54 Comments
User's avatar
Arthur McCoubrey's avatar

Great take. Article could use a touch of editing Sal.

Expand full comment
CDR Salamander's avatar

Oops for the double tap. I’ll fix at lunch.

Expand full comment
Byron King's avatar

To borrow from Confucius…. In navies (incl US Navy) as in life, it is important to call things by their correct name.

Expand full comment
campbell's avatar

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet"

Expand full comment
Matthew Thompson's avatar

Good article, though a touch repetitive… 😉

Expand full comment
Christopher Tipton's avatar

My thought is this: It's their ship. If they want to call it a coastal patrol boat class ship, who cares. It's their ship. As long as they know what it is and does and how to use it.

Expand full comment
Brettbaker's avatar

But, but if they call them carriers, next thing you know they have young Army officers creating an incident in Manchuria!

Expand full comment
Kamas716's avatar

Manchuria could probably use an incident. Maybe if we’re all good boys and girls Santa will bring one to them, preferably with a large dose of freedom and a stocking stuffer of human rights.

Expand full comment
Kevin OC's avatar

If you can’t tell yourself the truth, what hope is there you will speak truthfully to others?

You no (sorry, know) what I mean? /s

Expand full comment
Alan Gideon's avatar

I remember the day the US type-converted all of the DE's to be FF's simply so we wouldn't be behind the Soviets in the number of frigates. One interpretation of the European habit of calling everything a frigate could be coming from the stance of "Oh, we don't want to appear warlike." Another interpretation could be that the politicos of the EU are trying to pull the wool over their constituents' eyes. The US Navy has been trying so very hard (but failing) to come up with a combatant larger than the DDG-51 Flight III's, so they don't want to call those ships cruisers. Either way, it's dishonest.

Expand full comment
Dale Flowers's avatar

Served aboard USS Badger (DE-1071) when DE's became FF's. Our PNC made a page 13 entry into all of our service records to the effect..."EWC Flowers served aboard USS Badger (FF-1071) (on this date) when it became a Frigate". Three of my seven ships were Frigates. My favorite three.

Expand full comment
Bear's avatar

The USN Changed a lot of CVA's to simple CV's back in the 70's. Same ship different designation.

Expand full comment
Jetcal1's avatar

Surely we all remember Gorshkov's heavy aviation cruisers? Are the Japanese going to visit the Black Sea?

All kidding aside, what are the politics that is driving the designation?

(Also loved the use of repetition to reinforce your point.)

Expand full comment
sid's avatar
Sep 22Edited

(For those who may not be familiar Jetcal...)

They had to be, as they were constructed in Nikolayev (now the Ukranian city Mykolaiv). To get out of the Black Sea, they had to comply with the Montreaux Convention which prohibits 'Aircraft Carriers' from transiting the Turkish Straits...

https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol14/iss3/11/

Kiev and the Montreux Convention: The Aircraft Carrier That Became a Cruiser to Squeeze through the Turkish Straits

Expand full comment
Captain Mongo's avatar

I seem to recall "Through Deck Cruisers" in the RN not too long ago.

Expand full comment
Kamas716's avatar

IIRC that was more to get it through their own legislature

Expand full comment
Steven Mondul's avatar

Yes. Shades of the F-18E/F

Expand full comment
Brettbaker's avatar

Naval History with Dr. Alex has an episode on that.

Expand full comment
Urey Patrick's avatar

Why do I repeat myself? ... Why do I repeat myself? ... I don't know... I don't know... but the content is great.

Expand full comment
Kamas716's avatar

Personally, when I’m dispatching I start with address, give the call type and description of event, and then finish by repeating the address. I want to make sure my officers 👮‍♀️ know where they’re going.

Expand full comment
Urey Patrick's avatar

As one who was dispatched in my earlier life, that practice is appreciated, and wise. 😉

Expand full comment
Richard Bicker's avatar

Europe makes the same mistakes, for many of the same reasons, in identifying and dealing with the various sources of immigrants to its countries, both legal and illegal (but forced to be given refuge by ECHR law).

Expand full comment
BUTCH BORNT's avatar

Content so good, it is worth repeating. :)

Expand full comment
Kamas716's avatar

I like it. A small step, but a step nonetheless.

Expand full comment
Scott R Feil's avatar

I'm an Army guy, slow on the uptake. This sounds similar to the theological debates we have about armored vehicles. Is (was) the M10 Booker a "light tank?" Is the Bradley an "Infantry Fighting Vehicle." Why did we classify our heaviest tank at the time (the M60 series) as a medium tank? Is the Apache a good substitute for a dedicated scout/recon helicopter? I guess it gets to capability and intended use. The Bradley was originally built with firing ports and firing port weapons so the infantry in the back could shoot from inside/protected. Rapidly seen as useless to the US way of fighting so the ports were discarded in future builds. So no, not an IFV.

And so it goes.

Expand full comment
Andy's avatar

I think a system of identifiers that are easily understood and confidence inspiring. Enough with the expeditionary littoral stuff. Independence PFM, Freedom just a PF. I bet you can guess what those would be without me saying so?

Expand full comment
Ming the Merciless's avatar

M10 will always be the Wolverine to me. 😃

Expand full comment
Bear's avatar

Like calling an M-274 with an M-40 on it an Anti Tank vehicle. I think the Japanese called the M-38A1C with an M-40 a light tank back in the day.

Expand full comment
Nurse Jane's avatar

CDR Salamander, Good Afternoon!

Please write the Ship Naming Definitive Book!

No disrespect intended…

Please network with a Toy Company to manufacture said few special Classifications!

Do this in addition please, to writing your Outline of the History of Ship Classifications;

USA; Japanese; British and Russian…

I’m trying to keep this “Simple”.

Recall “Transformers”?

Let’s keep Nuclear separate…

Let’s name, manufacture “Toy replicas” of Guided Missiles … and allow the less educated to try… which missiles, ship or boat?…

Are you getting my “Drift”?

CDR Salamander, you are Brilliant!

Of course there has been confusion because we haven’t made it easy to understand!

Sir, it’s not “Silly” to the men who lost their lives!

Imagine, a diver is told xyz. He puts the work on “ABC”.

Just because each was docked nearby each other.

Perhaps I can help. My business is called “Simple Elegance by JAS”.

Thank you for this post! Let’s dive in and make the naming conventions of the Ships and Boats easier to … “Identify” from the Air!

Or from my Private Pier along the Chesapeake Bay.

God bless you! Stay safe and please wear your sunscreen! Nurse Jane

Expand full comment
SubicbaypirateCG31Alum's avatar

Classes are one thing but, there is so much in a name. Seems politicians are using the naming of ships to memorialize themselves and their causes in many cases. Can you imagine..."William Clinton this is Barry Obama K" echoing from speakers on the bridge or in CIC. I just threw up in my mouth thinking about it.

Expand full comment
Dale Flowers's avatar

Next time, a NSFW warning, please.

Expand full comment
Billy's avatar

Better yet, the Benghazi class fast combat support ship USS Hillary R Clinton. Ship's motto is_____________________________________________

Expand full comment
SubicbaypirateCG31Alum's avatar

At this point what difference does it make.

Expand full comment