New American aircraft carrier to be named after President Gerald Ford.

I actually respect Gerald Ford. If you do a little research, he accomplished a lot during a very short term in office. I don't agree with everything he did, but he was hardly bungling, inept, or for that matter, clumsy. That said, I am sick of seeing the Navy's carriers named after politicians. Traditionally, destroyers were named in honor of people, and if a DDG is good enough for Winston Churchill or the Sullivan Brothers, it's good enough for anyone. It's also (at least in my opinion) a waste to hang a President's name on a carrier while perfectly worthy names with decades of tradition languish unused...Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Intrepid, Hornet, and Enterprise all come to mind.

Does a person usually have to be deceased before he is able to have a military craft named after him. I know, dumb question but im just curious..

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Does a person usually have to be deceased before he is able to have a military craft named after him. I know, dumb question but im just curious..

That used to be the case. The tradition was broken for Ronald Reagan, then, just to keep things 'balanced', they named the third Seawolf the USS Jimmy Carter, and that pretty much ended the whole 'wait until the person is dead' idea.

Hi, Im new to ATS after trying unsuccessfully to join on & off for the last couple of years.

I totally agree with CH1466 except for his rejection of Enterprise. Carriers (and all capital ships) should be named after great figures, battles and traditional names, not politicised. We currently have a problem in Australia with the naming of new Canberra class LHD's after capital cities (Adelaide & Canberra). Instead of great battles like Gallipoli or Kokoda. Which of course means the capital cities will be eventually spread between 3 different classes of ship. Namely Canberra class LHD's, Adelaide class FFG-7 (yes it WILL be confusing!!) and eventually Hobart class AW destroyers. Of course this is all being driven by interstate rivalry and political pork barreling.(Sounding familliar guys?)

Names like Langley, Lexington, Saratoga, Hornet, Yorktown and yes Enterprise, evoke a positive historical image of the U.S. I would also suggest Coral Sea, Midway and possibly Leyte Gulf. But if you must name them after people how about Jimmy Doolittle, Halsey, Spruance, people who actually had something to do with famous carrier actions and naval tactics.

But finally, if you must name a carrier after a past president, why not one who people look up to like FDR. I mean he is the only U.S. president to be elected more than twice, he steered the country throught the depression, and WWII.

Naahh, I've got it all wrong haven't I? he wasn't a one term republican!

I'm deeply disappointed that SecNav caved in to political pressure and named the lead ship and class after President Ford. I served on USS America and lobbied with others for over a year to get the new carrier class named after a great ship that served her country well in both peace and war.

She was often screwed over by politicians during her commission so it's no surprise that it happened again.

In the early eighties she got screwed out of a Battle E that we worked our butts off for. The unoffical announcement that we had won was given to our skipper who told his happy crew, then had to retract it as the scoring period was extended to allow another nuke more time. Just happens that Congress critters were voting on money for more nuke carriers at that time. Wouldn't do to have oil-fired ships to win the Battle E!

She got screwed out of a SLEP to keep her going.

She got screwed out of a long effort to purchase her for a museum. Grumman had even donated the land in Long Island I believe, to base her. Nope!

She got screwed out of a long effort to buy part of her (the island structure) for the museum. Nope!

She was chosen for the wonderful honor of being the focus of a SINKEX and blasted until she sank in 16,000 ft of the Atlantic Ocean.

She got screwed out of having her ship's bell donated to the USS America museum. Last I heard, USS JFK (CV-67) was using it. Don't know what happened to the Kennedy's bell!

Test data from the SINKEX is being used to further survivability on the new class of carriers. An effort was launched by a large group of people (including schoolchildren, ex-ship's crew and other high-ranking naval officers) to have her name put back on a series of great warships. Nope!

I respect President Ford. He served his country when it asked him to. That makes a patriot in anybody's country. I believe this, though. If you would have asked HIM what to name the ship, I don't think he would have hesitated. Either America or United States!

Thanks to the forum for putting up with my little bitching session. I love my country and I loved my ship. I'm not ashamed to admit that to anybody.

I also think it is stupid to run down or hate somebody else. I have lived with many different people of many different nations and I respect them and believe that they have the right to be proud of their own countries and that particular country's achievements.

Thanks to all of America's allies and friends. To those that are not, I wish we can find ways to become so.

Peace and God bless!

I'm not American but I would like to suggest the follwing names:

~ USS America

~ USS Spirit

~ USS Lexington

~ USS Independance.

Also is it rue that the enterprise can get up to 50 knots? i've heard this from different people and just wondred

Names I would have given CVN-78:

Actually, the Gerald Ford seems just fine.

To give a capital ship the name of our country would be like saying "This single one vessel is the ultimate and only one." When simply it is similar construction to several others while varying to some degree.

Giving the name of our country to a Capital Ship should be reserved the most awsomest ship to ever hit the oceans if awsomest was ever a word which I don't believe it is.

Shattered OUT...

The USS Rumsfeld sounds like a fine name to me.

Motto: "It seemed like a good idea at the time"

USS Cock Up

USS Failure

USS Can't get anything right

Originally posted by UK Alien Buff
I'm not American but I would like to suggest the follwing names:

~ USS America

~ USS Spirit

~ USS Lexington

~ USS Independance.

Also is it rue that the enterprise can get up to 50 knots? i've heard this from different people and just wondred

50 knots? Nope.
The '50 knot' legend comes from a massive bit of over-engineering. The Enterprise is essentially a nuclearized version of the Forrestal class, and the designers basically replaced boiler rooms with nuclear reactors on a one-for-one basis, and the Enterprise wound up with eight of them. The later Nimitz classes were built with two reactors of a more efficient design and are capable of 30-33 knots. Well...if two reactors can move a ship at 30 knots, obviously, eight can move one a whole lot faster, right? Wrong. It's not a question of available power, it's a question of how much power can be efficiently used by the ship's propellers...and that number is about the same for the Enterprise, or any other ship with similarly designed props. The Big E can do between 30 and 33 knots depending on sea state and hull condition...she just has a lot of reserve power while doing it. If you want a much better look at the stuff I just mentioned, I'd suggest Norman Friedman's "U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History".

Another thing that probably helped give rise to the '50 knot' legend is that it is *very* possible for the Enterprise (or any of the other nuclear CVs) to sustain 45-50 knots of wind over the deck by steaming at full power into a 15-20 knot headwind.

I can't verify this but it was scuttlebutt that USS America did 39 knots during a high-speed run during work-ups (minus air-wing). I'm not claiming this as any kind of record, but made folks happy that she could do that speed.

I am happy to see that America was cover photo on the last ed of Military History magazine. Plus, with Kennedy decommish maybe we'll get our ship's bell back.

I don't think naming a warship after America indicates the ultimate in a ship; we had a warship named America between 1961-1996 and didn't cause any problems then.

God bless.

I'm certain the carriers have the raw power to go really fast, even outrun the frigates and destroyers. Maybe go past 50+knots. However the carriers are limited what it can handle. Don't want to push beyond what the machinery in the engine room can handle.

It's an urban legend, our supercarriers (in any configuration) can't even get close to 40 knots let alone go 50 or above. Most carriers we have average between 30 and 33, I'd be impressed if they could reach 35 knots. Now with a carrier that's missing it's air wing and a lot of other supplies plus equipment you could maybe go up in the upper thirties but even then I'd still be extremely suspicious.

Good read...

Link

That was a good read!

Like I said, my "info' was purely anecdotal but it was immediate in the sense that my div. off. (Ltjg Sciancelapore S-1m div, Supply Dept., USS America) told us that same day and that he had got "the gen" from the ship's navigator. Certainly not proof positive but also not obtained months later while having a brew at the Mermaid's Lounge!

However, I wouldn't have any problem with it not being true and I did like the link. Thanks for the info AND the Avatar!

Peace.

Mike

To answer the poster who asked whether there were any other pre WWII carriers left after VJ Day. There were three: USS Ranger, USS Saratoga, and USS Enterprise, also the first of the escort carriers Long Island also survived the war I believe.

Of the Japanese carriers that were built prior to the hostilities IJN Hosho survived...last as it was the first. I believe only the HMS Furious and HMS Argus were the only British carriers still standing, unless HMS Illustrious was off the ways prior to WWII.

To address the thread: USS Enterprise should be the lead ship, or USS America. 'course USS Gerald Ford would be nothing to be ashamed of, either.

reply to post by deltaboy


I think it would be appropriate to name CVN-78 for the "Enterprise" or the "America". Both names are ultimately linked with our country historically and with the World in general. It would be most unfortunate if the Navy refused to recognize the importance of carrying on some tradition from ships past.

Gerald who now?

I'm sorry, I just had to make a joke about our ridiculously expensive and useless military carriers that are used to make America's balls look bigger than all of Europe.

A man that was never elected president, nor vice president does not deserve the honor. I like Gerald Ford but I think its a stretch. I thing the George H.W. Bush is a stretch too!

I think Clinton deserves one before any of the Bush's!

What's next the USS Millard Filmore, James Buchanan!

Some Suggestions

USS Tom Cruise

USS Jack Ryan

USS Jack Bauer

USS Clint Eastwood

reply to post by mel1962


Politics is very Occult by its very nature. Thus meaning much of what happens or transpires in politics is hidden, esoteric, concealed from the general public...not known.

The selection of names for a ship is as well ..very political. Particularly a capital ship like an aircraft carrier.

What this tells you is that Gerald Ford, in the Occult pecking order, contributed more than Bill Clinton in a manner not known by the general public.

George Bush, the elder, was a Navy pilot. His contributions would come more in line with being director of the CIA..much of what he did in this capacity will never be known by the general public. You cannot say this about Bill Clinton's service....ever.

This is known informations by peoples who can think things through outside the standard formats of what passes for emotional thinking/justification today.
I was on board the USS Carl Vinson yesterday. CVN 70. Neither is the USS John C. Stennis CVN 74 nor the USS Nimitz CVN 68, named for a past presidents as well. Not all capital ships are named for presidents.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom


[edit on 10-1-2009 by orangetom1999]