• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Little bit of Naval Aweseome (HMCS OTTAWA ships moral badge)

SeaKingTacco said:
Heave Away?
Click to expand...

season 1 corned beef and handcuffs GIF by mom
 
Apologies for the revival of a bit of a bit of a dead topic but it is so interesting that I cannot help myself.

FSTO said:
The first meeting of the CSC Naming committee will be in mid May. I'm the secretary for the committee.

Fun fact, prior to Covid the powers that be had decided to continue on with the City Class. That all changed with the pandemic, change at CRCN, and the designation of the class as Destroyers. It will be an interesting discussion for sure.
Click to expand...

Very interesting to hear about the pivot away from the City class, good news in my opinion. I understand why it was done as a way of bridging the gap with the Canadian public but I always thought it was a bit uninspired, especially considering they reused the naming scheme for the MCDV's and submarines as well. It always seemed like a bit of a stretch to try and attach a ship to something as diverse and large as an entire city, the only connection I've seen in person was a life ring from HMCS Charlottetown hung up in a Sobeys in the namesake city and HMCS Calgary's sailors attending the Stampede. It came off more to me that something like a landmark or especially trying to honor an individual person or a specific group is a more meaningful use of your time and effort.

If I am not mistaken, the Minister of National Defence has the final say with regard to naming Canadian naval vessels. I would imagine figures like the CRCN and the Committee's like you mention would also have input as well, although information on how these internal systems usually work are fairly obscure to me and what I can find elsewhere. I don't expect any updates but hopefully things went well at the meeting and support keeps up.

Regarding reconciliation, I personally see naming ships, especially major warships after something as a very good way to generate awareness. Many Canadian cities don't need this type of awareness, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Quebec City, etc have enough time in the limelight. These ships are very much worldwide ambassadors of Canada, they go across the world carrying our citizens and flying our flag. Working with allies, being observed by our adversaries and coming into foreign ports all slowly but surely bring these namesakes to a wider foreign audience. It is a very meaningful gesture to send out these namesakes onto the world stage, especially if they are bearing proper Indigenous spellings of their namesakes alongside artifacts, mementos, etc aboard. People see an eye catching name, come aboard for a tour, ask questions and you get engagement and curiosity. These might seem insubstantial to many but symbolism is a bit part of naval tradition alongside many Indigenous cultures as well.

As for referring to the class as destroyers, that is very interesting. From what I've gathered, the RCN/Government has been very careful to obfuscate the ships classification publicly. I cannot recall them ever calling it even a frigate, let alone a destroyer in official media. The CRCN went on an episode of the Defence Deconstructed podcast in June to speak about anti-submarine warfare and said the following:

“It (CSC) will be a destroyer for us but destroyers have historically been about protecting the fleet from smaller things, torpedo boats, submarines. That’s the history and CSC will deliver that capability.”
Click to expand...

It will be quite fitting from a historical view if the "Tribal" name is reused on something called a destroyer, although I can imagine many other people will be very unhappy about something like CSC being called a destroyer.

Underway said:
Some of us developed a plan along with these sailors (and another) to put forward to the CSC naming committee regarding how to approach resurecting the Tribals. There is certainly an ear for it.

The Plan:
Basically you take the old Tribal class names. You rename them using the accepted language/spelling from the group they were supposed to represent. So like you said, Haudenosaunee instead of Iroquois.

The ship also gets a new crest designed by a Haudenosaunee artist in a traditional style combined with the current naval crest symbolism.

Finally you keep the battle honours of the previous Iroquois, to bring those into the future. Basically the ship is the same, we're just using a new name for it. It also wouldn't be the first time a ship crest was redisigned/updated. The ships motto could be updated as well if necessary. In Iroqouis case Relentless in chase could stay the same or undergo a language modification.

Why It Works:
Ship names generally meet a few criteria:
  1. Connects with Canadians/Canadian communities
  2. Brings forward Canadian Naval Heritage/History
  3. Be recognizable as Canadian
  4. No disrespectful or death symbolism (so no the Erebus and Terror are likely not available due to that)
The proposed plan meets all of the above criteria. (1) is met by the FN communities the ship will be named after, (2) it keeps the battle honours and history of the original Tribal classes, (3) kinda obvious but again Canadian FN communites, (4) goes that extra mile for reconciliation with respect and honour.

There is an unofficial (5) which is it's got a positive political message. And this would get all party support no mater who was in Gov't.

The previous Tribal Class names (1936):
  • Iroqouis
  • Athabaskan
  • Algonquin
  • Huron
  • Haida (bring it back to active duty, no need to rename the old ship)
  • Micmac
  • Nootka
  • Cayooga

Some other ship names from RCN history that could be used and carry on battle honours (originally River class or subs but if the name fits):
  • Kootany - I mentioned this name to a CPO2 and he got all teary eyed at the idea that Kootany could be brough back
  • Ojibwa
  • Okanogan (Syilx)
  • Onadoga
  • Sioux (Nakota/Dakota)
  • Assiniboine

Some major first nations groups that should have ships named after them:
  • Cree (largest of the "nations" in Canada)
  • Inuit
  • Metis
Click to expand...
I think this is an excellent proposal and basically exactly what I would have wanted. My only concern is that DCTF Kootenay is a shore installation on the West Coast and as far as I know, the RCN doesn't have duplicates of names ashore and at sea. Perhaps changing the spelling to the proper Indigenous variant would fix this issue as I have my doubts they would so easily rename the shore facility as it had a lot of symbology to the RCN itself. Similarly to how the AOPS used namesakes from across Canada, I would imagine equal representation would be a major factor as well meaning you would likely be seeing some of the Northern groups being included as well.
 
Why would anyone be angry at CSC being called a destroyer? It will be far more cabapable then the 280s.
 
Navy_Pete said:
Why would anyone be angry at CSC being called a destroyer? It will be far more cabapable then the 280s.
Click to expand...
The people who usually care about things like naval ship designations are some of the most pedantic out there, even within the overall naval enthusiast community. Many people would be displeased for a design they view as inferior sharing the same designation as vessels like the Arleigh Burke class, Zumwalt class, Daring class, Sejong the Great class, Maya class, etc. Nuance and objectivity can be lacking with some of this group, alongside the fact that designations change overtime and between individual navies.
 
I guess, but the whole distinction between frigates and destroyers is a bit wonky anyway.

It will tentatively have anti ship missiles, a 5" gun and then the VLS (likely with a AAW config but possible to drop in Tomahawk missiles), plus some smaller autocannons. The 280s only had the VLS and a 3" gun with a few 50 cals, so is big upgrade from that, as there was no real anti ship capability. Our frigates have actual anti ship missiles so have more destroyer capability then our destroyers.

And with the advent of the sub surface anti air missiles, and the range difference between the light weight torpedos on ships and heavy weight torpedos the subs carry, I think 'sub hunting' is a bit of misnomer anyway, as really all you are doing is acting as a picket sentry to limit where they can go undetected and hoping an SSK gets the job done.
 
Navy_Pete said:
Why would anyone be angry at CSC being called a destroyer?
Click to expand...
Government image doctors and a lot of the public, who will think 'destroyer' is much to aggressive. 'We're peacekeepers'. We bring aid aid, not anger.
 
lenaitch said:
Government image doctors and a lot of the public, who will think 'destroyer' is much to aggressive. 'We're peacekeepers'. We bring aid aid, not anger.
Click to expand...
It's probably more the bows and buttons types, who care about whether you write a ship's name in capitols, normal case, or italics, or other pedant type details of things that don't actually matter, or change the fact our navy is a dumpster fire on a deathspiral between the state of ships, retention, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top