VA-115EFR Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yep, my personal thoughts as well, about the naming of the Carriers. Since the ex-USS America was used as a test bed for future carriers such as the CVN-78, I feel CVN-78 should have been named America in CV-66's honor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ruud Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 To start with, they should have named the USS FORD after something, or someone else... I can think of a lot of retired ships that are more suited to carriers. Whoever decided that carriers should be named after Presidents should have been fired. Not that tradition should be the precedent; Kitty Hawk, Connie, Sara, Midway, Lexington, America, Ranger all could have been re-used. The recommissioning of Enterprise was the best carrier name in a LONG time!! The Ford should have been Enterprise from the beginning. If we are going to name carriers after Presidents, they should at the very least have military experience. Just my thoughts. -brian AMEN Brian! This naming thing has really gotten poor lately. So many good and historical names to use... But to counter that, as soon as the USS Bush shows up off of your coast, you're going to think OIF or worse really quickly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Liberator24 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 How about names that sailors can come up with?? USS Nut Dragger USS Pipe Layer -Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yep, my personal thoughts as well, about the naming of the Carriers. Since the ex-USS America was used as a test bed for future carriers such as the CVN-78, I feel CVN-78 should have been named America in CV-66's honor. Good news then, LHA-6 is carrying on the tradition Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 But to counter that, as soon as the USS Bush shows up off of your coast, you're going to think OIF or worse really quickly. Technically you would be thinking Desert Storm since it's named after George Sr. Not a bad thing since OIF is hardly going to go down as a showcase of US military prowess. It's sad that the Navy chose to take this route, I'd limit them to the names of WW2 era carriers, that's it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Technically you would be thinking Desert Storm since it's named after George Sr. Not a bad thing since OIF is hardly going to go down as a showcase of US military prowess. Yeah, Bush Sr would remind you that we'll beat your a$$, but we won't deliver the final blow.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Beating a dead horse but out of 11 "Nimitz" class carriers 7 were laid down within a year of the death or in the case of the Reagan and Bush while their namesake was still living. Only Truman, TR, Washington and Lincoln were named for people dead well before the carrier was built (Truman being the most recent of these at 19 years). Don't want to forget the submarine USS Jimmy Carter (he is also still alive). Understand the push to name a carrier after JFK, a navy veteran and murdered sitting president, but that seems to have opened a flood gate of political patronage naming. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Understand the push to name a carrier after JFK, a navy veteran and murdered sitting president, but that seems to have opened a flood gate of political patronage naming. I agree with everyone about the issue, but I think the blame goes to the USS Franklin D Roosevelt, and I can't really blame them for that. It was WWII and they were running out of names for ships. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Beating a dead horse but out of 11 "Nimitz" class carriers 7 were laid down within a year of the death or in the case of the Reagan and Bush while their namesake was still living. Only Truman, TR, Washington and Lincoln were named for people dead well before the carrier was built (Truman being the most recent of these at 19 years). Don't want to forget the submarine USS Jimmy Carter (he is also still alive). Understand the push to name a carrier after JFK, a navy veteran and murdered sitting president, but that seems to have opened a flood gate of political patronage naming. Good points indeed. What is so ironic was the naming of the Ford. His service needs no explanation. He served and he fought. Period. His political career? IMHO; Was a little beyond weird, to say the least. He is the only vice-president AND president to NOT be elected into office. And his two years as president was, um, most peculiar. To describe it In one sentence: He was a manager, not a leader. I'm of the opinion that stealth campaigning by his daughter and others lead to successfully naming the new class after him. I'm also of the opinion that the new class carrier should have been named Enterprise after the great CV(N)-6. 'N' meaning Night. Enterprise was the only WWII carrier qualified as a night-fighting carrier. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) "Let us make sure that history never forgets the name....Enterprise." "Oh and BTW, shut up Wesley!" Edited November 26, 2014 by Tony Stark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 "Let us make sure that history never forgets the name....Enterprise." "Oh and BTW, shut up Wesley!" Amen And Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 26, 2014 Author Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Yeah, Bush Sr would remind you that we'll beat your a$$, but we won't deliver the final blow.... Yeah, what a dumb-a**. He accomplished the mission and then had the brains to stay out of what we found out later was a bottomless pit. Edited November 26, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yeah, what a dumb-a**. He accomplished the mission and then had the brains to stay out of what we found out later was a bottomless pit. "for ten years people asked me why we didn't 'finish the job'... I don't get that get question anymore" -James Baker. His political career? IMHO; Was a little beyond weird, to say the least. He is the only vice-president AND president to NOT be elected into office. And his two years as president was, um, most peculiar. To describe it In one sentence: He was a manager, not a leader. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Yeah, what a dumb-a**. He accomplished the mission and then had the brains to stay out of what we found out later was a bottomless pit. Yeah, well you are given the impression that you are going to help get rid of an oppressive, murdering monster, then watch as said oppressive, murdering monster systematically eliminates your people while waiting for assistance, or weapons, I guess that I would be pissed after 13 years too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Now THAT strikes fear in tax payers hearts! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ruud Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) i realize which Bush it is named after. Just more folks in the world will remember the second Bush. The naming of ships has gotten to be very political, and so has this thread :rolleyes:/> Edited November 27, 2014 by Ruud Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 11, 2017 Author Share Posted May 11, 2017 OMG, the digital catapults don't work. How much will it cost to retrofit the ship with reliable steam catapults? What a huge waste of taxpayer money. http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-navy-catapult-system-time-interview-2017-5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wxltcol Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Enterprise will be CVN-80. Construction starts next year, as of now. And yeah, good luck getting the catapults changed back to steam. Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Well, you know how those digital systems are, they either work - or they don't. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andrew.deboer Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 52 minutes ago, habu2 said: Well, you know how those digital systems are, they either work - or they don't. :) Are you saying that there are 10 types of people - those who understand binary and those who don't? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tosouthern66 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) This goes to show you that not all new technology is worth putting into service before it is really ready. They rushed this new catapult system for this ship and now we are seeing the results. They should have never changed it. I am glad to see that they are going to bring back the Enterprise name for a carrier. Edited May 13, 2017 by tosouthern66 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 4 hours ago, tosouthern66 said: This goes to show you that not all new technology is worth putting into service before it is really ready. They rushed this new catapult system for this ship and now we are seeing the results. They should have never changed it. I am glad to see that they are going to bring back the Enterprise name for a carrier. I wasn't aware that the next boat would be named Enterprise. Awesome choice, certainly beats naming them after hacks. Any idea what the next one in line will be called? Just hope it doesn't take to long to remove the crappy electronic cats and replace them with good old, reliable steam ones. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 6 hours ago, tosouthern66 said: This goes to show you that not all new technology is worth putting into service before it is really ready. They rushed this new catapult system for this ship and now we are seeing the results. New technology ??? Rushed ??? The TACAIR MNS (Mission Needs Statement) for EMALS was put out in 1995. EMALS first land-based launch, a T-45, was in 2010. Westinghouse developed a similar electric aircraft catapult in 1946, around the time linear induction motors were first developed. When compared to EMALS, the whole JSF > X-35 > F-35 program is "rushed".... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beauslx Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, tosouthern66 said: I am glad to see that they are going to bring back the Enterprise name for a carrier. Along with Lexington, Saratoga and Yorktown for CVN-81, 82 and 83. At least that's my thinking Edited May 13, 2017 by Beauslx 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.