HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"I'd be more confident if it was called the HMS Gordon Brown"
Naff names - lets hope the capability isn't equally derisory
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
The question is what will the aircraft be called? JSF will have a name. Any Ideas? Firefly or Swordfish, perhaps?
Doubledolphins,
Navy types I share the odd dram with are convinced it is to be Eagle and Hermes.
JSF?
Tempest
Navy types I share the odd dram with are convinced it is to be Eagle and Hermes.
JSF?
Tempest
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."
I reckon the answer is "between 5 and 10 years late and vastly overbudget."
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.......
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.......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is almost certain number one will be EAGLE and two will be ARK ROYAL, providing the present one has gone.
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.
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!
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
And of course ...
Sea Jet
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
And of course ...
Sea Jet
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Dec 2003 at 04:02.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Besides, without bu99ery (or, at least, flirtatious allusions to it), what would your feebleminded colleagues on the tabloids do for copy?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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
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' (
) 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.
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' (
) 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.