quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

they better name the second ford class Enterprise for sure though

Or else I know a lot of folks that will be STEAMING!!![:@] The name Ford was not taken too well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

they better name the second ford class Enterprise for sure though

Or else I know a lot of folks that will be STEAMING!!![:@] The name Ford was not taken too well.

yeah i was not happy. when did we start naming carriers fro presidents anyway? granted a few deserved it but not all

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL
...
Up until that point, they named transports after presidents. It should have stayed that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

they better name the second ford class Enterprise for sure though

Or else I know a lot of folks that will be STEAMING!!![:@] The name Ford was not taken too well.

yeah i was not happy. when did we start naming carriers fro presidents anyway? granted a few deserved it but not all

It started with the Roosevelt. In my opinion, they shoud have never allowed any changes to the naming conventions of USN ships! [:@] I believe the last CV named after a battle was the Saratoga-CV60 or maybe it was the new Ranger. I can't remember now.

Up until that point, they named transports after presidents. It should have stayed that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm going to puke my poutine!

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm going to puke my poutine!

wats poutine and why would u wanna puke it [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

That's Washington and Enterprise going back to New York in 1945.

That's right Rev. I believe it is the last time the Big E would see the Pacific......then she was scrapped.[8|]

that was criminal to scrap her

just as criminal is the Navys naming of the new carrier class of Gerald Ford

we all know it should be the Enterprise class!!! [:@]

Agreed!


Well, at least we can all take comfort in that the next CV class lead will be named USS H. Obama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Hi Tom,

just to add a point to the original question it's both the NC and the Washington! On the first two pictures it's definitely the NC, you can easily judge this from the plus platform on the fire control tower. In fact there are some much etter quality pics in Classic Warships Publishing's Warship Pictorial serias about the NC class, they both accompanied Enterprise (there is a nice pic showing all three together).

It was really difficult to tel them from each other at this point due to the similar camo from a distance, but there still were minor differences (very much like today's Nimitz class ships - while seemingly they are the same there are not two of them that are even close to each other in detail :)).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pistachio

Nice shots - tight squeeze in the locks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I think that naming carriers after people is a mistake.  It makes it a political decision: do something nice for the navy and they will name a ship after you.  One of the current carriers is named after a US senator who most people don't even remember.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I think that naming carriers after people is a mistake.  It makes it a political decision: do something nice for the navy and they will name a ship after you.  One of the current carriers is named after a US senator who most people don't even remember.

If the navy wants to name ships after people, it should wait until they've been dead long enough for their legacy to settle out to a consensus.  Most people agree about the legacy of Lincoln or Washington.  FDR's legacy is just beginning to settle out.  There is no such consensus about the more recent politicians that have carriers named after them.  I think it's embarassing to be naming carriers after politicians who are either alive, or recently deceased.

As far as the political opinions about recent and current politicians go, I think they are verbotten on this forum, so I will refrain from comment.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I think that naming carriers after people is a mistake.  It makes it a political decision: do something nice for the navy and they will name a ship after you.  One of the current carriers is named after a US senator who most people don't even remember.

If the navy wants to name ships after people, it should wait until they've been dead long enough for their legacy to settle out to a consensus.  Most people agree about the legacy of Lincoln or Washington.  FDR's legacy is just beginning to settle out.  There is no such consensus about the more recent politicians that have carriers named after them.  I think it's embarassing to be naming carriers after politicians who are either alive, or recently deceased.

As far as the political opinions about recent and current politicians go, I think they are verbotten on this forum, so I will refrain from comment.

Bill

Actually John Stennis and Carl Vinson were both Congressmen, not Senators. To my knowledge the only Carriers Named people who had been senators are Harry Truman and John F Kennedy. (Who later were Presidents).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

...Paris Hilton?[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

...Paris Hilton?[8|]

What would her color scheme be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

...Paris Hilton?[8|]

What would her color scheme be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

...Paris Hilton?[8|]

What would her color scheme be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Ranger is what??? Enterprise defies categorization. Then went to bugs (Wasp and Hornet)."

The pre-WW2 convention was to name aircraft carriers after either battles or historical ships of the US Navy. Every one of those four names had been used by US Navy ships prior to 1820.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I think that naming carriers after people is a mistake.  It makes it a political decision: do something nice for the navy and they will name a ship after you.  One of the current carriers is named after a US senator who most people don't even remember.

If the navy wants to name ships after people, it should wait until they've been dead long enough for their legacy to settle out to a consensus.  Most people agree about the legacy of Lincoln or Washington.  FDR's legacy is just beginning to settle out.  There is no such consensus about the more recent politicians that have carriers named after them.  I think it's embarassing to be naming carriers after politicians who are either alive, or recently deceased.

As far as the political opinions about recent and current politicians go, I think they are verbotten on this forum, so I will refrain from comment.

Bill

Actually John Stennis and Carl Vinson were both Congressmen, not Senators. To my knowledge the only Carriers Named people who had been senators are Harry Truman and John F Kennedy. (Who later were Presidents).

Stennis was a US Senator and instrumental in getting the appropriations bill through congress to authorize building the Nimitz class CVN's. He has been called "the father of the modern US Navy". Vinson served in the House for 51 years!!!!![X(] He cowrote the legislation leading to the US Navy build up for WWII including the Two Ocean Navy Act. Ronald Reagon was the president who worked with Stennis. Tedddy Roosevelt of course sent the Great WHite Fleet around the world. So all this men have very strong Navy ties. As to the rest - well, once you open that can of worms its hard to get it closed.

The USN has undergone some weird gyrations as far as ships names over the past 50 years. Cruisers were named after citys until the Ticongeroga Class started the convention of naming them after battles. The City mantle was passes to submarines with the Los Angeles class but now has been passed to amphibious ships (San Antonio class). Battle ships were named after states now passed to SSBN's.

The USN has never figured out what to do with Naming carriers. Started with a place (Langley). Moved to battles (Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown). Ranger is what??? Enterprise defies categorization. Then went to bugs (Wasp and Hornet). Essex class were battles again but Intrepid, bon Homme Richard, and Shangra La and others snuck in there. Midway class but FDR snuck in there. Then they started recycling names. Then complete aimlessness (Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, America). Then they went to people and have at least stuck with that since.

The only thing the USN has stuck by is naming DD/FF after naval heroes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Langley was actually named after Samuel Langley who was a naval aviation pioneer. He was a contemporary of the Wright Brothers and was among the first people to attempt launching planes from ships.

Most of the early carriers were named after famous ships of the Navy. That's where the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet, Ranger, etc. came from. The Lexington and Saratoga were laid down as battle cruisers, which were going to be named after Revolutionary War battles. They kept their names and started a parallel tradition of naming carriers after battles. Most of the CVs and CVLs built during the war were named after battles, but some got names of famous past ships like the Independence.

I believe the Franklin was the first carrier named after a person since the Langley. It was officially named after Ben Franklin, but with a nod and a wink to FDR.

Bill
There were severeal "old ships of the USN" names after people. Thats where we get Franklin, Cabot, Randolph and Hancock. Techically speaking , so Was Washington. And post Civil war we had Abraham Linclon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

...Paris Hilton?[8|]

What would her color scheme be?