Topic: LHA6 Ship Names

[TheJudge]

I don't think that a 'Phib is a good match for Enterprise, Judge.
It's a name that should be attributed to the most powerful ship in our Navy.
I say, name the CVN-21 class the Enterprise class (thus dropping the whole (carriers after people) naming convention we've used with the Nimitz class. That'd make things a lot less political. Destroyers are named after people... and are a lot cheaper to blow up if those people tick us off.

Name the new 'Phibs after something special and uniquely Marine, which is why I said Marine CMH winners.

Um, I was saying the new CVN class carriers should be named things like Enterprise, etc (and here I'm referring to the heritage of the WWII ship, not the fictionaly one). The first list of names are for the amphibious assault ships (which are NOT carriers).

Historically the tradition is to name certain types of gator freighters after individual Marines who have earned great honor. Naming a new line of LST or other actual landing ships after Marine Medal of Honor awardees would be absolutely perfect.  Let all the Marines aboard her remember the valor of the Marine for which the ship was named as they ride her to the enemy's shores.  Maybe one day centuries from now more young marines will ride a troop ship named after one of them as they assault an enemy world. 

Destroyers (and frigates) have traditionally been named after Admirals, or sailors of note in the Navy (Spruance Class, Arleigh Burke, Knox, Waddell, Adams, Kirk -yes a real FF now decommissioned, The Sullivans - after five brothers who died all on the same ship during WWII)

Sigh.  What a fount of useless Naval history exists in my head.  I shouldn't have read so many books on the Navy as a child...

[Panzergranate]

Here's a tough question for you on US Naval Carriers.... What was so special about the 1930's carriers USS AKRON and USS MAKAN??

Also what was the new technology tried out on the USS MAKAN's aircraft now standard on all carrier aircraft these days??

What was  the unique feature of both carrier's Curtis Gosshawks fighters??

[Just plain old Punisher]

I'm guessing a steam launched catapult.

[The Postman]

Here's a tough question for you on US Naval Carriers.... What was so special about the 1930's carriers USS AKRON and USS MAKAN??

Also what was the new technology tried out on the USS MAKAN's aircraft now standard on all carrier aircraft these days??

What was  the unique feature of both carrier's Curtis Gosshawks fighters??

1st, it was USS Macon not Makan
2. They were dirigibles
3. That they could launch and recover aircraft in flight
4. the Sparrowhawk aircraft had no landing gear which enhanced their flight performance

[kmelew]

Here's a tough question for you on US Naval Carriers.... What was so special about the 1930's carriers USS AKRON and USS MAKAN??

Also what was the new technology tried out on the USS MAKAN's aircraft now standard on all carrier aircraft these days??

What was  the unique feature of both carrier's Curtis Gosshawks fighters??

Sorry to go off topic...



Remains of USS Macon's Sparrowhawks




USS Macon's nosecone

USS Akron and USS Macon had some unique construction features among rigid airships.  They were the only rigid airships with three keels instead of one.  They were also the only rigid airships with their engines mounted inside the hull.  Because the ship used helium as its lifting gas engine heat and sparks were not a problem.

A bit of trivia--the senior survivor of the crash of USS Akron, the navigator LCDR Wiley, was the commanding officer of the USS Macon when it crashed off California two years later.

[Nemesis]

Why not just reuse the names of prestigious carriers of the past such as the U.S.S. Cowpens?  It had quite the career as I understand it.

[Electric Eye]

Bring back the Cowpens! 

[Panzergranate]

The Makan was also the biggest airship ever built.

Also the first Radio Direction Finder beacon system, now common place, was used on their aircraft.

The Makan's crew was over 200!! It had it's own post office.

As an engineer I can appreciate the marvel of engineering that it was.

Onto CV names, what about some from outside the US like the Shiano?? Ark Royal?? Argus (the first aircraft carrier)?? , etc.

[Electric Eye]

Nah, I don't think that would fly too well. Of course, if someone had his way I'm sure one of the big carriers would be named Tony Blair. 

[Panzergranate]

Over here its pronaoucned "Phoney Blair"!!

How about the name USS Leyte Gulf??

Do you think there'll ever be a USS George W Bush??

Is he human or a Pakled Agent??

I heard about the latest "Bushism" at the Stevie Wonder comcert.... priceless!!

I found the ladder truck fiasco with the Royal Jet a few weeks ago priceless too. I guess that there have been a lot of postings to the weather stations in Alaska in the airforce since then.

[Electric Eye]

In Houston we already have Bush International airport. Priceless...

[Lieutenant_Q]

Wrong Bush, but...

There were some Houstonians that weren't happy with the Name Changing.  They were content with it being Houston Intercontinental.  But someone wanted to name it after '41.

I am thinking the LHA6 (getting back on topic) may very well be the last generation of Carriers we see.  The giant super carriers like the Enterprise and Nimitz Class ships are really done for.  The only nation that we really need the super carriers for is for use against a possible war with China.  Very unlikely to happen, but you have to keep a WCS around when you do Military planning.

The LHA6 looks like its going to be able to handle everything we use the super carriers for, just smaller and cheaper.  Why devote the resource of a super carrier when the LHA6 can do the same job for less money?  Might even see a few super carriers retired as the LHA6 comes into service.  Given their age, Enterprise, and Nimitz are the first two candidates.  Both could have a permanent berth in Los Angeles and New York City, and power their respective coasts for decades to come.

[Electric Eye]

I agree, for all the sabre rattling that goes on, our countries are bedfellows economically, like it or not. They might make a move for Taiwain, IMHO, but I really think that one of my heroes, a Japanese Admiral that was assassinated in the 1940s, would dare say we would be stupid to intervene. Otherwise I see their nukes aimed at Russia.

[TheJudge]

USS Cowpens and USS Leyte Gulf are both VLS-equipped ships of the Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers (most of the Tico's are named after major battles- the exception being the USS Thomas S Gates which is now decommed -)


 

[IndyShark]

Wrong Bush, but...

There were some Houstonians that weren't happy with the Name Changing.  They were content with it being Houston Intercontinental.  But someone wanted to name it after '41.

I am thinking the LHA6 (getting back on topic) may very well be the last generation of Carriers we see.  The giant super carriers like the Enterprise and Nimitz Class ships are really done for.  The only nation that we really need the super carriers for is for use against a possible war with China.  Very unlikely to happen, but you have to keep a WCS around when you do Military planning.

The LHA6 looks like its going to be able to handle everything we use the super carriers for, just smaller and cheaper.  Why devote the resource of a super carrier when the LHA6 can do the same job for less money?  Might even see a few super carriers retired as the LHA6 comes into service.  Given their age, Enterprise, and Nimitz are the first two candidates.  Both could have a permanent berth in Los Angeles and New York City, and power their respective coasts for decades to come.

The LHA6 is a nice ship but it's not half the ship a Nimitz class carrier is. The Nimitz has a much larger air group, more fuel , bombs, AEW aircraft and catapults for larger payloads.  This Nimitz never needs to refuel and are much more effective than the conventionally powered carriers like the JFK.

[Lieutenant_Q]

My point being, is that we don't need the entire Air Group of the Nimitz anymore.  We can use one in Norfolk, one in San Diego, one in Pearl, and probably one in Tokyo.  The missions that the Nimitz Class is performing today, can be performed by the LHA6.  Have a couple in a Mothball/Reserve status in case China decides that they want to start something.  The rest should be decommissioned.

[Just plain old Punisher]

My point being, is that we don't need the entire Air Group of the Nimitz anymore.  We can use one in Norfolk, one in San Diego, one in Pearl, and probably one in Tokyo.  The missions that the Nimitz Class is performing today, can be performed by the LHA6.  Have a couple in a Mothball/Reserve status in case China decides that they want to start something.  The rest should be decommissioned.

No, it can't preform the same mission as a nimitz.

It doesn't have the aircraft capacity, fuel, bombload, or the loiter time of a nuclear powered nimitz.

We're still building new nimitz class carriers.

[IndyShark]

My point being, is that we don't need the entire Air Group of the Nimitz anymore.  We can use one in Norfolk, one in San Diego, one in Pearl, and probably one in Tokyo.  The missions that the Nimitz Class is performing today, can be performed by the LHA6.  Have a couple in a Mothball/Reserve status in case China decides that they want to start something.  The rest should be decommissioned.

Just remember about a third of your fleet is in repair or transit at any one time. Plus shups in mothball status take years to restore to operationn and get the crew up to speed.  We had 4 in OIF, and we could not do that with just 4 carriers. The 4 LHA6's would have about as much firepower as 1 or 1.5 Nimitz class carriers.