CVW77.U. S. GEORGE BUSH
- Frank_Monaldo
- spondulix
- Lawhawk
-
Brian Tubbs
- malthus6
- malthus6
- spondulix
- malthus6
- tjtrujllo
- Lawhawk
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» Frank_Monaldo - Re: One more try
In response to message posted by malthus6:Dear Malthus,
I am sure you know this, but it was not clear from your post. The carrier is named after the first George (Herbert Walker) Bush, not the current president. As far a Nimiitz Class nuclear aircraft carriers named after presidents, here is the score:
- Federalists: (1) USS George Washington (CVN68).
- Democrats: (1) USS Harry S. Truman (CVN75).
- Republicans: (5) USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN69), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71), USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) , USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN77).
Does his mean that CVN78 will be the USS William Clinton?
-- posted by Frank_Monaldo
» spondulix - Re: Re: One more try
In response to message posted by Frank_Monaldo:My opinion about this subject is that we shouldn't be naming anything after Presidents that are still living. I though that used to be the standard.
As far as who will the next carrier be named after, the question might be better asked will there be a next carrier?
The cost might not be worth the effectiveness.
spondulix
-- posted by spondulix
» Lawhawk - Re: Re: Re: One more try
In response to message posted by spondulix:The costs of maintaining the older carriers, such as the USS Enterprise will only increase, and the next aircraft carrier beyond the Bush will not be a Nimitz class, but instead an entirely new class of carrier that integrates new types of technology and perhaps even a new layout altogether of the topside.
Some of the older carriers, such as the JFK (oil burner) and Enterprise (first nuclear carrier), will be coming to the end of their expected lifespan and need to be replaced in order to maintain the current force structure.
-- posted by Lawhawk
»
Brian Tubbs
- I'm offended
U.S.S. Millard Fillmore
He did install the first bathtub in the White House. I mean, come on, where would we be without Presidents who bathe on a regular basis?
U.S.S. William Henry Harrison
Served only one month in office, thus establishing himself beyond question as the President who caused the LEAST amount of trouble.
U.S.S. James Buchanan
Embodied the slogan..."When in doubt, don't..."
U.S.S. Warren G. Harding
Set the precedent for getting out of town when scandal rocks your administration. He took this one step further by dying while out of town.
Well, I don't want to be too controversial, so I'll stop before getting any further into the 20th century. :-)
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
» malthus6 - Re: Re: One more try
In response to message posted by Frank_Monaldo:Clearly, the next carrier will, as pointed out by Leehawk, be a new class and will be named the U.S.S. George W. Bush, Jr., thus all those following will be of the "George W. Bush, Jr." class. But there may be one more major change in nomenclature, if I am to lend credence to Kevin Phillips, author of "American Dynasty", the prefix "U.S.S." will become, "H.M.S." in recognition of His Royal Highness, Emperor George.
The new class will combine the attributes of carriers and submarines. It will be truly unsinkable inasmuch as it rests upon a number of telescoping supports which extend to the ocean's bottom and terminate in inflatable feet at the lower extremety.
Each aircraft will be temporarily attached to a speedboat that can be propelled to 60 knots when launching its aircraft. This innovation relieves the necessity for the carrier to move when launching or retrieving aircraft. The retrieval will be enhanced by a radar designed to match the course and velocity of the boat and plane.
When under attack, the carrier submerges and raises numerous rocket platforms to the surface for defence.
Careful calculation has convinced me that this carrier, complete with planes, boats, etc. can be built for under three hundred billion dollars. This figure, of course, is based upon the contingency that the carrier will be constructed in China with Chinese labor and engineering staff since the United States no longer possesses plant or staff capable of anything larger than construction of a McDonald's hamburger.
The buck never stops at a Bush.
-- posted by malthus6
» malthus6 - Re: I'm offended
In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:Good work Brian, fine research. I too am offended that my EYE-DEAL, Richard Nixon, has never been properly honored. After all, if he had simply sat upon his laurels (or something else beginning with the letter "a"), our country would still be mad at the Chinese (dirty Commys) and a lot of us who are taking it easy and living high on the hog on unemployment insurance, would still be working eight hours a day making electronic stuff and stuff.
Yessir, we should have a national holiday to honor all of the "free trader" presidents and the Council on Foreign Relations, and Bill Clinton who gave us NAFTA.(Oh, yes, Reagan who began the trade deficits). Boy, you can say what you want about government handouts, they sure beat working. "Course your kids get kinda hungry, but maybe they will get used to it.
-- posted by malthus6
» spondulix - Re: Re: I'm offended
In response to message posted by malthus6:It just doesn't seem fair to me that Bush has already gotten an aircraft carrier named after him, when President Jefferson Davis still doesn't even have a battleship after his name.
some good post though Brian and Mathus
spondulix
-- posted by spondulix
» malthus6 - Military Secrets
Sorry to report that my contribution to this discussion will be abruptly terminated.I am going to Cuba to live in chains with the other enemies who are being denied trial.
My description of the "George W. Bush" class of UAL (underwater aircraft launcher) vessel has proven to be too accurate and the counter intelligence people say it is unnecessary to show a paper trail of other connection with the design people since I have divulged numerous classified details. Gee, I am sorry!
My sentence will extend until a Democratic administration is elect, which, they say, will be some time because there will be no more elections.
-- posted by malthus6
» tjtrujllo - USS America CV66 to be sunk by US Navy
Felow conservatives. I need your help. You may not be aware but on 4/19/05 the decommissioned aircraft carrier USS America CV66 will be towed 300 - 600 miles into the Atlantic and sunk by our own Navy. I served on this proud ship with Ronald Reagan as my CinC in the early 1980's.I tried for the past three years along with other veterans and citizens to get the Navy to release the ship so that we could turn her into a museum with no success. With little help from our representatives in Congress, the die is cast.
However, the USS America will serve one last productive mission. As part of her targeting and eventual scuttling, the data captured from sensors placed on the ship will be used to design and build not just the next carrier (after CVN77 USS Bush currently under construction), but the entire next class of carrier!
Former USS America veterans, Navy vets and Americans of all types are working to get the Navy to name that next ship and class THE USS AMERICA ! The alternative may be the USS CLINTON. PLEASE HELP.
More information can be gathered at http://www.cvn78.com
We are starting an email / letter writing campaign to commence as soon as the current America slips beneath the waves.
In the interim, please visit the site and sign the questbook in order to be updated via email when we are ready to go as well as receive future updates.
Thanks in advance and God Bless America!
Tom Trujillo (AW2 former)
USS America CV66
1/81 - 8/83
In response to Re: Re: Re: One more try posted by Lawhawk:
-- posted by tjtrujllo
» Lawhawk - Re: USS America CV66 to be sunk by US Navy
In response to USS America CV66 to be sunk by US Navy posted by tjtrujllo:The problem with naval ship naming has to do with politics, pure and simple. Time was, US ships were named after fish, cities, states, famous ships in history, famous dead sailors/Marines, and battles.
You could figure out what type of ship simply by looking at the name.
North Carolina? New Jersey? Battleships.
Intrepid, Enterprise, Essex, Lexington? Aircraft carriers.
Iwo Jima, San Jacinto (troop carriers named after famous amphibious landings/battles).
Skipjack, Seawolf? Submarines.
Los Angeles, Nashville, San Francisco (also submarines, but from a later generation).
No longer, as the politics of getting ships built is now somehow tied to naming rights. Carter's ship is a submarine, which is fitting since Carter did serve in the silent service.
I agree that someone should not be honored with a ship name unless they're already dead - honoring the likes of Reagan, Bush, and Carter far too soon (or if at all). I just don't see any changes being made in how the ships are named unless the DoD steps in and seeks to restore the historical lineages and rich heritage kept alive by those classical names.
-- posted by Lawhawk
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.