The Lurker Lounge Forums
I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Printable Version

+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! (/thread-10833.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Occhidiangela - 07-09-2003

Paul Harvey, to whom I listen about two mornings per week, just announced that the latest nuclear powered aircraft carrier has been completed in a Norfolk, Virginia, shipyard and will be commissioned USS Ronald Reagan.

I object. Not to honoring President Reagan, though others might, but to the following problems of nautical heritage.

USS Ranger is still available. The original Ranger was one of JP Jone's early vessels, a name used six or seven times. CV-61 retired a few years back, time to give Ranger another hull.

Or

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?

What about, USS Constitution! As in, "I swear to support and defend the . . ."

EDIT: Foolish Occhi, go to Boston Harbor and have a look at USS Constitution! ^^^^ DOH! (Thanks Rhydd, Ghostiger, for the reminder. Even worse, I have a picture of that ship on top of my speakers in my den, and have visited it within the past 5 years.)

America used to name the capital ships for things that were important parts of our national heritage, states of the Union, great battles, or for the critical legacies deriving from the founding of our country: USS Bon Homme Richard and USS Lexington, for example. (Note: The Lexington is now a floating museum here in Corpus Christi, operated by a non-profit organization. :) )

Smaller ships are typically named for cities, heroes (Medal of Honor winners, such as Clyde Lassen or Wayne Caron of Boston Mass, a corpsman who had a destroyer named for him USS Caron) great naval men, Arleigh Burke et al, and even counties. Battles are also major names for ships, like USS Belleau Wood and USS Chanceloresville.

Heritage is important, in matters nautical. John Paul Jones' legacy has given the Bon Homme Richard more than one hull, and Ranger multiples as well.

Times change, there are no more Battleships. (booooo!) The Cruisers and Amphibious Assault Ships now have the Great Battle franchise, such as Yorktown, Ticonderoga, Bunker Hill, the Belleau Wood and the Tarawa.

The Destroyers are the "people" ships, heroes or nautical men of note, such as USS Winston Churchill.

Nuclear submarines get Cities and States. (USS Corpus Christi got renamed USS City of Corpus Christi after a heated protest by some foaming at the mouth Catholic pacifists. They did not "get" that the sub was named for the City, too easy that one, and I wonder at their failing to force the state of Texas to rename our little town here "Nueces Mouth" or some such non 'body of Christ' name.)

Amphibious ships and oilers are still named for counties, or cities.

What is it with contemporary polticians getting top billing on the nation's capital ships?

JFK? He earned it that hard way: PT-109, President, Cuban missile crisis, shot in office, etc etc.

Harry Truman? Street cred, asserting civilian control over the MacArthurtary, standing tall and tough in Korea, integrating the Armed Services, and of course The Bomb. Famous and infamous . . .

John Stennis (on a carrier?) and Ronald Reagan given priority over traditional names for Aircraft carriers/capital ships? Should there not be a statute of limitations, like a generation, or a requirement for legendary status (uh, Mr Stennis, you can have a Destroyer, nice job as not the president) like TR or Honest Abe before one has a capital ship named for him?

Benjamin Franklin, once the proud name of a nuclear sub, is OVER DAMEND DUE for once again gracing a capital ship with his name. Thomas Jefferson as well.

What about James Monroe, who gave us The Monroe Doctrine, which is what gunboat diplomacy is all about! And what do aircraft carriers do? Gunboat diplomacy, among other things.

Why the rant?

Among other reasons, President Reagan is Still Alive!

He did some good things, sure (and was as rabid an anticommunist as JFK) but for the U.S. Congress to name capital ships for a man still breathing, when far more appropriate choices are available and begging to grace the vessels that Cromwell called the "best ambassador," is just plain wrong.

They say that the military is the tool of the politician.

Indeed. It is in poor taste for nautical heritage to be so blatantly abused. (The naming of a ships is, of course, a highly charged political process.)

*slaps forehead*

I forgot, good taste went out of politics with Watergate, perhaps, and for sure when Cigars and Interns as groupies were debated on the floor of the House in Constitutional terms.

(PS: On an interesting note, the Royal Navy tends to name capital ships after adjectives, such as Intrepid or Indomitable, or verbs, such as Repulse, and lately escort ships on a theme: the Amazon class frigate names all started with A, and IIRC, the Type 23 frigates all start with B. HMS Beaver was one of the first frigates, IIRC, to have female sailors embarked as part of the crew: did anyone think that one through at the Defense Ministry? Or was The First Sea Lord having one last Non-PC joke?)

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Rhydderch Hael - 07-09-2003

Occhidiangela,Jul 9 2003, 04:59 AM Wrote:...They say that the military is the tool of the politician.  Indeed. ...
"Fish don't vote!"—attributed to Admiral Rickover as to why the naming convention for submarines was changed with the inception of the Type-688 fast attack boats. Though I still have a preference for "Archerfish", who took out the Shinano in '44.

And Constitution can't be placed on a new ship, after all. The original Constitution's still on the Navy roster, is it not? Then again, her original sister ships were the Congress and the United States. Throw those names back into mix, eh?

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - wundergore - 07-09-2003

Interesting. I had always wondered how they picked the names of ships. It's been an educational morning so far.......

W<

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Guest - 07-09-2003

I thought it was the oldest active duty ship.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Occhidiangela - 07-09-2003

Constitution, in Boston Harbor, what the hell was I thinking?

Never mind, on that one, just never mind, brain shorted out!

Ghostiger, Rhydd, I owe you both a beer.

And yes, Rhydd, Congress and United States should be tossed back into the mix. Of course, I can see guys like McVeigh wanting to blow up USS Congress for political reasons . . . :P

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - WarBlade - 07-09-2003

Occhidiangela,Jul 10 2003, 12:59 AM Wrote:CV-66 was retired a while back.&nbsp; How can the US Navy NOT have a ship called USS America?
Maybe in light of the world's current political climat, some of the navy higher ups think that naming a ship into one of the world's most symbolic terrorist targets might be a bad idea? Just a thought.

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

That could work. :unsure:

Quote:What about, USS Constitution!&nbsp; As in, "I swear to support and defend the . . ."

Oh thanks for warning me to put my drink down. You mean there's an American ship called the Constitution??? :blink: Holy crap dude! That's hysterical! :lol:

Yeah I'll vote for "USS Ranger" over Ronald Reagan. It's probably a little bit arguable about Reagan's state of life though. Last I heard he was getting deeper into altzheimers so it's anybody's guess what left of his memory at this point. Breathing is one thing, living is a little different.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Occhidiangela - 07-09-2003

See Rhydd's post above, in re the Constitution. "Old Ironsides." Been around since war of 1812, in one shape or another.

If you find that funny, then you don't "get" matters nautical, and you really don't "get" American naval heritage. You have just been very offensive, doubtless without intention.

Old Ironsides

For what it's worth:

July 21, 1977 - The CONSTITUTION sails under her own power, not under tow, for the first time in 116 years. This event is conducted just outside Boston Harbor captained by Commander Michael C. Beck. Six of the ship's sails are used.

July 11, 2000 - "Old Ironsides" leads a "Parade of Sail" with over 120 tall ships into Boston Harbor-as part of "Sail Boston 2000" festivities.

As I recall, the Blue Angels flight demonstration team flew over her as she sailed.

EDIT: looks like I recalled correctly.

Link To Picture

Here are a pair of operational tidbits on a 50 year old ship:

Quote:The CONSTITUTION circumnavigates the world from 1844-1846, under Captain John "Mad Jack" Percival, sailing 52,370 miles in 495 days at sea.&nbsp; In 1849, while the ship is operating in the Mediterranean, she is visited by Pope Pius IX at Gaeta, Italy; he is the first Pontiff to "step" onto U.S. territory.&nbsp;

1853-1855:&nbsp;&nbsp; The CONSTITUTION sails as flagship of the African Squadron. She patrols the West African coast, looking for slave traders, as well as "showing the flag" via many port calls. On this assignment she sails 42,166 miles in 430 days at sea.

Comments from the naval engineers involved, as printed in the US Naval Institute's Proceedings, suggested that she is still a bit tender, all work on her aside. They did not recommend making sailing a monthly habit.

Insofar as USS America, you don't name or not name ships of the line with timidity as a guiding principle. See HMS Invincible. The political "climate" in the early 1960's, when CV-66 was named, were every bit as hot and irritable as now, what with a Cold War and all that going on.

The naming process is tied to internal politics in our Congress, the US Navy League, and some lobbying efforts by "groups" with a variety of axes to grind. Admiral Rickover's comment, once again thanks to Rhydd, is instructive.

See also USS Enterprise, the first nuclear powered carrier. It is no mistake that Star Trek's creators resurrected that name in their future as Star Fleet's most advanced ship . . . the theme of giving famous ships new hulls is a consistent one in American Naval Heritage.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Rhydderch Hael - 07-09-2003

WarBlade,Jul 9 2003, 05:24 AM Wrote:... Oh thanks for warning me to put my drink down. You mean there's an American ship called the Constitution??? :blink: Holy crap dude! That's hysterical! :lol: ...
Ummm, a history lesson is in order: the United States Navy was formed on the order for six frigates rated to 44 and 36 guns, but they started out with only half that batch (the other three only coming to light if and when the United States went to war—which was promptly done). The first three warships of the USN were the USS United States (44 guns), the USS Congress (36 guns), and the USS Constitution (44 guns). In a replay of the fabled Goldilocks story, these "three bears" ran the gamut of outcomes during their launches: the United States was slipped into the water at too steep an angle and bent her false keel; the Congress' slipways were too shallow, and she hung up at launch; and only the Constitution's launch was "just right".

The USS Constitution has born a historical reputation that has allowed her to survive, restored, to this day. Her nickname is "Old Ironsides" in reference to an incident where enemy cannon shot impacted square upon her oaken hull, and fell harmlessly into the water (thus giving rise to the declaration that her sides were as of iron). She's never been boarded by enemy sailors or marines in the heat of battle, her hull never breached by eneny shot, and is the key figure is a few incidents against the Royal Navy during the War of 1812: mainly the defeat of the HMS Java and HMS Guerriere, and a successful evasion of a RN squadron (5-to1 odds) that attempted to pursue her in becalmed conditions.

The USS Constitution, just like HMS Victory does for Britain, serves as a naval memorial for the days of fighting sail. However, unlike Victory, the Constitution is still in the water.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - WarBlade - 07-09-2003

Occhidiangela,Jul 10 2003, 01:36 AM Wrote:If you find that funny, then you don't "get" matters nautical, and you really don't "get" American naval heritage.&nbsp; You have just been very offensive, doubtless without intention.
Gut reaction. Yes I found it funny.
And you're right about me not intending offence there. None was intended.

Actually I'm surprised about having been interpreted as "very offensive". I certainly don't "get" that at all and as for nautical matters, just because I might be clueless about American warship names doesn't mean "I don't get nautical matters" . . .

Quote:Insofar as USS America, you don't name or not name ships of the line with timidity as a guiding principle.

Speaking of not getting nautical matters, the subject of superstition is historically very prominent in the naming of ships. So much so that old superstitions have become traditions that still pop up today. My father's little yacht had originally been the Melanie, later changed to Melani, before he decided it should become "Valkyrien" (Danish for Valkyrie). Changing the name again was supposed to have been unlucky. :huh:

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Occhidiangela - 07-09-2003

For naming the ships.

As to luck, I hope the Valkyrien is a lucky ship. Ship's reputations are part and parcel of the ship itself, and usually in the hands of the crew. However, some ships are simply "unlucky" or "cursed."

"Luck" was for millenia a necessary attribute for any successful commander, be he on land or sea. "He was born under a lucky star" or "he is a lucky captain" was considered a favorable endorsement rather than a backhanded compliment.

"Leif Erikson," who some claim "dicsovered America" was also known as "Leif the Lucky." I suspect he liked the nickname.

EDIT: Insofar as who does not get what, the issue is timidity as the bogus concept, not luck, tradition, or superstition.

Once again, "tradition" and "superstition" do not include "timidity" as a guiding principle for naming Ships of the Line. With United States and Congress, one could argue that 'bad luck' at their launching is reason enough not to use the name again. OK, why then did the Lexington, sunk in the battle of Coral Sea, get renamed on a new hull? What worse 'luck' than being sunk in battle? Same also with USS Wasp: sunk in a battle in WW II, renamed twice now, once as a carrier, now as an amphibious assault ship.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - ShadowHM - 07-09-2003

When I read the thread title, the ship that came to mind was 'Ocean Ranger', which sank with all 84 members aboard in a storm in 1982. One of them was a young man I knew. He was best man at my sister's wedding.

I suspect it will be long before anyone re-uses that name.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Feryar - 07-09-2003

Quote:America used to name the capital ships for things that were important parts of our national heritage

Then they should make a USS Simpsons. That would be awesome :D
* Feryar thinks Simpsons is the best thing that ever came out of american television.

edit: Possible with the exception of South Park. That is american, isn't it?

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Occhidiangela - 07-09-2003

Naming ships after jackasses is not the heritage issue at stake. I appreciate that you are attempting humor. :)

Try the USS Simpson web site:

USS Simpson

The ship is named for: Rear Admiral Simpson, who earned the Legion of Merit Medal for his rescue of over 7,500 Allied Prisoners of War and civilians interned in Japanese concentration camps.

Somehow, Matt Groenig creating a cartoon of suburban jackassery doesn't quite cut it.

Why do you think I wrote the rant in the first place?

My position is that the hallowed traditions are indeed being trodden upon for no good reason, although for the record, I assure you that I hold President Reagan in considerably higher regard than any cartoon character.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Rhydderch Hael - 07-09-2003

Occhidiangela,Jul 9 2003, 04:59 AM Wrote:(PS: On an interesting note, the Royal Navy tends to name capital ships after adjectives, such as Intrepid or Indomitable, or verbs, such as Repulse, and lately escort ships on a theme: the Amazon class frigate names all started with A, and IIRC, the Type 23 frigates all start with B.&nbsp; HMS Beaver was one of the first frigates, IIRC, to have female sailors embarked as part of the crew: did anyone think that one through at the Defense Ministry?&nbsp; Or was The First Sea Lord having one last Non-PC joke?)
I may come to believe the Brit convention for naming their ships consistently with the first letter of the class leader may have come to light in their submarine service around the years of WWI. Beforehand, their subs were referenced simlpy by the leter of their class and the hull number (B-61, for example). This went all well and dandy until they got up around to the S-, T-, and U- classes. The British submariners came to realize that, if they did not change their ways, many of their brethren would be serving upon "U-boats", something the WWI Royal Navy certainly did not want. So, they started naming the subs with the letter of their class.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Occhidiangela - 07-09-2003

There are some who would contend that "the best thing ever to come out of _____ television" is still the work of the devil. :P

Put a different way, to say that something is the "best thing that came out of American Television" is to "damn it with faint praise" in any case. ;)

Sort of like saying, for example, to one's blind date:

"UH, for a fat girl, you sure don't sweat much, Loretta"

or

"For a nerd, you sure don't smell too bad, Jim"

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Occhidiangela - 07-09-2003

Wind Shadow

Best of luck in getting your hands on one. :)

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Rhydderch Hael - 07-09-2003

In addition, the renaming of a ship may mean squat in the bad luck department. On the contrary, take the USS Squalus as an example. Sunk in an accident on her sea trials because the diesel induction valve did not close, the sub was raised, repaired, and re-named the Sailfish. Certainly a case for a cursed ship, eh? Taking a look at the Sailfish's war record, it is more plausible to say that submarine became a lucky ship that escaped many a determined attack by the enemy— the talk being that the sub, having been sunk once already, could never be sunk again.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - ShadowHM - 07-09-2003

Given the nature of the waters by my cottage, any 'real' sailboat (casting no aspersions on those who love sailboards) has the immediate alternate name of ShoalBanger or StoveInKeel or SunkAgain.

I love my Zodiac with the short-shaft Mercury engine. B) My children have mastered the art of holding onto the sidelines - even in their sleep. And we can go over almost any shoal with confidence. We still need a bow scout at the beginning of the season, just in case the ice has moved some of the bigger boulders out there, but we do know where the worst of them are likely to be.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - Skandranon - 07-09-2003

Occhidiangela,Jul 9 2003, 12:59 PM Wrote:USS America

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

How about USS Independence, recently taken off the active roles?&nbsp;
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.

I object: Bring Back "The Ranger"! - pakman - 07-09-2003

Too bad my only experience with anything nautical is white-water rafting and canoeing in the boundary waters <_< . My boat usually earns the name "stupid" because I forgot something and decide to take out my anger on the canoe. :blink: