I also wish to express my disgust at the practice over the last few decades of naming our Navy's finest warships after politicians. I think it is quite indicative of how, as the Federal government has gotten bigger and bigger, the heads of our elected leaders have gotten so big as to think that their names should be immortalized.
Let's bring back the great names of the past - names that denoted great struggle and achievement.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6140 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 12125 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): my disgust at the practice over the last few decades of naming our Navy's finest warships after politicians.
I understand but don't necessarily like naming ships after Presidents - but that is a relatively established practice.
I abhor the naming of ships after a living person.
The only part of the deal they got right was naming a submarine after President Carter and a carrier after President Bush 41. Those at least had a valid reason (though it should have been after their passing).
But despite all of that - if we are getting a new JFK (CVN-79) then we deserve a new Enterprise - the third carrier - CV-6 was USS Enterprise along with CVAN-65 - and there were at least five previous USS Enterprise US Navy ships dating back to 1775.
Petition signed. Letter sent to SecNav, both Senators and my Congressman
2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 6927 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 12123 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): I also wish to express my disgust at the practice over the last few decades of naming our Navy's finest warships after politicians. I think it is quite indicative of how, as the Federal government has gotten bigger and bigger, the heads of our elected leaders have gotten so big as to think that their names should be immortalized.
I guess not big on the naming of CVN-76, the USS Ronald Reagan lol. I like the name, the USS Enterprise to be applied to CVN-80, it is a fine balance in my view between the (78) Gerald R. Ford a rep. and the (79) John F. Kennedy, a dem. It is a great tribute to the worlds first nuclear aircraft carrier, the CVN-65, "Big E", delivered in 1961.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4238 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 12117 times:
Done.
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): I also wish to express my disgust at the practice over the last few decades of naming our Navy's finest warships after politicians.
Agreed. There are but a very few politicians that should be honored in this way. And, I can't really think of a living one right now. And, just to add, I find it disturbing that a ship is named for anyone who is still alive...even if the ship is just a keel being laid.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12062 times:
Quoting 2707200X (Reply 5): I guess not big on the naming of CVN-76, the USS Ronald Reagan lol. I like the name, the USS Enterprise to be applied to CVN-80, it is a fine balance in my view between the (78) Gerald R. Ford a rep. and the (79) John F. Kennedy, a dem. It is a great tribute to the worlds first nuclear aircraft carrier, the CVN-65, "Big E", delivered in 1961.
As much as I admire Reagan, I don't think naming our flagships after politicians is a good idea - or people in general for that matter. I can understand naming one Nimitz - one of the great grand strategists in the use of carriers, and not a politician.
But I would like to see a new series named Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Midway, Bunker Hill, and another with names like Independence, Intrepid, and so forth.
Politicians are supposed to be public servants. Naming our ships for them is like a rich guy naming his yacht after the maid.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12064 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
I also wish to express my disgust at the practice over the last few decades of naming our Navy's finest warships after politicians. I think it is quite indicative of how, as the Federal government has gotten bigger and bigger, the heads of our elected leaders have gotten so big as to think that their names should be immortalized.
You were doing fine until you started editorializing here given that the practice is hardly something that's become new in the last few decades. The USS Adams (named for John Adams) was laid down in 1797, the year of his inauguration, and placed into commission two years later. USS Franklin (named for Ben, natch) - 1777. The second ship named for John Hancock was commissioned nearly three months before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Martin Van Buren had a vessel named for him that entered service during his presidency. Sam Houston also had a ship named for him while his political career was still active. I'll agree that it seems to be happening a bit more regularly now then than, but it's not something that's just recently happened. Keep in mind to that ultimately it's SECNAV who names the ships, not elected leaders. Keep in mind that famous quote of Admiral Rickover's when the first twelve units of the Los Angeles-class were named for the home cities of the key members of Congress who were responsible for getting the boats approved (overturning the Silent Service's longstanding tradition of having its boats named for denizens of the deep - "Fish don't vote!"
At any rate, personally the names I feel most in need of return to service are:
Ranger Enterprise Constellation South Carolina (hey, what can I say, I'm partial ) Saratoga Yorktown Lexington Hornet
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19686 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12057 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7): I don't think naming our flagships after politicians is a good idea - or people in general for that matter.
I'm okay with it, but only posthumously. That goes for politicians - I'd be okay with naming ships after high-ranking or important members of the military after they've retired.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9598 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 11914 times:
Enterprise, great name for a future carrier. But I think the next one should be named America. Enterprise would be fine for CVN-82 or so. I was a bit surprised that already CVN-79 will be named John F. Kennedy. Not a bad man, but there is still a carrier with that name, even if retired a few years ago. They should have waited until CVN-84 or so to give that name out again.
I also never understood why the latest of the US most prestigious warships are named after recent presidents with less than brilliant office records or almost unknown politicians. Worse even, after a living one who wasnt one of the greatest in the office and the father of one of the worst ever. No problems at all with Nimitz, Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt. But Bush, Ford, Reagan, come on, those men do not deserve that honour, destroyers or submarines would have been enough for such secondary presidents.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 11889 times:
Quoting na (Reply 13): But I think the next one should be named America
That's also a name that's been taken again by USS America (LHA-6), which will be the lead ship of her class of amphibious assault ships and is slated to be delivered next year.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 16, posted (11 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11824 times:
Agreed. We need a new Saratoga, Midway, and definitely a new Enterprise. Honoring the ships and Naval heroes that served before, and by extension their crews and families, is an important naval tradition that improves morale and drives the present day crews to greater achievement and pride in their ships and jobs.
Who really cares to be serving a vessel named Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter? I know both served in the navy, but who cares? Purely political to name important vessels for them, and the politicians need to stop being so self serving. There seems to be a competition and tit for tat game being played here. Shughart and Gordon get supply ships while Ford and Carter get capital ships? What's that other than ignorant politics.
Heroes, battles and important historical vessels. If they did much for the navy, Nimitz, Reagan (he did get the 600 ship navy going) or Rickover, then there are worthy exceptions...but stop with dishonorable the important and overvaluing people like Stennis, Murtha and others who are there for purely political reasons.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 17, posted (11 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11826 times:
Let's try this again:
[quote=garnetpalmetto,reply=15]
That's also a name that's been taken again by USS America (LHA-6), which will be the lead ship of her class of amphibious assault ships and is slated to be delivered next year.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16802 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11787 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 8): You've got one already. LCS-2 was commissioned on 1/16/10 and is the lead ship of her class..
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5284 posts, RR: 47 Reply 19, posted (11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11762 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19): Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 8):
You've got one already. LCS-2 was commissioned on 1/16/10 and is the lead ship of her class..
Woah woah woah... is that a spaceship?
It's a littoral combat ship or something, ask someone in the Navy what that means... oh wait... well I'm on the aviation side
But for real, yeah it's a strange looking ship. I think they're designed for close to shore operations. That and another ship were competing to be the Navy's littoral combat ship but both one, the other one looks more like a ship:
Back on subject, we definitely need another Enterprise, that's a given, and I think it will be cool to have modern day battles as the names of some ships in addition to the old classic ones
That's a Littoral combat ship - a pretty new concept. It's a combination of assault transport and a frigate, meant for coastal waters and rather stealthy to boot.
By the way, the Independence Class ships scheduled are to be named:
USS Independence (LCS-2)
USS Coronado (LCS-4)
USS Jackson (LCS-6)
USS Montgomery (LCS-8)
USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10)
USS Omaha (LCS-12)
Once again, we are naming a ship after a junior politician who's only claim to fame is that she got shot. Sorry, but if that's all it takes, why don't people like Larry Flynt, Dimebag Darrell, and Notorious B.I.G. get their own ships? Why are politicians considered to be more worthy than them, when people generally feel that politicians are scumbags less trustworthy than used car salesmen, lobbyists, lawyers and just about everyone else?
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 23, posted (11 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11747 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 8): Ranger
Enterprise
Constellation
South Carolina (hey, what can I say, I'm partial  
Saratoga
Yorktown
Lexington
Hornet
I think that the naming convention on aircraft carriers ought to be relevant to the Revolutionary War or to the earliest ships of the US Navy, as there have been carriers in the past whose names have a connection to the Revolutionary War or the early ships of the US Navy. There's already a Nimitz-class carrier the USS George Washington. Names like the USS Enterprise, the USS Constellation, the USS Saratoga, the USS Hornet and the USS Yorktown would be better than more contemporary names. What about a USS President, a USS Congress, and a USS United States names that graced three of the first six ships of the US Navy (The USS Constitution was one of those ships, along with the USS Chesapeake and the USS Constellation.)?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16802 posts, RR: 57 Reply 26, posted (11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12228 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20): Sorry, but if that's all it takes, why don't people like Larry Flynt, Dimebag Darrell, and Notorious B.I.G. get their own ships?
USS Larry Flynt? I like it. Superfly would LOVE it. But what class would it have to be?
USS Notorious B.I.G. would have to be an aircraft carrier.
If you're going to name a ship after a politician, at least name it after one that has some connection to the US Navy beyond their husband. At least with some other controversial ship names like the USS Cesar Chavez and the USS John P. Murtha, Chavez served in the Navy and Murtha was in the Marines (Mostly in the reserves and retired as a Colonel.).
There are ships like the USS John C. Stennis and USS Carl Vinson, named after politicians who played major roles in the history of the US Navy (Vinson helped create the acts prior to WWII that build the Navy up and that helped the US in WWII. Stennis is considered to be the "Father of the Modern Navy".). Both Senator Stennis and Representative Vinson were worthy of having ships named in their honor.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 32, posted (11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12309 times:
I agree that they deserved ships...but those names led the way to further politicization of the naming of capital ships (in today's navy those are nuclear vessels, carrier and submarine) and a bastardization of the existing process...to the detriment of morale and well being of the Navy.
Everyone would be proud to serve on a vessel named after a great battle, or a known hero (you do know that the sailors onboard the Monsoor are going to consider what they have to live up to, right?) ...or even a state or capitol....but putting these men up with the founding fathers or the savior of the union (and like him or not Lincoln was certainly that... Ad who reallydiskikes Lincoln?) is pure politics and favor paying. It started a naming contest between parties.
Let the Navy get back to its traditions and tend to the morale of its sailors.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13329 posts, RR: 64 Reply 33, posted (11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12316 times:
What about the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81)?
Ok, his mother was American (but AFAIK became British citizen as it was compulsory back then when she married her British husband) and he HAD a connection with the navy, albeit the Royal one (during WW1 he was First Lord of the Admiralty, but resigned, and went to command an infantry battalion in the trenches of the Western Front, after the Gallipoli debacle).
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 33):
What about the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81)?
Ok, his mother was American (but AFAIK became British citizen as it was compulsory back then when she married her British husband) and he HAD a connection with the navy, albeit the Royal one (during WW1 he was First Lord of the Admiralty, but resigned, and went to command an infantry battalion in the trenches of the Western Front, after the Gallipoli debacle).
Jan
Jan, I think your average sailor can understand the significance of Sir Winston Churchill in American/world history. Plus by the time they named the ship he'd been dead a long time!
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13329 posts, RR: 64 Reply 36, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12208 times:
I´ve got nothing against Churchill, quite the opposite! He is my favourite 20th century politician. He has made mistakes, but he was one of the VERY few politicians who did not just talk the talk but also did walk the walk. After all he was no stranger to physical danger.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 38, posted (11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11945 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): I also wish to express my disgust at the practice over the last few decades of naming our Navy's finest warships after politicians.
I agree, with morden politicians, but I glad that CVN 79, will be name the USS John F Kennady.
PS: If CVN 80 is name The USS Enterprise, then the Ford class, will be a lot cooler than the Nimitz class.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 39, posted (11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11891 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 38):
I agree, with morden politicians, but I glad that CVN 79, will be name the USS John F Kennady.
Why? His most notable actions were starting the Vietnam War, Starting the Apollo project, bedding Marilyn Monroe, and being shot. Apollo was pretty cool, but we aren't exactly talking about George Washington level here.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 897 posts, RR: 2 Reply 40, posted (11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11895 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): Why? His most notable actions were starting the Vietnam War, Starting the Apollo project, bedding Marilyn Monroe, and being shot. Apollo was pretty cool, but we aren't exactly talking about George Washington level here.
From what I've read his actions in the aftermath of the PT-109 sinking were pretty heroic. Perhaps not 'capital ship' worthy, but in contrast to most other modern presidents he certainly stands out. I feel the same way about George H.W. Bush.
He was made an Honorary Citizen in '60s and with his American blood, as it were, not to mention being America's closest Allied leader during WWII, I think it's appropriate.
You're kidding....totally inappropriate and ridiculous honor. She ought to voluntarily deny the naming if she had integrity about it, IMHO.
Quoting srbmod (Reply 28): USS John P. Murtha, Chavez served in the Navy and Murtha was in the Marines (Mostly in the reserves and retired as a Colonel.).
Murtha also backstabbed the military and isn't deserving of having a garbage scow named for him, IMHO.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 43, posted (11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11792 times:
Quoting slider (Reply 42): Good point---MOH winners should be recognized with namings.
They can name frigates and cruisers after them, but the Capital Ships should be reserved for something special and enduring.
As someone mentioned above, every single person aboard the ship should be proud of its namesake, be it the name of a battle or a value (Enterprise, Independence). If it's named after a politician, in guarantees that half the crew thinks the ship is named after an ass.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 44, posted (11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11120 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): Why? His most notable actions were starting the Vietnam War,
I think that tag belongs to LBJ. Eisenhower was the one who initially sent advisers to South Vietnam. When JFK was assassinated there were around 16000 US troops there. Two years latter there were almost 200K and Johnson had radically escalated the war.
wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10496 times:
I think we need to name it the USS "not sure why this post is in the aviation section of this forum" ?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 46, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10512 times:
How about the USS FunnyMoney? How can we spend $40B+ developing the Ford class carrier to replace the Nimitz class, when for that price we could have just bought 5 more Nimitz class carriers? Ford class doesn't do anything the Nimitz for all practical purposes cannot.
LHA-6 America is a complete 2nd class of light carrier for the Navy, too. If you take the amphibious well deck out of an amphibious assault ship, all you have left is a modern WWII straight deck carrier. Smooth move. Next thing you know we'll fly $70m+engines V-22 and $125m F-35B's off it, it'll be the most expensive ship to go in the first day of any engagement with an even half-way decent opposing Navy.
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1984 posts, RR: 2 Reply 47, posted (10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10414 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 46): How about the USS FunnyMoney? How can we spend $40B+ developing the Ford class carrier to replace the Nimitz class, when for that price we could have just bought 5 more Nimitz class carriers? Ford class doesn't do anything the Nimitz for all practical purposes cannot.
The estimates are thet they've spent about $5B in R&D and the Ford will cost ~$9B on top of that to build. Presumably the follow-on ships will be in a similar ballpark. So the unit cost is not all that different from the Nimitz's, but they've revamped almost all the systems, from the reactors to the catapults, and considerably increased automation (the Fords will require 1,000 fewer crew).
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 48, posted (10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10280 times:
The argument is that the Ford class carrier will save money over a 50 year period with some of it's new efficiencies and less required manpower. This is a helluva big guesstimate at best. The fact of the matter is with modern cruise missiles, we would rather benefit from more Nimitz and than any new Ford class carriers in any naval engagement.
Quote:
The Navy estimates that each Ford-class carrier will cost $27 billion to build and then operate and maintain for 50 years, $5 billion less than its Nimitz-class predecessors, even after the rising costs.
Quote:
The combined cost of three Ford-class carriers would be $42.5 billion, according to the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Report published in December.
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 49, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9851 times:
Would love to see a new carrier named Yorktown, in honor of the carrier and crew who served so gallantly in the Pacific during WWII.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2459 posts, RR: 21 Reply 50, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9857 times:
Why name them at all? just go with the numbers (CVN80).. heck half the time the number identity is used anyway.
sunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1930 posts, RR: 9 Reply 51, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9747 times:
How about another U.S.S. Langley?? After all she was CV 1, and CVL 27
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 52, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9661 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 48): The fact of the matter is with modern cruise missiles, we would rather benefit from more Nimitz and than any new Ford class carriers in any naval engagement.
Cruise missiles are nice but they cannot provide air cover for the fleet, provide close air support for troops on the ground against a manuvering enemy, investigate surface contacts, hunt subs etc. If the line of thought is the design we have is good enough then we would still be producing Forrestal class carriers
AviRaider From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9617 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 52): Cruise missiles are nice but they cannot provide air cover for the fleet, provide close air support for troops on the ground against a manuvering enemy, investigate surface contacts, hunt subs etc. If the line of thought is the design we have is good enough then we would still be producing Forrestal class carriers
I read it as he is referring to cruise missiles being used against our carriers and how it would be better to have strength in numbers (i.e. more Nimitz carriers).
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 2 Reply 54, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9608 times:
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 55, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9494 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 54):
Yorktown was a Tico class CG but was decommed due to her having the twin armed missle launcher vs VLS.
I know, which is why the USN needs a new Yorktown, preferably a CVN. Two proud CVs carried that name with distinction and I think it'd be fitting for there to be a third.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 56, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9422 times:
Quoting AviRaider (Reply 53): I read it as he is referring to cruise missiles being used against our carriers and how it would be better to have strength in numbers (i.e. more Nimitz carriers).
I'm refering to the line in the article "Dispatching more jets from a carrier doesn’t provide a tactical advantage in an age of precision-guided weapons and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from submarines, according to Norman Polmar, a naval analyst and author who has been a consultant to secretaries of the Navy."
Strengh in numbers only works if you have more of them. What the navy has done up until this point is replace carriers on a one for one bases. Congress has also mandated that carrier strength has to be at a certain level. You also have to take into consideration that the Ford class will be more survivable.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 54): They also need to name another ship the USS Flatley, as I served onboard the first Flatdog, and want to see the name live on.
That's what I find so maddening about naming a ship after Gabrielle Giffords. Her only accomplishment was getting shot by a lunatic.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 57, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9399 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 56): That's what I find so maddening about naming a ship after Gabrielle Giffords. Her only accomplishment was getting shot by a lunatic.
Well if she gets a ship because she got shot, I propose we name a ship the USS Tupac.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1062 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5701 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 48): The argument is that the Ford class carrier will save money over a 50 year period with some of it's new efficiencies and less required manpower. This is a helluva big guesstimate at best. The fact of the matter is with modern cruise missiles, we would rather benefit from more Nimitz and than any new Ford class carriers in any naval engagement.
A lot of new systems and redesign are involved with the Ford class carriers; namely the following:
- redesign of the flight deck layout to handle 4 simultaneous launches, instead of 3 on Nimitz, and to improve efficiency (the island is moved back to help create a centralized aircraft re-arming and fueling area)
- introduction of an automated magazine management system where robots move ordinance from the magazines up to the aircraft arming areas
- new nuclear reactor (smaller and 3 times more powerful than the Nimitz), which in the future will allow for more electronic upgrades and possibly directed energy weapons. Most important as the current Nimitz class carriers' power generation capabilities is stretched pretty thin with all of the electronics being stuffed into them, and planning for future electronics growth is required
- EMLAS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System). Most important as it will allow the Ford class carriers to launch UAV's as the minimum weight limit of the steam catapults is above the weight of all UAVs, and EMLAS allows for a smoother launch, reducing stress on aircraft, meaning longer service lives
- Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG). Allows for recovery of UAV's (the current hydraulic system can't recover UAV's), and allows for smoother aircraft recoveries
Also, crew sizes have shrunk; the current Nimitz requires a crew and aviation personnel size of close to 6,000 people. The Ford's require 4,600 personnel.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 61, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5465 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 60): Also, crew sizes have shrunk; the current Nimitz requires a crew and aviation personnel size of close to 6,000 people. The Ford's require 4,600 personnel.
Maybe so, just a lot of money to spend when you have budget woes and half-assed carrier air wings (thanks Bowed-WIng!,) as we do. And Ford for the entire class? He should have been lucky to get a single ship; stupid decisions like that that our modern Navy likes to make.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1062 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5460 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 61): Maybe so, just a lot of money to spend when you have budget woes and half-assed carrier air wings (thanks Bowed-WIng!,) as we do. And Ford for the entire class? He should have been lucky to get a single ship; stupid decisions like that that our modern Navy likes to make.
The Ford's design life span is 94 years; these carriers will be in service for a VERY long time.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 63, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5442 times:
Quoting Oroka (Reply 58): With the decommissioning of the CVN-65 USS Enterprise, it has been announced that the CVN-80 will carry the name Enterprise!
Excellent news indeed.
Now we need a Lexington, a Saratoga, and a Yorktown.
I was thinking of Hornet as well, but I have to say that even back in the 40s that name must have seemed just a little whimsical next to the 'greats'.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 64, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5364 times:
I was thinking of Hornet as well, but I have to say that even back in the 40s that name must have seemed just a little whimsical next to the 'greats'.
Not really considering the lineage of the name Hornet. 8 ships have held the name, most famously a sloop with that name that fought in the Revolutionary War and also one that fought in the War of 1812. Famously there was this political cartoon with John Bull complaining about being stung by the Hornets and Wasps of the USN.
The dialogue reads:
Wasp: "You'll bridge the Atlantic, will you? O, then you shall have a Bane to your bridge, friend Johnny."
John Bull: "Are those your Wasps and Hornets!!! O! I am Hull'd already."
Hornet: "How come on your Copper bottom of Bombay? Here is something for you between Wind and Water."
I'd say the name is one of the greats, whimsical or not.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 341 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5311 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
The Ford's design life span is 94 years; these carriers will be in service for a VERY long time.
I think they mean the life span of the class, not one CVN. The expected life span will be fifty years, just like CVN-65 and the Nimitz class. This means that from when CVN-78 is commissioned until the last one is planned to be decommissioned in 2110.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 11 Reply 66, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5288 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 63): Now we need a Lexington, a Saratoga, and a Yorktown.
I was thinking of Hornet as well, but I have to say that even back in the 40s that name must have seemed just a little whimsical next to the 'greats'.
Lex, Sara, Yorktown I agree with. I am iffy on Hornet but think that United States and Constellation need to be in there first. I would also go for another Midway before another Hornet I think.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 67, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5247 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 64): Not really considering the lineage of the name Hornet. 8 ships have held the name, most famously a sloop with that name that fought in the Revolutionary War and also one that fought in the War of 1812.
I wasn't aware of that lineage, thanks.
There are 10 ships planned. Here are my suggestions (assuming the first 2 are too late to change):
CVN-78 Gerald R Ford
CVN-79 John F Kennedy
CVN-80 Enterprise
CVN-81 Lexington
CVN-82 Saratoga
CVN-83 Midway
CVN-84 Leyte
CVN-85 Bunker Hill
CVN-86 Normandy
CVN-87 Guadalcanal
Geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1403 posts, RR: 1 Reply 68, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5100 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): Why? His most notable actions were starting the Vietnam War, Starting the Apollo project, bedding Marilyn Monroe, and being shot. Apollo was pretty cool, but we aren't exactly talking about George Washington level here.
May I remind you that he backed Kruschev down during the Cuban missile crises ? That act alone makes him deserving of having 5 carriers named after him !
Quoting slider (Reply 42): Murtha also backstabbed the military and isn't deserving of having a garbage scow named for him, IMHO.
This one is even WORSE than naming one for Giffords; Anyone ever been to Johnstown, Pa. ? The U.S. Government spent about 500 TONS of money on that dinky, po-dunk little airport, ( which is completely unneeded ), just so that fat-ass PUKE could fly home every Friday afternoon, and not have to land clear over in Pittsburgh or Harrisburg. And NOW they have the gall to want a SHIP named after him ? ( Better name one after Bernie Madoff too ! ) ( As both were of very similar "ilk" )
I'll tell you this much; If Jerry Ford could just "come back to life for 5 minutes, HE would say, name that sucker ENTERPRISE ! Period ! He was that kind of guy. I hope like hell they do name the thing "Big E", but if they don't, at least it's not like it's gonna be named after some half-ass "pinhead".........( like some some poor submarine )
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 69, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5046 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39):
Why? His most notable actions were starting the Vietnam War, Starting the Apollo project, bedding Marilyn Monroe, and being shot. Apollo was pretty cool, but we aren't exactly talking about George Washington level here.
He didn't start it.
He stood up to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis (closest even to WWIII) and in other ways (Berlin etc),
and yes he had a strong naval service during WWII.
Had he not been assasinated then it is quite possible that America would be a better place today (less partisan for one).
The fact that he was assassinated does tend to add a somewhat special-ness to his presidency so yes JFK is suitable.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 70, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4980 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 67):
CVN-84Leyte
CVN-85Bunker Hill
CVN-86Normandy
Those names are currently born by Ticos (albeit CG-55 is Leyte Gulf, not Leyte - how long they'll be around is anyone's guess at this point what with the previous noise made about early retirement of the class. If I had my druthers:
CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford
CVN-79 John F Kennedy
CVN-80 Enterprise
CVN-81 Lexington
CVN-82 Yorktown
CVN-83 Ranger (another one of the greats in terms of naming tradition)
CVN-84 Intrepid
CVN-85 Hornet
CVN-86 Kitty Hawk
CVN-87 Midway
[Edited 2012-12-03 06:06:55]
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 71, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4974 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 70): Those names are currently born by Ticos (albeit CG-55 is Leyte Gulf, not Leyte - how long they'll be around is anyone's guess at this point what with the previous noise made about early retirement of the class.
I was aware of that but feel they deserve an upgrade.
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 70): CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford
CVN-79 John F Kennedy
CVN-80 Enterprise
CVN-81 Lexington
CVN-82 Yorktown
CVN-83 Ranger (another one of the greats in terms of naming tradition)
CVN-84 Intrepid
CVN-85 Hornet
CVN-86 Kitty Hawk
CVN-87 Midway
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 709 posts, RR: 11 Reply 72, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4962 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 70): CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford
CVN-79 John F Kennedy
CVN-80 Enterprise
CVN-81 Lexington
CVN-82 Yorktown
CVN-83 Ranger (another one of the greats in terms of naming tradition)
CVN-84 Intrepid
CVN-85 Hornet
CVN-86 Kitty Hawk
CVN-87 Midway
Really if you could make plans right now I would largely agree with that list but would drop Kitty Hawk and Ranger for United States and America and then rename the America Class ships something more suitable for amphibious ships (after a battle of some sort). America is just a good name for a carrier in my view if you are going to use it at all. United States was one of the original 6 frigates of the US Navy and is more deserving of a spot than Kitty Hawk and Ranger in my view as well. I would also high consider dropping Intrepid for Nimitz as his honor was fully and well deserved.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 73, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4966 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 72): would drop Kitty Hawk and Ranger for United States and America
I disagree. You never want to name a warship with such a grandiose name. Imagine the the propaganda value if an enemy could claim "We destroyed the United States".
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 74, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4941 times:
Because I hadn't had my coffee yet and made an oopsie Sub out Midway for Saratoga.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 72):
Really if you could make plans right now I would largely agree with that list but would drop Kitty Hawk and Ranger for United States and America and then rename the America Class ships something more suitable for amphibious ships (after a battle of some sort). America is just a good name for a carrier in my view if you are going to use it at all. United States was one of the original 6 frigates of the US Navy and is more deserving of a spot than Kitty Hawk and Ranger in my view as well. I would also high consider dropping Intrepid for Nimitz as his honor was fully and well deserved.
I'm at the point where I'm fine with there not being a USS United States. Aside from being one of the original six frigates, there's not been a ship to bear the name since then. There was a Lexington class battlecruiser that was going to have the name, but it got cancelled and scrapped. Then there was CVA-58, then CVN-75. If the third time wasn't the charm it just wasn't meant to be. Beyond that, simply having been one of the original six doesn't mean the name's particularly worth carrying on - after all, imagine the brouhaha now to a ship named USS Congress!
[Edited 2012-12-03 07:40:03]
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, RR: 22 Reply 75, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4907 times:
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 74): There was a Lexington class battlecruiser that was going to have the name, but it got cancelled and scrapped.
It didn't get scrapped - It was converted into the CV-2 Lexington, along with her sistership Saratoga, which is why the Lex and Sara were much, much larger and heavier than any other US aircraft carrier until after WWII, because they were using huge battlecruiser hulls
Displacements
Lexington CV-2: 36,000 tons (48,000 at full load)
Yorktown class CV-4,5,6 - 20,000 tons (26,000 at full load)
Essex Class 27,000 tons (36,000 at full load)
The Lexingtons were huge, comparatively speaking.
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 74): Beyond that, simply having been one of the original six doesn't mean the name's particularly worth carrying on - after all, imagine the brouhaha now to a ship named USS Congress!
Any navy ship so named would quickly have the honor of being the first ship scuttled by her crew on its maiden voyage.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 76, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4862 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 75):
It didn't get scrapped - It was converted into the CV-2 Lexington, along with her sistership Saratoga, which is why the Lex and Sara were much, much larger and heavier than any other US aircraft carrier until after WWII, because they were using huge battlecruiser hulls
I think you may be confusing what I'm saying, Dreadnought. Yes, the USS Lexington (CV-2) was converted from USS Lexington (CC-1) and USS Saratoga (CV-3) was converted from USS Saratoga (CC-3). However, the other Lexington class battlecruisers under construction - Constellation (CC-2), Ranger (CC-4), Constitution (CC-5), and United States (CC-6) were all cancelled and scrapped in various stages of completion ( between 4% (Ranger) and 22.7% (Constellation)) - the point I was making was that it seems that the Navy has no luck at all with actually getting a ship with the name United States in the water and that there's only been one USN ship to bear the name, thus I'm OK with there not being one in the near future.
[Edited 2012-12-03 09:50:22]
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1984 posts, RR: 2 Reply 77, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4658 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 60): - new nuclear reactor (smaller and 3 times more powerful than the Nimitz), which in the future will allow for more electronic upgrades and possibly directed energy weapons. Most important as the current Nimitz class carriers' power generation capabilities is stretched pretty thin with all of the electronics being stuffed into them, and planning for future electronics growth is required
I believe the electrical output of the reactors has been tripled (IOW, bigger turbine/generator sets hung off the steam end). The total power output of the reactors appears to not have increased at all from the published figures, or more likely, will be just up just a bit. The substantial majority of power from the reactors goes to propulsion.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7752 posts, 
)
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9598 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5268 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 787 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1634 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
