In response to some questions raised in Congress about whether the naming of US Navy ships was becoming too politicized, the Department of Defense last month published a report on the history and evolution of USN naming conventions. With plenty of good historical background, the upshot if the report is: The strongest tradition in naming US Navy ships is that "tradition" has always been overruled by politics and public relations. It's pretty candid about the partisanship involved, too; for instance Bill Clinton opposing a carrier being named for Republican Ronald Reagan until a building carrier's name was changed to honor Democrat Harry S. Truman.
In the past we have had some discussions on this board about the retirement of CVN-65 Enterprise, and how that name would live on in the future. I said that I thought the name would go to another type of ship, not a nuclear carrier. However, the report has these two tidbits:
And
[...] the future carrier force will likely consist of no more than 11 ships, and one of them may be named USS Enterprise.
I'm still cynical enough that I would bet against the name going to a new nuclear carrier, but it is an encouraging sign.
Justin
In the past we have had some discussions on this board about the retirement of CVN-65 Enterprise, and how that name would live on in the future. I said that I thought the name would go to another type of ship, not a nuclear carrier. However, the report has these two tidbits:
With the scheduled decommissioning of USS Enterprise (CVN 65), perhaps the most famous ship name in US Navy history besides USS Constitution will be removed from the Naval Vessel Register. Secretary Mabus believes this circumstance could be remedied by bestowing the Enterprise’s storied name on a future carrier.
And
[...] the future carrier force will likely consist of no more than 11 ships, and one of them may be named USS Enterprise.
I'm still cynical enough that I would bet against the name going to a new nuclear carrier, but it is an encouraging sign.
Justin