The Ship Model Forum

I just seen that they are naming CVN-82 & 83 Clinton and Bush. I just don't get it. No friggen way

Keith,

Keep in mind that those prospective carrier names were chosen under the LAST administration. Warship names can be changed (and have been in past history) so it wouldn't surprise me at all if this doesn't happen AND SHOULD HAPPEN!!!

Make the U.S. Navy Great Again!!!

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

I have to say that a lot of the British names strike my fancy. Dreadnought, Valiant, Irresistible, Audacious, Implacable, Conqueror, Invincible, Revenge - they all sound like they belong on mighty ships of war. Of course we'll never have American warships by those names.

_________________
... Brian

I you would indulge an old sailor, my list of names for the Ford class for when I become SECNAV:

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) – in commission 2017
USS Yorktown (CVN-79) – renamed from John F. Kennedy 2025
USS Enterprise (CVN-80) – as planned 2029
USS Hornet (CVN-81) – renamed from Doris Miller 2032
USS Lexington (CVN-82) – renamed from William J. Clinton 2036
USS Saratoga (CVN-83) – renamed from George W. Bush
USS Ranger (CVN-84)
USS Wasp (CVN-85)
USS Essex (CVN-86)
USS Intrepid (CVN-87)
USS Doris Miller (DDG-145) – renamed from Intrepid

Dates are scheduled commissionings.
I would ask for this list to be passed into law by Congress so as to make it more difficult to undo.
Doris Miller is a fine name for a Destroyer and fits the existing naming paradigm, Ford is already in commission so I wouldn't change that one.

Carry on!

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/

I already made a post here about the carrier names a few weeks ago. I guess some people missed it.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=394942
Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing a new USS United States carrier named after the canceled USS United States CVA-58 from the early 1950's.
Or maybe a USS John Adams named after one of the founding fathers who was supposedly instrumental in the creation of the Continental/US Navy.
There was a submarine named USS John Adams, but it was decommissioned back in the late 1980's. So the name could hopefully be used again.

Sorry EJM, I did miss that post.

However, I agree - USS UNITED STATES would be an excellent name for one of the FORD carriers.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

We still have LHD-1 Wasp and LHD-2 Essex so I'd leave those alone. I'm fine with changing ships that haven't been commissioned yet but would prefer to leave ships that have served time under one name alone. If it weren't for the Little Crappy Ships I'd suggest Freedom and Independence.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

As I mentioned in another thread, I figure with the 250th anniversary coming up in just over 2 months from now, it'd be a great opportunity to replace one of those names with Lexington. At least CVN-82, or even 81. Or maybe even CVN-79, the one commissioning this year? JFK's already had his carrier, after all. No repeat President names on carriers! Though they did already have her christening so I can understand they'd be reluctant to change the name after that. Not that even that has never been done, of course.)

No judgement on the men; but even suggesting to have two carriers named George Bush at the same time is really, really stupid.

- Sean F.

USS Wasp (LHD-1) commissioned in 1989, USS Essex (LHD-2) commissioned in 1992. They are unlikely to still be in service in 2044 and 2048 respectively, but if they are there are other traditional carrier names to choose from and plenty of time to make adjustments.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/

I'm going to make a very bad joke. Sorry for that but I cannot resist !
Considering that CVN 82 is named William Clinton, I would have named CVN 83 Monika Lewinsky

Bravo Phillipe! You win the internet for today.

_________________
Harold

Sadly, that is very funny!

_________________
... Brian

No.. the Lewinsky would have to be some type of vessel that services the CVN Clinton. A garbage scow perhaps?

I love that list presented above... lets go back to traditional names!!

Not_so_COB wrote:
No.. the Lewinsky would have to be some type of vessel that services the CVN Clinton. A garbage scow perhaps?

I had thought of that, but perhaps a more "accommodating" vessel might be an old, rusty Barracks Barge...with a large wood desk & chair...

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Assuming Clinton isn't renamed to Trump, I look forward to the first joint task force comprised of Bush and the Big Willie.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Wouldn't the Lewinski be more suited for a submarine?
It's supposed to go down below the waterline.

Why not. According to G. W. Bush memory book, they became like friends during his Presidency, exactly like Clinton and Bush senior at the same time.

The two names that I miss from this list would be the Independence and the Bonhomme Richard. And maybe the Constellation. See, we have plenty of great names...

_________________
... Brian

Renaming CVB-42 as Franklin D. Roosevelt set a bad precedent, in my opinion. Regardless of one's opinion of this or that specific president, naming the most visible embodiments of American military power after individual leaders has implications contrary to the supposed values of the republic.