[...] sed out the old Sturgeon classes (I did a training cruise on the last Sturgeon C [...]…

cozmo on March 14, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Well Rickover was much more in love with subs than floaters.

You knwo We had a great thing going with the States being Boomer subs and the cities being fast attacks, then the Navy starts building new fast attacks and what do they do? Starts naming them after states.

TinCanNav on March 14, 2012 at 10:33 AM

At the end of the cold war there was a good chance that there would be no more boomers. States went from battleships to cruisers to boomers and now attack subs. No naming rules have been followed long enough to become tradition. Before CV-6 the name Enterprise had not been used on a capital ship and even then, no one was sure about the potential of the aircraft carrier. CNV-65 was named Enterprise because of the fame her immediate fore bearer fought through, and even that famous ship went to the breakers. Fans of CVN-65 are just hoping to save the island as a memorial.

Even the 688′s broke convention with the Rickover. The navy jumped on that to circumvent congress demanding a carrier be named that.

cozmo on March 14, 2012 at 8:33 AM

I understand that is why I said in the last 30 years. I know that they came up with this new system around the same time the Battlewaggons started going away and the Tico cruisers came into service. So they decided to move the states and cities to subs as the phased out the old Sturgeon classes (I did a training cruise on the last Sturgeon Class). Since then, with the exception of the political exceptions they have been pretty good. The political exceptions being of course things like, the Jimmy Carter (which I sort of get, he was a submariner), the Carl Vinson (nakedly political), the Gabby Gifford and the John Murtha with the San Antonio Classes (Bleh).

But you are right that they HAVE managed to screw up at least one naming scheme completely. You knwo We had a great thing going with the States being Boomer subs and the cities being fast attacks, then the Navy starts building new fast attacks and what do they do? Starts naming them after states.

Cities and States are normally subs (save for the few cities which are San Antonio Class LPDs but there are only 4-5 of them right now).
TinCanNav on March 14, 2012 at 12:25 AM

There were the dozen of the Austin class before that. Naming submarines for cities was only in place for the 688 class attack boats. The Independence and Freedom classes of littoral ships will also be named for cities. after the class leaders.

Almost every time the navy tries to implement a system for naming ships, it gets screwed up.

AH_C on March 14, 2012 at 8:04 AM

No doubt, but when it comes to the capital ships now days, they are always on the cutting block when it comes to budgets. Having a famous persons name on the ship helps. At least Bush 41 and Ford served on carriers.

The USS George H. W. Bush is more appropriate the the USS Ronald Reagan. Read your history…and know it. Of all the Nimitz class carriers, the Nimitz and the Bush are the most appropriately named of the ships.

cozmo on March 13, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I’m knocking it because GHWB’s still alive, and he didn’t do much militarily as POTUS compared to RR who fought and won the cold war.

There are other dead presidents that she could have been named after; Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson (like to see her patrolling the ME), U. Grant, etc. Then GHWB can get his due after his passing.

Those great carrier names from World War Two are all immortal now and rightly so.

Bless them all.

This ship sucks!!!

LCT688 on March 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM

They still are for the most part. With the exception of the Jimmy Carter (which is a Seawolf Class Sub) and the Roosevelt (which is named for both Franklin and Elanor and a Destroyer) anything named after a President is a Carrier. Most of the ships which sound like the old carriers (Wasp, Bonhomme Richard, Kearsarge) is a large deck amphib. If it is named after a battle (Saratoga, Yorktown, Gettysburg, Leyte Gulf) it is a cruiser, unless that battle is one that the Marines hold dear, then it is another amphib (Tarawa, Belleau Wood, Battan). Cities and States are normally subs (save for the few cities which are San Antonio Class LPDs but there are only 4-5 of them right now). For the most part if it is named for a military man of distinction or a war hero, it is a DDG or one of the few remaining FFG’s.

USS Micheal Monsoor, Medal of Honor Recipient, Navy SeAL, KIA Iraq. Threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies.

Tony737 on March 13, 2012 at 9:57 PM

The Googles are your friend. Dont get your knickers in a wad about any current GWOT MOH recipient not having a ship, they will all get a destroyer in good time and soon, as is appropriate for those heroes who distinguished themselves in battle (used to be the mostly a function for the naming of the old FFG’s but that has shifted to the DDG’s now).

As for some of the other comments
Yeah Cesar Chavez got a ship before Dakota Meyer, because they decided to start naming the Lewis and Clark cargo haulers after civil rights leaders, you wanna name a cargo ship after a hero? No, we do it proper, as we have with only a few exceptions for about 30 years. Our heros get the tip of the spear, they get the gunboats, the Presidents get the carriers, the Cruisers are named after battles, the subs are states and cities, big deck gators are named in honor of the WW II carriers and the battles the Marines distinguished themselves in.

Battleships were named for Statesman.
LCT688 on March 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Battleships were always named for states.

Aircraft Carriers were ALWAYS named for either famos battles or other famos ships.

LCT688 on March 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM

?

USS Langley?

Saratoga and Lexington were laid down as battlecruisers. They kept the names when they were converted to carriers on the ways.

Naming them after other ships didn’t start until after those three. And those rules were broken right away with the Shangri La.

I believe there was a carrier named the Franklin D Roosevelt. Possibly CVA (or maybe CVS) – 42.

TimBuk3 on March 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

There was, it was decommed in the 70′s

It couldn’t be the ROOSEVELT, (CVN 71) because FDR was president during the war.

CVN 71 is named for TR not FDR, the only ship named for FDR currently is DDG80 which is named for both FDR and his wife.

Damnit. I want to be president just to be able to name ships and piss people off.

If you haven’t signed the petition to name CVN-80 the ENTERPRISE yet, please do so.

We need ship names in the Navy we can be proud of, and there is none prouder than that of the Big E.

We need to stop naming ships after politicians, though. This shows a rotting sense of self-regard by the political class, one that shows a lack of restraint and regard for naval tradition.

Naming a ship for Gabby Giffords is fatuous, at best. One might name a ship for Richard Trumka after he retires. I guarantee you that’s coming.

Her name should be Lepanto.

JackOfClubs on March 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Very good, but another reason for her to be called Enterprise:

Jefferson decided that a little “showing of the flage” in the Mediterranean was more appropriate than tribute. He ordered the frigates President, Essex, and Philadelphia and the sloop Enterprise to blockade Tripoli and convoy American shipping (Malone, 1970). This squadron, under Commodore Richard Dale, had to patrol and control a coastline over 1,200 miles in distance, which resulted in a “most desultory blockade.” The lone success of the force was the defeat of a larger Tripolitan ship by Enterprise. Since there had been no declaration of war by the United States, the Barbary cruiser could not be taken as a prize. However, the captain of the Enterprise did have all of the corsair’s guns thrown overboard before allowing the ship to continue on its way, with sixty casualties to his none (Channing, 1968).

from- “Terrorism In Early America
The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States
To End International Blackmail and Terrorism”

By Thomas Jewett