I think in comparison to other navies destroyers afloat currently, CSC does look a bit unimpressive. That is due to a difference in roles of the nations in question however, they still do share the designation. If Canada is justifying the designation as bring a carry over and continuation from the Iroquois class, I think that is a reasonable enough explanation even if it would make some unhappy.
Sure, but who cares really? There isn't a NATO designation for 'multirole combatant' and the naming conventions date back to the age of sail. They no longer really apply for modern ships so it's all just legacy conventions anwyay.
You're right, it doesn't really matter as capability is whats important here. But for clarity sake...
I've heard this a lot of places and I haven't run into a single actual person yet who thinks this is going to be a problem. Or has even posted this as a problem somewhere. This seems like an imaginary "Canadian's don't like war names" issue that people like us worry about. I'm not seeing it being an issue with the public. If anything I've seen the opposite, at least amoungst naval circles.
I apologize, I should have been more clear. I was more speaking in the context of the pedantic type of people commonly attracted to naval topics/serving abroad in other navies having issue with the designation. CSC is very close to frigate designs like Hunter and Constellation regarding its weapons suite, sensor array, size, etc. I can see why some folks would be confused and unhappy about that designation when they are expecting a destroyer designation to bring along the capability of something like a Burke. I can't imagine Canadian's really care what we call these ships, that is many layers of interest deeper than most citizens operate on regarding anything to do with the Canadian Forces.
If they are the pedantic type you can refer them to my post above. Which I think has way to much detail regarding naming conventions.... lol
Indeed, I was aware of the Kootenay tragedy and the shore facility being named to honor the ship. The former HMCS Kootenay was named after the River, you are correct. If the RCN wanted to reuse the name however, it could be worked into a new Tribal class. The Kootenay River was named for the Kutenai/Ktunaxa people of British Columbia and parts of the United States, so it would be a potential option if they want a round about way to carry on the namesake.
At the risk of reopening a very old debate, after doing a lot of digging the best explanation I could find is that ship names were always meant to be italicized, and the lack of this option on most typewriters led to the adoption of a "supposedly" temporary measure of typing in all-caps the words that would then be italicized when published.
I love the torque we put into how we write a ships name...
I have been doing some research on this topic and had a question regarding this very nice proposal you've put forward. As far as I can see, battle honours only carry forward between ships if the exact name is used. Any changes to spelling would automatically remove the battle honours as it is not considered the same name. This was apparently how the system worked through British use and was seemingly carried over to the Canadian system. Is there a standing policy here as I describe? I would imagine even if it is a thing, Canada could simply change our system to make a new Tribal class work according to our own rules?
I sit beside the RCN Historical desk. They say that new spelling will not affect the battle honours of the previous name. The Honours will transfer to the new name spelling.
Virtually all Army Reserve Regiments have gone through multiple name changes and perpetuations of numbered Battalions though their history and carry over their battle honours. Makes sense that the naval battle honours would carry over if the name change is simply a linguistic variation rather than a completely different name.
I had assumed some change like this had been made, it would be a very silly reason to remove a ships battle honors but in the end, tradition is largely built upon these kind of reasonings. Especially if a new Tribal class had been proposed to honor the previous ships, having them stripped of their honors due to a name change would be self defeating. Thank you for answering my question, it is very helpful!
To be perfectly honest we just make things up as we go along sometimes. Whatever is in the best interest of the RCN will likely happen when it comes to something like ship names. Particularly with the current Commander RCN who put out a vibe that he doesn't have a lot of time for stuffy makes no sense rules.
Former CRCN Llyod enters the chat #MARTECH
While the Moustache looks funny, I wouldn’t put it in the same league as MARTECH.
