Phyrox Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I say we switch over to British names for our vessels. States and cities and politicians are not suitable for a ship of the line. Agamemnon, Warspite, Black Prince, and Onslaught...compared to Texas, Lincoln, Sullivan Brothers, and Atlanta? Although the Brits have a good share of county and country named ships as well... At least bring back the fish and fish-related names for submarines. It really gave the U.S. submarine force a unique feel.
Mislovrit Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Scary, I remember that they used to name battle ships after states, now we're naming bombers, just goes to show how little a dollar can buy these days. 416740[/snapback] 1-2 billion per bomber makes naming them a much more important matter.
Nied Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Nied, I think the biggest problem that the Navy had with the F-110 was that is was developed for the Air Force, yes there is still that interservice rivalry. Whereas the F-404/414 on the other hand has always been a navy project.As for the naming system, I agree that the preson a ship is named after should already be dead, it is after all an honorarium. But personnally I have no problem with the Reagan or the Kennedy being named so soon after the president was dead. As for naming them after old naval battles, or legacy carriers a lot of those names are now going to the LHAs and LHDs (the helo/harrier carriers) though some are also named after islands, go figure. 417219[/snapback] The Reagan was so named before the man died. Frankly the whole idea of starting to name things after a president so soon after his (or her) death (or in Reagan's case well before) always smacked of desperation to me. FDR, and JFK were great men in their own right and history has judged them as such, they didn't need to be put on coins or have aircraft carriers named after them to get that judgement (I'd give it another decade or so for Reagan), trying to push history's judgement in a certain direction by doing those things just seems desperate to me. Stuff should get named after people because history judged them to be great not the other way around.
Mislovrit Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Attack Submarines are usually after cities, though what's funny is that Pres.Carter has a sub named after him. But at least he was a previous Submariner. Reasoning as to why SSN-23 is named after Carter can be found here here.
Lightning Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 so what's different about the CVN(X)-78 than the regular CVN's?? (might as well make it a "Airplanes and other military hardware" thread...)
Warmaker Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 so what's different about the CVN(X)-78 than the regular CVN's??(might as well make it a "Airplanes and other military hardware" thread...) 417279[/snapback] From quick browsing, I haven't seen specifications yet. The upcoming CVN's are still going to be Nuclear. My guess is that the design is evolutionary in improvements over the Nimitz Class CVNs. FAS.org's CVX Section Globalsecurity.org's CVX Section While on the subject of Carriers, some humorous nicknames for recent boats that I've heard Sailors use: USS Kitty Hawk - S**tty Kitty USS Abraham Lincoln - Stinkin' Lincoln USS Constellation - The Connie (not exactly humorous, just a nickname) I had a chance to be aboard the Connie, Stennis, Lincoln, and Reagan, most of them for little CQ training dets. The Reagan still had that "New Ship" smell. The Lincoln also, since it just got off of major reworks / maintenance after the opening phases of OIF. I mean, in our enlisted berthing, there were brand new matresses and pillows, still wrapped in plastic bags, with fresh, clean, folded gov't linen, all of which were sitting nicely on each rack. When we entered our berthing, we just stood there in amazement Oh, BTW, yeah we're way off topic from Aircraft now. Can the OP change the thread title, if he's cool with it?
David Hingtgen Posted July 19, 2006 Author Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) New class. It won't be Nimitz class, it'll be Gerald Ford or Enterprise class. (Let's hope the latter). Stats change all the time of course, but I think generally the big things are a "stealth" island and electromagnetic catapults. Though I would be against Enterprise (despite the coolness) simply because that'd make 2 of the 3 CVN classes "Enterprise class". It's bad enough we have the new nuclear Virginia class ships just a few years after the last nuclear Virginia class ships were retired, we don't need another confusing repeats. Sure they're a different type, but whenever people mention "Virginia class" you have to ask--which one? The 80's/90's or the current? Dear Navy: there's tons of names, and feel free to re-use them all, and immediately after the old one's decommissioned--but at least change the CLASS LEADER names once in a while! Yeesh, at this rate the next destroyer will be called Spruance class... (again) PS--we're talking about AIRCRAFT carriers. Plenty close enough to the thread title. And since I made it, I'm not changing it. Also, we've had carrier discussions here before---often regarding the JSF/Rafale with regards to future European carriers. Edited July 19, 2006 by David Hingtgen
Coota0 Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I say we switch over to British names for our vessels.States and cities and politicians are not suitable for a ship of the line. Agamemnon, Warspite, Black Prince, and Onslaught...compared to Texas, Lincoln, Sullivan Brothers, and Atlanta? 417262[/snapback] Hey, hey, hey TEXAS is a damned fine name for a ship.
Warmaker Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I do have a soft spot for a USN submarine class name from WWII: Gato! As for the naming convention of USN ships, I prefer it the way it is. It keeps ours different from the British style, though they do have some cool names from history / existing ships.
buddhafabio Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) well except for the space shuttle the space ships we used were named after roman gods. as a matter of fact the ones we plann to sent to mars are named after mars i just forget the names and google is no help right now. i would love to see ranger,hornet and yorktown rear their heads as carrier names. exp hornet. it fits one plane stings a country but a swarm from a carrier can cripple or kill a country. Edited July 19, 2006 by buddhafabio
ALLAN Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 I say we switch over to British names for our vessels.States and cities and politicians are not suitable for a ship of the line. Agamemnon, Warspite, Black Prince, and Onslaught...compared to Texas, Lincoln, Sullivan Brothers, and Atlanta? 417262[/snapback] Hey, hey, hey TEXAS is a damned fine name for a ship. 417288[/snapback] Indeed.
kalvasflam Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 As for the naming of ships. Carriers are named after Presidents, Naval Heroes, and Legacy Ships. Reagan was president, and like his politics or not he did a great deal for the military and most military leadership still loves him. Bush senior, as stated was a Naval pilot in WW2 and in some circles is considered a naval hero because of his actions after he got shot down. Vinson, while a politician, is considered a naval hero because of the work he did as head of the house armed services commitee, and in the process created the structure of the armed forces as we now know it. Stennis, while also a politician is considered the father of the modern navy, and again he was the head of the house armed services commitee. So should carriers be named after such politicians, maybe, maybe not, but they did a lot to help the navy, but the Navy picked the names and they think that they are appropriate. As for naming a sub after Carter, love him or hate him, he is the best ex-president we've ever had, and he was a submariner, so naming a sub after him is appropriate, and IIRC he was asked and agreed that a sub was more appropriate for his name.Will we ever see a USS Ford, a USS Nixon, or USS Clinton, or USS Bush Jr, probably not though Nixon does probably deserve to have a ship named after him. As for naming ships after famous battles, what do you think most of the destroyers are named after? There is a comprehensive rule book on how ships are named and the Navy, with its long traditions, sticks to that strongly. Also, there are whispers in the fleet, ok more then whispers, that the CVN(X)-78 will be the *insert drumroll* The ENTERPRISE. Yes the Big E will get yet another carrier. The reason being is that the current Big-E is scheduled for Decomm in 2013-2014 and the new BiG-E is scheduled for commissioning in 2014, and in the whole history of the navy there has never not been an Enterprise. 417131[/snapback] My whole point on this is that it's better not to name ships after politicians. Had Bush Sr not become a president, there would've been no carrier named after him. Ike would've had a ship name not due to politics, but due to his distinguished military record. Likewise for Washington, and Abe and if they ever name another ship after FDR, are both deserving because they were war time leaders - so I can overlook the political side on those. The point being that the distinction should be due to military career, not political ones. Other ships that were worth while... Shugart and Gordon. Good mentions. I'm hoping for an Enterprise. The navy needs a new one. Oh, and the navy needs a ship named England too. I don't think there is one by that name these days.
kalvasflam Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 THought of this todayWhat does the FB-111A have over the F-111F? Why use the FB-111A? F-111F, A-6E, SU-24, Tornado IDS GR.4, Sepecat Jaguar, which is the better bomber? 416986[/snapback] Interesting question. Ok, I'm gonna look at this backwards, by eliminating non-contenders first. Jaguar was replaced by the Tornado, so it's out. The SU-24 has short combat legs under full load, but carries a nice loadout. So, short legs eliminate it. Tornado is slightly newer, better legs, and heavier loadout, but still not that great. So, it's out. 417058[/snapback] Right, but I bet you one thing - however low you think you are, the Tornado will be under you somewhere. 417136[/snapback] And look where it got them during Desert Storm....
Mislovrit Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 New class. It won't be Nimitz class, it'll be Gerald Ford or Enterprise class. (Let's hope the latter). Unless Ford did something important for the military (especially the Navy), his name wouldn't be on the list.
Phyrox Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 New class. It won't be Nimitz class, it'll be Gerald Ford or Enterprise class. (Let's hope the latter). Unless Ford did something important for the military (especially the Navy), his name wouldn't be on the list. 417361[/snapback] They used to stick by those rules, but the navy has gotten really loose with what qualifies as "significant contribution to the navy" in its naming conventions. Lincoln, sure. Nimitz, sure. Stennis? Reagan? If they qualify, I'm sure Ford does.
Warmaker Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Reagan I would probably count. His administration greatly strengthened the military in the 80s and regained prestige from the years after Vietnam.
Apollo Leader Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Pretty much every American president in recent history has had some sort of military experience earlier in their life. In the case of Ronald Reagan having an aircraft carrier named after him, he definitely deserved it for all that he did in building up our armed forces, restoring pride in it and in our country, and his part in bringing down the Soviet Union. But by the time it was decided to apply his name to a carrier, Alzheimers had probably taken his mind away so much that there was no way he could have taken any pride or acknowledgement of this honor. But I generally agree that naming a ship after a ship after a president should be held off until after death and there has been time to asertain what that president contributed to the defense of the nation and specifically to the Navy. Without even going into his presidency, Bill Clinton has some very serious issues. Besides not having served a day in the military, here is a man who has in writing that he "loathed" the military. He dodged the draft, he was involved in flag burnings and protests against the US and its armed forces on foreign soil. He gave aid and comfort to the enemy all the while helping lower the morale of the US and its armed forces. Just on this alone, he should never have a ship named after him. Edited July 19, 2006 by Apollo Leader
Noyhauser Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110. But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much. Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents. 417131[/snapback] Well as you pointed out, the F-414 wasn't a sure bet. the Super Hornet is seen as a generally successful example of modern procurement. I believe it was implemented using Cost as an Independant Variable managment, and was basically on cost and delivery without major flaws... which is a bit surprising when you look at other programs today. Imagine all the gripes you guys would give it IF it was overbudget and delayed? I'm almost assured that there will be a F-414 spiral to it, if it already isn't happenening today. In a 2003 article penned by the F/A-18E/F's project manager, he hints that there might be one.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110. But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much. Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents. 417131[/snapback] Well as you pointed out, the F-414 wasn't a sure bet. the Super Hornet is seen as a generally successful example of modern procurement. I believe it was implemented using Cost as an Independant Variable managment, and was basically on cost and delivery without major flaws... which is a bit surprising when you look at other programs today. Imagine all the gripes you guys would give it IF it was overbudget and delayed? I'm almost assured that there will be a F-414 spiral to it, if it already isn't happenening today. In a 2003 article penned by the F/A-18E/F's project manager, he hints that there might be one. 417424[/snapback] Whats a spiral? Is that an engine turbine or upgrade? Sorry I'm not too knowledgeable concerning engines.
F-ZeroOne Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) THought of this todayWhat does the FB-111A have over the F-111F? Why use the FB-111A? F-111F, A-6E, SU-24, Tornado IDS GR.4, Sepecat Jaguar, which is the better bomber? 416986[/snapback] Interesting question. Ok, I'm gonna look at this backwards, by eliminating non-contenders first. Jaguar was replaced by the Tornado, so it's out. The SU-24 has short combat legs under full load, but carries a nice loadout. So, short legs eliminate it. Tornado is slightly newer, better legs, and heavier loadout, but still not that great. So, it's out. 417058[/snapback] Right, but I bet you one thing - however low you think you are, the Tornado will be under you somewhere. 417136[/snapback] And look where it got them during Desert Storm.... 417354[/snapback] Just carrying on a great British tradition (to paraphrase a somewhat amazed German soldier during the early days of W.W. II, "Instead of us attacking us while we are crossing, you let us set up the bridges, put in the flak guns, and then attack us - in daylight! You English are crazy!")... Edited July 19, 2006 by F-ZeroOne
Nied Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Without even going into his presidency, Bill Clinton has some very serious issues. Besides not having served a day in the military, here is a man who has in writing that he "loathed" the military. He dodged the draft, he was involved in flag burnings and protests against the US and its armed forces on foreign soil. He gave aid and comfort to the enemy all the while helping lower the morale of the US and its armed forces. Just on this alone, he should never have a ship named after him. 417419[/snapback] Tada! Politics! I'd edit this if I were you. Edited July 19, 2006 by Nied
Nied Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110. But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much. Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents. 417131[/snapback] Well as you pointed out, the F-414 wasn't a sure bet. the Super Hornet is seen as a generally successful example of modern procurement. I believe it was implemented using Cost as an Independant Variable managment, and was basically on cost and delivery without major flaws... which is a bit surprising when you look at other programs today. Imagine all the gripes you guys would give it IF it was overbudget and delayed? I'm almost assured that there will be a F-414 spiral to it, if it already isn't happenening today. In a 2003 article penned by the F/A-18E/F's project manager, he hints that there might be one. 417424[/snapback] Whats a spiral? Is that an engine turbine or upgrade? Sorry I'm not too knowledgeable concerning engines. 417427[/snapback] Spiral is a development term. Basically it's a way to mark various phases of development, you introduce the base system (say the F/A-18F with basic APG-73 radar and basic backseat) then plan and add various upgrades over time as needed (like an APG-79 AESA radar or, ACS for the back seat). From what I have heard GE is working on a higher thrust/lower emission version of the F414 that might be installed in a later spiral. ::edit:: Another good example of spiral development is what is now going on with the F-22, it IOCed with baseline capabilities, and new ones are added over time (such as integrating new weapons or the EW capabilities they're working on). Edited July 19, 2006 by Nied
Apollo Leader Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Tada! Politics! I'd edit this if I were you. 417457[/snapback] I didn't mention anything about his time as a politican, the stances or actions he has had as a politician,etc. Granted this was him showing off his political leaning on this subject matter, but I thought it was appropriate. I simply stated the facts of what actions he did as a private citizen. If you noticed, I purposely avoided mentioning issues of defense and national security under Clinton. So I gotta ask that in a few months when the F-14 Tomcat is removed from service completely, how many of you guys are going to hold back your political commentary about Dick Cheney? I remember someone on this board seriously wishing they could go back in time and kill him over this subject matter... yet no one complained and no one demand a moderator to step in! I see every now and then jabs and slams at George W., but again no call for moderation and no sign of a moderator stepping in. Obviously a double standard here. To whatever extent he (Cheney) was or wasn't actually involved in preventing the Tomcat program from moving forward (production of the Tomcat 21, preventing replacement parts for existing aircraft from being made) etc., mentioning his direct or indirect involvement with the F-14 is a political discussion because its the political decision of a politican on a national defense issue. I have no problem with you guys talking about this subject matter (Dick Cheney and the F-14), but I should surely hope we can be consistant here...
Nied Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Tada! Politics! I'd edit this if I were you. 417457[/snapback] I didn't mention anything about his time as a politican, the stances or actions he has had as a politician,etc. Granted this was him showing off his political leaning on this subject matter, but I thought it was appropriate. I simply stated the facts of what actions he did as a private citizen. If you noticed, I purposely avoided mentioning issues of defense and national security under Clinton. So I gotta ask that in a few months when the F-14 Tomcat is removed from service completely, how many of you guys are going to hold back your political commentary about Dick Cheney? I remember someone on this board seriously wishing they could go back in time and kill him over this subject matter... yet no one complained and no one demand a moderator to step in! I see every now and then jabs and slams at George W., but again no call for moderation and no sign of a moderator stepping in. Obviously a double standard here. To whatever extent he (Cheney) was or wasn't actually involved in preventing the Tomcat program from moving forward (production of the Tomcat 21, preventing replacement parts for existing aircraft from being made) etc., mentioning his direct or indirect involvement with the F-14 is a political discussion because its the political decision of a politican on a national defense issue. I have no problem with you guys talking about this subject matter (Dick Cheney and the F-14), but I should surely hope we can be consistant here... 417471[/snapback] Uh when did anyone fantasize about killing Dick Cheney? You've seen criticisms of his decisions regarding a particular aircraft program sure (gosh how surprising in the AIRCRAFT vs Super thread), but nothing beyond that. If I were to say Dick Cheney is a draft dodging war profiteer would that be OK? I didn't address his political career just stated the facts of what he did as a private citizen. If you want to criticise the Clinton administration about decisions made about some kind of aircraft (or even defense related) programme go right ahead, but if you just want to baselessly accuse a former president of treason take it to some wingnut site like Freerepublic.com or LGF. Edited July 19, 2006 by Nied
JsARCLIGHT Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Watch the politics guys. Even mentioning politicos or their actions in passing can cause a ruckus, so please keep that talk out. Thanks!
Mislovrit Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) If you want to criticise the Clinton administration about decisions made about some kind of aircraft (or even defense related) programme go right ahead, The stuff Clinton did in office to the military is far more then enough to ensure his name will never be use on any military kit let alone an aircraft carrier.Watch the politics guys. Even mentioning politicos or their actions in passing can cause a ruckus, so please keep that talk out. Thanks! 417476[/snapback] Impossible not to discuss politics as long we're stuck on carriers naming schemes and why those names are chosen. Edited July 19, 2006 by Mislovrit
Apollo Leader Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) To help get things back on subject... V-22 Osprey at Farnborough. Edited July 19, 2006 by Apollo Leader
Nied Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 If you want to criticise the Clinton administration about decisions made about some kind of aircraft (or even defense related) programme go right ahead, The stuff Clinton did in office to the military is far more then enough to ensure his name will never be use on any military kit let alone an aircraft carrier. I would respectfully disagree. But this seems like a far more productive line of debate. It still seems like it might be crossing the line. I'd like to add one more thing about the Cheney discussions that have gone on here before: for the most part they been restricted to "Dick Cheney chose the Super Hornet over the F-14 and I think that was wrong." Now the first part of that statement is a matter of public record, and the second part only gets into politics because Cheney is now VP (I've never seen any complaints about people disagreeing with McNamara's decisions). His decision making skills on that one matter were questioned and for the most part the discussion didn't go much further than that (I think I may have gone a little far when a I made a face shooting joke during the last incarnation of the thread but that was in a post defending said decision). I fail to see how that is in any way comparable to making a blanket statement about Bill Clinton being a treasonous coward. Watch the politics guys. Even mentioning politicos or their actions in passing can cause a ruckus, so please keep that talk out. Thanks! 417476[/snapback] Impossible not to discuss politics as long we're stuck on carriers naming schemes and why those names are chosen. 417494[/snapback] Which getting back to the topic at hand is exactly my problem. The Navy (or the military at large) should not be used to venerate a certain political ideology, and trying to name ships after men who are still heavily tied to a certain political school of thought does just that. The US Military is there to defend American interests not those of the Democratic or Republican party.
JsARCLIGHT Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 To help get things back on subject...V-22 Osprey at Farnborough. 417499[/snapback] This is a good redirect, lets all talk about this now... (this may or may not be a suggestion but it is a second warning. Please avoid all political talk... if a subject skews political then perhaps that subject should be put to bed before tempers flair. Ive already received complaints about this, I really dont want to receive any more thanks)
Apollo Leader Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) I'll repost this later... Edited July 19, 2006 by Apollo Leader
Mislovrit Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Quick nonpolitical post on U.S. ship naming schemes should read the Ship Naming in the United States Navy F.A.Q. page.
Nied Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 House votes to lift export restrictions on the F-22. This is great news. Selling the Raptor reduces the price for us, and for most of the potential buyers bolsters our regional interests. Hopefully the Senate will follow suite. On a related note Knight I've been meaning to ask you: do you know if the new COTS processors that the Raptor is supposed to get soon solve some of the heat issues it's been having? Is that info OPSEC?
Coota0 Posted July 19, 2006 Posted July 19, 2006 Ike would've had a ship name not due to politics, but due to his distinguished military record. 417353[/snapback] I'd like to point out that Eisenhower never would have had a ship named after him if he had not been the President. The Navy does not name ships after soldiers, Shugart and Gordon were rare exceptions, and they were Medal of Honor winners as well as soldiers.
Mislovrit Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 I'd like to point out that Eisenhower never would have had a ship named after him if he had not been the President. The Navy does not name ships after soldiers, Shugart and Gordon were rare exceptions, and they were Medal of Honor winners as well as soldiers. 417520[/snapback] U.S. Navy would disagree with you as Ike is a very important U.S. hero, patriot and leader long before becoming president making him more then eligible for a ship to be name after him. Whether a carrier and not something else would have been after named him had he not been president is a logical question.
Nied Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 I'd like to point out that Eisenhower never would have had a ship named after him if he had not been the President. The Navy does not name ships after soldiers, Shugart and Gordon were rare exceptions, and they were Medal of Honor winners as well as soldiers. 417520[/snapback] U.S. Navy would disagree with you as Ike is a very important U.S. hero, patriot and leader long before becoming president making him more then eligible for a ship to be name after him. Whether a carrier and not something else would have been after named him had he not been president is a logical question. 417525[/snapback] I imagine that he probably would have gotten a DDG named after him if he weren't president (or more likely had a tank named after him).
Recommended Posts