I guess it's about time for me to rant about something. Now my first choice is how CVN-78, the ship that will replace the LEGENDARY USS Enterprise CVN-65 is going to be named after...Gerald R. Ford. Sigh. I'm currently having a rave-out over this BRILLIANT decision by John Warner (Senior Republican Senator from Virginia and now in my opinion, a schmuck) with a friend via email. He and I both feel that if there isn't a USS Enterprise as a Carrier in this nation's navy well, then this whole country is off track. And apparently, this whole country is off track if we're naming a ship after GERALD FRIGGIN FORD!!! (OK, I'm gonna rant about this now I guess. My blood is up.)
Seriously, the guy never WON A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! NEVER! EVER! He was in for two years and all he did was pardon Nixon, fall down steps several times on camera and got shot at by Lynette Squeaky Fromme. He's a nice guy and all, but he DOES NOT DESERVE A CARRIER NAMED AFTER HIM! Certainly not the carrier that will replace the USS ENTERPRISE. For God's sake! It's the Enterprise! You cannot have a US NAVY without a USS Enterprise, it's like getting rid of Santa and still wanting to put presents under the tree. It's not right!
The name Enterprise has been associated with the US Navy since the early republic. She fought the Barbary Pirates, the Confederacy, and the Empire of Japan. (Talk about the big 3 foes in US Navy History, I'd put in France as a significant foe but...well...it's France, they're not significant.) Heck, the WW2 incarnation of Big E made it through the entire war from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay. And SHE was scrapped! That was a travesty! Now they're going to name the replacement ship after Gerald Ford? Seriously we deserve to lose a war if we name a ship like that. Damn.
Ok, I've vented now. Back to our regularly scheduled blogging.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Great comments on CVN78. However, much as I agree with you that their should always be an Enterprise, it cannot be CVN78 because Enterprise would still be in service at the time of her commissioning. Also, should they decide to extend CVN65 beyond the 2015 target date for in-service of CVN78, then they would be stuck.
I served on USS America CV66 which was tested and sunk in May 2005 for design considerations on CVN78. We have been pushing for CVN78 to be named America until - and you said it right - that SCHMUCK Senator Warner and his cronies, Senators Levin (MI) and Snow (ME) pushed through Ford as a name. How stupid is that.
A carrier named after another one term President of dubious distinction. In a recent letter to the Secretary of the Navy, who has the ultimate naming decision, I mentioned that when the US Navy turned the tide in the Pacific during WWII at the Battle of Midway, it was USS Enterprise, USS Yorktown, and USS Hornet that made it happen, not the USS Calvin Coolidge, USS Warren Harding and the USS Chester Arthur.
Stop naming these ships after polititians crying out loud.
Our effort to name CVN78 USS America (www.cvn78.com) is on life support but not dead yet.
Thanks for letting me rant. To say I am pissed would be an understatement.
Lets see, CVN79 - maybe USS William Clinton? Dont bet against it.
Tom
Fair enough, I could live with America coming back. Constellation is about due, along with Saratoga and Lexington and Ranger.
There's a pretty good quote from Hyman Rickover about naming ships for political purposes. When the Los Angeles Class subs were being pushed through congress someone asked Rickover why he was abandoning the traditional "fish" names of US Submarines. Rickover replied, "Fish don't vote."
Some politicians I'd say do deserver to have the big ships named after them, TR, FDR, Lincoln, Washington. That's about it. No ships should be named after living people, it's just bad taste. (I'll give the USS Bob Hope an exception on that.) And I think 30 years need to pass for a deceased politician to get a ship named after them.
Post a Comment