', or 'Waterloo' and 'Oran'?

Or 'Cowardice' and 'Collaboration'......:uhoh: