AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

[jollyjacktar]

Now if they can split the MARTECH trade things would be great.

Let's not get crazy now.  Only one mistake correction at a time.  :nod:

 

[Navy_Pete]

Would prefer PRE class, myself.  PRO has had her moment in lead.

Would it be too soon to make a joke about it taking the lead right into the side of ALG?

This is great news, naming ships after land battles that predated the founding of the country was just stupid and I hated it on the basis of having to wear the 1812 pin that was made in China and fell apart in a few weeks, and both PRE and PRO have a proud history that should carry on and that way they can inherit a lot of the ship artifacts that will otherwise disappear to storage shelves in museums somewhere.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

ALG hit PRO (just sayin).

Most of PRO artifacts are likely to be...smoke tinged.

I like this decision. I have sailed PRO a lot. Glad to see her name live on.

 

[The Bread Guy]

One ship-watching blogger's take ...

The federal government has taken the liberty of changing the names of the new RCN Joint Support Ships (JSS) . Originally to be named the Queenston class the new ships will now be named the Protecteur class. Queenston will become Protecteur and Chateauguay will become Preserver continuing the names of the ships they will replace.

The original names were chosen by the previous Conservative government and reflected then Prime Minister Stephen Harper's preoccupation with the War of 1812-14. They commemorated two significant battles of the war, fought between "Canadians" (not yet a nation) and Americans. They hardly seemed to be diplomatically correct in terms of fostering good relations with our southern neighbours, so perhaps the change reflects the current government's fraught re-negotiations of NAFTA and that other issues between the two countries need to be worked out amicably.

In order to speed up delivery of the two ships, Seaspan Marine in Vancouver has told by the current government to delay construction of the new Polar class icebreaker which has been named John G. Diefenbaker. Do we see a pattern emerging here? Can we expect another renaming in the offing? Perhaps a Lester B. Pearson or even another well known former Liberal Prime Minister's name would be applied - would it be similar to the current Liberal Prime Minister's name? Would it be wise to make the change before the 2018 federal election, when the ship will not likely be delivered until 2021-well into a possible second mandate?
Oh horrors.

The new HMCS Protecteur will be the second ship of the name in the RCN, but HMCS Preserver will be the third. A pair of  World War II tankers were named Preserver and Provider and served as Fairmile depot ships until paid off at the end of the war and sold to South America. When Canada built its first post war supply ship, it was named Provider but a second ship of the class was never built.

The navy explains the new name change respects the previous ships and those who served on them. This is the same explanation that has been given in the past to cover a lack of imagination in ships naming, a change in naming policy or to overcome controversy  (CCGS Edward Cornwallis (ii) was not named for the man but for the previous ship of the same name according to a CCG official.)

Quite frankly if the RCN can't develop esprit de corps without reverting to nostalgia they need a wakeup call. When the name change is so overtly political do they think that matelots are too stupid to recognize it for what it is? And what message does it send to the forces - that they serve at the whim of political parties or that they serve all the people of Canada no matter their political affiliation?

I have a couple of suggestions for another name change for the JSS ships. They should be named Kitchener and Waterloo after two adjoining cities in southern Ontario.

Since the new ships will be built to the German Berlin class, we will be reminded that the City of Kitchener was named Berlin until 1916 when it was changed in view of the anti-German sentiment of the First World War. Many Canadians of German ancestry experienced discrimination solely because their names sound German.

We will also be reminded of the battle of Waterloo (in Belgium), wherein Prussian and British troops defeated Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815, resulting in his abdication as emperor of France. It was this war in Europe that distracted the British from the War of 1812-14 in North America, and largely left Canada on its own to defend itself. Napoleon met his Waterloo and we should all remember the necessity of overcoming the aspirations of all those who want to conquer the word.

So something to learn from the significance of the names of two ships other than how to score political points.

 

[NavalMoose]

I find it very difficult to believe that the USN would give a rats behind what we call our ships

 

[Lumber]

Sigh...

I seem to be the dissenting opinion with most of my Navy friends lately, and the trend continues.

I for one do not like this change. The 1812 battle names had their flaws, but I like their combat connotation, and they had a nice ring to them.

I also personally don't like the idea of re-using ship names, except in a few outstanding cases, like the Big-E, or Victory (if they'd ever decommission the first one). There are so many other names we could use to celebrate aspects of Canadian history, both recent and old, that I think re-using these ship names is a missed opportunity.

How about we celebrate naval battles that Canada participated in? What about HMCS Atlantic and HMCS St. Lawrence?

 

[FSTO]

Sigh...

I seem to be the dissenting opinion with most of my Navy friends lately, and the trend continues.

I for one do not like this change. The 1812 battle names had their flaws, but I like their combat connotation, and they had a nice ring to them.

I also personally don't like the idea of re-using ship names, except in a few outstanding cases, like the Big-E, or Victory (if they'd ever decommission the first one). There are so many other names we could use to celebrate aspects of Canadian history, both recent and old, that I think re-using these ship names is a missed opportunity.

How about we celebrate naval battles that Canada participated in? What about HMCS Atlantic and HMCS St. Lawrence?

We'll reserve those for the Amphibious Carriers (or Peace Support Ship) that undoubtedly the Liberals will be promising next. :rofl: ;D

 

[MilEME09]

We'll reserve those for the Amphibious Carriers (or Peace Support Ship) that undoubtedly the Liberals will be promising next. :rofl: ;D

If we ever commission a Amphibious assault ship, I am pretty sure there would be a portion of the navy who would want her named Bonaventure

 

[Lumber]

If we ever commission a Amphibious assault ship, I am pretty sure there would be a portion of the navy who would want her named Bonaventure

How about HMCS Pierres Noires, instead?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Sigh...

I seem to be the dissenting opinion with most of my Navy friends lately, and the trend continues.

I for one do not like this change. The 1812 battle names had their flaws, but I like their combat connotation, and they had a nice ring to them.

I also personally don't like the idea of reusing ship names, except in a few outstanding cases, like the Beige, or Victory (if they'd ever decommission the first one). There are so many other names we could use to celebrate aspects of Canadian history, both recent and old, that I think reusing these ship names is a missed opportunity.

How about we celebrate naval battles that Canada participated in? What about HMCS Atlantic and HMCS St. Lawrence?

I'm sorry but I don't feel a connection to a land battle that took place 200 years ago as a good name for a new ship and class.  If battle it must be then make naval battles such as you suggest.  But as a Tanker guy at heart, I say leave the battle names for the warships and have appropriate type names for the supply ships.

 

[Lumber]

I'm sorry but I don't feel a connection to a land battle that took place 200 years ago as a good name for a new ship and class.  If battle it must be then make naval battles such as you suggest.  But as a Tanker guy at heart, I say leave the battle names for the warships and have appropriate type names for the supply ships.

Then how about HMCS Hibernia and HMCS Fort McMurray?  ;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Those are production facilities, Lumber. You want transport/supply facilities: HMCS Transmountain and HMCS Energyeast.    ;D

And I agree with Jjt: As a tanker wanker, I am glad that me old Protecteur name will be back.

 

[Dale Denton]

How about HMCS Turbot? Lets save HMCS Pearson for a Mistral lookin ship (still dreaming).

Politically, the name change reflects a move from the 1812 "Colonialist" war to something safer.

Maybe if a 3rd AOR is laid down it could be a Provider?

 

[Lumber]

Fine, fine. You tanker wankers can keep your intrepid ship names. As someone born and raised aboard CPFs and who has a warfare background, I'll wait for the CSC names to come out before I bring the guns out.  :threat:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Fine, fine. You tanker wankers can keep your intrepid ship names. As someone born and raised aboard CPFs and who has a warfare background, I'll wait for the CSC names to come out before I bring the guns out.  :threat:

That's right.  Keep to your swim lanes. 

 

[NavyShooter]

I'm just looking at the outstanding returns here at BLog that are still listed under PRE's name, and know that without a 'long pause' between commissioned ships of the same name, there will be potential for a crossover/legacy of old parts hanging around.

Someone out west found CF-100 Canuck fighter plane parts in a warehouse still.  Suppose we bought the F-35 and called it the "Canuck"...what would happen when they started having parts from the 1950's show up from depot instead of the new ones expected...?

I don't have a problem with the name change.  *Not a fan, but I don't see it as a big issue.

Renaming the ship once it's in service? Issue. 

Now?  Meh.

NS

 

[Lumber]

That's right.  Keep to your swim lanes. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

We, tanker wankers are always glad to be of service. You operators out there remember: We're behind you all the way. [

 

[FSTO]

We, tanker wankers are always glad to be of service. You operators out there remember: We're behind you all the way. [

Not in the Canadian Navy. I recall doing close-in ASW with PRO. Now you would hope in a real war the AOR's would be in the rear with the gear sailing about a heavily defended box.

 

[Lumber]

Not in the Canadian Navy. I recall doing close-in ASW with PRO. Now you would hope in a real war the AOR's would be in the rear with the gear sailing about a heavily defended box.

Ah, yes; close-in ASW. The thing we practice all the time while being explicitly told that it is the last thing you should think of doing when trying to engage an enemy submarine.