| Author |
Message |
    
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11531
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 5, 2007 - 4:47 am: | 
|
From The Navy Times:
quote:By William H. McMichael and Gordon Lubold
Staff Writers
Donald Rumsfeld spilled the beans Wednesday: The next aircraft carrier class will be named for the late President Gerald R. Ford.
Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who served in that position under Ford as well as during his just-completed six-year stint under President Bush, made the impromptu announcement during Ford’s funeral service in Grand Rapids, Mich. In doing so, he upstaged Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter, who was to officially announce the name of the carrier later this month.
For the rest of the story, go to http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2459640.php
See also http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/78.htm
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Wayne Keen
Member
Username: dockeen
Post Number: 256
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:13 am: |
|
On some Navy lists that I lurk on, this has been a topic of some scorn for a while now - with those opposed to such names making the argument that political figures are not suitable for such ship names...
The vitriol is surprising.
Wayne |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11572
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 6:26 am: |
|
>>The vitriol is surprising.<<
Doesn't surprise me. The naming of ships is often a process which is loaded down with politics. Personally, I think that if the powers that be are going to name something after a politician, they should wait until s/he's decently deceased or the statute of limitations has expired, but that's just me. 
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jack Devine
Member
Username: jackdevine
Post Number: 128
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 11:54 am: |
|
"a process which is loaded down with politics."
In Chicago they dye the river bright green every St. Patrick's day. To the argument that this may not be environmentally wise, the city's reply is that Fish Don't Vote. When you spend billions on a single warship, there is nothing that is not political.
Personally I would like to see the carrier named for a historic battle, or a retired ship's name, something of greater significance. Lexington, or Constellation, something along those lines. Will it ever happen? I'd like to hold out some faint hope, but it's not likely. |
Grant Carman
Member
Username: lksimcoe
Post Number: 59
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Given that the choosing of names is political, d'ya think they'll ever name a carrier the William Jefferson Clinton?
Rummy and Cheney would have a stroke. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11580
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:59 pm: |
|
>>d'ya think they'll ever name a carrier the William Jefferson Clinton?<<
They might.
Personally, I'd like to see the more traditional names be used. Yorktown and Lexington are great, but Enterprise would be really sweet! There's a lot of history behind all three of them.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Grant Carman
Member
Username: lksimcoe
Post Number: 61
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 9:02 pm: |
|
There have been ships with those names already hasn't there?
Did any of them get sunk in a war, because if they did, then I don't think they'd re-use the name. |
Jack Devine
Member
Username: jackdevine
Post Number: 129
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 12:16 am: |
|
I don't foresee any ship being named after Clinton, largely due to his hostility to the military. There are long memories in that regard: Thomas Jefferson had no great love for the navy and will probably never have a ship named after him.
I agree that Enterprise would be really sweet, but to be polite it might be best to wait until the name isn't actually being used by an active carrier! The confusion would be pretty bad. I'm with you on the traditional names. "Victory" wouldn't be a bad choice for a number of reasons.
Grant, the first Yorktown and Lexington were both sunk during the second world war, at Midway and Coral Sea, respectively. The second carriers to bear those names are now museums. (Musea? I'm terrible at latin.)There are plenty of examples of names being re-used after a ship is sunk, there is no shame in going down fighting. It doesn't just apply to warships, either. P&O currently has a merchant ship named Jervis Bay, there's a lot of history behind that name. |
Michael Poirier
Member
Username: mike_poirier
Post Number: 472
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 1:58 am: |
|
I don't foresee any ship being named after Clinton, largely due to his hostility to the military.
Having known many people that served in the military at the time and some who continue to do so, will tell you that is a myth.
Go Claire. You've got Talent!
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11584
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 6:15 am: |
|
>>I don't foresee any ship being named after Clinton, largely due to his hostility to the military.<<
Have to agree with Michael Poirier on this one. I don't know of any example of Clinton being hostile to the military. (He had a beef with Vietnam, but he had plenty of company as far as that goes.) He certainly never hesitated to use it during his administration and not always for the wrong reasons either. At least no moreso then any other president. I don't think he ever really understtod the military, but again, there are a lot of politicians that this can be said about on both sides of the aisle, and a substantial number of them are still in office.
The cuts which took place during his administration were little more then a continuation of the trend that started with Reagan in 1988. I disagreed with some of them, but not all of it. Quite a few of the ships taken out included a long...and I do mean a long...laundry list of overaged combatants and amphibious warfare vessels which were near the end of their useful service lives anyway. Some of them were in very poor material condition when they were retired.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3138
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 8:46 am: |
|
Dave Tuttle recently sent me a helluva funny satirical e-mail that is doing the rounds.
It depicts USS Ronald Reagan in full ceremonial order as she passes the USS Arizona monument. Thousands of sailors man the rails of the huge carrier.
Next we see USS Bill Clinton, which consists of a small barge carrying a single, unarmed jet fighter which has no room to take off.
Whatever your politics, it's a very enjoyable piece of satire.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Jack Devine
Member
Username: jackdevine
Post Number: 130
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 11:42 am: |
|
I'll defer to those with closer knowledge, although I've read that the Clinton White House tended to look down on the military, and that on occasion there was astonishment to learn that military officers are well educated and intelligent. I am NOT trying to start any political discussion, may we please leave that to the thousands of more appropriate websites.
I don't think Clinton's policy decisions were particularly anti-military, and certainly the cutbacks were part of a much longer trend. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11585
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 8:08 pm: |
|
>>...and that on occasion there was astonishment to learn that military officers are well educated and intelligent.<<
You might be surprised to see how all pervasive that attitude is, and not just among those on the left. The problem here is that there are fewer and fewer people standing for office in either the U.S. or the U.K. who have ever been a part of the military from either Rephublican, Democrat or on the U.K's side of the pond, Labour or Tory. Whereas once it was virtually a prerequisite regardless of partisan affiliation, nobody seems to care anymore.
When those who make the decisiond have no direct experience with a particular institution that they control, it's a lot easier for stereotypes such as "Knuckledragger" to become entrenched.
Another problem is that politicians, regardless of their leanings, have a tendency to be idealists within the context of their party platform. They have a very hard time understanding people whose very careers depend on their being hard core realists, and career military types tend to be realists.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
James Smith
Member
Username: jds88
Post Number: 332
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 9:31 pm: |
|
quote:There are long memories in that regard: Thomas Jefferson had no great love for the navy and will probably never have a ship named after him.
Wait--wasn't it Jefferson who set the US Navy against the Barbary Pirates off northern Africa?
--Jim |
Jack Devine
Member
Username: jackdevine
Post Number: 131
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Yes, it was Jefferson who sent the navy against Algiers and Tunis "to the shores of Tripoli." He wasn't against using the military as long as it was there, and a good deal of pressure from Congress and the public certainly didn't hurt. He was opposed to the idea of a standing military, because the European powers all used theirs to support the aristocracy and this was anathema to a new republic. Jefferson believed the US should become a nation of independent yeoman farmers, who could form a militia in the rare event that one was needed.
It was a lovely vision but completely naive. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11589
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 5:50 am: |
|
Just for information, Thomas Jefferson did have a ship named after him. A boomer in fact. See http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08618.htm
Fortunately, his ideas about a militia being adaquate never really took hold since with few exceptions, they tend not to hold up very well against a well trained professional army. The Swiss have their militia system but they don't have any illusions about it being able to hold out long against the Big Boys.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jack Devine
Member
Username: jackdevine
Post Number: 132
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 11:28 am: |
|
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info, Mike!
A militia has some appeal to politicians because it looks like a military but isn't nearly as expensive. By the time you find out that they are highly ineffective, it may be too late. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11592
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 2:03 pm: |
|
>>By the time you find out that they are highly ineffective, it may be too late.<<
It's not like the lessons aren't there either. You can go back about 3000 years to old Israel and the fight over King David's throne between Solomon and Absolom. David had founded a proferssional Army during his rule and it was the professional army which supported David while Absolom had the support of the tribal militias.
It wasn't really even much of a fight. David won out and Absolom was killed.
The fact is that if you want to have a first class military capable of doing anything worthwhile, you just can't do it on the cheap. Militias do have a place but they're no substitute for a well trained and properly equipped professional force.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 21594
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 1:21 am: |
|
From Marketwire:
Avaya Federal Solutions to Provide Shipboard Communications for U.S. Navy's Next-Generation Aircraft Carrier
quote:BASKING RIDGE, NJ--(Marketwire - September 8, 2008) - Avaya Federal Solutions, Inc. today announced it is providing communications for the USS Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy's next-generation aircraft carrier. Currently under construction by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) represents the lead ship of a new class of aircraft carriers. The ship is expected to deliver in 2015.
More at http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Avaya-Inc-897193.html
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 21635
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 5:06 am: |
|
From The Navy Times:
Contract awarded for first carrier of new class
quote:The Navy awarded Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding a $5.1 billion contract Sept. 10 to begin construction of the first ship of a new class of aircraft carrier.
Northrop’s Newport News, Va., shipyard will build the carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), lead ship of the first new class of nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carriers in more than four decades.
For the rest, see http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_carrier_ford_091008/
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 24672
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2009 - 5:19 am: |
|
From The Navy Times:
Northrop Grumman to build new Ford carrier
quote:NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in Newport News has been awarded a $374 million contract for preliminary work on the second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.
More at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/01/ap_ford_carriers_va_011509w/
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 26472
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 5:12 am: |
|
From Defence News.com:
Next-Gen Carrier Launch System Could Be Shelved
quote:A decision point is looming for the U.S. Navy's biggest shipbuilding project: whether to launch carrier aircraft using cutting-edge - but untried, over-budget and behind-schedule - electromagnetic technology, or return to heavy, bulky, maintenance-intensive steam catapult systems that offer proven reliability.
More at http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4025167&c=SEA&s=TOP
Comment: With fabrication of the ship already begun, does it really make sense to plan for a system which is over budget, behind schedule, and may not work when a system exists which they know will work?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 27249
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 5:27 pm: |
|
From Individual.com:
Shipyard gets extra $77.3 million for future carrier
quote:A contract Northrop Grumman Corp. received from the Navy in January for design, advanced planning and procurement of materials for the second carrier in the Gerald R. Ford class has grown by more than 20 percent.
More at http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=101043551
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 28742
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 4:56 am: |
|
From The Navy Times:
Report warns of launch system delay
quote:The Navy’s new and unproven technology for a carrier-based electromagnetic launch system will be developed and built at the same time, according to a Navy report.
That simultaneous testing and production poses the risk of delaying delivery of the Navy’s next carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, slated for commissioning in 2015.
More at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/07/navy_emals_report_071409w/
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 31692
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 5:12 am: |
|
From The Asbury Park Press:
Navy Lakehurst to test new catapult
quote:LAKEHURST — The Navy's next-generation electromagnetic aircraft catapult will be hurling test loads down the Lakehurst test track next month, and the project will be ready for test launching the first aircraft in summer 2010, program manager Capt. Randy Mahr said Thursday.
Navy officers and workers with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) program gathered in wind-driven rain to celebrate completion of the first full-scale catapult, which precedes four shipboard catapults to be installed on the planned aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford in 2015.
Two page story along with a photo of the catapult at http://www.app.com/article/20091112/NEWS03/91113021/1070/NEWS02/Navy+Lakehurst+to+test+new+catapult+
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 31698
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 5:44 am: |
|
From The Navy Times:
Keel laid for newest Navy aircraft carrier
quote:Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding and the Navy marked the keel-laying of the newest aircraft carrier Friday in ceremonies at Newport News, Va.
More at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/11/navy_carrier_keel_laying_111309w/
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
