• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

USN Naming conventions

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
RyanCrierie said:
As you might not know, CVN-75 was laid down as USS UNITED STATES; but her name was changed to USS HARRY S TRUMAN before christening and then commissioning.

"Another example was a rivalry of sorts in Congress between those who supported naming the aircraft carrier CVN-76 for president Truman and those who supported naming it for president Reagan; the issue was effectively resolved by a decision announced by President Clinton in February 1995 to name one carrier (CVN-75) for Truman and another (CVN-76) for Reagan."

Patrick Pexton, “Clinton Compromise: Carriers Truman And Reagan,” Navy Times, February 13, 1995: 19.
“Navy Announces Aircraft Carrier To Be Named For President Truman,” Associated Press, February 2, 1995.
Politicians love their profession so much and feel they are so important that they're always doing things like this. Since 1960, every carrier save one (Nimitz) has been named for a politician
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,813
Reaction score
972
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
F-14D said:
Politicians love their profession so much and feel they are so important that they're always doing things like this. Since 1960, every carrier save one (Nimitz) has been named for a politician
And of course, *that* was the one that got sent back in time more than 40 years.

I'd be thrilled if the government would stop naming things (ships, buildings, bridges, etc) after politicians, especially recent politicians. I'd be even more thrilled if they'd remove the images of politicians from coins and bills.

Rant over.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,196
Reaction score
856
"...if they'd remove the images of politicians from coins and bills."

But that gives you a chance, to throw a poilitician into the dustbin !

And maybe the fact, that there is no warship with the name "United States", has
to do with similar reasons, that once made a person from the german history
(forgot his name, but I know for sure, that it was an Austrian ! ;D ) to rename
the pocketbattleship "Deutschland" into "Lützow" ?

"United States severely damaged !", "United States need lengthy repairs !" or
"United States much too costly over the recent years !"
Simple headlines, that could get just another meaning. But put in the name of
a politician and no one wonders. ;)
 

Just call me Ray

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
10
There has been at least two ships named United States, a sailing frigate of the same era as the Constitution and a later ship-of-the-line of the pre-Civil War era.
 

Just call me Ray

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
10
Global Security said:
# SSN 23 Jimmy Carter 19 Feb 2005

Problems with name:

Living Person
# Taxonomy violation
[distinguished American,
rather than a city or a state]
...I am really, really resisting the temptation to add onto that
 

Lauge

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
435
Reaction score
7
Orionblamblam said:
I'd be thrilled if the government would stop naming things (ships, buildings, bridges, etc) after politicians, especially recent politicians. I'd be even more thrilled if they'd remove the images of politicians from coins and bills.

Rant over.
Actually, and this is just my personal opinion of course, it would be appropriate to name airships after politicians [insert "gas-bag/hot air" joke here] ;D.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
379
Reaction score
17
A variation on my concept for solving the world energy problems ;)!!
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Lauge said:
Orionblamblam said:
I'd be thrilled if the government would stop naming things (ships, buildings, bridges, etc) after politicians, especially recent politicians. I'd be even more thrilled if they'd remove the images of politicians from coins and bills.

Rant over.
Actually, and this is just my personal opinion of course, it would be appropriate to name airships after politicians [insert "gas-bag/hot air" joke here] ;D.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Plus so many crash and burn
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
845
Reaction score
79
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Just call me Ray said:
...I am really, really resisting the temptation to add onto that
I love GS.org's classification of SSN-21:

"SSN 21 Seawolf 17 Jul 1997 Taxonomy violation [denizen of the deep, rather than a city or a state]"

::)

That is actually a traditional name for a submarine.

The problem was with the entirely out of order sequence of SSN-22/21/23; and it only got worse when the next one was named for a State, and then the last one for a president, totally throwing out of order the class nomenclature.

Naming ships after live people and out of sequence is somewhat appropriate -- IF it's done correctly -- outliers are actually part of the US Naming tradition -- witness the only battleship not named for a state; USS Kearsarge, after the famed civil war sloop after she was lost at sea.

For example, I can't get worked up over the Hyman G. Rickover -- it was only appropriate that a ship in the biggest nuclear attack submarine class ever built would be named after the man who created the Nuclear Navy; or Carl Vinson -- who passed a series of naval authorization acts which gave us the Two Ocean Navy which won WWII.

The problem comes when relatively undistinguished people get BIG stuff named after them -- George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford -- by dint of their WWII service, actually do deserve something named after them -- but it should have been an Arleigh Burke DDG, rather than a supercarrier.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
RyanCrierie said:
Just call me Ray said:
...I am really, really resisting the temptation to add onto that
I love GS.org's classification of SSN-21:

"SSN 21 Seawolf 17 Jul 1997 Taxonomy violation [denizen of the deep, rather than a city or a state]"

::)

That is actually a traditional name for a submarine.

The problem was with the entirely out of order sequence of SSN-22/21/23; and it only got worse when the next one was named for a State, and then the last one for a president, totally throwing out of order the class nomenclature.

Naming ships after live people and out of sequence is somewhat appropriate -- IF it's done correctly -- outliers are actually part of the US Naming tradition -- witness the only battleship not named for a state; USS Kearsarge, after the famed civil war sloop after she was lost at sea.

For example, I can't get worked up over the Hyman G. Rickover -- it was only appropriate that a ship in the biggest nuclear attack submarine class ever built would be named after the man who created the Nuclear Navy; or Carl Vinson -- who passed a series of naval authorization acts which gave us the Two Ocean Navy which won WWII.

The problem comes when relatively undistinguished people get BIG stuff named after them -- George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford -- by dint of their WWII service, actually do deserve something named after them -- but it should have been an Arleigh Burke DDG, rather than a supercarrier.
The basis for the numbering of SSN-21/22/23 was PR. The Seawolf class was being billed as the "submarine for the 21st Century", hence the 21 (remember CVN21 and DD21 programs? In the SSN case the number actually made it into service). Had the class continued, so would have the numbering--there never was a previous SSN-21-- and it's unlikely that we'll be building enough subs for a long while where the numbers would overlap previous SSNs. Also, the Navy's objective was to return to the tradition in naming submarines, after fish or nautical themes. That was overruled by SSN-22, named Connecticut, for the same reason Hyman Rickover gave for changing the naming structure to cities in the Los Angeles class (mildly paraphrased): "Fish don't vote, people do". SSN-23 was once again Congress rewarding a politician by naming it Jimmy Carter, which I consider in the same class as naming carriers Ford or Bush. Regarding Vinson, I'm not sure that he deserved the honor of being the first living American to have a U.S. Navy ship named for him, which I think set a bad precedent, but that's a quibble.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,045
Reaction score
1,023
there never was a previous SSN-21
No, but there was an SS-21, and the SSNs are numbered in sequence with the conventional boats.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
TomS said:
there never was a previous SSN-21
No, but there was an SS-21, and the SSNs are numbered in sequence with the conventional boats.
You are of course correct. SS-21 was the first of three USN submarines to be named Barracuda. Coincidentally, the last one was the one on which Jimmy Carter served for 11 months.

The point that I was making was that when they changed the numbering to 21 and so forth, the Navy didn't consider it a repeat use of the number, because it was an SSN instead of an SS. You'd have to get all the way up to SSN-571 before you'd repeat, and that'd take a while. A similar example was DD-47 and the much later DDG-47 (of course the latter got redesignated CG-47, but there was a previous CL-47 as well). The "good" Virginias went back to the previous submarine numbering system to differentiate them in Congress' eyes from the "bad" Seawolves.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
F-14D said:
Regarding Vinson, I'm not sure that he deserved the honor of being the first living American to have a U.S. Navy ship named for him, which I think set a bad precedent, but that's a quibble.
That honour went to George Washington who had four commissioned US Navy vessels sequentially named after him during 1776 all of which I think were captured by the British. Ironically the first vessel was named such because he had brought it and paid for it to be fitted out. Which is pretty much why these current vessels are named for politicians. It is them and their friends that are spending the money for the boats so they decide the name. I’m sure the USN would be happy to commission a USS Dan Quayle if it got them another ship of the line.

As to Seawolf it seems to me as if this was a case of the project name ending up the commissioned name. Like Streetfighter, DD(X), etc. The resetting of the submarine hull numbers for Seawolf is not as weird as skipping DD-998 and 999 and then calling these numbers DDGs. Or perhaps the Zumwalt actually skipped from DDG-113 to 1000? Pretty strange considering more Burkes are being built… Anyway they are just names.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Abraham Gubler said:
F-14D said:
Regarding Vinson, I'm not sure that he deserved the honor of being the first living American to have a U.S. Navy ship named for him, which I think set a bad precedent, but that's a quibble.
That honour went to George Washington who had four commissioned US Navy vessels sequentially named after him during 1776 all of which I think were captured by the British. Ironically the first vessel was named such because he had brought it and paid for it to be fitted out. Which is pretty much why these current vessels are named for politicians. It is them and their friends that are spending the money for the boats so they decide the name. I'm sure the USN would be happy to commission a USS Dan Quayle if it got them another ship of the line.

As to Seawolf it seems to me as if this was a case of the project name ending up the commissioned name. Like Streetfighter, DD(X), etc. The resetting of the submarine hull numbers for Seawolf is not as weird as skipping DD-998 and 999 and then calling these numbers DDGs. Or perhaps the Zumwalt actually skipped from DDG-113 to 1000? Pretty strange considering more Burkes are being built… Anyway they are just names.
Ya got me on George Washington. As far as other ships go, I think you're being too charitable. The ships are already authorize ed before the names are assigned or changed. The way that ship names get changed or "force-named" is by Congress putting on pressure or passing an actual law that states, "...the name of this major warship shall be_________". So, if the Navy doesn't name the ship that or change it's name, then the leaders of the Navy have committed an actual crime. And, it's not the Congresscritters that are spending the money, it's we the taxpayers. I really believe it's because politicans consider themselves a superior life form that should be honored

As for Seawolf, the project name was SSN21, and like I said, the numbering was a PR move to symbolize that it was the Submarine of the Future. This idea wasn't repeated for the CVN & DD programs.

As for DD-998-999 go, here's what I recollect: The Shah of Iran ordered six DD-965 Spruance destroyers. With his modifications, they would be the most powerful Spruances. The first four were assigned DD numbers (for US recording purposes) as DDGs 993-996, the "G" being appended because they were guided missile capable. These ships were far enough along that when the Shah fell, they were taken on by the USN and became the Kidd class. DD-997 was to be the first "Air Capable" Spruance and is discussed in another forum. As it turned out, it was completed as a standard Spruance. I believe numbers 998 and 999 were reserved for the last two Iranian ships, but the Shah fell while they either hadn't started or were in the very early stages. Since they wouldn't carry Aegis, the USN did not want to spend the money to build them.

So if true, those numbers could have been reassigned. but weren't. Or, they were actually skipped. In either case, I'll bet it was for the same reason: DDG-1000 for the first ship sounds so much more cool and innovative than DDG-999
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
467
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Abraham Gubler said:
As to Seawolf it seems to me as if this was a case of the project name ending up the commissioned name. Like Streetfighter, DD(X), etc. The resetting of the submarine hull numbers for Seawolf is not as weird as skipping DD-998 and 999 and then calling these numbers DDGs. Or perhaps the Zumwalt actually skipped from DDG-113 to 1000? Pretty strange considering more Burkes are being built… Anyway they are just names.
There have been three other submarines in the US Navy named Seawolf. It is named for a fish--the Atlantic Wolf Fish. The Pacific ocean variety is named the Pacific Wolf Eel. Probably the intention was to return the attack submarine naming convention from United States cities, as was used in the Los Angeles-class, back to naming them for fishes and denizens of the deep like the previous attack submarine classes. Unfortunately, the project logo has a ravening wolf's head emerging from the water and not the head of the wolf fish making one presume that it is a name of a mythological creature. The wolf fish has prominent tusk-like teeth and powerful jaws that they use to crush the shells of crab and sea urchins.

My understanding is that the SSN-21 hull number was chosen because the Seawolf-class attack submarine was to be the backbone of the US Navy attack submarine fleet for the 21st century.


Image source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-21.htm
 

Attachments

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
845
Reaction score
79
Website
www.alternatewars.com
F-14D said:
Also, the Navy's objective was to return to the tradition in naming submarines, after fish or nautical themes. That was overruled by SSN-22, named Connecticut, for the same reason Hyman Rickover gave for changing the naming structure to cities in the Los Angeles class (mildly paraphrased): "Fish don't vote, people do".
At least with the Ohio SSBNs, the state names were appropriate for one of the most powerful and fearsome strategic weapons platforms ever built.

Assigning a state name to a mere attack submarine (it began the trend for the Virginia class SSNs, ugh) demeaned it. At least with the previous lineage of warships that carried state names, they were the most powerful surface combatants afloat at the time (the South Carolina/Virginia CGNs).

SSN-23 was once again Congress rewarding a politician by naming it Jimmy Carter, which I consider in the same class as naming carriers Ford or Bush.
I've heard a suggestion that it may have been a sneaky move by the USN to get rid of Carter's name as a pre-emptive strike.

Stuart Slade:
The USS Jimmy Carter isn't actually an attack boat, she's a special projects boat. That means she'll spend her entire life doing spooky things far from the headlines. Now why is this...........

It all goes back to the naming of aircraft carriers. The Republicans wanted to name CVN-75 the USS Ronald Reagan. The Democrats didn't want that and tried to screw it up by demanding the CVN-76 be the USS Jimmy Carter. In the end, a deal was strucK by which CVN-75 was the USS Harry Truman and CVN-76 was USS Ronald Reagan. However, CVN-77 was looming and the Navy was desperate to make sure that the name Jimmy Carter never got attached to a carrier

At that point, lightbulbs lit. SSN-23 was unnamed and was already scheduled for conversion to a special projects boat. The nomenclature of the class was already all over the place so there was no problem. Carter was, nominally, a submariner. So, by naming SSN-23 Jimmy Carter, the Navy got the name out of circulation and put it on a ship that would never be mentioned in public.

And, if you look at a longtitudinal cross-section of SSN-23s hull, it looks like a peanut...


Even if that explanation is true, it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth...by screwing up the Seawolf class nomenclature even further.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
RyanCrierie said:
Stuart Slade:
Carter was, nominally, a submariner. So, by naming SSN-23 Jimmy Carter, the Navy got the name out of circulation and put it on a ship that would never be mentioned in public.
God I hate American political partisans. They have no shame. "Nominally" a submariner? What a load of crap. The man spent years serving on submarines. As to the Navy trying to hide the name, equal crap.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
467
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Abraham Gubler said:
God I hate American political partisans. They have no shame. "Nominally" a submariner? What a load of crap. The man spent years serving on submarines. As to the Navy trying to hide the name, equal crap.
I agree.

Stuart Slade's explanation is complete fantasy and an attack against former President Jimmy Carter. He seems to forget that the Secretary of the Navy names US Navy submarines and ships and not the Department of Navy or Congress. John Howard Dalton was appointed to be Secretary of the Navy by then President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton--a Democrat. Secretary Dalton could have named SSN-23 anything he wanted.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Jimmy Carter served for approximately 35 months on submarines, although contrary to what is reported in some press accounts, never on a nuke (they didn't exist yet), nor was he a nuclear engineer. Like him or not, he was a fully qualified submariner authorized to wear the Dolphins.

Although nominally SECNAV names ships and makes the official announcement, Congress interferes a lot. Somehow, of all the people or events they could have chosen, I doubt if the Navy's first choice for class name of the first new class of carriers since the 1960s was--nothing against him personally--Gerald R. Ford. As I said earlier, all Congress has to do is pass a law or just apply pressure behind closed doors and magic happens.

For example, take SSN-785, one of a group of SSNs authorized in 2008 (BTW, as far as I can tell, no SSNs were authorized in 2009). While I certainly have no proof, I find it an Amazing Coincidence that a mere five days after he retired, this [Virginia class sub (which are supposed to be named after States) was named for a US Senator who had been in office for 30 years (from Virginia, no less). Yes, I know he was SECNAV for 6 years long ago, but so were a lot of people. Maybe this happened to insure funding for the sub in years to come (No! I can't believe that!), or maybe some other reason...

Now, another coincidence: On a FY 2007 Defense spending bill, that same Senator proposed an amendment that CVN-78, "...shall be named the U.S.S. Gerald Ford". This would have had the force of law. However the actual amendment was not in the final bill, but the bill did say, "...it is the sense of Congress that ... CVN-78 should be named the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford." By an Amazing Coincidence, less than three months later CVN-78 was named the Gerald R. Ford.

No, I can't buy Stuart Slade's rather Machiavellian story. The simpler explanation is that Congress wanted to name something after another politician, and since Carter had served on a sub and there was the erroneous belief in some quarters that he was some kind of champion of them, it was a nice "fit".
 

Kugelblitz

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
28
Reaction score
3
I´d like Jimmy Carter to join the board and tell us how he feel about having a submarine named after him (if subs actually carry their names their too small to see in photographs), while other presidents gets carriers named after them.

There´s something wrong with US military nomenclature these years. Skipping DD 999 for 1000 is one thing, but skipping F-24 to 34 to make the F-35 conform with one faulty statement and naming warships after living persons is very bad style!

US carriers began with names from old-war frigates, names that sounded rather good, trouble began with FDR, which was kind of excusable since he died during the war, but then Forrestal suddenly got a carrier named after him (he´d probably fought to get that class of carriers, but that didn´t mean a carrier deserved he´s name (how many ordinary americans knew who Forrestal was 10 years later?)), then JFK died, he probably had to honoured by the navy in some way, but suddenly, so was Nimitz, the person-ball started rolling, the presidental theme stuck and now the carriers are named after living ex-presidents that didn´t do anything to deserve it, apart from being elected president.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Kugelblitz said:
I´d like Jimmy Carter to join the board and tell us how he feel about having a submarine named after him (if subs actually carry their names their too small to see in photographs), while other presidents gets carriers named after them.

There´s something wrong with US military nomenclature these years. Skipping DD 999 for 1000 is one thing, but skipping F-24 to 34 to make the F-35 conform with one faulty statement and naming warships after living persons is very bad style!

US carriers began with names from old-war frigates, names that sounded rather good, trouble began with FDR, which was kind of excusable since he died during the war, but then Forrestal suddenly got a carrier named after him (he´d probably fought to get that class of carriers, but that didn´t mean a carrier deserved he´s name (how many ordinary americans knew who Forrestal was 10 years later?)), then JFK died, he probably had to honoured by the navy in some way, but suddenly, so was Nimitz, the person-ball started rolling, the presidental theme stuck and now the carriers are named after living ex-presidents that didn´t do anything to deserve it, apart from being elected president.
Forrestal fought to save naval aviation, not that class of carrier (which hadn't even been designed at the time) so much so and under such hostility from Truman and the fledgling Air Force that it destroyed him. He was not the only person to succumb to that kind of pressure. It was for his fight to save naval aviation and what happened to him that he was so honored. The fact that people might not know who he was 10 years later was not germane. JFK had a carrier named after him because he believed in nuclear carriers and it was hoped by naming -67 after him McNamara would reverse another one of his stupid decisions and allow more nukes to be built (note: eventually, no nuke carriers was the only major decision he made that he later reversed). Besides, at that time they were naming everything after JFK. The Nimitz was named the Nimitz because of who Nimitz was, although I would agree a carrier shouldn't have been named after him, it set the wrong precedent. . It was also the only carrier since CVA-66 that wasn't named after a politician (Vinson and Stennis were not ex-presidents).
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
467
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
I wonder what names Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will choose or have suggested to him for future United States Navy ships? For the Gerald R Ford-class carriers, will we see USS Woodrow Wilson (CVN-79), USS Franklin Delano Roosevelt (CVN-80), or USS John F Kennedy (CVN-81)? USS William J Clinton? USS Lyndon B Johnson?

I understand that Congressman Harry Mitchell suggested that CVN-79 be named USS Arizona. While Congressman John Shadegg suggested that CVN-80 be named USS Barry M Goldwater.

I personally have mixed feelings about the name USS Arizona being used for a new ship because BB-39 is a memorial.

There is also a petition to name CVN-79 USS Enterprise.

Personally, I would like to see future aircraft carriers named for famous ships in the history of the United States Navy: Enterprise, Ranger, Saratoga, Lexington, Constellation etc.

In the end though, it's more important that the Navy has the ships than what name is chosen for them.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
162
Personally, I would like to see future aircraft carriers named for famous ships in the history of the United States Navy: Enterprise, Ranger, Saratoga, Lexington, Constellation etc.
That's my vote too.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,813
Reaction score
972
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Triton said:
For the Gerald R Ford-class carriers, will we see USS Woodrow Wilson
Ye gods I hope not. It's bad enough to name major warships after politicians (that naming convention should be rescticted to garbage scows), but to name one after Wilson, probably the worst, most damaging President in US history? Gah.
 

colombamike

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
Triton said:
I wonder what names Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will choose or have suggested to him for future United States Navy ships? For the Gerald R Ford-class carriers, will we see USS Woodrow Wilson (CVN-79), USS Franklin Delano Roosevelt (CVN-80), or USS John F Kennedy (CVN-81)? USS William J Clinton? USS Lyndon B Johnson? I understand that Congressman Harry Mitchell suggested that CVN-79 be named USS Arizona. While Congressman John Shadegg suggested that CVN-80 be named USS Barry M Goldwater. I personally have mixed feelings about the name USS Arizona being used for a new ship because BB-39 is a memorial. There is also a petition to name CVN-79 USS Enterprise. Personally, I would like to see future aircraft carriers named for famous ships in the history of the United States Navy: Enterprise, Ranger, Saratoga, Lexington, Constellation etc. In the end though, it's more important that the Navy has the ships than what name is chosen for them.
Cancel the big 330 meters/100 000 tons, 5000 sailors aicraft carrier.......(to carried now only 50/70 aicraft) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
And begin study (& build) instead a new radical design
- Dramatically more stealthy
- Around 50/65000 tons, 280 meters.....MAXIMUN
- Dramatically more automated (around 1/1500 sailors), to reduce the operative cost (use the DDG Zumwalt or LCS crew reduction technology)
;)
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
colombamike said:
Cancel the big 330 meters/100 000 tons, 5000 sailors aicraft carrier.......(to carried now only 50/70 aicraft) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Sorry but you needed at least one or two more ::) to persuade me...

colombamike said:
And begin study (& build) instead a new radical design
- Dramatically more stealthy
- Around 50/65000 tons, 280 meters.....MAXIMUN
- Dramatically more automated (around 1/1500 sailors), to reduce the operative cost (use the DDG Zumwalt or LCS crew reduction technology)
OK so you build your mid size carrier and fit it out with automation and a crew of 1,500 then who is going to maintain the aircraft and operate the flight deck? All that automation stuff does is enable you to replace a bunch of sailors used for admin with personnel computers and damage control with sprinklers. It can’t replace all the sailors needed to launch, recover and spot aircraft and maintain them and then all the sailors needed to keep these guys and girls alive. The US Navy has done some research into automating the flight deck but it’s a long way off being ready for service.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Abraham Gubler said:
colombamike said:
Cancel the big 330 meters/100 000 tons, 5000 sailors aicraft carrier.......(to carried now only 50/70 aicraft) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Sorry but you needed at least one or two more ::) to persuade me...

colombamike said:
And begin study (& build) instead a new radical design
- Dramatically more stealthy
- Around 50/65000 tons, 280 meters.....MAXIMUN
- Dramatically more automated (around 1/1500 sailors), to reduce the operative cost (use the DDG Zumwalt or LCS crew reduction technology)
OK so you build your mid size carrier and fit it out with automation and a crew of 1,500 then who is going to maintain the aircraft and operate the flight deck? All that automation stuff does is enable you to replace a bunch of sailors used for admin with personnel computers and damage control with sprinklers. It can’t replace all the sailors needed to launch, recover and spot aircraft and maintain them and then all the sailors needed to keep these guys and girls alive. The US Navy has done some research into automating the flight deck but it’s a long way off being ready for service.

Plus, the mid size carrier is much more expensive to get the same deliverable firepower---Multiple flight decks, multiple propulsion plants, each carrier carries fewer aircraft (and the number goes down faster than the size), more battle groups, etc.
 

funkychinaman

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Naming a sub after Carter because he was a submariner sort of made it necessary to name a carrier after Bush 41. I love Jerry Ford and all, but does it bother anyone else that our next two carriers will be named after two men who were president for a combined six years?

And I can't be the only person to be reminded of a great quote from the Simpsons:

"Homer: Hey, do we get to land on an aircraft carrier?
Pilot: No, Sir, the closest vessel in the USS Walter Mondale. It's a
laundry ship. They'll take you the rest of the way."
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
funkychinaman said:
Naming a sub after Carter because he was a submariner sort of made it necessary to name a carrier after Bush 41. I love Jerry Ford and all, but does it bother anyone else that our next two carriers will be named after two men who were president for a combined six years?
Hmmm...some special insight into what CVN-79 (CVN-77 is already in service) will be named? The USS Chester A. Arthur or Millard Fillmore perhaps? :D

Seriously, the best name for that ship would the name with the proudest tradition, considering that the present nameholder will be gone long before she enters service: USS Enterprise. If they have to name the ship after someone, instead of another self-serving naming it for politicians, name it for someone who did more for modern naval aviation and air combat in general than anyone in the last 50 or so years: CAPT. Frank Ault (Who ??? Look him up.)

But then, given the bizarre ways we're naming things, maybe we should think out of the box; When an Aircraft Carrier is coming at you, we want the foe to instinctively believe they've made a Big Mistake and are about to have their ass seriously kicked. What do you think of this:
CVN-79, the...
USS Superman
;D​
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
211
But then, given the bizarre ways we're naming things, maybe we should think out of the box; When an Aircraft Carrier is coming at you, we want the foe to instinctively believe they've made a Big Mistake and are about to have their ass seriously kicked.
Why not have the best of both worlds, and combine the above
with a living politician....

USS Arnold Schwarzenegger........

Sorry, couldn't resist...


cheers,
Robin.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
F-14D said:
CAPT. Frank Ault (Who ??? Look him up.)
What the guy who just changed the front and back ends of a report written by a RN exchange pilot about why the USN needs their own version of the RN’s air warfare instructor (AWI) course?

http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Squadron-Rowland-White/dp/0593054504/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266714217&sr=1-1-spell
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Abraham Gubler said:
F-14D said:
CAPT. Frank Ault (Who ??? Look him up.)
What the guy who just changed the front and back ends of a report written by a RN exchange pilot about why the USN needs their own version of the RN’s air warfare instructor (AWI) course?

http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Squadron-Rowland-White/dp/0593054504/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266714217&sr=1-1-spell
I mean the guy who participated in the Invasion of Guadalcanal. Who survived the sinking of Astoria during the First Battle of Savo Island in August 1942. Served in three wars, plank owner and Bomb Commander VC-5, the Navy's first atomic bomb delivery squadron and was involved in developing techniques for putting larger nuclear bombers on carriers (which fortunately was overcome by technology); directed Navy space research and authored the service's first space program in 1957; served in multiple attack squadrons;, commanded an attack squadron and an air wing as well as USS Renville and the aircraft carrier Coral Sea. The guy who was charged with finding out why USN, while doing better than USAF in air-to-air (well, that was to be expected, natch) in Vietnam, was still performing unsatisfactorily. The guy who agreed with that British exchange pilot that the USN needed a fighter weapons school, but pushed to get it done. The guy who also foresaw the need for the thrust vectored dogfight missile (which if memory serves was the #1 recommendation of the Ault Report, not Top Gun), who documented how in modern air combat you need to fly the weapon, not the plane. The guy who...

Yeah, that guy.

Thanks for the reference to that book, I never knew its name. Sounds like it'll be coming out in paperback on this side of the pond in May, and I'll grab a copy.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
135
F-14D said:
Yeah, that guy.
He’s a naval hero no doubt. But the USN has had a means to honour such for some time. And that is the naming of destroyers.

If you track the naming of carriers you can see that it only became this perverted political exercise at Carl Vinson. Before that ship the carriers named for people had been done so right after their deaths and in honour of very significant US national leaders (FDR, JFK, Ike) and US Navy leaders (Forrestal, Nimitz). While Vinson was a significant US Navy leader he didn’t deserve more than a destroyer (and perhaps same for Forrestal and Nimitz) and was a decade off death and his retirement from Congress did not grip the USA as much as FDR, JHFK, etc.. After Vinson a series of CVNs were named for Mt. Rushmore level leaders and then the system was just up to whomever had the fancy of Congress at that time.

F-14D said:
Thanks for the reference to that book, I never knew its name. Sounds like it'll be coming out in paperback on this side of the pond in May, and I'll grab a copy.
It’s a good book.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Abraham Gubler said:
F-14D said:
Yeah, that guy.
He’s a naval hero no doubt. But the USN has had a means to honour such for some time. And that is the naming of destroyers.

If you track the naming of carriers you can see that it only became this perverted political exercise at Carl Vinson. Before that ship the carriers named for people had been done so right after their deaths and in honour of very significant US national leaders (FDR, JFK, Ike) and US Navy leaders (Forrestal, Nimitz). While Vinson was a significant US Navy leader he didn’t deserve more than a destroyer (and perhaps same for Forrestal and Nimitz) and was a decade off death and his retirement from Congress did not grip the USA as much as FDR, JFK, etc.. After Vinson a series of CVNs were named for Mt. Rushmore level leaders and then the system was just up to whomever had the fancy of Congress at that time.

F-14D said:
Thanks for the reference to that book, I never knew its name. Sounds like it'll be coming out in paperback on this side of the pond in May, and I'll grab a copy.
It’s a good book.
Abraham:

If you'll look at some of my past posts on this topic, you'll see I've been decrying the naming of carriers after politicians. I'm the one who pointed out that since 1960, only one carrier has not been named for a politician (USS Nimitz). I really don't think we should be naming carriers after people, and my philosophy is embodied in the sentence from my first Ault post: "If they have to name the ship after someone, instead of another self-serving naming it for politicians, name it for someone who did more for modern naval aviation and air combat in general than anyone in the last 50 or so years: CAPT. Frank Ault". I'm saying if they feel they have to name the next carrier after a person, rather than a traditional carrier name (I want Enterprise), then make it someone important to naval aviation, not a politician.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Topic has been dormant, but just thought I'd throw in an update.

There has been quite a groundswell to name CVN-79 USS Enterprise, so that there will be a Enterprise coming into the fleet after the upcoming premature retirement of CVN-65. The 111th Congress, as responsive to the will of the people as ever, introduced legislation (which didn't get all the way through the process) to direct naming CVN-79---USS Barry Goldwater. Wow! Another politician. Who could have ever expected that? Too early to know if the 112th will direct the naming of the ship.
 

Demon Lord Razgriz

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
189
Reaction score
2
F-14D said:
Topic has been dormant, but just thought I'd throw in an update.

There has been quite a groundswell to name CVN-79 USS Enterprise, so that there will be a Enterprise coming into the fleet after the upcoming premature retirement of CVN-65. The 111th Congress, as responsive to the will of the people as ever, introduced legislation (which didn't get all the way through the process) to direct naming CVN-79---USS Barry Goldwater. Wow! Another politician. Who could have ever expected that? Too early to know if the 112th will direct the naming of the ship.
<__> I'm gonna expect the Navy will refuse to do so without a massive political fight. Goldwater is Air Force, not Navy.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
132
Demon Lord Razgriz said:
F-14D said:
Topic has been dormant, but just thought I'd throw in an update.

There has been quite a groundswell to name CVN-79 USS Enterprise, so that there will be a Enterprise coming into the fleet after the upcoming premature retirement of CVN-65. The 111th Congress, as responsive to the will of the people as ever, introduced legislation (which didn't get all the way through the process) to direct naming CVN-79---USS Barry Goldwater. Wow! Another politician. Who could have ever expected that? Too early to know if the 112th will direct the naming of the ship.
<__> I'm gonna expect the Navy will refuse to do so without a massive political fight. Goldwater is Air Force, not Navy.
Unfortunately, now we must discus the real world. Navy ships are nominally named by the Secretary of the Navy, a political appointee. He/she is subject to all the political "direction" or "suggestion" that implies. Keep in mind Congress controls the purse strings, and which Administration is in power has a big influence. And of course, if Congress really wants something they just pass a law.

So, if you really think the Real Navy could fight something like this let me just cite one current example: LPD-26, an Amphibious Tansport Dock ship which exists to support the Marines is going to be named after that party stalwart and close associate of the former Speaker of the House, John Murtha. For those of you outside the US, you may not realize how appalling that is.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,340
Reaction score
612
"USS Barry Goldwater"
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight"

Aaha! The Arizona Connection around Senator John McCain!
He or They can't USS Arizona because USS Arizona (BB-39) or USS John McCain because of other ships named after his ancestors,
so they found a charismatic politician from Arizona with conservative and also libertarian views.
They brought up this politician, so a big part of 112th Congress (from old republican establishment to the new Tea Party influenced members over the isle to blue dog democrats like Gabrielle Giffords) could vote for this proposal.

IMHO, they should go back to old names like USS Yorktown or USS Enterprise.
 
Top