US Navy carrier named to honour Doris Miller

Now that is something different! Maybe the USN forgoes the silly naming convention of American presidents? Though it was nice to see a second Kennedy!
Though it was still named after a person rather then a battle like pre 1965.
 
I think you will find that US naming for carriers has always been a little 'variable'..
Langley, Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise, Essex (etc), Midway, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Coral Sea, United States (Cancelled), Forrestal, America, etc, etc.
They do go through phases of naming conventions, but they are quite wide ranging.
I'm guessing that the ship will be called the USS D.Miller...
There has been a previous ship commemorating Doris Miller. A Knox class Destroyer Escort FF-1091, USS Miller.
I'm not sure if being on a ship named Doris Miller would be too popular with at least some of the crew, I'm pretty sure it would be subject to various 'corruptions' and nicknames - (sure would be in the British Royal Navy)...
 
Part of Navy life is living with (and developing new) nicknames, both positive and negative, for the ships you serve on. I don't think the Miller will be any worse or better in that regard.
 
While I'm in favour of the name being used for a destroyer or light cruiser, I fear it's use in this case is a cynical attempt to head off potential delay or even cancellation of CVN-81 by Congress.
 
Last edited:
That is why I written pre 1965 from when the presidents became the ultimate names for carriers.
My friend said that this name was almost a joke it was like naming the ship after Barack Hussein Obama or Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Clinton?) :)
 
Grey Havoc said:
While I'm in favour of the name being used for a destroyer or light cruiser, I fear it's use in this case is a cynical attempt to head off potential delay or even cancellation of CVN-81 by Congress.
Click to expand...
That's a large part of it, and it's not remotely unique in that sense. The famous Rickover quote "Fish don't vote" in regards to the 688s still holds sway, and that's unlikely to change in the near future. I too would have liked to see it used on a combatant, in particular I would have been pleased if the new Frigate class were named after Doris Miller. But overall it's a fine move. The real concern with using persons' names remains that someone someday will choose a highly divisive name which, rather than securing the ship's future, turns it into a political sticking point. So far, that's been well avoided.
 
I am reminded of Tom Clancy's exchange between USS Reuben James and HMS Battleaxe in which the USN has the last word by saying At least we dont name ships after our mother in law
 
uk 75 said:
I am reminded of Tom Clancy's exchange between USS Reuben James and HMS Battleaxe in which the USN has the last word by saying At least we dont name ships after our mother in law
Click to expand...

That particular exchange was always odd to me, because Reuben James is rather a storied name in the Battle of the Atlantic.
 
Any thoughts about the fact that the next exPOTUS name was Jimmy "didn't inhale" Carter, whose legacy is overshadowed by his crass incompetence in handling the Iranian hostage crisis (and just about every other international situation) ?
 
dan_inbox said:
Any thoughts about the fact that the next exPOTUS name was Jimmy "didn't inhale" Carter, whose legacy is overshadowed by his crass incompetence in handling the Iranian hostage crisis (and just about every other international situation) ?
Click to expand...

Name is already in use for a Seawolf-class submarine.
 
Several WW2 carrier names became cruiser names in the Ticonderoga class. Several others became LHA/LHD names.
 
Wyvern said:
The US Navy should start naming their aircraft carriers after battleships.
Click to expand...

US battleship names were pretty much all state names*, and those are already in use by submarines (both the Ohio class and the Virginia class) plus one by an amphib (New York). By my count, there are 48 state names already in use or assigned. That seems to include all the old battleship names except Wisconsin and Kansas. I suspect those will eventually be assigned to Columbia class SSBNs. Then we have to either get more states or fewer subs... ;)

*The one non-state battleship name is Kearsarge,*** which is already taken by another amphib (LHD-3).

** It also includes Alaska and Hawaii, which were never battlehip names but were used by the CB large cruisers and are now submarine names.

*** not counting some war prizes after WW1, which were very briefly commissioned under their old names before being scraped or sunk.
 
Or USS New York going to be renamed to USS New York City and you got one extra state to play with. :)
Another option is to use the territory names:
USS Alaska, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa maybe even USS Panama?
 
Midway, Coral Sea, Constellation, Saratoga, Langley, Kitty Hawk, Lexington, Independence
Job done!
ps any more UK carriers(lol) should be Ark Royal, Eagle, Hermes, Furious etc
 
Tzoli said:
Or USS New York going to be renamed to USS New York City and you got one extra state to play with. :)
Another option is to use the territory names:
USS Alaska, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa maybe even USS Panama?
Click to expand...

Since 1959, Alaska and Hawaii are states, not territories.
 
I must be from another planet: to me, the endless re-use by navies world-wide of the same ship names brings only negative connotes: old farts, past-oriented, unable to find a modern motivating name, harping on the same worn-out "tradition" meme because they can't create new motivators, old stick-in-the-mud always crapping in the same pot, this kind of things.
But then I'm no fan of marching-in-parade or Gunny sarge either. The armies that focus of tradition, medals and the like are missing the point IMO. Oh well.

On a tangent, to illustrate the point: Those men were both Chief of staff in 2017. Which one would you follow in a war? The para who has led commando raids against terrorists, or the operetta stud who hasn't ever fought in first line but carries a breastful of trinkets?
 

Attachments

  • chiefs of staff.jpg
    chiefs of staff.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 54
a
dan_inbox said:
I must be from another planet: to me, the endless re-use by navies world-wide of the same ship names brings only negative connotes: old farts, past-oriented, unable to find a modern motivating name, harping on the same worn-out "tradition" meme because they can't create new motivators, old stick-in-the-mud always crapping in the same pot, this kind of things.
But then I'm no fan of marching-in-parade or Gunny sarge either. The armies that focus of tradition, medals and the like are missing the point IMO. Oh well.

On a tangent, to illustrate the point: Those men were both Chief of staff in 2017. Which one would you follow in a war? The para who has led commando raids against terrorists, or the operetta stud who hasn't ever fought in first line but carries a breastful of trinkets?
Click to expand...
as an old fart who posted trad names above am interested to hear your suggestions for names?
 
It really doesn't matter.
Armed forces and their civil service colleagues no longer seem to adhere to historical guidelines on names, designations or serial numbers.
In most cases the institutional memory of decisions and policies made on these issues 50 to 30 years ago is gone. Now they just do what seems the best idea at the time for PR reasons or 'it seemed a good idea at the time' reasons.
 
uk 75 said:
as an old fart who posted trad names above am interested to hear your suggestions for names?
Click to expand...
Fair shot.
I'm no expert in this, but I would start by looking at what is done by entrepreneurs who need to motivate their staff. Specifically, at large corporations who spawn task forces, tiger teams, or even startups.
Result of a 2-mins brainstorm: Avenger, Pacifier, Storm, Lightning, Spearhead, Morning star, Avant-garde. Depending the mission: Defender, Rampart, Blaster, Breaker, Conqueror.

Then of course we need to go through the politikorrekt filtering and all that stuff. But it seems to me Lightning is more motivating than an obscure feodal reference like Ark Royal, Umpteenth of the name to boot.
But again, I'm no expert in this. I don't propose a solution, only an approach to the problem.
 
Last edited:
A thought provoking argument. After all most of the people who Navies need are from a new generation. It is also true that when names were chosen they did resonate more. Nelson meant something to kids between the wars when the battleship was built. Invincible and Daring are old names which still work.
 
uk 75 said:
A thought provoking argument. After all most of the people who Navies need are from a new generation. It is also true that when names were chosen they did resonate more.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words.
Yes, Navies (and armed forces in general) need to motivate young ones. If shipnames can be part of it then they should, is the point.

As to whether Nelson (+1805) motivated the youth of 1939, I'll take your word for it. Not being a Brit I wouldn't know.
My terrible suspicion is that Their Lordships Of The Seas (whatever title the fat cats at the top used then), those Lordships did not care in the least. When they've made it this high in the brotherhood, it's everyone else who must pay attention to how they feel, not the other way around.
They might care about how the even-higher-ups think, yes.

To illustrate this point again: the photo I posted above, when I first saw it, my first thought was "How could Gen Dempsey let such a picture be published, in which he looks like an operetta buffoon next to an old warrior and makes every seasoned soldier scoff?". Doesn't he realize it? My answer is that just like Their Lordships, he simply doesn't care and wants only to look good to his higher-ups.

(This being said, it is way worse in other armies, nothing against this general personally. It's just sad that in an advanced army of a developped democracy it's this bad. Woe to the less developped/less democratic countries...)
 
I can only go by my late father(b1925) who handed on to me The Wonder Book of the Royal Navy which devoted most of its pages to life on HMS Nelson. He didnt volunteer for the Navy but did for the Army.
 
It really doesn't matter.
A ship's crew bond with their ship whatever the name, it is their ship and it belongs to them before all others.

An historic name also binds the crew into the deeper esprit de corps of the service, that historical link with their forebears. HMS Ark Royal links back to Drake and the Armada and the formation of centuries of British dominance and seapower.
Actually if you look closer, you will find the first 'real' HMS Ark Royal was not bestowed until 1914, sometime after the peak of Victorian Royal Naval sea power and its celebration of British ruling of the waves and was assigned to, of all things, a converted tramp steamer. I sense Churchill's role here, as the first seaplane carrier he was making a statement, a new modern Navy with perhaps a nod to Drake in that once again the 'wind' was playing a role in the future. Arguably Ark Royal means far more today as a lineage of aircraft carriers with numerous battle honours; (Armada 1588, Cádiz 1596) Dardanelles 1915, Norway 1940, Spartivento 1940, Mediterranean 1940–1941, Bismarck 1941, Malta Convoys 1941, Al Faw 2003 (plus a fair few other military operations not accorded such status along the way).
 
I say just open it to a public vote, its our money being used we should have a say in what its named! USS Carrier McCarryface anyone? Maybe HMS Sir Flyalot?
 
Desertfox said:
I say just open it to a public vote, its our money
Click to expand...
I like the idea, but ideally, for maximum motivation, it should be a vote by the lads who are going to be operating it. (If Joe Taxpayer on the shore is motivated, it's good too, but not as useful). Of course crew vote is not practical.

That's why I mentionned using the expertise of corporations in motivating staff. Maybe even (gasp!) hire a marketing consultancy specializing in Millenials and see if they come up with anything useful? (Eeeek! This guy really is from another planet!)
 
"Aircraft from the USS Ronald McDonald have struck Taliban targets in Northern Afghanistan, I'm lovin it!" - CNN
 
I fear it comes down to the votes in Congress or Parliament. Politicians like to wrap themselves in tradition and Admirals in particular know how to keep them on side. As suggested above a popular vote for naming the two carriers in the UK would have produced a silly or sentimental choice, probably suggested by the tabloid press or some fashionable blog. We have Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales because although they were claimed to be named for historical figures, the current honours of these titles were enjoying a rare period of public acclaim. Apart from the "Churchill" no capital ship has remembered a politician in the UK. By contrast France has the Charles De Gaulle,originally suggested to be called Richelieu.
 
When CdG passed away, the French politicians got into frenzy of renaming everything after him. Even the place de l'Étoile in Paris.
Of course he was a rare paragon of civic vertue (like Cincinnatus, Washington, Ben Gurion and precious few others), but the renaming got ridiculous.

And indeed politicians can't care less about motivating the crew of a warship.
 
Maiwand1880 said:
This threads gives an unsavoury impression that some posters object naming a US Navy carrier after a black sailor.
Click to expand...
You should substantiate that, lest you want to appear to be only looking for some mud to sling around.
 
Wyvern said:
They should name ships after US National and State Parks (i.e. Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc.).
Click to expand...

Destroyer tenders used to be named that way (the Klondike, Shenandoah, and Yellowstone classes). A least one LPD-17 (USS Mesa Verde) also got a National Park name

PS: I wonder if this discussion wouldn't be better suited to the Designation Systems or Bar subforums.
 
Technically, CVN-81 USS Doris Miller has yet to be laid down. (The keel laying is currently scheduled for 2023.) And it's future is by no means secure, even before the Wuhan Coronavirus hit.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom