HMS EDINBURGH is 8th Name for T26

[4scourge7]

Rounding off the recent flurry of announcements for the (hopefully first) run of eight Type 26 City Class.

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/final-type-26-frigate-named-hms-edinburgh/

 

And the list now reads:

#1- HMS Glasgow

#2- HMS Belfast

#3- HMS Cardiff

#4- HMS Birmingham

#5- HMS Sheffield

#6- HMS Newcastle

#7- HMS Edinburgh

#8- HMS London 

(Edit- #1, 2, and 3 classed as `Batch 1`, with #4 to 8 as `Batch 2`)

 

Hopefully, we will be getting more to compliment the Australian commitment to build nine, and a possible Canadian build of fifteen. 

 

Cheers, Ian

Edited November 29, 2018 by 4scourge7

[TallBlondJohn]

Meh. What's wrong with proper British names like Cossack or Leander? 😡 

 

[Seahawk]

2 hours ago, TallBlondJohn said:

Meh. What's wrong with proper British names like Cossack or Leander? 😡 

 

Rather my feeling as well.  With the RN surface fleet shrinking to minuscule levels and the understandable Admiralty desire to establish links with local communities, it seems we will be subject to endless reiterations of the same old Town class names.  And a shrinking number of them too: 14 Type 42 to 8 Type 26.  One chink of light: all credit to whoever chose the names for the A boats, allowing some famous old names like Agamemnon, Agincourt and Audacious to get a look in.

[TallBlondJohn]

3 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

One chink of light: all credit to whoever chose the names for the A boats, allowing some famous old names like Agamemnon, Agincourt and Audacious to get a look in.

 

Amen to that!

Part of the reason for my grumpiness is we could have had Batch 1 'F's and then Batch 2 'G's. Furious, Formidable, Fife, Glorious, Glowworm, Galatea, Gurkha, Gloucester - even Glasgow if you insist. Plenty of H's and I's in reserve...

[Whitewolf]

Looking at the names to date, I can't help but think it's same old same old - almost a repeat of the Type 42 names. Why? There are a great many RN names which could and perhaps should have been 

 used.

[Procopius]

5 minutes ago, Stealthman said:

Looking at the names to date, I can't help but think it's same old same old - almost a repeat of the Type 42 names. Why? There are a great many RN names which could and perhaps should have been 

 used.

Until there's an MP for Leander or Achates, I suspect this will be the norm.

[Whitewolf]

Yes, I suspect you are right. Strange policy we seem to have for naming Warships, that includes our New Carriers. I still can't believe they were named QE (R08)  & POW (R09) and given the same pennant numbers as rwo of our most famous Carriers should have been Eagle(R08) and Ark Royal(R09)! 

[4scourge7]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 7:13 PM, TallBlondJohn said:

Meh. What's wrong with proper British names like Cossack or Leander? 😡 

 

Leander is the name given to the proposed Type 31 bid led by BAe.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/leander-concept-for-royal-navy-type-31e-frigate-inspires-interest-from-british-industry/

 

The Royal Navy chooses the names for new ships, not politicians. And the navy has played a canny game in doing so. They deliberately named the carriers after royals to make it all the more embarrassing for politicians to attempt to cancel them. Likewise the `City class`; which politician will chop hull #8 now that it bares the name of the UK capital?

And there is the local affiliations- local media around the country have been proud as punch to announce that a nearby city has been chosen as an affiliate.

The navy is attempting to get AT LEAST eight of the World`s most advanced ASW frigates into service, and on this evidence they shall succeed.

Well done Navy! 

 

[Whitewolf]

Here's hoping BAE don't win the Type 31 bid, the Babcock consortium bid is far better!

[4scourge7]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:36 PM, Stealthman said:

Here's hoping BAE don't win the Type 31 bid, the Babcock consortium bid is far better!

Agreed. Whiles I have enormous respect for the achievements of the working men and women on the Clyde, BAe`s corporate monopoly over recent warship building has not been an unqualified success. Some competition would be good for the RN and the taxpayer.

[Papa4ways]

On 01/12/2018 at 18:29, Stealthman said:

Yes, I suspect you are right. Strange policy we seem to have for naming Warships, that includes our New Carriers. I still can't believe they were named QE (R08)  & POW (R09) and given the same pennant numbers as rwo of our most famous Carriers should have been Eagle(R08) and Ark Royal(R09)! 

Couldn't agree more, such great names as Eagle and Ark Royal have served so well, it's just a pity, we'll probably never see these proud names again, and I doubt that once the QE & POW have served for a while, some Government down the line will simply sell them off, and I can't see the Country building Carriers again 

[Whitewolf]

I think the QE class will be around for many years, and they will be fitted with cats and traps at some point. As to whether we'll ever build something like them again.......