Fishwelding Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 As awesome as the naming rights suggestion is (USS Boost Mobile has a nice ring to it), I'll cast another vote for CVN-80 to be named Enterprise. I also hope CVN-65 will become a museum representing all the Enterprises; unceremoniously scrapping the CV-6 deprived us all of being able to stand on her deck and experience the thrill of being physically connected to an enormously important piece of naval history. A CVN-65 museum would at least provide a place where the history of the name can be celebrated and remembered. Museums sound nice, but there's lots of taxidermed warships right now that are suffering because of the crushing expense of maintaining a museum. The fact is that ships are a big draw for most of the public only once or twice. Only a few, such as former crew, naval enthusiasts, or model builders make repeated trips back to the museum-ship and pay admission, or better yet, join the museum association and make a donation. So arguably money is spread too thin as it is to cover too many warship museums, to say nothing of other military and technology museums. You might suggest public subsidy, but of course that means bitter political debates and tough dilemmas over spending, apart from taxpayer revolt. For example, do you want to pour money into a non-serving nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, or put the same money toward providing healthcare, education, quality-of-life, and retirement services for serving military members and veterans? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Maybe save the island from the Enterprise as a museum exhibit, rather than the whole ship? Maybe as part of the NMNA in P-cola? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alvis 3.1 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Possibly to make up for the slight the midwest felt over not getting any of the NASA Shuttles, maybe the Enterprise could be moved to Kansas? The trip alone would be spectacular! Imagine coming across the plain, and slowly over the horizon looms a nuclear carrier? Wow...I mean...wow... Alvis 3.1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
eharrold44 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Museums sound nice, but there's lots of taxidermed warships right now that are suffering because of the crushing expense of maintaining a museum. The fact is that ships are a big draw for most of the public only once or twice. Only a few, such as former crew, naval enthusiasts, or model builders make repeated trips back to the museum-ship and pay admission, or better yet, join the museum association and make a donation. So arguably money is spread too thin as it is to cover too many warship museums, to say nothing of other military and technology museums. You might suggest public subsidy, but of course that means bitter political debates and tough dilemmas over spending, apart from taxpayer revolt. For example, do you want to pour money into a non-serving nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, or put the same money toward providing healthcare, education, quality-of-life, and retirement services for serving military members and veterans? Once the initial investment in the acquisition of the carrier and the construction of a pier/museum structure is out of the way, there's no reason a carrier museum can't be relatively self-sustaining- though donations will probably always be both necessary and welcome. I know the Hornet has had some financial difficulty, but that's partly due to a poor choice of location. There's not much around it, IIRC, and even the locals could easily forget it's there. The Lexington and the Midway are doing fairly well, if I'm not mistaken. I believe the Lex was operating with a slim budget surplus at one point. I know the Intrepid's costly restoration got a lot of press a few years ago, but what did that cost? $60 million? That's one Super Hornet. For that cost, it draws 750,000 visitors a year. It's also the home base for related charities, like the Intrepid Fallen Heroes fund, that have raised tens of millions of dollars to support wounded and fallen veterans and their families. Carrier museums cost money, often taxpayer money, but the cultural importance and overall impact they can have on a community is worth it IMO. Besides, the screening process for carrier donation is pretty thorough. Organizations have to submit detailed financial plans and have them approved before the Navy will consider donating such an enormous ship. Having a carrier turn in to a massive money pit wouldn't be good for the Navy's image, and it wouldn't be good for the community. Plenty of groups have failed in the past to acquire a carrier, for those very reasons. It's why there are probably going to be a lot of new artificial reefs over the next couple of decades. I guess my main point is this- carrier museums can be expensive to run, but people do visit them. They're home to important educational programs. They can be a source of increased awareness of issues affecting veterans. Most of all, once they're gone, they're gone. You can't replace history once it's scrapped. If it makes any kind of financial sense to save a ship like the Enterprise, I'm totally in favor of making it happen. What was this thread about, again? The new JFK? Sorry for the threadjacking, lol. I'm glad the last 3 carriers have been named after people with Navy backgrounds. As has already been said, it just seems weird and inappropriate to have a carrier named after President Truman, given what went on between him and the Navy during his administration. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
eharrold44 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Maybe save the island from the Enterprise as a museum exhibit, rather than the whole ship? Maybe as part of the NMNA in P-cola? They were originally going to save the tripod mast from the CV-6 and display it in Annapolis, but it was disposed of. It was part of the original "restitution package" when she was scrapped (naming the CVN-65 "Enterprise" was another part), but the promise to save the mast wasn't kept. Fool me once...shame on you. Fool me twice... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I thought at one time there was actually a law against naming a ship after someone who is still alive. That seems like a good idea. Live people can get themselves into mischif, and then what do you do? Rename the ship? I also don't like the trend of naming ships after presidents. I was appalled when Clinton named CVN-75 the USS Harry Truman. Truman was ex Army, and the Truman administration precipitated the Admirals' Revolt in 1949 when it cancelled the planned super carrier USS United States in favor of B-36 production. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,853921-1,00.html I can't think of a worse person to name an aircraft carrier after. An Air Force base sure, but an aircraft carrier??? And the final bit of irony, before CVN-75 was renamed "Harry Truman", her intended name when her keel was laid was to be "USS United States". Its just the nature of the beast... Ironically knowing what decisions your predecessors made to bring you where you are today (In other words, History) Is not a political requirement. It explains a lot, that's for sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm glad the last 3 carriers have been named after people with Navy backgrounds. As has already been said, it just seems weird and inappropriate to have a carrier named after President Truman, given what went on between him and the Navy during his administration. I still would rather see carriers named for historic battles or notable previous ships than for people (yes, I realize that JFK falls into the latter category but the name shouldn't have been given to a carrier in the first place IMO. No disrespect to her crews intended; my gripe is with the powers that be that make these decisions). Historically, destroyers have been the proper namesakes of notable individuals. Cruisers should be getting city names, not old carrier names, and the attack subs should be getting fish names. I'm OK with boomers getting state names since we don't have any more battleships to name after the states, but I'd also be OK with CVNs getting state names since they are the current capital ships of the navy. I'm kinda OK with the amphibs getting carrier names, since they are still a type of carrier, although naming them after CVEs would free up notable CV names for use on future CVNs. Enterprise is definitely OK for CVN-60. My 2-cents; YMMV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Just as long as it's not the U.S.S. George W. Bush. I'm afraid the ships motto would be his famous quote,"My chance needs a plan to work!" Yes, that's a direct quote and it is correctly written. Well it could be named after another current President. They would save a whole lot on fuel as it would just sit at it's dock for a long time before they decided to deploy it. Down side is it's rudder might get worn out from all of the course changes. Another up side though is it would look GREAT and there would be tons of pictures of it for out reference files. Heck, you wouldn't be able to turn on the television without seeing it at some ceremony all decked out with banners and flags. A modelers reference resource dream I think. Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Expat Tomcat Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Get a grip. The latest USN destroyer is named after a Murphy that gave his life in combat and in doing so, won the CMH. What a load of BS. I'd be proud to sail on ship with his name but I'm not a squid so I guess I just don't see the logic (or lack thereof) behind a statement like that. Try telling that spiel to his family, see how they take it. "I'm sorry folks but some of our sailors are a bit superstitious so while we really appreciate your son/husband's sacrifice, we don't want to upset anyone. Therefore, we decided he isn't worth having a ship named after him." Shheeeesh.... Lighten up, Francis!! Believe me, as a vet, I am ALL ABOUT honoring MOH awardees, especially posthumus ones! The word "winner" is not exactly applicable in this circumstance as I'd hardly call anyone who died in battle a "winner". Hero or awardee, absolutely but not winner. As far as what you said above, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not saying it makes a single shred of sense, but often perception doesn't. Sailors are a superstitious lot, and have been for as long as men have sailed the seas. Nicknames in the fleet stick like glue. Saratoga sank at the pier, she'll forever be the "Sinking Sara". Forrestal had a major flightdeck accident during the Vietnam war, she'll forever be "USS Forrestfire" in the fleet. Rumors persist, about the ghost of the DC CPO that was killed in the blast on the flight deck haunting the mess decks and kitchens because the walk-in freezers were used as temporary morgues. My point is on a ship with a name like USS Murphy ( I was specifically refering to the Audie Murphy suggestion), the first major incident like mentioned above that comes along and that's what is going to happen. It is an inevitability, and regardless of the source of the name, NOT a stretch of the imagination. Argue if you will, and I'm not saying the shouldn't name the ship after whoever. Let's just hope naming it after a posthumous MOH awardee that it doesn't end up being refered to as such. Edited June 2, 2011 by Expat Tomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) I love the name, Saratoga ... I think a new CVN should bear the name, Independence as well ... Gregg You think the Navy should have two ships named USS Independence? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1uZfwws2WI Edited June 2, 2011 by Wayne S Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 You think the Navy should have two ships named USS Independence? No, just one thats pretty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 You think the Navy should have two ships named USS Independence? Oh yeah, forgot about that ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Museums sound nice, but there's lots of taxidermed warships right now that are suffering because of the crushing expense of maintaining a museum. The fact is that ships are a big draw for most of the public only once or twice. Only a few, such as former crew, naval enthusiasts, or model builders make repeated trips back to the museum-ship and pay admission, or better yet, join the museum association and make a donation. So arguably money is spread too thin as it is to cover too many warship museums, to say nothing of other military and technology museums. You might suggest public subsidy, but of course that means bitter political debates and tough dilemmas over spending, apart from taxpayer revolt. For example, do you want to pour money into a non-serving nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, or put the same money toward providing healthcare, education, quality-of-life, and retirement services for serving military members and veterans? If the reactors could be overhauled and left operational, they could sell back the energy and more than pay for the museum. When San Francisco put in a bid for the USS Missouri the city was going to throw in some money in exchange for being able to use the ship as an emergency command post for major earthquakes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 If the reactors could be overhauled and left operational, they could sell back the energy and more than pay for the museum. You are kidding right? Who would operate and maintain those reactors? I wouldn't trust my municipality to operate the local landfill without screwing it up, let alone multiple nuclear reactors. Plus, I think it would be cost-prohibitive to rehab those units. Most nuclear powered ships are scheduled for decommissioning once the power units have reached the end of there life span. I do remember reading somewhere that it was possible in times of natural disaster to take a CNV, dock it in the damaged city and tie it's reactors into the local power grid. Have no idea if this is possible, I'm guessing it is a myth since those reactors generate steam for propulsion primarily, not electrical power. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I do remember reading somewhere that it was possible in times of natural disaster to take a CNV, dock it in the damaged city and tie it's reactors into the local power grid. Have no idea if this is possible, I'm guessing it is a myth since those reactors generate steam for propulsion primarily, not electrical power. I'll qualify this by noting that I'm not familiar with nuke ship propulsion design, but it would seem that somewhere along the line, there have to be electical generators that are powered by the reactors, since there is an awful lot of electrical power needed to run a modern warship. Getting this electricity from the ship to a shore facility is a different matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if the capablity is there to export power. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
eharrold44 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 It's probably a moot point, since Enterprise's reactor system would be amazingly expensive to maintain. She has 8 individual reactors that need to be fueled and maintained, vs. only 2 in the Nimitz class. It's part of the reason why she's an only child. It's possible to hook up a carrier to a power grid, though. The Lexington CV-2 provided electricity to Tacoma, WA for a month in 1929. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Just as long as it's not the U.S.S. George W. Bush. I'm afraid the ships motto would be his famous quote,"My chance needs a plan to work!" Yes, that's a direct quote and it is correctly written. you'll see the U.S.S. George W. Bush soon enough. But I doubt that you'll see Carter or Obama's name on a capitol ship for at least a generation. But I'm for naming a tug boat after them! gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Bingo! Yes I was kidding. It was apparently a crummy play on words. I remember Gerald Ford (and I feel Chevy Chase played a better Ford then Ford did but I digress) Having said that, you know probably in 20 years or so some kid is going to be assigned to the U.S.S. Ford and might really be surprised to find out it's not named after a car. It could happen. And nobody busted me on the 50 years celebration?!?!? You guys are way too kind. Bill seriously; I think it's time to name the carriers after the folks that built this nation. I think George Washington should be the next, followed by James Monroe or Madison. Andrew Jackson would be another good one right along with Jefferson and John Adams. We wouldn't have a nation without these men! gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 seriously; I think it's time to name the carriers after the folks that built this nation. I think George Washington should be the next, followed by James Monroe or Madison. Andrew Jackson would be another good one right along with Jefferson and John Adams. We wouldn't have a nation without these men! gary Dude, USS George Washington is CVN-73. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 You are kidding right? Who would operate and maintain those reactors? I wouldn't trust my municipality to operate the local landfill without screwing it up, let alone multiple nuclear reactors. Plus, I think it would be cost-prohibitive to rehab those units. Most nuclear powered ships are scheduled for decommissioning once the power units have reached the end of there life span. I do remember reading somewhere that it was possible in times of natural disaster to take a CNV, dock it in the damaged city and tie it's reactors into the local power grid. Have no idea if this is possible, I'm guessing it is a myth since those reactors generate steam for propulsion primarily, not electrical power. Same guys that run 'em now, hire a couple of nuke guys coming out of the Navy. I realize they are 1960s tech, but its a thought. I understand modern carriers resist scrapping these days anyway, disposal costs far out weighing salvage costs, so it seems like a reasonable experiment. I do understand it may not be practical and the reactors may not be servicable (otherwwise why get rid of the carrier), just trying to think outside of the box. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gmat Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_(SSN-23) Best wishes, Grant Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Any takers on CVN-78's motto being "Built Ford Tough" ? Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Dude, USS George Washington is CVN-73. somehow I missed him! At least that'd be a good start gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_(SSN-23) Best wishes, Grant probably still tied up to the dock gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nightiemission Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 somehow I missed him! At least that'd be a good start gary Theres also the USS Abraham Lincoln, CVN-72. My son has done 3 deployments aboard Lincoln, plus his brother and I got a Tiger Cruise aboard Lincoln in '06. Cheers, Terry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.