DutyCat Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Well, the title says it all. I have done a little research and I cannot understand how the class name can be justified. His presidency was not significant in any positive way. He was not elected as VP or Pres., pardoned Nixon, the economy was bad, and Vietnam fell under his watch. Can anyone shed any light on this? His name seems unworthy for a single carrier, much less an entire class. Edited July 10, 2011 by DutyCat Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Well, the title says it all. I have done a little research, but I cannot understand how the class name can be justified. His presidency was not significant in any positive way. He was not elected as VP or Pres., pardoned Nixon, the economy was bad, Vietnam fell under his watch. Can anyone shed any light on this? His name seems unworthy for a single carrier, much less an entire class. Someone decided carriers can only be named after presidents now. I don't know why. Naming them after presidents especially recent ones, is bizarre and only seems to have come into fashion the last decade or so. Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga, Coral Sea; these are all not only acceptable, but traditional. Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Ford actually served on a carrier in WWII (the USS Monterey) as an anti-aircraft gunner, but his service wasn't particularly noteworthy there. Link to post Share on other sites
vvac201 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I still like the name USS Flattop!!! Jason Link to post Share on other sites
Bobski Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Because: A: He was President and US carriers are (now) named after Presidents. He's also an underrated President who came into office at a tough time for the US and made as many wise choices as he did bad ones. The pardoning of Nixon was controversial, but if he hadn't done then the resulting trial would have dragged the Watergate scandal out for even longer, further damaging the trust between people and Government that is essential in a Democratic society. He was also very popular initially with the American people (although less so after the Nixon pardon) as he was seen as a "healer" and one of the few honest people in Government at the time. Let's also not forget that he only narrowly lost the '76 election to Jimmy Carter. B: He served aboard an aircraft carrier in WW2. The exception to the "Carriers named after Presidents" rule is, of course, Jimmy Carter, who had a Seawolf Class submarine named after him in view of his Navy service aboard submarines. Edited July 10, 2011 by Bobski Link to post Share on other sites
VA-115EFR Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Honestly, seeing that the USS America CV-66 was used as a testbed for future carrier design and ultimately sunk as a result, I feel that the next class of CVN's should've been the America class. Unfortunately that can't be done since the newest LHA is being named the America. Just my thoughts... Link to post Share on other sites
Yuri Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Because with the new desing they eliminated all the ladders :) No, seriously... I don't agree with the trend to give Presidents (and not only... think about Nimitz, Carl Vinson and so on) names to carriers... I think it was much better to give historical names/battles (historical ships) and so on... Judgment about one person (even if he was a president in a recent past) can change with years... and can also be a matter of debate... but who would argue about a USS Lexington, Enterprise, Ranger and so on? Link to post Share on other sites
majortomski Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 When I was a kid I had a USN recruiting poster that said what type of ships were named after what. That seems to have fallen completely apart about the 90's Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Well, the title says it all. I have done a little research and I cannot understand how the class name can be justified. His presidency was not significant in any positive way. He was not elected as VP or Pres., pardoned Nixon, the economy was bad, and Vietnam fell under his watch. Can anyone shed any light on this? His name seems unworthy for a single carrier, much less an entire class. Economy wasn't bad under Ford, it was the next guy by a country mile. (21% interest, $2.00 gas that would factor out to about $4.00 a gallon or more, IRAN was created by the next guy, the second highest unemployment is U.S. history only beaten by the current bunch. But most of all he kept the draft dodgers in Canada where they still belong gary Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 When I was a kid I had a USN recruiting poster that said what type of ships were named after what. That seems to have fallen completely apart about the 90's Yeah, it seems to have become a thing about paying back political supporters and the heroes of those supporters. I can't find anything to remotely qualify Samuel Gompers for a ship name. He is an early labor leader with no military service and the only slight military connection was his efforts to prevent labor strikes during WW1. This goes back before the 1990s. The USS Nimitz, was followed by the USS Eisenhower (construction began in 1970). I guess from there someone made the connection to name future ships after presidents (Eisenhower was a president but I'm pretty sure his name got on the ship for his WW2 service) and other Navy friendly politicians. The USS Samuel Gompers was built in the 1960s so this name thing has been going on for sometime, oddly the other ship in the class was the USS Puget Sound so there is no rhyme or reason there. Link to post Share on other sites
jimz66 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Ike didn't get his carrier for his military service. He was army not navy.... I think they should name a carrier after John Adams. Adams took it upon himself to figure out a way to build a navy for this infantile country named the United States of America in the late 1700's. He knew nothing about the sea or what it took to create a navy. Him and one other fella, I cannot remember the name set out to do just that. Read the John Adams book by David McCaullogh. Turn the the late nineties and around page 100..... Link to post Share on other sites
CorsairMan Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 .... the economy was bad, and Vietnam fell under his watch. A little unfair and somewhat inaccurate. Vietnam outcome was pretty much a done deal under the previous president and to either blame or laud a president on the 'economy' is somewhat foolish. A president's actions may soften the blow of a bad economy or slightly (and more often luckily) hasten the good times but they certain exert no 'control' over the 'economy'. Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Naming them after presidents especially recent ones, is bizarre and only seems to have come into fashion the last decade or so. Except for the JFK, which was named in 1964 :) I agree - they need to go back to traditional carrier names, not politicians - *especially* living politicians. That's just creepy. Link to post Share on other sites
Jim S Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 FWIW, I happen to think the USS James B. Stockdale would be an excellent name for a carrier, though I realize there is a guided missle destroyer named after him DDG-106. Jim S Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Except for the JFK, which was named in 1964 :) I agree - they need to go back to traditional carrier names, not politicians - *especially* living politicians. That's just creepy. I stand corrected. I do find it odd though that we try so hard to justify the presidents being named on the carrier "oh so and so served on this during his military time, blah blah." even looking at Fords record (or any others) is pointless, it doesn't take a genius to figure out you will build more carriers than we have modern presidents, and to know in the interest of fairness and what not, that they will all get one CV eventually. So here is to the Nixon and Clinton, may they both be equipped with only stealth aircraft, plenty of female sailors, and deceptive jammers/listeners! Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Pres. Ford was also one of the first GCI controllers and as such, had done a lot work in developing the practice. He's definitely more deserving than HST, who tried multiple times to kill off Naval Aviation. Interestingly, HST cancelled what was to be the first "supercarrier", the United States. CVN-75 was originally named United States before being changed to HST to keep the Navy on Slick Willie's happy side. An interesting study is to cross check which party is on office with the corresponding carrier (and submarine) names. Spongebob Link to post Share on other sites
Fishwelding Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yeah, it seems to have become a thing about paying back political supporters and the heroes of those supporters. I can't find anything to remotely qualify Samuel Gompers for a ship name. He is an early labor leader with no military service and the only slight military connection was his efforts to prevent labor strikes during WW1. It is, and always was about politics. Your Gompers example is instructive; some Americans would consider his peacetime contributions to the labor movement to be worthy enough as an American hero. They would regard your view as insufficiently informed. Others, further to the left of Gompers supporters, would denounce Gompers for his generally conservative labor policies that stifled more radical labor politics in the United States. (They might prefer a warship named for Eugene V. Debs, or one of the other Socialist Party politicians from the Midwest). Like every other ship name, it's all a matter of political perspective, not objective box-checking. Some names are simply less controversial than others. Nimitz was largely unopposed; ironically, most of the civilian population, even those who lived through or served in World War II, had only the fuzziest notion who Chester W. Nimitz even was. Arguably, Admiral Rickover should have merited more than a submarine, although he is most associated with the silent service. But the truth is the guy made a long string of bitter enemies, some of whom likely had political friends of their own. From some perspectives, Rickover was lucky he wasn't beaten to death in a dark alley, much less had a ship named after him. Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 And who the heck was Carl Vinson anyway (I know, but 99.999% of Americans have never heard of him). Of course, a shockingly huge percentage of Americans don't know from what country we separated, nor what the significance of the year 1776 is in American history. Just saw those stats the other day, and was dumbfounded. Concord isn't just a town in New Hampshire or North Carolina, and Lexington isn't where they raise thoroughbreds... Link to post Share on other sites
Fishwelding Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) And who the heck was Carl Vinson anyway (I know, but 99.999% of Americans have never heard of him). Of course, a shockingly huge percentage of Americans don't know from what country we separated, nor what the significance of the year 1776 is in American history. Just saw those stats the other day, and was dumbfounded. Concord isn't just a town in New Hampshire or North Carolina, and Lexington isn't where they raise thoroughbreds... John Stennis also has most Americans scratching their heads, too. But the general American population is not preoccupied with what the Pentagon decides to name it's warships. To most Americans, they're all "battleships," whether DDGs, CGs, LCSs, or logistical ships. Honestly, we've been shocked and amazed by American historical ignorance for, well, much of American history. Recall that in previous years, much of the American population was immigrant, and we had many more people who did not complete high school. People's historical understanding probably hasn't improved much, but probably hasn't gotten worse, either. If it were otherwise, we might see more public discussion of who is naming warships what and why. It can seem difficult to believe the above assertion, but recognize that around here, we're usually history buffs. If you build models of historic aircraft, you're also likely to know a thing or two more about history, beyond World War II navy airplane colors or the names of famous aces. On the other hand, much of the American population finds history a miserable chore of little practical value. Henry Ford famously snarled that history is "more or less bunk," and lots of his countrymen then and since heartily agree. Obviously I'm not endorsing the view, but have to admit it nonetheless. Edited July 10, 2011 by Fishwelding Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 It is, and always was about politics. When it comes to naming after people sure politics plays a large part, I think that is why many in this thread prefer to return to naming ships after things battles, places etc. As far as Gompers I didn't mean to diminish his place in history, but there is nothing I saw in his background that remotely ties him to the navy or military at all. It doesn't mean he isn't potentially worthy of some sort of monument, but a ship named for him seems odd, particularly since the rest of the class didn't follow suit (labor leader class destroyer tenders? USS Jimmy Hoffa, Eugene Debs, William Haywood, Cesar Chavez ). Link to post Share on other sites
Fishwelding Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 It doesn't mean he isn't potentially worthy of some sort of monument, but a ship named for him seems odd, particularly since the rest of the class didn't follow suit (labor leader class destroyer tenders? USS Jimmy Hoffa, Eugene Debs, William Haywood, Cesar Chavez ). I suppose it's kinda like naming land-locked (or at least not very water-accessible) states and cities for battleships and cruisers. It's then slightly awkward when a ship is a permanent museum in the wrong state. I was somewhat amused to learn that the USS Little Rock is proudly displayed in Buffalo, New York. I'm sure it's in good hands among Buffalonians, but, well...I suppose shipping it up the Arkansas River would have been some expensive engineering. Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) He's also an underrated President who came into office at a tough time for the US and made as many wise choices as he did bad ones. Agreed, the country was horribly torn when he came into office, and he had a major part in bringing it back together. I think it was much better to give historical names/battles (historical ships) and so on... Those now seem to be the province of cruisers. Concord isn't just a town in New Hampshire or North Carolina... Obviously. It's also the basis for grape jelly. Regards, Murph Edited July 10, 2011 by Murph Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Ike didn't get his carrier for his military service. He was army not navy.... I think they should name a carrier after John Adams. Adams took it upon himself to figure out a way to build a navy for this infantile country named the United States of America in the late 1700's. He knew nothing about the sea or what it took to create a navy. Him and one other fella, I cannot remember the name set out to do just that. Read the John Adams book by David McCaullogh. Turn the the late nineties and around page 100..... I personally wish they'd go back to namming aircraft carriers after historic battles fought in this country's early years (Revolutionary War / War of 1812). Or maybe name them after the signers of the Decleration Of Independence or the Constitution. I have more respect for them than all the rest put together. gary Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) And who the heck was Carl Vinson anyway (I know, but 99.999% of Americans have never heard of him). i will see your Carl Vinson and raise you John C. Stennis I suppose it's kinda like naming land-locked (or at least not very water-accessible) states and cities for battleships and cruisers. It's then slightly awkward when a ship is a permanent museum in the wrong state. I was somewhat amused to learn that the USS Little Rock is proudly displayed in Buffalo, New York. I'm sure it's in good hands among Buffalonians, but, well...I suppose shipping it up the Arkansas River would have been some expensive engineering. Hold your tongue! Having a USS New Mexico, and the fact that it is a kick a** sub is one of the few things my home state has going for it. plus very few ships are retired anyway. So if someday I have to go to HI to see some famous USS New Mexico I don't mind. also: get some! Edited July 10, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 A little unfair and somewhat inaccurate. Vietnam outcome was pretty much a done deal under the previous president and to either blame or laud a president on the 'economy' is somewhat foolish. A president's actions may soften the blow of a bad economy or slightly (and more often luckily) hasten the good times but they certain exert no 'control' over the 'economy'. very good post! That's a constitutional issue. The White House can't spend a dime with out it first comming out of the House of Representatives. What is dangerous is when all three branches are totally aligned with each other with a super majority. Then there are no checks & balances like our forefathers had designs upon. As for the Vietnam War; looks to me like we lost it at home and not over seas. glt Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts