CVN-78 Gerald W Ford

[Dreadnought]

I generally agree, but there are certain problems.

In the past, if a ship is named for a state or a city, it was plausible to get the namesake to sponsor the recreation fund. So that might work if the boat is the USS Los Angels but not if it is the USS Orca.

The thing with States is that it usually went to the most powerful ship type in the Fleet. So what's the most powerful ship in the Fleet? How do we decide that?

Cities can be a toughie since there are so many of them, so then it gets broken down into certain cities for certain ships. I know that, others may know that, but to the general public, do they know that, the why?

But the thing about States and Cities and "Fish" is that they are probably safe. Most of the time (ie, City of Corpus Christi). When one gets into people though, no one is perfect, groups can always find something not to like about someone. Regardless of what they did good, many will always see bad. Such as Henry J. Kaiser.

Or for that matter, Oberon. When I found out who the mythical Oberon was and realized that a class of export and "local" (Royal Navy) submarines had been named for him, to be used in various navies around the world, I had to giggle at that one, wondering what IDIOT came up with that...........oh, well; perhaps the connotation does not mean the same in Commonwealth circles.

As far as Native American goes, well perhaps that should be left to the Army. There is such a thing as too much.

Character qualities are good, but three things. First of all, I think at some point one will reach the conclusion that we just picked up a thesaurus and named ships by it. When that realization occurs, I think any feel for what the ship's name delivers to the ship will be lost.

Secondly, will it (or should it) mean anything to anyone, to the crew? Me, I'm a very adjective/adverb oriented person. When I was in my 20's (and someone did give me a thesaurus), I tried to be brash, dashing, bold (and other such words). Now, I get a kick out of it when someone compliments me, tells me that I'm audacious. I am known for going to extremes for what I want, to keep on going when others would have turned back, to show up where I am not expected. I live for it. BUT, do we want the young sailor on the Audacious to be such, to constantly push the "It is far easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask permission"? How do we draw the line of what the ship should be and what the crew should be?

Finally, for those words we use to name ships, how soon will it be before the word is associated with some stupid TV show instead?

I am a firm believer that we should not name things after living people and when it comes to ships, I like this proposal:

If the ship is named after someone still alive, then the namesake should be sacrificed on the ways when the ship is launched.

1) Man O War (Prior to the iron age of ships)
2) The Battleships (Considered to be Capital ships)
3) The Submarines (The new Capital Ships post WWII)

[Tamara]

1) Man O War (Prior to the iron age of ships)
2) The Battleships (Considered to be Capital ships)
3) The Submarines (The new Capital Ships post WWII)

Are things that simple?

While the Fleet Ballistic are indeed the most powerful, they are a weapon not to be used for if they are used, it is over.

WWII reduced the BB in importance and made the CV more, so are CV's now capital ships? Well, they certainly can be given the explosive power they do have which can be used. Of course, one of the problems with that, if they are, is that the few we have will be around for a very long time and we have 50 states. Many states will be short changed for decades, so how does one decide which one gets one?

Plus, these days, there is another factor besides explosive power and that is the accuracy one can deliver it at. Being able to shell the guy with lots of gun powder is great but it is even better if you can deliver one hit that will kill him.

Details, details.............

I actually like the Polaris naming program for those Americans, north and south, who advanced freedom. Of course, we were in the Cold War at the time, so there's a double whammy there.

How do decide?

[Pacfanweb]

Is Ford getting a CV any worse than The Randolph, Forrestal, Vinson or Stennis?

Of those only Forrestal served.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin didn't serve in the military, either. I don't think that is or should be a prerequisite, but IMO for a capital ship the namesake should have done something pretty significant for his/her country.

Stennis was known as "father of America's modern Navy", so I can see that as a pretty significant contribution, as with Vinson, who was "father of the two-ocean Navy".

Ford, again...I think he was a good, humble man, but honestly, what did he actually DO, other than pardon Nixon? If they're going to name ships for Presidents, at least let them be ELECTED Presidents, IMO.

Again, not bashing the guy at all, just wondering about the thought process behind the naming of these ships.

[Dreadnought]

Navy christens newest, most efficient carrier - the USS Gerald Ford
By Larry Shaughnessy

The U.S. Navy entered the 22nd century on Saturday.

In Newport News, Virginia, the Navy christened its newest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford.

This nuclear-powered ship is the first of a new class of at least 10 carriers that the Navy expects will be steaming the seas, protecting the United States well into the next century.

The Ford itself is projected to stay in service until 2057.

This carrier is state-of-the-art in naval architecture, according to news releases from the Navy and the shipbuilder.

For example, the Ford will use electromagnetic force, similar to how modern roller coasters are propelled, to catapult planes off the deck instead of the pressurized steam used in today's fleet.

The arresting gear that grabs planes when they land will be software-controlled, with the goal being less wear and tear on the planes.

'Son of a Blackbird': Plan for new spy plane

The ship looks much like the current Nimitz-class carriers. It's roughly the same length, width and weight.

But the island - the superstructure that rises above the flight deck - is skinnier, taller and set farther aft on the ship, allowing for more flight-deck operations and plane maintenance. It's also part of the reason the Ford will be able to carry more warplanes and launch 25% more air missions per day than the current carriers in the fleet, according to the Navy.

Below the waterline its four 30-ton propellers will be driven by two newly-designed nuclear reactors.

The planes that will eventually be jumping off its deck in the decades ahead haven't even been designed yet. It remains to be seen if those planes have pilots or will be controlled by operators with computers who will "fly" the aircraft from the safety of a remote location.

This new class of carriers is designed with built-in flexibility to accommodate future Navy decisions about aircraft and missions.

And it's designed to do all this on the cheap. Most of the lights in the ship will use high-efficiency bulbs that will last twice as long between changes. And the ship is designed to require 30% less maintenance over its lifespan.

Bigger, lighter, deadlier! Navy launches new stealth destroyer

Finally and most importantly, because of designed efficiencies, it'll put to sea with 1,000 fewer sailors and Marines than a Nimitz-class carrier. Over the life of the Ford, the efficiency of the ship, the Navy said, will save $4 billion.

The ship is named after President Gerald R. Ford who served on the carrier USS Monterey during World War II and who later became President when Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

"It's very fitting that our next carrier, a ship that will calm the unknown crises of the future by its very presence offshore, will be named for President Gerald Ford," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said at the ship's keel-laying.

The push to name the ship after Ford began years ago and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld actually told Ford about the ship's name months before Ford's death in 2006, making the new carrier one of the few Navy ships named after a living person.

"How fitting it will be that the name Gerald R. Ford will patrol the high seas for decades to come, in the defense of the nation he loved so much," Rumsfeld said at Ford's funeral.

Ford's daughter, Susan Ford Bales, had the honor of breaking the traditional bottle of champagne on the ship's bow as it is launched.

Capt. John F. Meier has already been named as the ship's first commanding officer. He will be responsible for monitoring the final months of construction and likely be onboard when the Ford goes on its first sea trials.

"I'm thrilled to be here," Meier said in a Navy release last summer. "I couldn't ask for a better assignment or a greater honor."

But as the Navy launches its newest carrier, not all is well in the land of flattops.

Just last month, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, conceded that because of budget issues the Navy may have to reconsider how many aircraft carriers it will keep in the fleet

"You have to go where the money is, and carriers and air wings are quite expensive," Greenert said, according to a Virginia newspaper, the Daily Press. "I'd hate to say it is inevitable, but we have to look very hard at it."

[Dreadnought]

Are things that simple?

While the Fleet Ballistic are indeed the most powerful, they are a weapon not to be used for if they are used, it is over.

WWII reduced the BB in importance and made the CV more, so are CV's now capital ships? Well, they certainly can be given the explosive power they do have which can be used. Of course, one of the problems with that, if they are, is that the few we have will be around for a very long time and we have 50 states. Many states will be short changed for decades, so how does one decide which one gets one?

Plus, these days, there is another factor besides explosive power and that is the accuracy one can deliver it at. Being able to shell the guy with lots of gun powder is great but it is even better if you can deliver one hit that will kill him.

Details, details.............

I actually like the Polaris naming program for those Americans, north and south, who advanced freedom. Of course, we were in the Cold War at the time, so there's a double whammy there.

How do decide?

*You have to remember that back then (1700's and foreward) showing the Flag was of great importance to any civilized county. It was also a symbol of man made achievement in the industrial age. The BB's were given state names due much in part of their size, build, firepower and their ability to project strength abroad since they stayed at sea longer then other ships and traveled farther wether it was sail or steam (or combo electric) power.

Back then, you didnt have a Navy unless you had big ships with big firepower and thus was counted by how many battleships you had in your navy. Thats how you were ranked on the worlds stage.

With the subs, its knowing they carry the most feared weapons of all, the Nukes and are unseen, so they also carry the "lore" that they can be just about anywhere and any given time within striking distance.

Everyone knows a sub carries torpedoes, but its the nukes they fear most unless ofcoarse you are a sailor, then you fear the torpedo more then anything.

The USN has a system of how and what classes of ships were named. They have also been known to make "special exceptions" as too how they are named.

Take USS New York LPD 21 for instance. An amphibious ship. The former was USS New York BB 34. A battleship.

[Tamara]

I disagree on the submarine part, sort of.

Let a port think there is a submarine out there somewhere and that port can be bottled up without firing a shot.

Now, in part, those are sailors, they know, and it supports what was said above. But then again, the port depends on the sailors so others know it, too.

[tbm3fan]

Have a naming hierarchy and stick with it. States, cities, founding fathers, slain leaders, character qualities ( think resolute or intrepid ), famous battles, MOH recipients, marine creatures, native american names/tribes, etc.
When you start naming things after current politicians, activists, etc it becomes too political and doesn't do the vessel justice. Name should inspire or promote certain qualites.
Just my thought anyway.

Deja vu! I remember some years ago Dreadnought and I had the same round and round discussion. Kind of went like this :bang:

[TopHatter]

Let's face it: New warships mean construction dollars and highly visible prestige. And construction dollars/prestige mean politics. End Of Story.

[Gun Grape]

The USN has a system of how and what classes of ships were named. They have also been known to make "special exceptions" as too how they are named.

Take USS New York LPD 21 for instance. An amphibious ship. The former was USS New York BB 34. A battleship.

But that was a system when we had somewhere around 30-40 classes of warships.

Now we are around 10.

There will never be another BB. So do we stop naming ships for States?

No more LSTs. Do we stop naming ships after cities?

This isn't a new thing BTW. George Washington, as 1st President asked that the first 6 ships of the US Navy be named/Inspired by the Constitution.

We got Constitution, United States, President , Congress, Constellation. Then the Navy Secretary named the last one USS Chesapeake after the Chesapeake Bay.

The first Congress also had them built at 6 different shipyards in different States to stimulate the local economies (sound familiar?)

[Dreadnought]

But that was a system when we had somewhere around 30-40 classes of warships.

Now we are around 10.

There will never be another BB. So do we stop naming ships for States?

No more LSTs. Do we stop naming ships after cities?

This isn't a new thing BTW. George Washington, as 1st President asked that the first 6 ships of the US Navy be named/Inspired by the Constitution.

We got Constitution, United States, President , Congress, Constellation. Then the Navy Secretary named the last one USS Chesapeake after the Chesapeake Bay.

The first Congress also had them built at 6 different shipyards in different States to stimulate the local economies (sound familiar?)

Agreed GG, Nope the Subs deserve them, they pretty are the capital ships (nukes). The navy just launched/christened USS North Dakota, and we already have the LCS Freedom and Independence and your newer LPD's well next one to be christened is Somerset (After Somerset PA a town 911 related) here in Philly so basically were looking at the Subs getting the states (Except New York), the LCS following the patriotic scenario and the CVN's still following the Presidents with service and hopefully the classics from prior years and the DDG's following people of signifigant service to the country.

Well, so far atleast. I still like the older system for oilers, stores ships etc.

[desertswo]

Is that Admiral there also a relative to the late President?

Do you guys think that saluting to a model is OK?

There's nothing "Rear" about the flag officer in the photo Dok. He's a four-star; in our parlance, an Admiral.

It's a PR photo op. They aren't doing anything adverse in my opinion. Generally speaking, members of the US Navy do not salute indoors unless in a duty status (e.g. relieving the watch), or uncovered. The Army does both, and will salute even if not in uniform; a situation that always caught me up short. The only person we generally salute multiple times in one day is the Commanding Officer. Other than that, no other officer is saluted within the confines of a ship or building. We'd be saluting all day if we did.

[SlaterDoc]

Do you guys think that saluting to a model is OK?

I'm with the Captain on that one!
But, I would also rather attribute the salute being to the man! Much in the same way as when a wreath is tossed into the sea in memoriam of those that are on Eternal Duty. The salute is to the men and their memory for their service and sacrifice. So no, the model is not the recipient!

I have noticed lately that even in the Navy there is some "uncovered" saluting! Have they abandoned even that tradition and no longer teach it to recruits??:pari:

As for the "naming after Presidents", actually every US president serves at least four years in the military since as President the are the Commander in Chief. I wonder how that little tidbit tastes to some?? Hmmm....now doesn't that make Bill and Barry veterans?? hehehe

[Doktor]

There's nothing "Rear" about the flag officer in the photo Dok. He's a four-star; in our parlance, an Admiral.

I am a civvie, but I know that much, Captain. Hence why I said he's an Admiral, Sir ;)

It's a PR photo op. They aren't doing anything adverse in my opinion. Generally speaking, members of the US Navy do not salute indoors unless in a duty status (e.g. relieving the watch), or uncovered. The Army does both, and will salute even if not in uniform; a situation that always caught me up short. The only person we generally salute multiple times in one day is the Commanding Officer. Other than that, no other officer is saluted within the confines of a ship or building. We'd be saluting all day if we did.

Yet the uniformed 4 star officer salutes indoor, even more to a model. I find it confusing.

Thanks for the reply.

[desertswo]

Could have sworn it said Rear Admiral . . . strange.

Like I said, it's a photo op. I never saluted anyone when I was on the Joint Staff and there were a lot of stars running around that place. Simple O-6s like me were often reduced to be glorified coffee gofers.

[SlaterDoc]

Could have sworn it said Rear Admiral . . . strange.

Like I said, it's a photo op. I never saluted anyone when I was on the Joint Staff and there were a lot of stars running around that place. Simple O-6s like me were often reduced to be glorified coffee gofers.

Skipper, I take mine with 1 sugar and 1 ounce of Bailey's!