Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Petition To Name CVN-80 The USS Enterprise  
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16776 times:

http://ussenterp.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1870

Please sign up.

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.


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16743 times:

Signed and agreed (I know, monumental, right?)

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16736 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
Let's bring back the great names of the past - names that denoted great struggle and achievement.

I agree with you on this.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16723 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

SCPO Ret


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3870 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16719 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
Let's bring back the great names of the past

How 'bout Gambier Bay?



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8713 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16721 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
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16714 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16659 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.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16661 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

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Independence

You've got one already. LCS-2 was commissioned on 1/16/10 and is the lead ship of her class..


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce_%28cropped%29.jpg/800px-USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce_%28cropped%29.jpg

[Edited 2012-06-14 20:43:57]


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21791 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16656 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
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13699 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Agreed, and signed! The unofficial "Flagship" of the US Navy should always be Enterprise.


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3870 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16574 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 8):

Saratoga
Yorktown
Lexington

I like names after battle location. Maybe new names such as Haditha, Fallujah, Tora Bora or Abbottabad.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
should always be Enterprise

Why would you want to name an aircraft carrier after a car rental company?



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10804 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16511 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.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16484 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 12):
Why would you want to name an aircraft carrier after a car rental company?

I know that's tongue in cheek, but the car rental company is named after CV6 U.S.S. Enterprise.
http://www.enterpriseholdings.com/about-us/heritage/



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16486 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.

[img[http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2008/06/navy_america_name_063008w/063008_america_800.JPG>[/img]



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 16457 times:

Too bad they didn't preserve CV-6 as a museum. Easily as important as USS Constitution to our naval heritage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/USS_Enterprise_%28CV-6%29_in_Puget_Sound%2C_September_1945.jpg

[Edited 2012-06-15 07:08:45]

User currently offlinedl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16421 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.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16423 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.

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2008/06/navy_america_name_063008w/063008_america_800.JPG



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16384 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..

Woah woah woah... is that a spaceship?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7965 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16359 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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/US_Navy_090928-N-7241L-232..._%28cropped%29.jpg


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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16357 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Woah woah woah... is that a spaceship?

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?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151460/Re...y-Ethics-Members-Congress-Low.aspx



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16342 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
why don't people like Larry Flynt, Dimebag Darrell, and Notorious B.I.G. get their own ships?

A.net quote of the week. I couldn't agree more.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15809 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16344 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Woah woah woah... is that a spaceship?

It's a trimaran. Hawaiians figured it out a while ago.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16344 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 8):
Ranger
Enterprise
Constellation
South Carolina (hey, what can I say, I'm partial &nbsp Wink
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.)?


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16335 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10

That's just pathetic.


User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2774 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16852 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 24):
That's just pathetic.

     

I just laughed out loud. Absolutely ridiculous...   



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20186 posts, RR: 59
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 16825 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.

  


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 17011 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 24):
That's just pathetic.

I wouldn't call it pathetic, I'd call it inappropriate.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 17004 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
USS Larry Flynt? I like it. Superfly would LOVE it.   But what class would it have to be?

The "Hustler" Class    Make it some sort of spy ship that gets put on operations that are barely legal........

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10)

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.


User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 11
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
USS Larry Flynt? I like it. Superfly would LOVE it.   But what class would it have to be?

You have to ask?......LOW CLASS!!!

Gee, I even crack my own self up!!!   

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16977 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 28):
The "Hustler" Class Make it some sort of spy ship that gets put on operations that are barely legal........

Outstanding.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 28):
Both Senator Stennis and Representative Vinson were worthy of having ships named in their honor.

Carriers? Capital Ships? I'm not sure.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16939 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 30):
Carriers? Capital Ships? I'm not sure.

Prior to / during WW2 they would have rated a Destroyer or Destroyer Escort at best!

[Edited 2012-06-15 14:54:54]

User currently offlinedl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16906 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.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16915 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).

Jan


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 16868 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 31):
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!


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 16816 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 33):
What about the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81)?

I think the average sailor would be pretty happy serving on a ship named after Churchill, Winston had guts, he was a soldier and a great leader.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 16805 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.

Jan


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21791 posts, RR: 55
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16704 times:

Quoting dl021 (Reply 32):
Ad who reallydiskikes Lincoln?

Vampires, apparently.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3718 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 16543 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.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 16488 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.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 16492 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.

Quoting Mir (Reply 37):
Vampires, apparently.


User currently offlineAviRaider From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 16462 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 33):

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.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6912 posts, RR: 34
Reply 42, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 16392 times:

Quoting dl021 (Reply 16):
Shughart and Gordon get supply ships while Ford and Carter get capital ships? What's that other than ignorant politics.

Good point---MOH winners should be recognized with namings.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10)

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.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 43, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 16389 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.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15717 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.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15093 times:

I think we need to name it the USS "not sure why this post is in the aviation section of this forum" ?

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 15109 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.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 15011 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14880 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.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...on-carriers-in-china-s-sights.html


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14450 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.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3725 posts, RR: 27
Reply 50, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why name them at all? just go with the numbers (CVN80).. heck half the time the number identity is used anyway.

User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2057 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14344 times:

How about another U.S.S. Langley?? After all she was CV 1, and CVL 27

[Edited 2012-06-26 21:01:35]


Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 14258 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


User currently offlineAviRaider From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14214 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).


User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 14205 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 8):
Yorktown

Yorktown was a Tico class CG but was decommed due to her having the twin armed missle launcher vs VLS.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
By the way, the Independence Class ships scheduled are to be named:

Why put her name in that class? The rest are named for cities.
Enterprise is a great name. It needs to live on as a carrier.

They need to name sub after fish, Seawolf was a good start, but politics raise its ugly head.

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.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14091 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.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14019 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.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15809 posts, RR: 27
Reply 57, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13996 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?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10416 times:

Well folks it happened.

With the decommissioning of the CVN-65 USS Enterprise, it has been announced that the CVN-80 will carry the name Enterprise!


Capt. Picard: Let's make sure history never forgets... the name..."Enterprise"!  http://www.dailypress.com/news/break...n-breaking-20121201,0,764621.story


User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2147 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10311 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
USS Notorious B.I.G. would have to be an aircraft carrier.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 57):
Well if she gets a ship because she got shot, I propose we name a ship the USS Tupac.

So, B.I.G in the Atlantic fleet and Tupac in the Pacific? we certainly couldn't have them anywhere near each other.

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!

Fantastic news


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10298 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.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10062 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.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10057 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.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10040 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'.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9961 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 63):


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.
User currently offline76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9908 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.



There's always money IN the banana stand.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9886 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.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9844 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



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9697 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
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4841 posts, RR: 9
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9643 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.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9577 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.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9571 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

I'm curious why you left out Saratoga.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9559 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.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9563 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".



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9538 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 71):

I'm curious why you left out Saratoga.

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.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9505 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.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9459 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.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9255 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9030 times:

I am always all for having ships of the line named Enterprise - if we ever set sail for another solar system, that vessel better be named Enterprise  

NS


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Petition To Name CVN-80 The USS Enterprise
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Navy To Sink The USS America posted Fri Mar 4 2005 03:30:32 by Boeing4ever
Croatian AF To Possibly Stick With The MiG-21? posted Thu Feb 3 2011 00:55:47 by TripleDelta
Croatia To Join SAC And The C-17 Fleet? posted Fri Jul 30 2010 00:25:18 by tripledelta
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 15:11:01 by Lumberton
Rafale M On Board USS Enterprise posted Tue Jul 24 2007 18:20:13 by LMP737
Navy To Name Next Carrier After Ford! posted Thu Jan 4 2007 01:59:07 by BladeLWS
What To Name America's New Spaceship? posted Sun Jan 29 2006 08:14:39 by AerospaceFan
US Marines Were Out To Get & Kill The F22 Raptor posted Tue Jan 3 2006 22:28:24 by Keesje
Company To Sell Trips Around The Moon posted Thu Aug 11 2005 05:33:10 by BaylorAirBear
USS Enterprise: How Much Longer? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 16:12:21 by FlagshipAZ

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format