- Author
- Letter Writer
- Subjects
- Ship design and development, Letter to the Editor
- Tags
-
- RAN Ships
- None noted.
- Publication
- December 1992 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)
I write to record my disappointment, and no doubt reflect the feelings of many others, with the names chosen for the ‘Anzac’ frigates. Firstly, the continuing of the names ARUNTA and WARRAMUNGA, ships with proud battle honours, and names firmly entrenched in R.A.N. history is commended. But why change the spelling to conform with modern usage? If the new ships were of the ‘Tribal’ class, perhaps ARRERNTE and WARAMUGU could be justified. But they are not.
In a time when the outlook on the number of ships likely to be in commission is diminishing, it seems appropriate that pride and morale in the navy, is best served by having ships with some history. ARRERNTE and WARAMUGU have no history in the RAN, no battle honours – nothing. They are new names. The ships with the history are ARUNTA and WARRAMUNGA, and as such deserve to have their names continue.
The choice of former corvette names BALLARAT and TOOWOOMBA is also difficult to comprehend. Already nineteen WW2 corvette names continue in the RAN, and if there was a special need to have the latest two perpetuated, they should have been included in the ‘Fremantle’ class. And if a corvette name ever warranted continuation, surely it would have been gallant ARMIDALE.
If the Navy chose the names of the frigates without any political or beaucratical influence, my disappointment changes to dismay. Whatever happened to tradition?
Fortunately, naval history is punctuated with instances where warship names have been allocated and then changed before completion. So let us hope history can repeat itself.
Eric Hogben
