shep854 Posted January 17 Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Yeah, apparently it was because Active had been so effective with fire support at San Carlos I think. Which is ironic then they are giving the ship a 57mm (not that I think its a bad idea inherently). There still needs to be an offensive option, like the 4.5" gun.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 17 Posted January 17 Well.... You could argue they already have that with the Type 26 and the Type 45 (and whatever replaces it). Type 31 would appear to be the low end, almost like a Type 21 was, to fly the flag in distant seas and do the 21st Century equivalent of Master and Commander. To do that kind of freebooting role, it doesnt really need a shore bombarment capablity, particularly as you can arm Wildcat with martlet missiles. Besides, the RN's amphibious assault capability is pretty much zero till the 2030's, when maybe they get 6 Amphibious assault ships to replace the 2 that just got paid off. So in the short term at least (maybe in the long term if the economy doesnt pick up), there is pretty much zero requirement for it. And then history will throw us a curveball and prove it was deeply stupid to ever remove it. isnt that always how it works?
shep854 Posted January 17 Posted January 17 4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Well.... You could argue they already have that with the Type 26 and the Type 45 (and whatever replaces it). Type 31 would appear to be the low end, almost like a Type 21 was, to fly the flag in distant seas and do the 21st Century equivalent of Master and Commander. To do that kind of freebooting role, it doesnt really need a shore bombarment capablity, particularly as you can arm Wildcat with martlet missiles. Besides, the RN's amphibious assault capability is pretty much zero till the 2030's, when maybe they get 6 Amphibious assault ships to replace the 2 that just got paid off. So in the short term at least (maybe in the long term if the economy doesnt pick up), there is pretty much zero requirement for it. And then history will throw us a curveball and prove it was deeply stupid to ever remove it. isnt that always how it works? I want to shake my head every time I see the RN frigates and destroyers from the '70s where the gun mount was removed for Exocet launchers, but then I am a gun nut...
R011 Posted January 17 Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Allan W said: What was HMS Venturer famous for? First and only sub to sink another while both were submerged.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 18 Posted January 18 11 hours ago, shep854 said: I want to shake my head every time I see the RN frigates and destroyers from the '70s where the gun mount was removed for Exocet launchers, but then I am a gun nut... Yes, they lack a certain 'presence', and I say that as someone whom loves the old Leanders.
shep854 Posted January 18 Posted January 18 5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Yes, they lack a certain 'presence', and I say that as someone whom loves the old Leanders. Yeah, an awful lot of faith that missiles will work in an active environment...
shep854 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Just close and board, no problem. AWAY BOARDERS!! Maybe that's why the Rus have whole galleries of gatling guns on their ships...
Ol Paint Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Not deserving of its own topic, but since when do we assign names to ships that aren't even at Milestone B, nevermind under DD&C contract? https://news.usni.org/2025/01/16/secnav-names-first-medium-landing-ship-uss-mcclung Doug
Dawes Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Well, someone threw a curve ball into the DDG-51 class naming system: https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4020805/secnav-names-navys-newest-guided-missile-destroyer-ddg-145/
R011 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 It would be nice if the new Administration set some firm rules on ship names and had Congress write them into law. Intrepid should be a carrier.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 21 Posted January 21 Supports ships as civil rights leaders. Yeah, can see that. Amphibious assault vessels as war heros, particularly Marines. Yep, makes sense. Destroyers, USN Heros. And lets face it there are more than enough to go around. I have no idea why the JP Jones name was applied to an LPH. Frigates. Name them after WW2 Destroyer Escorts, you are never going to build enough to matter. Carriers. Name them after WW2 Carriers. Again, you are never going to make enough to run out of names. The max you could ever have is 12 these days, and its probably going to get a lot less. Submarines. Should be named after fish. Name SSBN's after states. Tugboats and other minor support vessels. Name after politicians. The more senior the politician, the more inferior the vessel. There, its easy. This is why the RN refused to go down the road of having ships named after politicians. I think the nearest we got was HMS Cromwell, and they paid her off in an awful hurry when the war was over, which tell's its own story.
shep854 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 We need cruisers, nukes to keep up with the carriers!! They would get state names. SSBNs started out with names of presidents; go back to that. As for frigates, Samuel B Roberts had better be near the top! There are a number of fighting destroyers that should be honored in the new class. Stuart's suggestion for auxiliaries is spot on!
Dawes Posted January 21 Posted January 21 I believe that early 20th century US naming convention (through WW2 at least) was to name DD's (and DE's?) after Secretaries of the Navy, inventors, and heroes of the Naval Service.
shep854 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Dawes said: I believe that early 20th century US naming convention (through WW2 at least) was to name DD's (and DE's?) after Secretaries of the Navy, inventors, and heroes of the Naval Service. Yep, and escort naming seems to have remained pretty consistent to the present. There are a few exceptions, the USS Winston Churchill comes to mind.
shep854 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dawes said: Interesting that DD 666 was named USS Black. I can only wonder about the discussions around naming DD 666... Edited January 21 by shep854
Renegade334 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) Sturgeon-class USS Hawkbill (SSN 666) was often referred to as Devilfish or Devil's Boat. Fun fact: its name was inherited from a Balao-class sub (SS 366), and in both cases, is misspelled. It's actually Hawksbill. 4 hours ago, shep854 said: Yep, and escort naming seems to have remained pretty consistent to the present. There are a few exceptions, the USS Winston Churchill comes to mind. AFAIK only US vessel to have been named after a foreign chief of state, but I could be wrong. I do however remember that (for a time, at least, I don't know if it has been upheld) it was tradition for the ship's chief navigator to be borrowed from the ranks of the Royal navy. Edited January 21 by Renegade334
R011 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Supports ships as civil rights leaders. Yeah, can see that. Amphibious assault vessels as war heros, particularly Marines. Yep, makes sense. Destroyers, USN Heros. And lets face it there are more than enough to go around. I have no idea why the JP Jones name was applied to an LPH. Frigates. Name them after WW2 Destroyer Escorts, you are never going to build enough to matter. Carriers. Name them after WW2 Carriers. Again, you are never going to make enough to run out of names. The max you could ever have is 12 these days, and its probably going to get a lot less. Submarines. Should be named after fish. Name SSBN's after states. Tugboats and other minor support vessels. Name after politicians. The more senior the politician, the more inferior the vessel. There, its easy. This is why the RN refused to go down the road of having ships named after politicians. I think the nearest we got was HMS Cromwell, and they paid her off in an awful hurry when the war was over, which tell's its own story. There was an HMS Churchill, a WW2 Town Class destroyer supposedly named for a small town somewhere but everyone knew who she was really named for. There was also a later SSN named for him. Arthur Wellesley was nicknamed the Iron Duke for his service as Prim Minister, not for his military service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Churchill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Iron_Duke
Dawes Posted January 21 Posted January 21 The USN had a couple SSBN's named USS Robert E. Lee and USS Stonewall Jackson. No way those would fly today.
R011 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Renegade334 said: Sturgeon-class USS Hawkbill (SSN 666) was often referred to as Devilfish or Devil's Boat. Fun fact: its name was inherited from a Balao-class sub (SS 366), and in both cases, is misspelled. It's actually Hawksbill. AFAIK only US vessel to have been named after a foreign chief of state, but I could be wrong. I do however remember that (for a time, at least, I don't know if it has been upheld) it was tradition for the ship's chief navigator to be borrowed from the ranks of the Royal navy. There's also only been two USN ships named for a foreign city: The first USS Canberra CA-70 commissioned in 1943. She was named in honour of HMAS Canberra lost at the Battle of Savo Island the year earlier. The second of the same name is a Littoral Combat Ship commissioned last year.
shep854 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) Then there was the USS Shangri-La (CV 38), named after a joke... Edited January 21 by shep854
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now