Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Jeff Head said:

Not really, Asif.

The Queen Elisabeth was also a class of super dreadnought battleships commissioned by England in the nineteen teens. They are generally recognized as the first "fast" battleships, and were the first oil powered (versus coal powered) large battleships. The name, Queen Elizabeth was also meant to be the first in class CV-01 carriers that never materialized. And the name "Elizabeth," for Royal Navy ships goes back to the 1500s. The battleship was the ninth vessel to be named for Elizabeth and the carrier will be the tenth.

The last Prince of Wales was a King George V class battleship in World War II and was of course instrumental in the sinking of the Bismark, but then herself was sunk by the Japanese at the outbreak of the war in the Pacific. The Prince of Wales aircraft carrier will be the eighth HMS Prince of Wales dating back to the 1700s.

So both names have rich, traditions in the Royal Navy.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the context of carriers, yes previous ships have been after names of the Royals i am aware of that but never a carrier the CV-01 programme and the names for both those carriers was never confirmed it was possible those would be the names but the project was cancelled no Royal Navy carrier has ever carried these names

There has been a huge push and big debate about the names of both ships to have them changed to something more akin to the RN history in carrier operations but the shameful state of affairs decided otherwise

asif iqbal said:

There has been a huge push and big debate about the names of both ships to have them changed to something more akin to the RN history in carrier operations but the shameful state of affairs decided otherwise

Click to expand...

I undertsand about the carriers...but a carrier is today's capitol ship. In times past, Battleships were. Before that, Ships of the line were. The Royal Navy has a long history of giving these names to its capitol ships in bygone eras. Now we are in a newer era.

I cannnot see anything shameful about naming their carriers in this manner they have a rich tradition of naming capitol ships for them already, which have served admirably for the Royal Navy. And that tradition predates the realtively young list of carrier names, in some cases, by several hundred years.

Anyhow, I do not see it changing. The people in the Navy and administration will rightly point out that these names have been carried before by RN capitol ships that served ably and well and there is really no compelling reason to make the change. Particularly as the QE is going to be christened three months from tomorrow. Once that happens, that will be the name of the vessel for its life.

Anyhow, that's just my own opinion of it.

Obi Wan, are you reading this? Where do you fall regarding these names? Are they really so distasteful?

I mean naming a US Navy ship for Ceasar Chavez who was a radical and a self avowed disdainer and hater of the US Navy is one thing, and something to get up in arms about (though it did no good with this administration), but having QE and POW named carriers, each of which has a rich Royal Navy tradition?

HMS Ark Royal, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible were all carriers and also all capitol ships of the RN so I don’t see how QE being a capitol ship should take the names they are taking

I do not like these names and I do not like the Royal Family I don’t know why everyone outside UK loves them so much, Queen did not pay for these ships the Royal Family didn’t pay for these ships the UK tax payer did and since we paid for them we have a say in what they should be called, yes Royals attend the launching ceremony’s do what they have to do but use £6 billion of UK tax payer money and then stamp the name of the Royal Family eh no I don’t think so that’s not how it work

No carrier has been called after Royals name why in 2014 why now it’s not practical and I don’t like it simple as that once again the people who built the ship will vanish into obscurity and the name will live on which actually did nothing for the ship

asif iqbal said:

I do not like these names and I do not like the Royal Family I don’t know why everyone outside UK loves them so much, Queen did not pay for these ships the Royal Family didn’t pay for these ships the UK tax payer did and since we paid for them we have a say in what they should be called

Click to expand...

Admiral Nimitz sponsored an aircraft carrier?

The sole rule that concenrns all of the countries - you call it the way you like it, no matter what anyone around is going to say. Last year it was one of the top news in Chinese TV, press etc when Japanese launched Izumo... you call that normal? There's a German warship named by the one which started WWII sailing around the world but no one had problem with that as that's what they wanted to name it and they did. You might not like that but you'll find many people who will call such complaints 'childish' and many more who will just say 'that's cool name!'.

Well, I don't have problems with 'traditional' naming of warships by any navy around the world btw.

Rutim said:

There's a German warship named by the one which started WWII sailing around the world but no one had problem with that as that's what they wanted to name it and they did.

Click to expand...

Which ship is that?

vesicles said:

Which ship is that?

Click to expand...

Schleswig-Holstein.

Well anyone who is not from the UK does not have a say in the matter because your tax money did not go towards the ship mine did and I don't like it one bit

It's a representation of UK as a whole not one person and especially not a family who is on average costing the working UK tax payer millions of £££s back in the days it was a different story Royals used to give not take

The name will not change it's a done deal but that doesn't stop me from saying what it should be I couldn't care less what others are doing or saying about their own ships I don't like the name and it shouldn't be called that

asif iqbal said:

Well anyone who is not from the UK does not have a say in the matter because your tax money did not go towards the ship mine did and I don't like it one bit.

Click to expand...

No one is denying this, Asif, we are just all sharing our opinions. No need to get too worked up about it.

asif iqbal said:

It's a representation of UK as a whole not one person and especially not a family who is on average costing the working UK tax payer millions of £££s back in the days it was a different story Royals used to give not take

Click to expand...

It's not about being named for Royalty, Asif. Everyone knows that the Royal family is just a figurehead and icon now.

It's about Royal Navy tradition, which does include a long history of those names for capitol ships. No one is saying that carriers are not capitol ships, because they are...but that does not limit their names to only those that have served in the last 80 years. So, from that perspective, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with those names.

asif said:

The name will not change it's a done deal but that doesn't stop me from saying what it should be I couldn't care less what others are doing or saying about their own ships I don't like the name and it shouldn't be called that

Click to expand...

Asif, IMHO, you are allowing your dislike for the Royal family and what they represent now, to color your feelings regarding the name of a ship. And that's fine, you have every right to your opinion, however derived. But surely that does not mean that that opinion applies to everyone else.

Certainly you have made it clear that you do not feel they should be called those names, and in fact seem offended by it. But there are many others, and not just outside the UK, who feel differently. They feel that these names are just fine.

Naming a ship is not an absolute fundamental truth...so what they "should" be called is rather subjective depending on one's opinion. In the end, we have to allow for other's opinion as long as they do not infringe on our natural rights.

But, as you say, the whole arguement is probably purely academic because the Royal Navy has already gone through its naming process and it's a done deal.

JMSDF Izumo is named for a location in Japan. Izumo Province its a perfectly logical name. Queen Elizabeth II was a person, but Prince of Whales is a title but given the fact it still is the Royal Navy. Personally the only name mistakes I see is that there is a USS Winston Churchill but not a HMS Winston Churchill

TerraN_EmpirE said:

...there is a USS Winston Churchill but not a HMS Winston Churchill

Click to expand...

Well, Churchill was a great friend to the US.

A couple of interesting facts about the AEGIS destroyer, USS Wiston Churchill, DDG-81.

She is the only U.S. Navy warship that has a Royal Navy Officer permanently assigned to the ship's company. PPermanently. it is said to be a "plum," position within the RN and highly sought after.

In addition, she is also the only U.S. Navy warship to fly a foreign ensign. The Royal Navy's White Ensign is flown along with the U.S. flag on the vessel.

Quite an honor, and the honor is in memory of and out of respect for Winston Churchill (though it is clear that the current occupant of the White House does not much care for Churchill).