AWD names

In any case I susspect that the Government here aren’t being fully honest with the intentions of these new LHD’s (but then again what government has ever been honest about anything? In the fullness of time we will see what they will do with the vessels

USS Canberra, CA-70, was originally named Pittsburg, when laid down 9/3/41. She was re-named in honor of HMAS Canberra for her launching on 4/19/43. (if you believe, as do I, the theory that HMAS Canberra was actually hit by a torpedo from a US Destroyer at Savo, rather than a Japanese torpedo, then you could call this a “guilt relief” naming)

CA-70 was in mothballs by the 1970s, and was sold for scrap 7/31/78… 4 months & 30 days after HMAS Canberra, F 02, was laid down (Aussie version of US O.H.Perry class Frigate).

So, there actually was a US Canny-Bear at the same time as an Aussie one, for a little while anyway.

I know and that is what is confusing about the whole deal, like I susspect, the LHD’s will get the ramp and F-35’s thus proving the point in the naming. The names Chosen are a sort of hint that this will be the case.

Yes but that’s not an Australian vessel now is it? there have been cases where two countries have used the same name on a ship at the same time under their own banner, the USN had USS Canberra at the same time we had HMAS Canberra for instance.

Actually USS Canberra wasn’t launched until 1943, after the HMAS Canberra was sunk while operating with US forces at Savo Island in 1942

Daniel

I know and that is what is confusing about the whole deal, like I susspect, the LHD’s will get the ramp and F-35’s thus proving the point in the naming. The names Chosen are a sort of hint that this will be the case.

That would be nice.

Yes but that’s not an Australian vessel now is it? there have been cases where two countries have used the same name on a ship at the same time under their own banner, the USN had USS Canberra at the same time we had HMAS Canberra for instance.

I just wrote it as trivia.

The LHDs won’t.

I know and that is what is confusing about the whole deal, like I susspect, the LHD’s will get the ramp and F-35’s thus proving the point in the naming. The names Chosen are a sort of hint that this will be the case.

The French have a small LSD by that name.

Yes but that’s not an Australian vessel now is it? there have been cases where two countries have used the same name on a ship at the same time under their own banner, the USN had USS Canberra at the same time we had HMAS Canberra for instance.

As for naming the third Amphibious unit Australia: that won’t happen because under the naming code all Amphibious units are to be named after great operations of an amphibious nature from our history, hence HMAS Tobruk, Balikpapan, Brunei and so on.

The LHDs won’t.

I would like to see, however, a HMAS Bouganville since this was the first ever amphibious action undertaken by the RAN and happened in November 1914 when units of the Australian Army and Royal Australian Navy landed and marched across Bouganville to take out a German radio station there before sending it’s fleet units off to war.

The French have a small LSD by that name.

We have had two vessels named HMAS Australia;

HMAS Australia I

HMAS Australia II

Why should we hold back on an Australia III?

As for naming the third Amphibious unit Australia: that won’t happen because under the naming code all Amphibious units are to be named after great operations of an amphibious nature from our history, hence HMAS Tobruk, Balikpapan, Brunei and so on. I would like to see, however, a HMAS Bouganville since this was the first ever amphibious action undertaken by the RAN and happened in November 1914 when units of the Australian Army and Royal Australian Navy landed and marched across Bouganville to take out a German radio station there before sending it’s fleet units off to war.

Norway has had several vessels called Norge (which is one of two official Norwegian names for the country).

We may simply be choosing not to create a huge psychological target. The US has from time to time mooted the naming of a vessel (usually a carrier) the United States but its generally been decided against since the loss of the USS US would be a great blow to national morale. Plus the history of the United States name is probably not to popular with the last two vessels slated to carry the name cancelled mid build 🙂

We did have a USS America at one time;) I know there’s a drive by some ex-America crew to lobby to get the CVN-X christened USS America…….and wasn’t the USS Harry S Truman originally slated to be named the USS United States?

Interesting, under the terms of the Naval ships and establishment naming commity, HMAS Australia is to go to a major fighting unit, and one would have thought that the new LHD’s were just that., this only leaves me to susspect that we will soon also have a propper carrier with said name and carrying F-35B’s.

Perhaps it could be used with the third amphibious unit?

Interesting, under the terms of the Naval ships and establishment naming commity, HMAS Australia is to go to a major fighting unit, and one would have thought that the new LHD’s were just that., this only leaves me to susspect that we will soon also have a propper carrier with said name and carrying F-35B’s.

Any comments Dan?

We may simply be choosing not to create a huge psychological target. The US has from time to time mooted the naming of a vessel (usually a carrier) the United States but its generally been decided against since the loss of the USS US would be a great blow to national morale. Plus the history of the United States name is probably not to popular with the last two vessels slated to carry the name cancelled mid build 🙂

Daniel

Interesting, under the terms of the Naval ships and establishment naming commity, HMAS Australia is to go to a major fighting unit, and one would have thought that the new LHD’s were just that., this only leaves me to susspect that we will soon also have a propper carrier with said name and carrying F-35B’s.

Any comments Dan?

From Janes

Australia selects ship names
> Australia has decided on names for its new amphibious assault ships and Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs), settling on the country’s coastal cities for inspiration.
> According to a statement from Defence Minister Robert Hill, the former will be known as HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, while the AWDs will enter service as HMAS Hobart, HMAS Brisbane and HMAS Sydney.
> Senator Hill made the announcement his last before stepping down from his post.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=5368

Sydney is scheduled to pay off in 2013-14

Unicorn

Well that’s what I was looking at also, yes it is viable that Sydney would be a name available since the current Sydney would have paid off by the time the last AWD has been launched.

nothing official on this matter and alarm bells started ringing as to what is happening with the current Sydney. Is the current upgrades no working out and if not why?

When is she officially supposed to decommission? These new destroyers won’t be here for some time yet.