Ship names

[Werner]

I tried posting at the US Naval Institute, but their board system is in disrepair and unavailable. Perhaps all those "give now" cards they keep sending are for real.

In a few months, the USS Enterprise will stand down. She will be replaced by the USS George Bush.

While I think it is probably an excellent approach to obtaining a ship when Congress may be unwilling, I'd like to point out the long list of historical and important names, each covered in honor and glory, which have had no ship in commission, many for a generation or more:
Ranger
Yorktown
Lexington
Saratoga
Langley
Ticonderoga
Valley Forge
America
President
Constellation
Congress
Chesapeake


Meanwhile, recently there have been
John F. Kennedy
John Stennis
Thomas Gates
Eisenhower
Truman
Gerald Ford
Theodore Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George Bush

It's arguable that the Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt are appropriately named. The other represent men of transient and limited interest in the furtherance of the Navy. The jury may be out on Reagan, but come on! Truman wanted to kill the Navy!


I think it would be a magnanimous act if the politicians would refuse to have ships named for them, and politicians should only have ships named for them if they died in the line of duty. I also think naming politicians should be restricted to frigates.

As a sailor, I would rather sign the log book of John Paul Jones' Ranger than the USS Truman.

We need to change the paradigm now. Either Bush or Ford must be renamed Enterprise. Ideally, the other ought to be named Ranger.

Politicians need to get over themselves.

[Mark Petersen]

If we have carriers named after presidents why is there not one named for John Adams?

[chuck]

If we have carriers named after presidents why is there not one named for John Adams?

Because we don't have 43 aircraft carriers?

[Sean Hert]

It's just the logical extension of Rickover's quote "... because fish don't vote."

However, I'm with you Werner! You start the petition, I'll sign it!

A fella I know is associated with the USS England; Admiral E. J. King once promised "There'll always be an ENGLAND in the United States Navy." There hasn't been one since 1994- so they are writing SECNAV and doing what they can do see that a USS England sails again. (http://cg22.ussengland.org/Operation_Ki ... n_king.htm)

The RN still has names with teeth for their ships- let's bring back some names history and meaning!

[Seasick]

Werner its the Kitty Hawk that is going to decomission this year. Enterprise in 2013 by CVN-78.

[Werner]

Sorry, I erred, again. Admiral Roughneck says they need another $2 billion or bye-bye Enterprise four years before Ford is ready.

About the money they are prepared to waste on the unseaworthy experiment DDG-1000.

P.S., the Navy is about 100 Hornets short since the beginning of OIF, but mum's the word.

[Seasick]

The USN and USMC have been running out to the desert and grabbing the F/A-18A sitting in reserve and bringing the back into service. A program to extend service lives of F/A-18C has been going on for a few years now. Hardly mums the word, Congress funded a purchase of additional F/A-18E to replace F/A-18C early. It might still be expanded. Congress is in the mood to spend more money on aircraft already in production. The Super-Bug build will grow.

[Werner]

The F/A-18s will be really helpful if they retire one or two carriers well before their replacements are seaworthy as looks likely.

P.S., when will the F/A-18s have a combat radius greater than 1942 SBD Dauntless without in-air refueling?

F/A-18: Combat radius: 330 mi (290 NM, 537 km) on hi-lo-lo-hi mission.

SBD-5 The practical combat radius of the SBD-5, based on 20 min warm-up and idling, 10 min rendezvous at 60 per cent normal sea level power and auto-lean, climbing to 15,000 ft (4570 m) and allowing for five min combat with full military power at 1,500 ft (460 in), plus 10 min at max normal power, return at 1,500 ft (460m) and 60 min for a rendezvous, reserve and landing, was 285 nm (528 kin) with a single 500-lb (226,8kg) bomb, this being increased to 450 nm (834 kin) with a pair of drop tanks

To see what one lost when the Bug was adopted as the "universal airframe", some other ranges are instructive,

A-6E: Max mission radius: 2,390 nautical miles; for 3 hours on station at 1,500 feet; 1,346 nautical miles
A-7 Corsair II: Combat radius: 621 NM (715 mi, 1,150 km)
F-14D Tomcat: Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km)

Stealthy, easy to maintain aircraft are only an advantage when you don't have to close the enemy enough for him to spot your task group.

[Sean Hert]

P.S., when will the F/A-18s have a combat radius greater than 1942 SBD Dauntless without in-air refueling?

When they become F-16's....

Wasn't the reason the F-16 lost to the -18 was the single engine/dual engine argument; why is this argument moot RE: the F-35C?

[Werner]

I am still simply appalled that the day approaches when the USN will include no Enterprise, let alone Langley, Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown...

... whilst I await the christening of PCU Bill Clinton at Newport News.


ewwwwww

[Timmy C]

Ugh, that'd be the butt of many a seaman jokes...

[kennylibben]

Personally I like the thought of ships without repeated names ... makes the name more memorable ... no more, WHICH Ranger?!

I think we should go the British route with cool names....

However, i'd much rather see repeated historical names than politicians named other than those extremely worthy (ie Roosevelt, etc - I'd be happy to see a Reagan as well, but thats it)

[Werner]

A British ship carries with her all the honors of her predecessors. The name is transcendental.

[Gone Asiatic]

The British and Japanese name their ships most excellently; the USN unfortunately doesn`t consistantly do so - particulary with submarines! Now, if I had my way.......

[kennylibben]

Lets make a deal that if any of us are ever elected President we will appoint one of us as Secretary of the Navy to make sure we get good names!

[Timmy C]

Reagan already has CVN-76 named after him, so there's half your list, Kenny =P

[chuck]

The British and Japanese name their ships most excellently; the USN unfortunately doesn`t consistantly do so - particulary with submarines! Now, if I had my way.......

Some British names do sound nice, until the warship bearing the grandiose name is destroyed, and then the navy giving that name seemed silly and pompous. HMS Invincible didn't sound so good a few moments after she blew up. Major Japanese warships seems to be named after prefectures, cities, towns, mountains, and rivers, and various adjectives describing rain, snow, fog and wind. Not entirely certain why any of those names would seem particularly suitable to a warship.

[Timmy C]

Yamato --> Big Harmony

If that was the name of a Chinese warship, they'd have quite the sense of humor and irony.

[chuck]

Yamato --> Big Harmony

If that was the name of a Chinese warship, they'd have quite the sense of humor and irony.

Yamato is the name of a prefecture in Japan.

[kennylibben]

Actually Timmy, that's not really what its named for - while true that it is what it means, it's not the same.

Yamato is a province, but also a period in Japanese history (and alternatively a people as well).


Its like claiming to foreigners that the USS Ohio is in translation USS Beautiful River. (Ohio is Seneca for Beautiful River - or Large Creek)