It a PDF file you need a reader to open this up
http://www.set-az.com/user/USS%20Arizona%20Proposal.pdf
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
BB64 |
USS Arizona as carrier? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 568 (10-Feb-2008 10:23:08) |
I found this on the web looking up info on the Ford Class and I found this...
It a PDF file you need a reader to open this up http://www.set-az.com/user/USS%20Arizona%20Proposal.pdf |
||
Sachmle |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 9 (10-Feb-2008 11:24:00) |
Interesting, and while not an unthinkable idea, highly unlikely to occur. I took lobbyists and nudges from people far more important (to the government) than
this gentleman to get the CVN-79 named after President Ford. I doubt highly they will change their minds now.
|
||
SeaTurtle Prince |
"Aircraft carriers are usually named after presidents..." | ||
|
Posts: 264 (11-Feb-2008 22:48:50) |
This guy must not have looked back too far into history. We had a much better CV naming convention _before_ we started naming them after presidents. |
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3456 (12-Feb-2008 00:46:55) |
I think that a comment attributed to Rickover, when questioned about the name chosen for the USS Lipscomb: "fish don't vote." I'm just hoping
that we don't get a USS CPAC or USS Linda Bloodworth Thomas.
|
||
Captain Cee J |
|||
|
Posts: 1298 (12-Feb-2008 04:28:26) |
IMHO the USS Arizona as a CVN would not be a good thing. I think Arizona should not be reused, especially not for a carrier, which were never named for states.
Should for some unforeseeable reason a modern battleship ever be needed and produced, then I would favor naming the lead ship Arizona. Just my $.02.
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3459 (13-Feb-2008 02:19:22) |
Captain Cee J wrote: iirc, the original naming scheme for carriers was after battles (Saratoga) and famous ships (Constellation). Arizona would certainly fall into the latter category. In any case, states' names were used for the most powerful warships, which (currently) are either carriers (which are, unfortunately, being used to reward living politicians) or SSBN (as in the Ohio class). |
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2799 (13-Feb-2008 05:30:46) |
emc wrote:Or USS Connecticut SSN-22, Or the Virginia class SSNs: block I Virginia SSN-774 Texas SSN-775 Hawaii SSN-776 North Carolina SSN-777 (Under trials, scheduled commissioning date May 03, 2008) block II *New Hampshire SSN-778 *New Mexico SSN-779 **Missouri SSN-780 **California SSN-781 ** Mississippi SSN-782 ** SSN-783 (unnamed, but to be a state) * under construction ** ordered |
||
Captain Cee J |
|||
|
Posts: 1299 (13-Feb-2008 15:56:53) |
emc wrote: |
||
Sachmle |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 18 (14-Feb-2008 15:58:02) |
emc wrote: What? Arizona isn't a famous ship
|
||
bennett0 |
|||
|
Posts: 289 (15-Feb-2008 03:35:50) |
"Famous ships of the Old Navy" actually meant famous SUCCESSFUL ships of the Old Navy, or at least ones that had put up a memorable fight before
losing. They never used (or probably even considered) Chesapeake, President
or Argus for example. Obviously they used Essex, but I'm not sure
whether that was because of her exploits before Valpariso or the fight she put up there. IMHO, President and Chesapeake probably deserved better. They both put up respectable fights
before surrendering, but I suspect they were considered unlucky.
Bennett |
||
Mark F |
|||
|
Posts: 2371 (18-Feb-2008 20:51:56) |
SeaTurtle Prince wrote: Correction: Republican presidents |
||
Theodore |
|||
|
Posts: 8427 (18-Feb-2008 22:13:29) Wheat Boss |
I'll see your correction and raise you two carriers named for Democratic presidents (and a third named for a SecNav/SecDef in Democratic administrations)
before the first named for a Republican president. Both parties have treated carrier names as political prizes in recent years, but if we're going to play
the "he started it" game, we might as well be historically accurate.
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3472 (19-Feb-2008 01:17:14) |
Theodore wrote: Yeah, but FDR, JFK, Truman, and Forrestal were dead at the time the ships were named after them. I don't
object to naming ships after presidents, senators, or random members of Congress. After they're dead. Ford, Reagan, and Bush were alive at the
time. Of course, even this isn't quite as bad as naming a ship after the president's niece (Harriet Lane) .
imho, no government-owned ship or government property should be named after a living person. Ever. Indeed, I think that their should be waiting period of at least 25 years after a person's death before their name can be used, possibly excluding Medal of Honor winners. And I'm not even fond of Connecticut's tradition of naming its main National Guard base, currently Camp Rell, after the sitting governor. (So, in my lifetime it's been at least Camp Ribicoff, Meskill, Grasso, O'Neil, Weicker, Rowland, and Rell). |
||
jemb |
|||
|
Posts: 671 (23-Feb-2008 23:19:13) |
The petitioner is mistaken, as well as a poor writer: Congressman Vinson and Senator Stennis weren't presidents. [They hadn't been sailors but had
politically supported the USN. You could argue they should have become destroyers - or SSBN726s, with that class following previuos SSBN naming policy and the
more visible CG47s following previous CGNs with state names - but let's not get off the subject!]
When the USN ordered its 1st battle cruisers - the Lexington Class - they named them after famous (and successful) USN ships - of which Lex and Sara happened to have been named for battles. When the 1922 Washington Treaty cancelled the CBs (and 2 were converted to carriers), planners figured they'd need CVs, not CBs, in the future, so this line of naming was transferred to CVs. At the time, the USN didn't have that many well-known historic ships (compared to the number of CVs WW2 required), so the later WW2 ships got names of battles that hadn't previously been ships. So ARIZONA is a state, but a famous battle too - just as Yorktown, Princeton, etc. are famous as both ships and battles. |
||
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2424 (24-Feb-2008 04:01:50) |
Ahoj!
EMC - my sentiment exactly. Regardless of my respect for John Paul 2nd, I hate to have every other thing in my city (re)named after him. During his lifetime too. Borys |
||
Kwajalein |
|||
|
Posts: 142 (25-Feb-2008 16:10:57) |
I'm not particularly fond of naming ships after people at all. Cities, states, battles, marine life, heroic adjectives (Intrepid), and whatever Enterprise
could be considered would work fine in my opinion. I remember reading a book about carriers in high school, and one sentence describing the new carrier John C.
Stennis would go on to refer it as "she".
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3488 (25-Feb-2008 17:33:04) |
Kwajalein wrote: I don't have dogmatic opposition to naming ships after people, even politicians, so long as they're dead at the time: things (not just ships) are
named after people to memorialize them, and one can't be memorialized before one is dead.
|
||
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3416 (25-Feb-2008 18:58:58) |
well..........
a President McCain might be more inclined to name a carrier "Arizona"...... in my view the name Arizona should forever more be attached to one ship and one ship only. |
||
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2820 (25-Feb-2008 21:34:50) |
Arizona is NOT a battle!!
USS Arizona is JUST ONE of the ships sunk during the Battle of Pearl Harbor, which also included fatr more facilitires, and personnel than just those on one ship. While the Arizona Memorial is also used to honor the entire battle, and its participants, it is primarily a memorial to the one ship. No history book ever talks of "The Battle of the Arizona", but all that cover the period speak of "Pearl Harbor". Therefore, if you want a ship named after the battle that took place in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941 you must name it "USS Pearl Harbor"! |
||
Freedom Eagle |
|||
|
Posts: 186 ( 6-Apr-2008 22:41:07) |
Seems to me we came name a carrier any type of name we want. (i.e. battle, state, politician, naval hero, after other former ships)
|
||
NoOneFamous |
|||
|
Posts: 1170 ( 7-Apr-2008 18:14:43) |
|
||