HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
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.....
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.
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.
Last edited by Archimedes; 26th Nov 2003 at 06:09.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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…
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…
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
"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...
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!
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
How about: HMS Serendipity
FEBA
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...."
Always intrigued to know why Earl Mountbottom was known as 'Uncle Dickie' by Charlie boy?
"I'm having trouble with my manservant...."
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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'...??
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'...??