I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"!

[Skandranon]

USS America

CV-66 was retired a while back.  How can the US Navy NOT have a ship called USS America?

How about USS Independence, recently taken off the active roles? 

The objections to AMERICA and INDEPENDENCE are likely the same; that it's too soon and some other name should be used. Although there may be some element of superstition regarding AMERICA and her persistent bad shaft problem.

I do agree, though, that putting RANGER on a new hull is a far better idea than Ronald Reagan. Not that I object in the particular, but it always strikes people as faintly funny when they hear about it. The other carrier names were equally odd: JOHN C. STENNIS is always good for a "who?" and so is CARL VINSON.

Regarding nuclear submarines, their naming conventions had been pretty good up until now. Fast-attack boats were fish (Permit and Sturgeon classes, among others). SSBNs were famous people. It changed at the launches of LOS ANGELES and OHIO; fast-attacks became cities, SSBNs became states. There was one exception, a fast-attack named HYMAN G. RICKOVER (but understandably so).

However, that's all out the window with the Seawolf class. The first three ships of the class are named:

SEAWOLF (marine creature)
CONNECTICUT (state)
JIMMY CARTER (why?)

They're not building any more, but even so the 774 class has changed things: fast-attacks are now states. Presumably, they're making up for the ones that were missed with the 726s.