CVN 77 has been named!

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-12-11 04:47pm

More like when we can expect to see a HMS Bismark (well they did sink it, and it was hunting them IIRC)

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-12-11 05:07pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Is there a USS Alabama (I speak of course of any descendants of the CSS Alabama)
I think it was a new-build battleship during WW2
BB.60, a South Dakota class battleship, currently a museum at Mobile Alabama

I'm been on her. See is indeed a beauty. Ah, those 16 inchers, beautiful BB Guns.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-11 05:17pm

Captain Lennox wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: I think it was a new-build battleship during WW2
BB.60, a South Dakota class battleship, currently a museum at Mobile Alabama
I'm been on her. See is indeed a beauty. Ah, those 16 inchers, beautiful BB Guns.

So have I. She's a beauty to behold. Noe doubt about that. They don't make 'em like they used to.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-11 09:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Captain Lennox wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: BB.60, a South Dakota class battleship, currently a museum at Mobile Alabama
I'm been on her. See is indeed a beauty. Ah, those 16 inchers, beautiful BB Guns.
So have I. She's a beauty to behold. Noe doubt about that. They don't make 'em like they used to.

She's a good ship. I was on her (for the second time) two summers ago, when traveling from New Orleans to Patriot's Point. I still want to head out to Pearl Harbor to visit the Missouri and Arizona.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-11 09:23pm

In any case, I think the coolest names should be reserved not for the carriers (which IMO have little going for them but their enormous bulk and the fact that they hold aircraft... whoop-de-fucking-do) but for the actual fighting ships.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-11 09:25pm

Uraniun235 wrote:In any case, I think the coolest names should be reserved not for the carriers (which IMO have little going for them but their enormous bulk and the fact that they hold aircraft... whoop-de-fucking-do) but for the actual fighting ships.

Errr...you mean the ships whose main purpose is to defend the carriers? It's the aircraft and submarines that can do the most damage, since Harpoons and Exocets can be fired beyond the fleet's horizon, whereas anything carried by a surface ship is limited to horizon without air support or forward observation.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-11 11:10pm

Uraniun235 wrote:In any case, I think the coolest names should be reserved not for the carriers (which IMO have little going for them but their enormous bulk and the fact that they hold aircraft... whoop-de-fucking-do) but for the actual fighting ships.

Look! The last refugee from Battleship Row has finally come to the surface!

Things have changed since you last saw sunlight...

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-12 01:20am

The carrier doesn't actually go into combat (unless the support group fucked up

), it's just a mobile base for the aircraft.

The fighting ships still are the fighting ships. Granted, their role is now that of supporting the mobile airbases (and chucking cruise missiles into the Gulf) but they're still the fighting ships, and IMO it's them that deserve the coolest names.

And I never said submarines didn't count as fighting ships, though I don't see how you can get much cooler than Dallas. Sounds much better to me than Lexington.

Besides, once we get some solid laser-based tactical missile defense (and it WILL happen eventually) then I expect the nature of naval combat will change yet again... especially when said lasers might also be directed against aircraft.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-12-12 02:34am

Durandal wrote:Dammit, I was hoping for cool, Imperial names, like Executor or Devastator.

You should know by now that the Brits have the monopoly on that.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-12 03:02am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Durandal wrote:Dammit, I was hoping for cool, Imperial names, like Executor or Devastator.
You should know by now that the Brits have the monopoly on that.

True. How did they do it? I want their press agent!

Oh, wait-- the British actually have the right to go by the title "The Empire".

Curses! Foiled again!

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-12-12 03:10am

Coyote wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Durandal wrote:Dammit, I was hoping for cool, Imperial names, like Executor or Devastator.
You should know by now that the Brits have the monopoly on that.
True. How did they do it? I want their press agent!

Oh, wait-- the British actually have the right to go by the title "The Empire".

Curses! Foiled again!

Lol, that and the fact that they tend not to let politics dictate ship names, unless the admirals want to diguise a ships type {county class destroyers ?heh, and the polys fell for it. The British also have s fine sense of history, which helps.

Post by **Dalton** » 2002-12-12 03:34am

An 8-page thread on naming ships?! JMFC!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-12 03:43am

I kinda wish that we would wait some time before we name something that big and important after some fucking politician.

Really, Niether Reagan or Bush deserved it.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-12-12 04:27am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I kinda wish that we would wait some time before we name something that big and important after some fucking politician.

Really, Niether Reagan or Bush deserved it.

Time can put perspective and objectivity on things, and people.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-12-12 04:29am

Dalton wrote:An 8-page thread on naming ships?! JMFC!

Such things are important, Rob, especially, it would seem, in America where fish dont vote on armed forces funding.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-12 11:49am

While I won't question the former president's outstanding war record, I for one would like to see a USS John McCain.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-12 11:56am

Wicked Pilot wrote:I for one would like to see a USS John McCain.

Certainly not on a CVN.....McCain's own ZUNI rocket started the Forrestal
fire.....

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-12 01:36pm

Uraniun235 wrote: Besides, once we get some solid laser-based tactical missile defense (and it WILL happen eventually) then I expect the nature of naval combat will change yet again... especially when said lasers might also be directed against aircraft.

And what makes you believe that such a system would make aircrafts obsolete? A laser based missile defense would not be anything more than an improvement over RAM,maybe a bit better at stopping supersonic antiship missiles,but that is all.Such a system is currently studied,but no one delude himself into thinking that will make aircrafts obsolete,no more than aegis or similar systems have done in the past.Sorry,if there is any replacement for aircraft carriers that is not in sight.Current aircraft carriers will be probably replaced by aircraft carriers equipped with unmanned aircrafts,that will be the main change.
It is incredible how after 60 years that the carriers have dimonstrated (and have gone over to do so) their value so many people still attempt to demonstrate that the resources placed on them or others useful systems (because,either you like or not resources are not unlimited) should be reduced to make space to battleships or similar stuff because "carriers are not enough cool".Coolness over function is a shortcut to defeat.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-12 03:40pm

MKSheppard wrote:Certainly not on a CVN.....McCain's own ZUNI rocket started the Forrestal
fire.....

I really don't think that can be blamed on him.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2002-12-12 03:58pm

Is it just me or should we have a USS ASSKICKER?

As for my ASVS the country thread, how about some of these names for ASVS ships:

CVN-01 Curtis Saxton
CVN-02 Michael Wong
CVN-03 Wayne Poe

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2002-12-12 06:44pm

The name that's really caught my eye lately is that of a cancelled Essex class carrier from WWII, USS Reprisal. Now THAT's a "Fuck off and die" name. So good, in fact, that I nicked it for one of my ships in Battlefleet Gothic.
Or USS Terror, for added chesthair.
And then there's USS Congress . It's a genuinely stately name and now that its sexual connotations have largely passed from public use, it could return.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-12 08:20pm

How about the USS Avenger?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-12 08:20pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:How about the USS Avenger?

Ah, I take that back. I believe we already have a USS Avenger. It's a mine sweeper.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2002-12-12 08:42pm

For myself, naming warships after politicians just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Warship names are supposed to embody the proud tradition of the fleet.

The whole ship nomenclature system of the U.S. Navy has been fucked up since the 1960s. They really need to get back to the practise of naming aircraft carriers after famous fighting ships of American history and submarines after sea creatures and fish.

Since there are no more battleships, you'd have to accord state names to cruisers along with city names. Or accord state names to cruisers, city names to destroyers, and the names of naval heroes to frigates.

The only warship in U.S. naval service ever to be named for a foreign warship was the heavy cruiser USS Canberra, named for the Australian cruiser HMAS Canberra which was lost alongside the USS Quincey and USS Chicago in the first naval battle for Guadalcanal —the Savo massacre of late August 1942. It is extremely unlikely that this precedent would ever be repeated, especially in favour of the name of an enemy ship from our last major war.

I haven't really liked a U.S. warship name I've heard (or felt a decent fit of name to vessel) with the exception of those accorded to the Wasp- and Tarawa-class assault ships —which I think to be the pattern for the future rather than the supercarrier.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-12-12 09:16pm

Patrick Degan wrote:I haven't really liked a U.S. warship name I've heard (or felt a decent fit of name to vessel) with the exception of those accorded to the Wasp- and Tarawa-class assault ships —which I think to be the pattern for the future rather than the supercarrier.

The new CVNs is rumored to revert to the traditional naming scheme. The LHD and proposed LHD(R) will also get carrier names.