USS Enterprise Petition

[miraclefan]

*shudders*

I HATE the fact that we name some of our mightiest warships after politicians. Aside from the battle-scheme we have going for our cruisers, I think the UK has a far better overall scheme for naming its vessels.

Again I Agree with you!

 

[miraclefan]

No.

It's time to retire the name with honor.

The Big E was the single most famous ship of WW2, holding the line against the Japanese. Did you know a badly clobbered Enterprise was the ONLY functioning carrier in the Pacific at one point?

The Nuclear E carried the name with distinction, it's time to give it a rest for a few decades... perhaps reserve it for a future interplanetary exploration ship.

I can understand where you're coming from. If not CVN-79, how about one of the new CVX carriers currently on the drawing boards?

Hmm not a bad idea! Are there any pics of what the ship is supposed to look like?

 

[JuanBolio]

Sure, though I don't think anything is set in stone yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVN-21

Hmm... seems the next carrier after the USS George H.W. Bush (last of the Nimitz class) WILL be of the following class - the CVX's. So... I'm dumb. I thought they were coming out with one more Nimitz after the Bush.

Anyway, the first of the CVX's will be CVN-78, and will be named the Gerald R. Ford (Another President? Come ON!), which leave CVN-79 wide open, though there is a proposal to name it the Arizona... which would further confuse the naming scheme as ballistic missile subs are typically named after states these days.

 

[Cicero]

^ Attack submarines, too.

The current USN naming system is as follows:

Battleships: States of the Union (by law, but none built since 1944*)
Fleet Aircraft Carriers: American statesmen
Amphibious Aircraft Carriers: Former fleet aircraft carriers
Cruisers: Famous battles
Destroyers and Frigates: Distinguished maritime personnel (including civilians)
Submarines: States of the Union
Minesweepers: Words of action (e.g. Avenger)
Hospital ships: Peaceful or comforting words (e.g. Mercy)
Amphibious Landing ships: Locations
Fleet Command ships: Mountains
Submarine Tenders: Submarine pioneers
Patrol craft: Weather phenomena (e.g. Thunderbolt)
Fleet Tugs: Native American peoples
Cargo and Ammunition ships: Explorers and pioneers
Fleet Oilers: Rivers and ship designers

*An argument could be made that American fleet carriers from the Midway-class onward (particularly the supercarrier designs beginning with United States) constitute a type of battleship. Nonetheless, the Navy doesn't classify them as BBs.

 

[Mysterion]

^^^^
Correction to above:

Ballistic Missile Subs now being named for States
Attack Subs being named for Cities of the US

 

[Cicero]

^ That's not true of attack subs anymore. During production of the Seawolf class, the name source was changed to States of the Union. Aside from John Warner, every ship of the Virginia class has followed that precedent.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Wouldn't that mean the United States can't have more than fifty subs?

 

[Mysterion]

^ That's not true of attack subs anymore. During production of the Seawolf class, the name source was changed to States of the Union. Aside from John Warner, every ship of the Virginia class has followed that precedent.

I stand corrected. Mea culpa. What class is the USS Jimmy Carter?

 

[Cicero]

Wouldn't that mean the United States can't have more than fifty subs?

It would seem to, barring an additional name source (and the few ships named as exceptions). Given that we're not currently naming any ship type for cities, I imagine we would fall back to those.

^ That's not true of attack subs anymore. During production of the Seawolf class, the name source was changed to States of the Union. Aside from John Warner, every ship of the Virginia class has followed that precedent.

I stand corrected. Mea culpa. What class is the USS Jimmy Carter?

The Jimmy Carter is a Seawolf, and presumably an exception like John Warner, considering that it followed the Connecticut.

 

[RJDiogenes]

How many subs do we have? Fifty seems like a small number.

 

[Cicero]

^ 53 attack, 14 ballistic missile, 4 guided missile.

 

[Mallory]

How many subs do we have? Fifty seems like a small number.

Only the ballistic missile subs are named after states. And as Cicero points out we only have 14 of those. But each one carries 24 Trident missiles, each equipped with 8 multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRV). So each sub is capable of nuking 192 individual targets. The entire fleet can plant on a nuke on over 2600 individual targets.

I think 14 of them is sufficient.

 

[Cicero]

^ The naming convention for attack subs has changed. The so-far named ships of the current Virginia class:

Virginia
Texas
North Carolina
Hawaii
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Missouri
California
Mississippi
Minnesota
North Dakota
John Warner​

 

[Skywalker]

^ The naming convention for attack subs has changed. The so-far named ships of the current Virginia class:

Virginia
Texas
North Carolina
Hawaii
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Missouri
California
Mississippi
Minnesota
North Dakota
John Warner​

This is one reason why I hate naming ships after politicians. I prefer my naming schemes to stay consistent. Although Warner served briefly during World War II (in the Navy) and in Korea (as a Marine), and was formerly Secretary of the Navy, so I suppose it's okay in his case.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^ 53 attack, 14 ballistic missile, 4 guided missile.

Thanks.

Only the ballistic missile subs are named after states. And as Cicero points out we only have 14 of those. But each one carries 24 Trident missiles, each equipped with 8 multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRV). So each sub is capable of nuking 192 individual targets. The entire fleet can plant on a nuke on over 2600 individual targets.

I think 14 of them is sufficient.

I guess so.

 

[msbae]

The Enterprise needs your help...

The current aircraft carrier U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) is slated for retirement in 2012. She will have served for more than 50 years by that point. However, there's (currently) no ship in the upcoming Gerald R. Ford class of carriers to replace her as the new Enterprise. That is just plain criminal. So, I now ask for your help in making Congress see the error of their ways (at least, on this particular subject) and fill out the following online petitions...

A Petition to name the next United States Navy nuclear powered aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Enterprise

http://ussntrprs.epetitions.net/

Make the USS Enterprise a museum ship

http://cvn65.epetitions.net/

Both of these petitions are important. The CVN-65 deserves to be a museum ship. She was the first carrier to be nuclear-powered. The first ship on scene in the Middle East following 9/11 (and I'll bet quite a few Terrorists shit themselves when the 'Big E' showed up on the scene) and fought in every major engagement since the Cuban Missile Crisis. She's a legend, just like all of her predecessors.

Also, the last carrier to have that name, the WW2-era Yorktown class U.S.S. Enterprise (CV-6), was scrapped after her retirement in 1947. Her skipper, Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey, fought like mad to make her a museum ship. The Department of Defense sold her for scrap anyway. This is despite the fact that she was the most decorated ship in the whole Navy throughout that war, literally leading the fight from Pearl Harbor to Japan's door step. Her successor shouldn't share in that ignoble fate.

PLEASE sign these petitions!

- msbae

 

[Rii]

Re: The Enterprise needs your help...

Eh, the carriers are overly conservative, keep naming them after Presidents and leave interesting names for interesting ships.

 

[msbae]

Re: The Enterprise needs your help...

Eh, the carriers are overly conservative, keep naming them after Presidents and leave interesting names for interesting ships.

Most presidents don't deserve to have ships named after them. The Carriers are the capital ships. They deserve to have cool names like Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown, Kitty Hawk, America, Intrepid, et al. I'd like to see one name 'Invicta' as well.

 

[Captain Ice]

Re: The Enterprise needs your help...

Eh, the carriers are overly conservative, keep naming them after Presidents and leave interesting names for interesting ships.

Most presidents don't deserve to have ships named after them. The Carriers are the capital ships. They deserve to have cool names like Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown, Kitty Hawk, America, Intrepid, et al. I'd like to see one name 'Invicta' as well.

And those that do can always have a destroyer named after them like other notable Naval personnel. I'm not happy about this move to name the most visible ships in the Navy for politicians.

They should have left it alone when they were being named for previous carriers. I do however allow an exception to be made for the Nimitz as he was an important naval commander who also made significant contribution to carrier tactics.

 

[B.J.]

Hmmm... The petition says to "remand H. CON. RES. 83 and replace it with a resolution supporting the naming of CVN-79 or the next nuclear aircraft carrier to be constructed, the USS ENTERPRISE." Looking up 83, it says to name either CVN-79 or -80 as the U.S.S. Barry M. Goldwater. Without getting into his political leanings from his Senate days, I why would the Navy would want to name a carrier after a USAF Major General?

Separately, why didn't whoever wrote the petition just write it to get Congress to write a resolution to name the next available ship Enterprise, without having them remand an existing resolution?