| 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 |
||
