US Navy News

[Nathan45]

At least it's not George Soros...



Yet...

[MikeKozlowski]

No, Hell No.

Absolutely concur. Clinton, no on general principles. Bush was AIR FORCE. You want to honor him, name a Texas ANGB after him.

CDR Sal suggested Ranger and Shangri-La, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Mike
I'm talking about both names.

[MikeKozlowski]

No, Hell No.


I'm talking about both names.

Absolutely concur. Clinton, no on general principles. Bush was AIR FORCE. You want to honor him, name a Texas ANGB after him.

CDR Sal suggested Ranger and Shangri-La, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Mike

[Johnnie Lyle]

Um, we already have a GEORGE H. W. BUSH. Talk about creating confusion.

[jemhouston]

Part of me would like Yorktown since I would like to see Enterprise and Yorktown sailing together again.

He could have picked his friend Senator John McCain.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Part of me would like Yorktown since I would like to see Enterprise and Yorktown sailing together again.

He could have picked his friend Senator John McCain.

We already have a JOHN S McCAIN.

HORNET and LEXINGTON should be higher on the list, since we had a YORKTOWN as a TICONDEROGA.

Though I wouldn’t mind another LANGLEY.

[kdahm]

Looks like it's an effort to get a carrier named after Clinton, with a bone thrown to the R's for the second Bush. Fairly stupid, especially in the waning days of the Biden Presidency.

Since the Biden Administration was perfectly happy to change names of ships in service, how hard do you think it would be for the Trump Administration to change names of ships that haven't even be laid down? Asking for friend.

Also, having a ship named after Pres. Clinton being laid down is problematic on the face of it.

[Poohbah]

Looks like it's an effort to get a carrier named after Clinton, with a bone thrown to the R's for the second Bush. Fairly stupid, especially in the waning days of the Biden Presidency.

Since the Biden Administration was perfectly happy to change names of ships in service, how hard do you think it would be for the Trump Administration to change names of ships that haven't even be laid down? Asking for friend.

Also, having a ship named after Pres. Clinton being laid down is problematic on the face of it.

Especially one that has a Hummer det aboard...

[Belushi TD]

Looks like it's an effort to get a carrier named after Clinton, with a bone thrown to the R's for the second Bush. Fairly stupid, especially in the waning days of the Biden Presidency.

Since the Biden Administration was perfectly happy to change names of ships in service, how hard do you think it would be for the Trump Administration to change names of ships that haven't even be laid down? Asking for friend.

Also, having a ship named after Pres. Clinton being laid down is problematic on the face of it.

Ehhhh.... depends on who's doing the laying.......

Didn't seem to be much of a problem for him while he was in office.



That being said, I agree. Neither one should have a carrier named after them. Not only because of problems, but because YOU DON'T EVER NAME SOMETHING AFTER SOMEONE WHO IS STILL ALIVE!!!!!!


Belushi TD

[Rocket J Squrriel]

Could the incoming SecNav rename them? Could he rename the Ford and JFK too? JFK already had his carrier and I don't think he was great enough to get his name on 2.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Could the incoming SecNav rename them? Could he rename the Ford and JFK too? JFK already had his carrier and I don't think he was great enough to get his name on 2.

Yes.

JFK has a legacy beyond the president, though. There’s plenty of ships with long histories of unimportant or even objectively stupid names that became something bigger due to the men and women who fought in them and sometimes died in them.

[James1978]

I'd be inclined to leave the names of ships already in the water alone.

As for CVN-82 and CVN-83, I don't see why not. We've already broken the seal on that one when they renamed Chancellorsville (CG-62).
I'm not even sure CVN-82 and CVN-83 have been authorized yet, let alone ordered, so why the hell not.

[Lordroel]

The newest Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers will be: USS Ray Mabus (DDG 147); USS Kyle Carpenter (DDG 148); USS Robert R. Ingram (DDG 149). And the newest Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will be USS Everett Alvarez Jr. (FFG 68).

[Johnnie Lyle]

The newest Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers will be: USS Ray Mabus (DDG 147); USS Kyle Carpenter (DDG 148); USS Robert R. Ingram (DDG 149). And the newest Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will be USS Everett Alvarez Jr. (FFG 68).

Two MoH awardees, a long-term POW. and one SecNav. 75%. Plus Kyle Carpenter is cute. C- for mucking up the naming conventions.

Junk MABUS, rename it for Alvarez, and rename the frigate for one of the other famous USN ships. CERES would be a good choice. So would VARUNA. Or any one of a host of other obscure but valiant ships that fought and maybe died under the Stars and Stripes.

[Poohbah]

The newest Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers will be: USS Ray Mabus (DDG 147); USS Kyle Carpenter (DDG 148); USS Robert R. Ingram (DDG 149). And the newest Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will be USS Everett Alvarez Jr. (FFG 68).

Two MoH awardees, a long-term POW. and one SecNav. 75%. Plus Kyle Carpenter is cute. C- for mucking up the naming conventions.

Junk MABUS, rename it for Alvarez, and rename the frigate for one of the other famous USN ships. CERES would be a good choice. So would VARUNA. Or any one of a host of other obscure but valiant ships that fought and maybe died under the Stars and Stripes.

We got a Gambier Bay?

[Belushi TD]

I'd be inclined to leave the names of ships already in the water alone.

As for CVN-82 and CVN-83, I don't see why not. We've already broken the seal on that one when they renamed Chancellorsville (CG-62).
I'm not even sure CVN-82 and CVN-83 have been authorized yet, let alone ordered, so why the hell not.

Hell, we broke the seal in the run up to WWII and during the war by renaming carriers after ships that had just died.

Belushi TD

[Johnnie Lyle]

I'd be inclined to leave the names of ships already in the water alone.

As for CVN-82 and CVN-83, I don't see why not. We've already broken the seal on that one when they renamed Chancellorsville (CG-62).
I'm not even sure CVN-82 and CVN-83 have been authorized yet, let alone ordered, so why the hell not.

Hell, we broke the seal in the run up to WWII and during the war by renaming carriers after ships that had just died.

Belushi TD

As we should. Sink one, a meaner, nastier version comes back to beat enemy ass.

[Belushi TD]

Agreed. However, we also changed some names for reasons that don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

And, everyone should keep in mind that the US Navy has NEVER stood by its naming conventions. I call your attention to USS Kearsarge, BB-5. Only battleship NOT named after a state.

However, normally when we ditch the conventions, we go with something that's a good idea. Lots of stupid people getting ships named after them these days.

Belushi TD

[Lordroel]

Here comes the McClung-class of medium landing ships:

Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro announced USS McClung (LSM 1) as the name for the first ship in the new McClung-class of medium landing ships.