Help Naming Ships

[StarCecil]

Give each class of ship a theme, not just a theme for the whole navy. For example here in the UK our subs are named after attributes, such as the Vigilant and the Tireless but our destroyers tend to be named after dukes, like the Richmond and the Northumberland. Stuff like that. So rather than have your entire fleet named after WWII engagements, give each of your classes a theme, like state capitals or presidents or national parks or famous generals - whatever takes your fancy.

That is how it works in the USN.

CVNs are named after Presidents and Senators (and a few offbeat names like Kitty Hawk, Enterprise and one named after Admiral Nimitz). The newest class of CVNs will be the Gerald Ford class, and the newest CVN in the fleet is the George H.W. Bush.

SSGNs and SSBNs are named after states, and other SSNs are named after cities.

FFs/DD/CGs are named after cities and important naval officers, depending on the role of the ship and what class it is.

My problem is that I'm trying to name a class of ship that the United States Navy no longer operates. CVLs, or escort carriers, or light carriers, whatever, are WWII vintage for the USN so the only names I have to work with are from the era.

Don't the marines still have smaller carriers? Fairly sure they've done so at least fairly recently?

The Navy operates AAVs from which a battalion or so of Marines can deploy, and that's where the naming scheme gets sticky. They aren't carriers per se, because they carry only eight Harrier IIs and a whole smattering of helicopters to support amphibious operations. Many of them share names with the old CVLs from WWII; Bataan, Makin Island, Iwo Jima, Boxer. They also rip off the names of WWII era fleet carriers.

Edit my post while you were writing this suspecting something like that.

8 harriers plus helicopters is getting on for a fair air wing for something that isn't a carrier of sorts.

Never liked LPH style ships being designated as amphibious assault ships , if its deploying them by air thats not really amphibious now is it.

LPDs (HMS Bulwark for example) with internal docks and designed to deploy their troops primarily by sea rather than air (LPDs can mange about a brace of suitably sized helicopters) are clearly so, not convinced that LPHs are.

The sadly defunct Invincible class (CVAs) was a through deck cruiser.

If the assualt ships are taking carrier names then that seems like a good place to start.

The best way to put infantry ashore is via the air, really. The current Wasp-class LHDs can carry upwards of 20 V-22 Ospreys. They still have well decks, though, to put armor and LAVs ashore. The newest America-class are supposed to have one without a well deck to speed up build time, and there was going to be another with a well deck but it's now in development hell since the Marines are downsizing. No point in making room for another battalion or two if we're cutting half a division.

That's fair enough, doesn't affect my assertion that without a well deck the amphibious part of the names getting shaky.

HMS Ocean has no well deck (though still operates smaller landing craft). Most navy people I know refer to her as a helicopter carrier or a LPH, apart from on paper never seen the word amphibious to refer to her.

20 aircraft is about what the Invincible class could handle (9 harrier and 12 helicopters, so a ship operating around that number of aircraft is looking like one especially lacking a well deck).

My point overall was that thats looking to be the best areas for such names.

Good point. The old CVL names are more or less taken by the AAVs and I wouldn't want to confuse myself by taking what few names aren't already attached to an AAV. The game also has to maintain a list of several that you might build, or else it reverts to very generic names like "1st Transport Division" which makes no sense when we're talking a single ship.

I should have been a little more accurate about the AAVs, though; the very first had no planes to launch until you guys built the Sea Harrier and we bought a few. Now we're working on the F-35B to work specifically from these ships. And, at least as far as the Marines are concerned, boats, hovercraft, and LAVs are the primary methods of invasion and helicopters and V-22s are for dropping recon teams and dropping troops further inland.

Still waiting to see what version the FAA are going to get for our new carriers, originally it was the B, then the C (with the carriers having electro cats added) now the electro cats are looking to pricy so back to the Bs.

THe B is an interesting technological decision, the reason none of the harriers competitors succeeded was due to the use of the vstol system the B is using, the harrier succeed by using another. Interested to see how they solved the issues.

The whole Royal Navy and some of the army and RAF are sulking about the early demise of our Harriers.

I'm sure it was a good idea at the time, with the F-35 looking to be out soon. But now the whole project has been dragging on too long and is starting to become as pricey as the F-22 - the very plane that had its production run cut short by the Air Force for costing too much. I don't know why the Royal Navy didn't keep some Harriers around, though. The US Marines are still using them for CAS in addition to Navy and Marine F/A-18 Super Hornets. At least the RN is finally getting some proper super carriers, though. That oughta be pretty cool.

Tiny smidgen under a super carrier, but yeh some real carriers again. Stayed on HMS Bristol last year, only ship of a cancelled class of air defence destroyer designed to protect the cancelled carriers that the Invincible class was built instead of. The outgoing 42s were the ships designed to protect the new small ones.

The F35s cost is climbing but thats more in R&D costs I thought the unit cost is still projected to be a fair way short of the F22, as long as enough are ordered.

The British harriers were a scandal, the sea harrier went early, its role being fudged by the GR7s operated by a joint command for both RN and RAF. Then that went early, just in time to miss Libya, meaning land basses fighters had to be used from Italy at much greater cost. And leaving the RN shamefully without air cover. For a Navy with the history and commitments of the RN there's not much excusing that.

The F-35's per unit cost will still be under an F-22, but not by much. Since the original appeal was that it would be way cheaper to produce that's a big deal. The real problem is that they want the F-35 to be a real multi-role fighter that does everything; stealth, strike missions, close air, air superiority and recon. That just keeps driving the price up. The only real "necessary" thing about it is the F-35B's STOVL, which the Marines are real keen on to replace the Harriers. The projected lifetime cost of the F-35 fleet, without taking Murphy's Law into account, is at a trillion dollars.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that Britain should have joined France in pushing for a carrier-capable version of the Typhoon, or at least buy some Rafales if they expect to have a fleet plane within the next twenty years. The Japanese also decided to go ahead and reserve some F-35s and will probably license their own production run just like the F-15Js. I can't wait to make some F-35BJ jokes. Of course, their government is a bit iffy on the whole thing since there's the chance that the Maritime Defense Force will put F-35Bs on their "helicopter carriers" and in so doing violate the constitution.

Its the catapults for "proper carrier" versions that's the issue expensive for modern ones, especially if you never intended them in the 1st place.

The Typhoon project suffered from constant redesigns and priority changes resulting in it being very late and massively over budget. Kind of like the issues with the F35.

A STVOL craft is very useful, even more so if you can offer a short range VTOL capability too (an alert fighter capability in jungle far from sea is not to be sniffed at, indeed the ability to press anything with enough deck space to cram a fighter onto into a makeshift carrier has helped win wars). Its about the hardest thing in avionics to do excluding possibly supersonic airliners.

That's right. It's unfortunate that the British military keeps getting hit with defense cuts. Granted, even Queen Elizabeth class carriers are grossly expensive, what's the point of getting all dressed up with nowhere to go?

As bumpy a production process as the Typhoon might have had, at least it's out now. The F-35 is expected by 2020, maybe. It's really the F-35B that's the problem though, since you're essentially trying to build a completely different plane under the hood of a plane already stretching itself with carrier capability and a heavier runway model. There's also performance issues; apparently the F-35 isn't performing as well as expected, though that's again because it's trying to fit too many roles. There's a reason why every project the US has ever entered to develop a multirole fighter has failed. As great a thing as STOVL is, a pure STOVL craft is easier and quicker to build than a STOVL/Stealth/Strike/Fighter.

Does the RN even need a stealthy craft? I imagine if Lockheed Martin just chopped off the stealth features we'd have it already.