CVN 77 has been named!

[Wicked Pilot]

As soon as I become President of the United States, you will see a lot more cooler ship names.

[Knife]

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

You don't like the Ticonderoga?

I like the cruisers being named after battles, and I like the assualt ships being named after Marine battles. Destroyers should be famous Hero's(not politicians). Aircraft Carriers should have noble names like Independence, Freedom, Defience, and so forth.....

[Uraniun235]

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.

Look. I *understand* that it is the carriers that are the truely important ships now. I *understand* that this is not likely to change for some time, and I am certainly not one to advocate "bringing back the battleships".

It is a *purely aesthetic* preference of mine towards capital ship combat as opposed to fighter combat. In *reality* I favor whatever gets the job done (without the UN calling for our heads).

Because of my *purely aesthetic* preference, I think the "cool" names of the past should be reserved for their 21st century counterparts; i.e. the ships that actually launch missiles and have deck guns. There are still plenty of good names for carriers that would not lack dignity nor pride.

My speculation above, as you should assume, was from a standpoint of ignorance. I don't *know* what the future holds, but I contend that powerful laser weapons capable of inflicting damage on aircraft (from suitably long range; such systems would be much less useful if they could not engage from greater than the range of the opponent aircraft... although I suppose you could also have smaller support lasers to ward off missile attack) would be an advantage for ground/sea-based platforms with greater energy sources and stability than an aircraft could provide. Whether such a system will ever be practical is a question I am not qualified to answer.

But, no, apparently I can't even have my aesthetic tastes and fantasies. God forbid anyone entertain more romantic notions of combat for their own amusement.

I *personally* think that carriers should be named after the great heroes of American history.

[Patrick Degan]

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

You don't like the Ticonderoga?

The ship is alright. But for me, Ticonderoga is a carrier name. So is Yorktown.

[The Yosemite Bear]

You know since lasers and railguns are almost on the verge of being vaible naval weapons. Thunderchild (H.G. Wells wotw) for lasers, and Moljilinor (Railguns)

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

Terror is a RN name I think, possibly also Reprisal.
As I mentioned erlier, the Brits almost have a monopoly on cool warhip names.

[Admiral Piett]

It is a *purely aesthetic* preference of mine towards capital ship combat as opposed to fighter combat. In *reality* I favor whatever gets the job done (without the UN calling for our heads).

My speculation above, as you should assume, was from a standpoint of ignorance. I don't *know* what the future holds, but I contend that powerful laser weapons capable of inflicting damage on aircraft (from suitably long range; such systems would be much less useful if they could not engage from greater than the range of the opponent aircraft... although I suppose you could also have smaller support lasers to ward off missile attack) would be an advantage for ground/sea-based platforms with greater energy sources and stability than an aircraft could provide. Whether such a system will ever be practical is a question I am not qualified to answer.

But, no, apparently I can't even have my aesthetic tastes and fantasies. God forbid anyone entertain more romantic notions of combat for their own amusement.

I *personally* think that carriers should be named after the great heroes of American history.

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh but after having witnessed so many people in other boards seriously arguing for downsizing carrier forces (or taking funds from somewhere else in anyway,because here is where you end) in favour of battleships or guided missile battlecruisers apparently come out from red alert 2 I tend to overeact automatically when I see carriers criticized from what is obviously a coolness point of view.By the way,one of my hobbies is writing statistics for alternate history battleships.Air defense lasers are not so far off,in effects the concept is being studied,however they appear to be nothing more than a better point defence against sunburn style missiles.It is also somewhat difficult to outrange an aircraft armed with cruise missiles.

[RadiO]

Terror is a RN name I think, possibly also Reprisal.
As I mentioned erlier, the Brits almost have a monopoly on cool warhip names.

I suspect for the USN they might be prize names from the wars of Independence and 1812, though I could be way off on that.
Terror at least may simply be a tradition in both navies. Certainly both the RN and USN had Terrors practically simultaniously during the latter half of the 19th century, and again in 1941.

[Stuart Mackey]

Terror is a RN name I think, possibly also Reprisal.
As I mentioned erlier, the Brits almost have a monopoly on cool warhip names.

I suspect for the USN they might be prize names from the wars of Independence and 1812, though I could be way off on that.
Terror at least may simply be a tradition in both navies. Certainly both the RN and USN had Terrors practically simultaniously during the latter half of the 19th century, and again in 1941.

Yah, that sounds about right. One HMS Terror was a monitor, with two 15 inch guns, built in 1916 sunk 1941 of Lybya

[Sea Skimmer]

Terror is a RN name I think, possibly also Reprisal.
As I mentioned erlier, the Brits almost have a monopoly on cool warhip names.

I suspect for the USN they might be prize names from the wars of Independence and 1812, though I could be way off on that.
Terror at least may simply be a tradition in both navies. Certainly both the RN and USN had Terrors practically simultaniously during the latter half of the 19th century, and again in 1941.

Yah, that sounds about right. One HMS Terror was a monitor, with two 15 inch guns, built in 1916 sunk 1941 of Lybya

Truck convoys 1 mile from shore plus15 inch guns=FUN!

German bombers, poor maneuverability and obsolete in the 1920's on installation AAA=Even more FUN!

[Malecoda]

Dalt's right, who gives a fuck? I mean, what kind of person gets excited over a ship name?

[Sea Skimmer]

Dalt's right, who gives a fuck? I mean, what kind of person gets excited over a ship name?

Fuck off you stupid moron

[Malecoda]

Don't get confused, Sea Skimmer.

[RadiO]

Dalt's right, who gives a fuck? I mean, what kind of person gets excited over a ship name?

*looks at thread page number indicator*
Errr... Lots of people?

[Stuart Mackey]

I suspect for the USN they might be prize names from the wars of Independence and 1812, though I could be way off on that.
Terror at least may simply be a tradition in both navies. Certainly both the RN and USN had Terrors practically simultaniously during the latter half of the 19th century, and again in 1941.

Yah, that sounds about right. One HMS Terror was a monitor, with two 15 inch guns, built in 1916 sunk 1941 of Lybya

Truck convoys 1 mile from shore plus15 inch guns=FUN!

German bombers, poor maneuverability and obsolete in the 1920's on installation AAA=Even more FUN!

Well they were never designed to fight in those conditions, so its not a very fair comparison, now is it?

[Stuart Mackey]

Dalt's right, who gives a fuck? I mean, what kind of person gets excited over a ship name?

Lots of people. Ships names commemorate a nations history. now go read some history books, thou uncultured lout.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well they were never designed to fight in those conditions, so its not a very fair comparison, now is it?

Which is why she should have been withdrawn once German aircraft arrived in theater. Destroyers and small cruisers worked just fine for the coast road bombardment role, and stood a much better chance if caught in daylight.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well they were never designed to fight in those conditions, so its not a very fair comparison, now is it?

Which is why she should have been withdrawn once German aircraft arrived in theater. Destroyers and small cruisers worked just fine for the coast road bombardment role, and stood a much better chance if caught in daylight.

Correct, such a pain that the British didnt exactly have enough ships to go around, so they had to 'make do'. You have to remember that in 1941 Britian was streched so thin that vessels were pressed into service in conditions that they were never designed for, it was undesirable, but the job had to be done and Terror got the job as she was what they had.

[Malecoda]

Dalt's right, who gives a fuck? I mean, what kind of person gets excited over a ship name?

Lots of people. Ships names commemorate a nations history. now go read some history books, thou uncultured lout.

Why, so I can learn what vital role "Monongahela" played in American history? Or "Fox", "Hercules", "Gemini", or "England"? Heh.