Naming of Astute Class

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by janner, Apr 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    There is a petition in being re the naming of the Astute class Submarines you are invited to read and sign
  2. 'S' boats as well, most named from old Ironclads and the like.
  3. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    If you really wanted people to agree with this, then perhaps it would have been better in a different forum??? Personally I think it is more important that the name lives on, no matter what it is attached to.....
  4. Does anybody know the point of this futile exercise - nothing is going to alter the current position. What exactly is wrong with Astute, Artful, Ambush :?:
  5. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Nothing at all, the disagreement is with the remaining proposed names, they have gone away from following the old A class names into battleship names of the past. Some of us thought that it would keep a tradition going to use the old Submarine names.
  6. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    It was a toss up between this and the Submariners forum, last time I looked Submarines were part of the Fleet so I went for this one thinking that some people would not go to the Submariners one.
  7. Janner - apologies :oops: . I misread the link and thought we were trying to change those named already. I agree with the proposal and believe that the remaining A boats (if we ever get them !) should be named after previous A class SMs
  8. Nothing at all in my books, those three names seem to sum up boats rather well methinks.
  9. The living on of the names is exactly the point to submariners 'proper' A boat names mean more than battlewagon names.
  10. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer


    We would follow you to the ends of the earth no matter what forum..

    Submarines do indeed form part of the Fleet, my point was I thought you would have better luck attracting potential signatories from amongst your own kind - a thought not a criticism, honestly....
  11. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Non taken, just explaining my tortured reasoning
  12. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Yes :roll: :roll: :wink:

    Its called tradition
  13. Silverfox,If you move it to the submariners forum .I will ensure its get as much coverage on the topic as possible.
  14. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    But the fact is that all the proposed names were taken from surface ships in the first place, and so any new names are fair game. T boats and U boats were different - they had an exceptional war record and were those classes ever reintroduced I would be first in the queue behind the Dorset Submariners...

    What I meant by the living on of the name is in the wider Fleet forum, rather than the narrow view through the attack scope. For example if I had a choice between having one of our warships named after a Ship of the Line that fought at Trafalgar, or a Fish Boat that is famous for some pretty tricky inspections of cod in the North Sea, I would have to go for Agamennon over Alderney every time.

    Dogbox established....
  15. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    No have the buttons to do that, and anyway I welcome the Silent Service's wish to share the issue with their skimmer brethren

    (now pass me a bucket - how sickly was that...)
  16. Don't misunderstand me, I was very proud to serve in Warspite, and if this new class had carried on the early SSN naming protocal of taking such names I would have no problem, but they started of with good old A boat names and then switch to capital ship names. Yes submariners carry on RN tradition but they also have their own traditions derived from bathing in deisel oil and being bombarded by neutrons.
  17. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    ...and that does'nt make them bad people - just easier to find in the dark.

    The choice of names to me means that we achieve the good old British compromise - we keep the best of the A boat names, although I would have thought there might have been a place for Acheron - the original name boat of the class I believe, and we keep a bit of tradition in the broader Service sense.

    I would pay cash money to sit in on the Ship Naming Committee - an American officer visiting our Wardroom many years ago nearly choked to death on his CSB when we told him our sister ships was called HMS BEAVER.......
  18. There was some dissapointment with the names chosen for the S and T boats but the choices were reasonably consistent, now we will have a b*st*rd setof names neither one nor the other, I think that is the problem.

    As to the yanks having a giggle at our names, what about these from the RN point of view Klakring, Elrod or perhaps Ponce.
  19. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    He was not having a pop - he was just in awe that we would do such a thing, as he went on to explain it would be the same as calling a ship USS CNUT..... As all US ships (stand fast Ticos and LPDs) are named after people they are always on a hiding to nothing.

    The dutch ship Bloys van Treslong was always one of my favourites.

    Anyway - musn't get too far off thread or a MOD will tick us off....

Share This Page