By "Jimmy", 30 November 2023
Naming a warship is an important undertaking, not just for a navy but for the country as a whole. Warships serve as ambassadors on the world stage, their names are a reflection of what the home country views as being meaningful enough to commemorate. With no information available regarding the Canadian Surface Combatant naming scheme, I saw it fitting to consider some possibilities. Recent Royal Canadian Navy naming schemes have the primary goal of connecting with the public. This was done by using names of Canadian towns and cities for all primary classes of vessels, frigates, submarines and minesweepers. The Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships have set a new naming precedent, using prominent Canadians from our naval history while the Joint Support Ships and Patrol Craft Training Ships carry the names of previous vessels.
In my opinion, any naming scheme for Canadian naval vessels should incorporate the following traits:
1. Be distinctly Canadian.
2. Provide a meaningful connection with Canadians/their communities.
3. Perpetuate Canadian naval history.
4. Be respectful and professional.
5. Be appropriate to the size and type of ship.
Taking this into consideration, I present three naming schemes for the Canadian Surface Combatant.
Aboriginal/Indigenous (Haida) class
(Haida, Iroquois, Athabaskan, Huron, Micmac, Nootka, Cayuga, Algonquin, Sioux, Ojibwa, Okanagan, Onondaga, Assiniboine, Kootenay, Inuit)
As Haida is Canada’s most famous warship, there is no better first in class and namesake. The United Kingdom has reused the name of Belfast on a Type 26 frigate, Canada should follow suit. Athabaskan would be a worthy alternative to honour the ship lost in combat in 1944. This naming scheme is a perpetuation of the previous ‘Tribal’ classes with additions from other classes to reach 15 vessels. The overarching class name has been changed to better reflect appropriate modern terminology.
These names are distinctly Canadian and provide a meaningful connection with the Indigenous peoples of Canada. This furthers the goal of reconciliation while fostering a positive relationship with the navy. All members of this class perpetuate names of previous vessels (minus Inuit), bringing forward their accomplishments, artifacts and traditions. Previous namesakes served through WWII, the Cold War and into the 21st century. Consultation with relevant Indigenous groups will ensure respect is given to the namesakes. Modified ships badges, mottos and names should be introduced through this consultation to reflect this while retaining each ship's history. An example would be to use proper Indigenous language for each ship name instead of the English translations, X̱aayda instead of Haida. New Zealand uses the Māori language for many of its ship names. All ship names listed above (minus Inuit) have belonged to major combatants of the RCN previously.
River (Saguenay) class
(Saguenay, Skeena, Assiniboine, Restigouche, St. Laurent, Fraser, Kootenay, Chaudière, Gatineau, Qu'Appelle, Nipigon, Annapolis, Margaree, Mackenzie, Saskatchewan)
As Saguenay was the first warship purposely ordered and built for the RCN, it is a fitting first in class and namesake. Kootenay would be a worthy alternative to honour the men lost in the tragic events of 1969. This naming scheme is a perpetuation of the previous River-class vessels.
These names are distinctly Canadian and provide a meaningful connection with Canadians via major landmarks across the country. All members of this class perpetuate names of previous vessels, bringing forward their accomplishments, artifacts and traditions. Previous namesakes served through WWII and into the Cold War. This scheme is both respectful and professional. Previous classes to hold these names were historically the backbone of the Navy in their service, this is a fitting trend for the Canadian Surface Combatant to uphold.
City (Charlottetown) class
(Charlottetown, Vancouver, Halifax, Ville de Quebec, Toronto, Regina, Calgary, Montreal, Fredericton, Winnipeg, St. John’s, Ottawa, Iqaluit, Kelowna, Red Deer)
Charlottetown is my choice for the namesake but Iqaluit would be a unique alternative. The new trio of names could be substituted for other cities if desired. This scheme is a perpetuation of previously and currently serving classes.
Named after notable Canadian cities, this scheme is distinctly Canadian while providing a meaningful connection to much of the population. Most of this class perpetuates names of previous vessels (minus Iqaluit), bringing forward their accomplishments, artifacts and traditions. These various classes of ships served throughout WWII and currently serve as of writing. This scheme is both respectful and professional. Previous classes to hold these names were historically valuable wartime combatants and currently make up the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy, making the scheme more than appropriate for the Canadian Surface Combatant.
Please feel free to share your own comments and recommendations.
39 thoughts on “Naming the Canadian Surface Combatants”
Hello “Jimmy” I have been asking for the naming of the CSC Frigates for some time now. Here would be my choices:
NAMING THE NEW FRIGATES
The Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia RUSI (NS) organization and its Board Of Directors is responsible for putting forward to the MND (final approval) names for future Canadian Naval ships. The ship class would be called “Canada Class” as the first ship should be named for our country, and the second ship for when our country first became of age (as Vimy Ridge is considered sacred Canadian ground). The remaining ships would be named for each province and Territory of our country. Some ships have naming history as others do not but I believe these names would give each and every Canadian in all parts of this country, great pride for decades to come. Here are the class and ship names that would be appropriate for each coast. The ship class would be called “Canada Class” CSC Type 26 Frigates. The remaining ships would be named for each Province and Territory.
Halifax Based:
HMCS CANADA-FFH 380
HMCS ONTARIO-FFH 381
HMCS QUEBEC-FFH 382
HMCS NOVA SCOTIA-FFH 383
HMCS NEW BRUNSWICK-FFH 384
HMCS PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-FFH 385
HMCS NEWFOUNDLAND-FFH 386
HMCS NUNAVUT-FFH 387
Esquimalt Based:
HMCS VIMY RIDGE-FFH 388
HMCS SASKATCHEWAN-FFH 389
HMCS MANITOBA-FFH 390
HMCS ALBERTA-FFH 391
HMCS BRITISH COLUMBIA-FFH 392
HMCS YUKON-FFH 393
HMCS NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-FFH 394
——————————————————————————————–
If Canada ever gets its 12 Victoria class submarines, they would be called the “Aboriginal Class” as per below:
HMCS IROQUOIS-SSK 880; HMCS ATHABASKAN-SSK 882 ; HMCS HURON-SSK 883; HMCS ASSINIBOINE-SSK 884; HMCS METIS-SSK 885
HMCS CREE-SSK 886; HMCS DENE-SSK 887; HMCS INUIT-SSK 888; HMCS MALAHAT-SSK 889; HMCS OJIBWA-SSK 890; HMCS MI’KMAQ-SSK 891.
What do you think? Cheers!
Hello David,
Having a “Canada class” is definitely an good option and one I initially considered including however, there was a few issues I had which caused me to discard the idea.
If we were to include territories as well, it would have to be the “Provinces and Territories class”. Sort of a mouthful, although you could simply call it the “Canada class” as per the failed class of nuclear attack submarine of years past. Leaving out Labrador from Newfoundland is not optimal – however, “HMCS Newfoundland and Labrador” does not exactly roll off the tongue. I do not think it would be acceptable to split them into two separate ships as they are one province. Perhaps use NFLD? I am personally not enthused with naming a ship after the entire country, the CSC is a very capable vessel but not to the point I think it should carry the name of our entire country on one ship. Similarly, I do not like utilizing Army land battles, especially ones already as famous as Vimy Ridge itself. I would prefer for naval vessels to perpetuate the achievements of the Navy, not another unrelated branch.
My recommendation for that naming scheme would be to replace “HMCS Canada” and “HMCS Vimy Ridge” with the names “HMCS Rainbow” and “HMCS Niobe”. Both vessels served as the first major warships of the Royal Canadian Navy prior to the First World War, having our first two warships of note leading a class of our provinces and territories fits well I believe.
Relating to potential naming schemes for future submarines, I would much prefer an “Aboriginal class” be utilized for the CSC program if at all possible first. Alternatively, using a naming scheme of aquatic animals (Rainbow, Grilse, Steelhead, etc) or the names of pioneering Canadian submariners from history (William Maitland-Dougall, Barney Leitch Johnson, etc) would be what I would put forward for that class. How many boats are actually ordered would drastically affect what scheme would be worthwhile.
Hello again Jimmy. Yes, I had originally toyed with calling the CSC ship names as “Provincial” class as well, but decided against it mainly because there was no recognition for other parts of the country as there should be with this very important naming convention. It would not hurt to call these frigates “Provincial” class, but how then do you recognize the other parts of the country like Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut? That’s why I chose to use the term “Canada” class. As I said, some ships have prior naval history like HMCS Ontario; HMCS Quebec; HMCS Saskatchewan; HMCS Yukon and yes, even HMCS Canada. She was first designated CGS Canada as a naval training vessel and at the start of WW I was commissioned into the RCN on 25 January 1915 as an Anti-Submarine Patrol vessel doing escort duties for the fledgling RCN. So HMCS Canada does have an RCN pedigree. I would not however be adverse to changing HMCS Vimy Ridge to HMCS Haida as she was the catalyst for the RCN during WW II under her then Captain Harry DeWolf as well. I believe that the “Canada” class is still valid and all ships being named for all Provinces and Territories would give each and every Canadian pride in our future CSC RCN Frigates.
Hi David,
While the first five names that you mention would offer a chance to connect significantly with Canadians, only one of them – HMCS Saskatchewan – ever saw operational service; it only won three battle honours.
If we went with your larger CSC list of 30 Nov 23 the entire CSC fleet would still only have one name that perpetuates operational service and which honours just three of the RCN’s 18 battle honours.
Personally, I find this to be a massively wasted opportunity to remember and honour Canada’s veterans and the RCN’s history and accomplishments.
Fyc.
Ubique,
Les
Hello Les. I’m afraid I will have to disagree with you. Are you saying that because HMCS Yukon didn’t have “Battle Honours” that she was not “really” operational? She was the second of a four ship MacKenzie class Destroyer Destroyer Escort (DDE) (side #263), commissioned in 1963, in service for over 30 years, that she did not matter? I think Burrard Shipyards where she was built, the sailors and crews who sailed on her for well over 30 years, and the residents of Yukon Territory would differ with you. You do not need to have “Battle Honours” to be considered for a CSC ship name. Although she had no “official” Battle Honours, HMCS Canada served in the RCN with distinction during WW I as an ASW patrol ship doing convoy escort duties, searching for U-Boats. She doesn’t matter either? And I suppose that HMCS Haida (who I told “Jimmy” I would replace Vimy Ridge for) would not matter as well? She had at least 5 Battle Honours during her 20 years in the RCN during WW II, and I believe then Captain, Harry DeWolf would like have to have a few words with you as well (If he were still here).
David,
I agree that “Canada class” would likely be the best overall class name if the Navy wished to entertain such a naming scheme, as it is more inclusive of all provinces and territories within the country.
I am aware that we previously had a HMCS Canada however, my point still stands. It is not a lack of pedigree that makes me dislike the name but more broader issues. Having a class named after provinces and territories also containing a vessel named after the whole of all does not sit well with me. It made more sense to me that in an era where Canada’s national identity was far less present and they were looking to build up a Navy in the first place, naming a ship after the nation as a whole made sense. I do not think that one frigate should carry the name of our entire country, that is not fitting to me. It also comes into the issue of morale and national pride if the vessel itself happens to be lost eventually. This is the same reason why the WWII Kriegsmarine had their cruiser Deutschland renamed to Lutzow, as losing a vessel named after the country itself in wartime was seen as too great of a hit to public morale. It would be bad enough to lose a vessel named after a province but one named for the whole country? Definitely rubbing salt in the wound.
I do not think having HMCS Haida alone within a class of differently named ships would be especially fitting in my opinion. I am fairly rigid when it comes to class schemes and adherence to a sense of order within them, so I would prefer something a bit more coherent to an overall scheme rather than having a few stragglers to the scheme itself.
Appreciate your candor Jimmy. If the CSC Frigate HMCS Canada were lost, as you say, the country Canada would still be here (I hope). Sorry, I’ll have to agree to disagree with you there.
Jim – thanks for getting this hypothetical ball rolling.
I have also thought about the naming of the CSC fleet, and my preference would be the resurrection of the River class. It’s the ‘safe’ option. We live in an era of grievance-mongering, and the notion of the new Tribal class may run the risk of offending those who feel they have been excluded in the choice of names. (The problem is accentuated if the number of ships is cut, and names are dropped.) The hyper-focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in government – DEI having become an official government ideology – suggests that taking the politics out of the naming process is a good idea.
It also avoids the problem of Canadians and allies mispronouncing the names of our ships, which could make RCN ‘brand recognition’ difficult. Let the New Zealanders cope with the challenge of getting pronunciations right.
Hello Bill,
I agree that the River class would likely be one of the safest and most realistic options available for the Canadian Surface Combatant naming scheme. A new ‘Tribal’ class runs the risk of angering some people however, opinions of people outside the process are not especially relevant and some people are always looking for a reason to be angry. This process would be something undertaken between the Canadian Government and the various Indigenous groups in question, it is up to them to decide what is appropriate and if they are interested in such a naming scheme. If negotiations fall through with the names I have recommended, there are plenty of people to try as alternatives. If the scheme itself doesn’t get traction and support within enough Indigenous communities, I would say that is the time to go for a new scheme. The fear of offending people should not stand in the way of reconciliation, especially as I have heard that the Indigenous groups involved with the Iroquois class (to a fairly limited degree) found the relationship quite nice and respectful. The outrage hungry folks will move on to the next issues in due time, best to ignore them. Approval from the people this directly affects is what truly matters.
I do think that the Indigenous groups here would be very receptive to this naming scheme, especially with the proper consultation done by the Government. We have already had Indigenous sailors working on morale patches for the ships they serve upon using art styles and themes from their culture, extending this in an official capacity to the various aspects of the ships themselves would be worthwhile. Nothing worth doing is easy and I would not want to preemptively cross off such a historically significant naming scheme without at least trying first.
Mispronouncing of ship names would be something that a River class naming scheme would have to deal with as well – nothing Canada and her various allies have not worked through before!
I highly doubt that such an idea will ever come off, but I have always thought that, by forcing our whole fleet to function as some sort of floating atlas of Canadian geography, the way we name our warships makes it look as if we, as Canadians, lack confidence. As if we are trying too hard to be a country. (Do we honestly expect a lookout on a US ship, for example, to go and read up on one of our city names when she gets off watch? She might, but I have my doubts. And what is the value in that to us anyway?)
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary and le Petit Robert are full of adjectives that would make wonderful names for naval vessels if only we had the confidence to break from the old paradigm. The number of possibilities is vast. I am thinking of old names like Glorious, Indomitable, Invincible, Redoubtable — you get the idea. We could even aim to restrict ourselves to names that work in both official languages, like Agile or Inflexible; the list is still more than long enough. The only proviso, simply common sense, would be to avoid names currently in use by, or in serious planning for, either the British or French navies.
Admittedly, in the Canadian context the idea may seem silly, old-fashioned, or out of touch. Nevertheless, the British and French have never shied away from names like these because they know who they are as a people. I believe Canadians do too. The type of names that I am suggesting focus not on Canada but on Canadians. And our self-image. Do we have the confidence for that sort of thing? Whatever the answer, I still believe that the time is long past for us to graduate from primary school geography in the naming of our warships.
Hi Brian,
As you can see from my comment of 1 Dec 23, there is a very valid reason to give RCN ships the names of Canadian communities, which has nothing to do with primary school geography, lack of self-confidence, or providing subjects for research for the lookouts on allied warships.
However, as the attached CNN article about HMCS Ottawa demonstrates, naming our ships after Canadian cities is a way to give them international publicity. This is a very cost-effective approach compared to the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars that some cities have wasted on professional sports teams on the excuse that they will advertise their “home” city; since the RCN’s ships are going to have a name anyways, giving them the names of cities is essentially free advertising.
This publicity is not the reason to follow this approach, but, rather, a valuable side benefit.
Ubique,
Les
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/cnn-took-a-11-day-cruise-through-some-of-the-most-contested-waters-on-earth-here-s-what-we-learned/ar-AA1kVTEs?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=4c05b25cd9084a3fbb8ba62e72e696ec&ei=50
Hi “Jimmy,”
Thank you for starting this important discussion; the names given to the CSCs will influence the degree to which Canadians (who ultimately pay the bills) can relate/connect to them. I am in general agreement with your criteria for choosing names. Care must be taken though with “being distinctly Canadian.” Someone might argue that Halifax, London, Windsor, Vancouver, Kitchener, St John’s, etc do not meet this requirement.
For me, the two key criteria are: honouring/perpetuating Canada’s history and ensuring broad national representation/connection. I would now like to discuss these further.
During the RCN’s history its ships have earned honours for 18 different battles and campaigns. These battle honours, which are awarded to SPECIFIC ship names, are a public recognition of the navy’s combat actions on behalf of Canada and the heroism and self-sacrifice of its officers and sailors. Giving names that have been awarded multiple battle honours to the CSCs will allow each ship to commemorate and honour numerous past Canadians’ exploits, heroism, and sacrifice.
By the force of history, a few of the “Tribal-class” ship names represent a disproportionate share of Canada’s naval heritage, including two (of 18) battle honours that are unique to them. At the same time, five of Canada’s naval battle honours are essentially “non-reusable” in a peacetime navy with a limited number of warships, as they were won by ships whose names have little or no pertinence to Canadians, being either: the name of a foreign country (HMCS Uganda); based on the first names of private Canadian citizens of no historical or national import (HMCS Prince David, Prince Henry, and Prince Robert); named for smaller Canadian communities (such as HMCS Lunenburg); or small craft that did not have a proper name but only had a numerical designator (such as M.L. 126).
Another related consideration is that the randomness of history means that the allocation of battle honours to names is unstructured; the three most decorated names – with six honours each – are one “Tribal” (Iroquois) and two “Cities” (Calgary and Regina). Thus, it is hard to do full justice using a single naming scheme.
Secondly, given Canada’s size and vast inland reaches, it is difficult for many Canadians to relate to the RCN’s actions and performance. Thus, it was wise of the navy to name its current frigates after Canadian capital cities and major non-capital cities; as, for example, it is easier for the people of Saskatchewan to be interested in the activities of HMCS Regina rather than HMCS Patrician or HMCS Rainbow. This broad national outreach should be continued.
Bearing in mind these two criteria, I would like to make the following comments on the three options that you propose.
The “aboriginal” option would only include nine of the 13 possible battle honours and include five ships that had no honours at all and two more that have only one honour. This number would drop significantly if the indigenous versions of the names were used instead of the existing (English) ones. Thus, past exploits would not be honoured. Additionally, many of the names used in the past are for very small nations (e.g. Haida) which means that there is little or no broad community interest/connection. I would argue against this option.
Looking at the “River” option, it allows for even less honouring of past history as only seven of 13 possible battle honours would be represented. This option would include one ship with no honours and five more that only carried one. The national connection might be better but I am not sure how much people are engaged by the names of rivers in their area. I would argue against this option.
Looking at the “City” option you propose, it would also allow nine of 13 possible battle honours to be represented, with only two ships being without any honours and two more having only one honour each. This option’s real strength is that most Canadians would feel connection with at least one name. I consider this to be the best option of the three. It would be improved by naming the 13th, 14th, and 15th ships Edmonton (by renaming the existing MCDV Iqaluit), Kitchener, and Kamloops. This would leave only one ship without any honours and connect well with all provinces, with more populous ones being more represented in the list.
Finally, I would mention a hybrid option that named three CSCs with “aboriginal” names (Inuit, Athabaskan, Algonquin) and the remaining 12 with the existing “City” names. This would allow the maximum number of battle honours to be represented and provide a connection with three significant, broadly-distributed “aboriginal” groups and with most Canadians.
Ubique,
Les
Hello Les,
I appreciate the well written response! Apologies for my late reply. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I agree with all of your points though. The same concern initially came to me when writing the main points of guidance however, I think that in the end anybody who seriously considers Canadian city names as not “distinctly Canadian” are not participating in the conversation in good faith. One could likely follow such an argument right down to the bottom.
I do agree that battle honours are an important part of honouring our past achievements and care should be taken to utilize as many as possible within a class. That being said, I do not believe they alone are something we should fixate on nor should they be a decisive factor in the naming of vessels. It should be considered that while these honours are given for actions involving the vessel itself, these achievements alone do not encompass a ships overall career. They are a single component of the overall heritage/meaning provided by utilizing a name. Their strict awarding criteria can cause much to slip between the cracks, boiling down vessels to simply their honours I think is a mistake. All Canadian naval vessels have their share of exploits, heroism, and sacrifice regardless of era or what honours they officially carry. My proposed scheme here carries enough honours where I do not consider it an issue.
As you state, many names which carry battle honours are unlikely to ever be reused due to a variety of factors. To me, this showcases the issues with putting too much stock in the importance of this recognition system when looking at new vessels for the RCN. Bringing new names into the fleet, especially when they fit thematically with a naming scheme and work to showcase the namesake itself, is something that should not be looked down upon. As for utilizing the exact same name to keep battle honours perpetuating, I have heard through the grapevine from the RCN Historical desk that new spellings of the same name can retain battle honours. For example, HMCS Huron would retain her previous battle honours even if the name’s spelling was changed to the authentic Indigenous spelling of the word. A substantial number of Army units have undergone successive name changes throughout the years yet still carry over their battle honours. From what I have gathered, the logic is that naval battle honours can be carried over if change is a variation of linguistics rather than an entirely different name. Canada decides its own perpetuation and while tradition is carried down, the rule is not set in stone from the British policy.
My order of preference for each scheme matches their order of introduction in my post, from most preferred to least. While I agree that national outreach is an important aspect of a naming scheme, I think there is a very positive opportunity waiting here that should not be overlooked. One of the most important side effects of naming vessels after something is the attention brought to the namesakes. Canadian cities are well known domestically and internationally alongside the fact that Halifax class will be carrying these city names through into the 2040s, I think another scheme should be utilized to bring variety to the fleet and use the recognition for other concerns. Broad national outreach has been done and will continue to be done on the current class for a few more decades, I think the next class should be something different. If we only focus on broad national appeal/battle honours, the makeup of our ship names will heavily stagnate.
As I alluded to above, the value to an ‘Aboriginal’ class is the recognition given to these groups, both internationally and domestically. Alongside perpetuating the fighting history of the RCN, it also has the purpose of furthering reconciliation in a meaningful way not only with the specific peoples mentioned but with Indigenous peoples across the country. Some of these groups may be small, however, they are spread across the nation itself and have historically been disadvantaged. Such a naming scheme would provide an outsized connection between the RCN/Canadian government and these groups, Putting these groups forward as a symbol that Canada is proud to show off at the head of its Navy is a way to push forward reconciliation while also retaining our Navy’s history. You do lose out on the immediate and ‘broad appeal’ of Canadian cities however, I personally think the tradeoff is worth it for the two main parties involved here. Crews, civilians and international partners alike can become exposed to unique bits of Aboriginal culture which would trickle into the ships through the cooperation with each namesake group itself. This is another important way to help keep parts of the Canadian identity recognized and thriving.
Personally as well, I cannot let the opportunity pass to not push for the CSC to carry the ‘Tribal’ naming scheme forward. Historically, the vessels commonly seen carrying this naming theme have been our most potent warfighting vessels. I feel it most fitting that our most capable warships in many decades should also hold such a naming scheme. Otherwise if it is not utilized here, I do not feel it would be relevant to use the ‘Tribal’ naming scheme for any other types of vessel Canada will procure in the future outside of perhaps submarines. Even in such a situation, there will not be enough vessels in such a class to properly utilize all of the deserving namesakes here. Many of my concerns here can also be applied to the ‘River’ naming scheme however obviously, there is far less of an important recognition angle here and more of a broad appeal to historical ships and Canadian geography.
This is all not to say that I think another ‘City’ class naming scheme would not be fitting however, I think we have better options and it is time for another scheme to take central stage for the RCN.
Good morning Jimmy,
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough and thoughtful reply to my post. While I do not fully agree with every point that you make, I consider them all to have been well made and worthy of careful consideration.
I am glad that we are of the same mind on the limits on applying a “distinctly Canadian” criteria to the names chosen. Your points on using “Tribal” names are particularly convincing to me. I would personally be at ease (for whatever that is worth) with a tribal name class, if the CAF and RCN include “Ottawa” in the set of names chosen, as it would allow the “Arabian Sea” battle honour (which is the one most relevant to serving and recently retired sailors) to be perpetuated by the CSCs. I accept Ted Barnes’ point of 11 Dec 23 about Ottawa not being an exact tribal name but I think that some flexibility would be worthwhile.
Changing Canada’s naval battle honour rules to allow different spellings for linguistic reasons would be a very interesting and relevant change from the original British model.
Finally, my personal view of the preferred order for naming schemes for the CSCs is: City, “Tribal,” River, and mixed “Tribal” (for the most capable batch – numbers 13, 14, and 15) and City.
Ubique,
Les
Suffered from a “senior’s moment” yesterday!
My preferred order for naming schemes should have read: Mixed “Tribal” and City, City, “Tribal,” and River.
Ubique,
Les
So there are conventions on ship naming and a ship naming committee. Ever since the Kingston Class there was controversy on how ships are named and politics not surprisingly play a big part in it. For the Kingston Class originally it was originally named the Frontenac Class, HSL even went as far as casting a bell with HMCS Frontenac on it, later many of the original names were changed and the Class was changed to the Kingston Class. I expect nothing different for the Class although I have been hearing they more than likely be named the Tribal Class or Iroquois Class with HMCS Iroquois being the first of its class. That being said given today’s realities all ships chosen there will be consultation with the tribes and even ships’ badges may be altered to reflect a more modern version. Even ships with no battle honours may be chosen as that is not a requirement. There is a whole book on Canadian Warship names, the histories and the naming conventions. The book is by David Freeman, very interesting.
Possible names are
HMCS IROQUOIS
HMCS ATHABASKAN
HMCS HURON
HMCS ALGONQUIN
HMCS MI’KMAQ
HMCS NOOTKA
HMCS METIS
HMCS INUIT
HMCS HAIDA
HMCS CAYUGA
HMCS MOHAWK
HMCS ASSINIBOINE
HMCS BEOTHUK
HMCS OJIBWA
HMCS ONONDAGA
Good morning Ted,
I agree that David Freeman’s book is very interesting. It contains a wealth of priceless, hard-to-find information; writing it must have been a labour of love. As he points out, politics have affected the choice of Canadian warship names since at least World War II.
From your previous Broadsides posts, you seem to be well informed on the status of the CSC project. Thus, I found your comments on CSC ship names to be very interesting. I have to wonder whether the politics driving the current discussions are internal or external to the RCN. I can only hope that wise minds will come up with a better set.
Ubique,
Les
Considering that we often recycle names, it shouldn’t be a surprise that indigenous names are being considered. It makes sense considering we had four 280s with those names along with the tribal names. There are enough people living with fond memories of these ships to keep them going along with what we did to Preserver and Protecteur. Many ships in the RCN have been named without battle honours and have done honorable service, hopefully the RCN naming committee goes that way.
Hi Ted,
Is there any particular reason that you did not include “Ottawa” in this list? It is as valid as the others and also has five battle honours, including three that are very important to the RCN “Atlantic 1939-1945,” “Normandy 1944,” and “Arabian Sea.”
Ubique,
Les
There are plenty of names that are just as worthy, in fact all are in my opinion. Even though Ottawa comes from a Indigenous name, it’s not a tribal name really.
Hello Ted,
David Freeman’s book is effectively the authoritative resource on RCN ship naming throughout the years, it is an invaluable resource. That is definitely a positive that the ‘Tribal’ class is being looked at for a likely naming scheme with the CSC! I think it would be a great choice for an overall scheme, very fitting for the CSCs in my opinion.
Some of the options you put forward are interesting. All seem suitable although some do lack that connection to a previous RCN vessel. Beothuk especially is quite the pick, I had considered it but did not include it myself above. My logic was that it would be better to provide recognition and a positive relationship to an existing group over an extinct group however, it is definitely an option to recognize a people no longer with us.
HMCS Beothuk was chosen exactly for that reason seeing that we geocided them.
Reply to David Dunlop of 4 Dec 23
Good morning David,
Clearly, we have different views on the importance of battle honours.
Where we do not disagree is the importance of remembering the honourable service of all of Canada’s warships; they also were very important to their crews. However, with a limited number of ships in service there are only so many names that can be kept active. To me, the finite number should be used to accomplish the maximum amount of remembrance. By continuing names that have battle honours we remember not only the named ships and their crews but also all those helped win each honour.
At the same time, given the RCN’s problems, which fill the Broadsides Forum’s pages continuously, why would the navy give up a chance to make itself relevant (to some degree at least) to Canadians throughout our vast country? Thus, use names that have daily significance to millions of Canadians – the names of where they live. Choosing such names that also have multiple battle honours is simply very efficient in a smallish peacetime navy.
Finally, I am not sure why we should care over much what Harry DeWolf would have to say. Is his opinion more valuable than that of John Stubbs (HMCS Assiniboine and HMCS Athabaskan), Alan Easton (HMCS Baddeck, HMCS Sackville, HMCS Matane, and HMCS Saskatchewan), or tens of thousands of others who also served honourably in battle and during dangerous operations?
Ubique,
Les
Hello Les. Although our hearts are in the right place, we can still agree to disagree. Battle Honours are very important yes, and should be used in determining ships names, if possible, by the Naming Committee. We do not differ on what we are trying to accomplish, but on how we get there. I my humble opinion, the “Canada class” gives each and every Canadian (either old, young or new) the right to say: Yes, this is My Country, My Province or My Territory and have a connection to each and every Naval CSC Frigate no matter where these ships will travel throught the world! In the end, no matter what classes or names are finally selected, they will serve Canada proudly! Have A Great Navy Day! Cheers!
Hi David,
While we have agreed to disagree about a number of things wrt this topic, I believe that we have a consensus that an “all-Tribal” set of names would be the worst of the options discussed so far on this page.
Ubique,
Les
Totally agree, Les, with regard to the CSC Frigates! However I believe the naming of the yet to be replacements for the Victoria class SSKs would do very well with at least an “all-Tribal” class (called the Aboriginal Class?) of boats. Sets of names that I have answered to ‘Jimmy” at my first post would work very well. Cheers!
Hi David,
Ir would certainly leave the CSCs available to connect with millions of Canadians as a City class.
Personally, I would include Algonquin and Haida in lieu of Malahat and Ojibwa for the SSKs.
Ubique,
Les
Hello , Les. I would be in favour of changing “HMCS Malahat” for “HMCS Algonquin” however would leave HMCS Ojibwa as an SSK. I do believe that HMCS Haida needs to have the distinction of being a CSC Frigate vice an SSK. Cheers!
They won’t be renaming HMCS Malahat or any other unit to reuse the name for a CSC….
Great discussion!
Let’s talk about cars. For example, if I had a Cadillac, I would call it Thunderstruck. If I had a Tesla, I would name it Lightning bolt. I have an old rusty Jeep with maintenance cost rising, spare parts discontinued by the OEM, and funding is merely enough to manage obsolescence never mind new capabilities. The replacement project started years ago, but still in definition phase due to various reasons. Sounds familiar? My point is, as much as I like to name future CSC ships, we’ve got to get the ships first.
Ref: https://www.navalreview.ca/2023/11/the-csc-and-mature-design-redux/
Good morning CNR Fan,
You are quite right that the ships – and getting them into service – are more important than their names. However, the names are extremely important too, especially if inattention leads to silly names (such as “Boaty McBoatface”) or deeply divisive/offensive ones being chosen.
Our discussion of the possible names does not prevent the ships being designed and built, and might even influence/educate those in authority who will make the decision.
Ubique,
Les
Les Mader. That’s why we have a naming committee and standards to go by. Highly unlikely any names chosen will meet the silly or divisive criteria.
Good morning Ted,
One would hope that your comment is correct all the time. However, since ship names can become very political, we cannot underestimate some peoples’ ability to choose and push very bad choices on senior leaders and government.
David Freeman’s book is replete with examples of politics and prejudices (internal and external) overruling the names suggested by the staff/naming committee. Thankfully, none of the choices yet made were terrible; but, they were chosen in an earlier time.
Ubique,
Les
Andrew Furey
Ambrose Loveless
Elvis Loveless
Hi David, I actually picked these names in honor of Newfoundlanders who were born in this province.
Hello Carson. I know you are only speaking in jest about these names, but it does nothing to move the CSC Naming Committee to seriously consider home-born Newfoundlanders for CSC ship names. Why not use famous Canadian Hockey names like say Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzey or other famous Canadian Actors like Ryan Renolds, Jim Carrey, Keanu Reeves, William Shatner or Michael J. Fox? Gordon Pinsent (a great Newfoundlander!) would also be worthy of a CSC Frigates name eh? What about famous Canadian singers like Celine Dion, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shania Twain, Bryan Adams, Michael Buble’, Paul Anka, Neil Young or even the great Gordon Lightfoot to name just a few. I am only answering you in light, of course Carson and is not intended to be disrespectful of your names. Cheers!
Hi David,
I hope that these names are suggested only in jest.
Once we start naming our limited number of warships after people of no historical significance, we lose all the benefits that we have outlined elsewhere for representation and historical lineage.
Additionally, such names come with their own baggage, especially when we later learn about the chosen individuals’ personal flaws (including possibly criminal behaviour). What would we have done with HMCS Conrad Black or a ship named for a subsequently-discovered and convicted pedophile or murderer?
Ubique,
Les
River class for the CSC, aboriginal class (below) for the SSK. New Kingston class ships ‘city class’ names.
Hi Dan,
Personally, I would inverse your CSC and Kingston suggestions to give the highest profile ships (CSC) the names that would resonate most with Canadians (the names of their cities).
As an additional idea, the Kingstons could be given the names of smaller communities that had won numerous battle honours (e.g. Lunenburg (5), Port Colborne (5), Prescott (5), Woodstock (5), Summerside (4), Louisburg (3), Rimouski (3), Weyburn (3), etc).
Ubique,
Les
One city in Canada that has not had a ship named after it is Hamilton, Ontario. The city during WW2 produced and trained over 7,000 sailors for the RCNVR. The city also produced Bofors guns, cutters for minesweeping and steel for the production of ships and military hardware. After the war years, Hamilton was home to not only HMCS Star but HMCS Patriot for the training of naval reservists from across Canada and now home to HMCS Haida. There was a 4stacker named HMCS Hamilton but this was a lend lease ship from the US to the RN. The RN called it HMS Hamilton after Hamilton Bermuda or Hamilton in Scotland. It was transferred to the RCN and became HMCS Hamilton but not after the Canadian city.