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

USN Naming conventions

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,015
Reaction score
97
Some very interesting posts here. My question is, "plank owner", what does that mean?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
rickshaw said:
Some very interesting posts here. My question is, "plank owner", what does that mean?
It's a term that comes down from the days of Wooden Ships and Iron Men (Tony Stark has nothing to do with it). It refers to someone who was assigned to the ship or squadron when it first entered service or was stood up.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
fightingirish said:
"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.
Going back to the old way is what the Navy wants. However, politicians and bureaucrats rule. Don't forget, there's a strong movement to name CVN-79 Enterprise, but as we've seen, D.C doesn't care. The fact that LPD-26 is named the John Murtha is the most direct example.

BTW, the Barry Goldwater proposal came up during the 111th Congress, before the Republicans took over.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
415
Yes, F-14D, I agree with you that the naming of LPD-26 as the John P. Murtha was a bad idea and especially bad timing too.
But let's us not talk about that politician anymore. :)
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
fightingirish said:
Yes, F-14D, I agree with you that the naming of LPD-26 as the John P. Murtha was a bad idea and especially bad timing too.
But let's us not talk about that politician anymore. :)
Your point is well taken. I don't wish to turn this into a political topic. I just brought it up because some folks were saying that naming for politicians isn't right, and the Navy should not do it. I was trying to show that if D.C forced a Marine ship to be named after that guy, they're totally disconnected with the services, and are going to do whatever they want.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,438
Reaction score
140
Mod note:

removed some posts. This is going too off-topic. Remember this is "Naval unbuilt projects".
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,015
Reaction score
97
F-14D said:
rickshaw said:
Some very interesting posts here. My question is, "plank owner", what does that mean?
It's a term that comes down from the days of Wooden Ships and Iron Men (Tony Stark has nothing to do with it). It refers to someone who was assigned to the ship or squadron when it first entered service or was stood up.
OK, thanks. Very American.
 

funkychinaman

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
I think plankowner refers to a crewmember who helped decommission a ship as well. One of my officers in NROTC had a certificate in his office identifying him as a plankowner of the USS Josephus Daniels, yet wasn't nearly old enough to be around when the ship was commissioned.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
funkychinaman said:
I think plankowner refers to a crewmember who helped decommission a ship as well. One of my officers in NROTC had a certificate in his office identifying him as a plankowner of the USS Josephus Daniels, yet wasn't nearly old enough to be around when the ship was commissioned.
I have never heard of a plank owner being part of the decommissioning crew, although someone who was assigned to the commissioning crew and then was also ship's company at decommissioning would be a plankowner. In the days of wooden ships when the term first started, according to tradition a members of the commissioning ship's company was entitled to one plank from her deck when she was decommissioned. Is it possible the certificate was "plank preserver", instead? That is a lesser used term for a member of the decommissioning crew
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,157
Reaction score
42
Well, I helped commissioned the Truman. And I'm looking right at my plankowner's certificate as I type this.

But for those who are interested, here's a USS UNITED STATES command ballcap for sale.
http://www.soldiercity.com/uss-united-states-cvn-75-ballcap.html?utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=csc&utm_term=2052
 

Madurai

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
97
Reaction score
6
F-14D said:
I have never heard of a plank owner being part of the decommissioning crew, although someone who was assigned to the commissioning crew and then was also ship's company at decommissioning would be a plankowner. In the days of wooden ships when the term first started, according to tradition a members of the commissioning ship's company was entitled to one plank from her deck when she was decommissioned. Is it possible the certificate was "plank preserver", instead? That is a lesser used term for a member of the decommissioning crew
"Plankowner" was still being used for decommissioning crew the last I saw. I never encountered a "plank preserver." Admittedly, this was 19 years ago.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
To no one's great surprise the politicians win again. Many wanted CVN-79 to be named Enterprise, a name that goes back centuries in the US Navy, was the name of the most decorated USN ship of WWII, was the Navy's first nuclear carrier and the name would be available with the early retirement of CVN-65. But of course none of that matters when Washington wishes to glorify one of its own. CVN-79 is to be named John F. Kennedy.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,120
Reaction score
1,415
Triton said:
I wonder if one of the new America-class amphibious assault ships will be named U.S.S. Enterprise.
Doubtful, I would think.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
59
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
blackstar said:
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,844
Reaction score
285
Website
beyondthesprues.com
blackstar said:
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
Try here
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,748
Reaction score
636
F-14D said:
blackstar said:
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.
Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,157
Reaction score
42
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/05/navys-next-carrier-be-named-after-jfk
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
TomS said:
F-14D said:
blackstar said:
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.
Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).
"Note to Self: Have article in hand rather than relying on memory".

Still, it also says stop building any future CVNs ("Twilight of the SUPERfluous Carrier"). We're back to the never-ending "Big Deck vs. Small Deck" debate.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
59
GTX said:
blackstar said:
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
Try here
Thanks. I had prowled all over that site and couldn't find it.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
427
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
From where did authors Captain Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy, and Lieutenant Colonel J. Noel Williams, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), get their 10,000-ton common hull to replace the LCS and LSD and their 60 ship build figure? Because the Navy wanted 60 LCS type ships? ??? To which near-term solution are they referring? ??? A variant of the paper BAE Systems UXV combatant?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,748
Reaction score
636
Triton said:
From where did authors Captain Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy, and Lieutenant Colonel J. Noel Williams, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), get their 10,000-ton common hull to replace the LCS and LSD and their 60 ship build figure? Because the Navy wanted 60 LCS type ships? ??? To which near-term solution are they referring? ??? A variant of the paper BAE Systems UXV combatant?
I don' think they provide any specific basis - I'd guess it's a combination of most of the Navy's "wish=lsit" for LCS plus the 11 or so LSD(X) that will beneeded to replace the current LSD-41s (though there's no way a 10,000-ton ship is going to provide even a fraction of an LSD-41's cargo capacity, and the Marines are already coming up way short on lift in future force projections...)

I don't find the article at all concincing. It assumes too much about the capability of the F-35B (which even at its best, is going to be grossly outranged by the 35C), dumps far too many cpabilities into a non-existant unmanned vehicle (UCLASS), and doesn't talk at all about many of the specialized capabilities in a big carrier air wing (EW, AEW, tanker, etc are all ignored).

The notion of a c 10,000 ton ship built aroudn a well deck and flight deck is probably the least crazy idea here. A ship like that certainly woudl be a feasible mother ship for various unmanned (or small manned) vehicles, and might be a good alternative to LCS for many roles (I've never been convinced that LCS needed as much speed as it has).
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,120
Reaction score
1,415
TomS said:
I don't find the article at all concincing. It assumes too much about the capability of the F-35B (which even at its best, is going to be grossly outranged by the 35C), dumps far too many cpabilities into a non-existant unmanned vehicle (UCLASS), and doesn't talk at all about many of the specialized capabilities in a big carrier air wing (EW, AEW, tanker, etc are all ignored).
Actually, the latest reports indicate the the F-35C won't have that much of an operational range advantage over the STOVL variant after all!
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
587
Grey Havoc said:
Actually, the latest reports indicate the the F-35C won't have that much of an operational range advantage over the STOVL variant after all!
1) Untrue.

2) Completely off-topic.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,120
Reaction score
1,415
sealordlawrence said:
Grey Havoc said:
Actually, the latest reports indicate the the F-35C won't have that much of an operational range advantage over the STOVL variant after all!
1) Untrue.

2) Completely off-topic.
1) True, unfortunately, whether you like it or not.

2) I was just remarking briefly on TomS statement about the F-35B (lack of) capability v that of the F-35C and it's impact as he saw it on the credibility of the article. Definitely on-topic. :|
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
371
Copied from Selected Acquisition Report on the Lockheed Martin F-35 program, page 10, as posted on FAS. http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/05/f-35_sar.html
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,120
Reaction score
1,415
That report is badly out of date. I won't say any more lest I'd be accused again of going off-topic.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
587
That report is badly out of date. I won't say any more lest I'd be accused again of going off-topic.
Its the latest selected acquisition report, and shows the F-35C has a 30% + combat radius advantage over the F-35B. You wont say anymore because you know you are wrong.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
371
The report is dated 31 December 2010, there might be more recent information. If so, I'm interested.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,748
Reaction score
636
The actual latest SAR (reported in the media last month) refers to ranges of 469 nm for the F-35B and 615 nm for the F-35C. So that's roughly 30% more range for the C model in the evaluated configuration. I'd call that very significant.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_military0591_05_17.asp
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
587
Yep, thats the document linked to by Arjen, if you do the maths its actually just over 30%. I await this remarkable information that Grey Havoc claims to have.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
112
TomS said:
The actual latest SAR (reported in the media last month) refers to ranges of 469 nm for the F-35B and 615 nm for the F-35C. So that's roughly 30% more range for the C model in the evaluated configuration. I'd call that very significant.
This issue has been gone over before in another thread in this forum but these figures relate to a standard mission profile. The F-35C aircraft has to recover as part of a formation of aircraft and therefore requires considerable reserves of fuel to ensure a go around capability after a bolter (failure to trap a wire). The standard mission profile provides a very optimistic and minimum reserve capability that is going to be increased considerably in fleet service.

The F-35C in fleet service is still going to have a mission radius advantage over the F-35B but it will be a lot less than 30%. Then you have to factor into the equation the different deployment capabilities of smaller, more flexible STOVL carrier and a larger cyclic ops CATOBAR carrier. The STOVL carrier is going to be closer to the enemy, able to launch and recover aircraft when they need to be rather than when the deck is available and more able to move around to support mission needs than a CATOBAR carrier. All of these things add up.

One would be very wrong to dismiss the professional expertise provided in the Navy League article based on an out of context tabulated data table.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
F-14D said:
TomS said:
F-14D said:
blackstar said:
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.
Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).
"Note to Self: Have article in hand rather than relying on memory".

Still, it also says stop building any future CVNs ("Twilight of the SUPERfluous Carrier"). We're back to the never-ending "Big Deck vs. Small Deck" debate.

F-14D said:
TomS said:
F-14D said:
blackstar said:
Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?
I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.
Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).
"Note to Self: Have article in hand rather than relying on memory".

Still, it also says stop building any future CVNs ("Twilight of the SUPERfluous Carrier"). We're back to the never-ending "Big Deck vs. Small Deck" debate.
Granted the above post is a week old, but I dug the article back up and I gotta stand up for myself (kinda) because it is also relevant to where this discussion is going. At one point, the authors are saying what you said, but in the caption to the drawing the reference is specifically to 60 America class ships.

In any case, America ships or 10,000 tonners, you're going to get significantly less capability and have to spend a lot more money to make it up. How the authors can claim the Americas are less vulnerable escapes me. One can reverse one of their points: They say you can get three light carriers for one CVN. That also means that for three light carriers you can get one CVN. If you're talking major carrier duties, I'd take the CVN.

Abraham's post on the required reserve fuel a naval CTOL has to carry is significant. I believe that for a fighter/attack a/c, they want them to arrive overhead the boat carry 25% reserve.

To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers? ;D
[/quote]
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
112
F-14D said:
To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers?
Congressman. USS Anthony Weiner...
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
587
For F-35B/C range discussion see pages 4/5 here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7323.0.html
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
427
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
F-14D said:
To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers?
Probably the name will be based entirely on politics, most likely influenced by the party affiliation of the Secretary of the Navy, rather than United States Navy tradition or history. Based on United States Navy naming tradition, these light carriers should be named for historically significant United States Navy sea battles or United States Marine Corps battles.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
106
Abraham Gubler said:
F-14D said:
To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers?
Congressman. USS Anthony Weiner...
Then it wouldn't actually fight, it'd just tweet a picture of its firepower to the enemy and then call everyone a Jackass.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,678
Reaction score
768
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
F-14D said:
Then it wouldn't actually fight, it'd just tweet a picture of its firepower to the enemy ...
That's silly and needlessly partisan and insulting.

It would tweet photos of its firepower to its support vessels.
 
Top