StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The USS Robert E. Lee was the third nuclear-powered fleet ballistic missile submarine to join the fleet. She started life as a Fast Attack and 26 years later, she ended her service by once more becoming a Fast Attack (click here to see her final days page). Her keel was laid on Shipway 5 Aug. 25, 1958, less than a month after her contract was signed on July 30. She was to become the USS Shark (SSN-591), Newport News Shipyard Hull No 545, as one of the boats in the modified Skipjack class (SSN-585) design. Although the contract for Shark had been awarded almost 18 months earlier than that of Robert E. Lee, the Polaris program had priority, so the Lee was completed first. Robert E. Lee and her four sisters in the George Washington Class (SSBN-598) that were built at other shipyards all started as a modified Skipjack-class design with a 130-foot missile section containing 16 Polaris tubes added amidships. Like the others in the 598 Class, the Lee's construction was expedited and she was launched on Dec. 18, 1959.

The Lee is the first U.S. Navy ship to bear the name of the famous confederate general and the first nuclear submarine to have been built in the South. She was the first nuclear ship to be built at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company. The christening ceremony for Robert E. Lee was a festive one in tradition of the Old South, and Gen. Lee’s granddaughter Mrs. Hanson E. Ely, JR., served as sponsor. Robert E. Lee fired a water salvo from her missile tubes during the launching of Enterprise (CVAN-65) and completed highly successful sea trials before being commissioned at the shipyard. Another descendent of General Lee, Vice Admiral Fitzhugh Lee, USN, was the principal speaker when the ship was commissioned on September 16, 1960.

And, your point is...?

Patrick Degan wrote:And, your point is...?

For Shep to gloat. There isn't any real point to this at all.

The irony is that is named after a Confederate general, and the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

Simon H.Johansen wrote:The irony is that is named after a Confederate general, and the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

Do you realizes how many US military Vehicles, ships and bases are named for Southern civil war Commanders? The number is rather high.

Mind you the Confederacy was the first group to actually SINK anything with a sub....

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Mind you the Confederacy was the first group to actually SINK anything with a sub....

It would be pretty kickass to see a SSXN class USS Hunley.

True but they won't do it, because the Hunley didn't exactly survive it's first contact with the enemy.

I think the point is that the PC people wouldn't approve of that, because they'd say Lee was racist.

I'd find if funny if there was a USS Bill Clinton, though.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I think the point is that the PC people wouldn't approve of that, because they'd say Lee was racist.

I'd find if funny if there was a USS Bill Clinton, though.

Hmm, maybe an aircraft carrier, but never a submarine, that would just be bait for endless penis and seamen jokes.

I see, you have no point, just want to gloat. I don't even know why you would care about it to gloat though.

ArmorPierce wrote:I see, you have no point, just want to gloat. I don't even know why you would care about it to gloat though.

This Shep, he masturbates to battle accounts.

Simon H.Johansen wrote:The irony is that is named after a Confederate general, and the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

He was an accomplished US Army general prior to the Civil War as well.

Do you have proof that this naming was in regaurds to his accomplishments during the Civil War, or could it be that it was in honor of his accomplishments prior to said war?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I think the point is that the PC people wouldn't approve of that, because they'd say Lee was racist.

I'd find if funny if there was a USS Bill Clinton, though.

Its very likely there will be, but the USN will find something very unimportant or insignificant that won't ever be in the news and give the name to that. Thus ensuring that 20 years down the line Congress doesn’t try and force it onto a CVN or cruiser.

That's what was done with Carter. While the Sea Wolf that carries his name is a major and important ship, its modified to do special operations and conduct various black projects. Which means you never going to hear about it or what its doing.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:True but they won't do it, because the Hunley didn't exactly survive it's first contact with the enemy.

Hunley also sank a Federal Warship; the name is very unlikely to be used again.

Yup, we don't like bringing up our defeats, even if they were against our selves.

We're never going to name anything after Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse (7th Cav. vets just would not approve)

I'd find if funny if there was a USS Bill Clinton, though.

I wouldn't, fucker damn near dismantled our military.

Hmm, maybe an aircraft carrier, but never a submarine, that would just be bait for endless penis and seamen jokes.

To quote Dr Evil..

"It's long and hard and full of seamen ::pinky::"

XD

Simon H.Johansen wrote:The irony is that is named after a Confederate general, and the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

The Confederacy was also the first nation to successfully use a submarine in battle. I guess that is the reason there is a Hunley class submarine tender.

LordChaos wrote:

Simon H.Johansen wrote:The irony is that is named after a Confederate general, and the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

He was an accomplished US Army general prior to the Civil War as well.

Do you have proof that this naming was in regaurds to his accomplishments during the Civil War, or could it be that it was in honor of his accomplishments prior to said war?

Perhaps in honour of his accomplishments prior to the Civil War, but wouldn't certain civil rights organizations protest against naming a submarine after a Confederate general??

Simon H.Johansen wrote: Perhaps in honour of his accomplishments prior to the Civil War, but wouldn't certain civil rights organizations protest against naming a submarine after a Confederate general??

USS Stonewall Jackson

and

USS Andrew Jackson, anyone?

(Both were SSBNs under the "41 for peace' program, which was to build
41 SSBNs in about a decade)

Those names would NOT fly today...

Stonewall jackson, because well, he was a Confederate General.....
and Andy Jackson because he fucked over the Cherokees

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Simon H.Johansen wrote:The irony is that is named after a Confederate general, and the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

Do you realizes how many US military Vehicles, ships and bases are named for Southern civil war Commanders? The number is rather high.

Ft. Benning, Ft. Bragg, Ft. Lee, Ft. Rucker, Ft. Hood -- just to name a few...

jegs2 wrote: Ft. Benning, Ft. Bragg, Ft. Lee, Ft. Rucker, Ft. Hood -- just to name a few...

Don't forget Ft. A.P. Hill!

MKSheppard wrote:

jegs2 wrote: Ft. Benning, Ft. Bragg, Ft. Lee, Ft. Rucker, Ft. Hood -- just to name a few...

Don't forget Ft. A.P. Hill!

Or the Stuart or General Lee tanks.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Or the Stuart or General Lee tanks.

Or the M-36 Jackson Tank Destroyer