The Sub Jimmy Carter???

[California_bred]

Yes, well, in an effort to remove Democratic President names from carriers, the Navy will be retiring JFK (CV-67) early (I think 2006).

Any confirmation to the rumor that nuclear carrier USS Tom DeLay is in the works?

Are you suggesting Kennedy was a weak military leader? I don't think he was weak in the Navy nor as a President.

 

[Triggerfish]

I thought you had to be a dead President to have a vessel named after you.

HMMMMMMMMM - wishful thinking, perhaps?

USS Ronald Reagan(CVN 76) was commisioned before Reagan died. Also the next Nimitz class is H.W. Bush(CVN 77)

 

[Triggerfish]

Yes, well, in an effort to remove Democratic President names from carriers, the Navy will be retiring JFK (CV-67) early (I think 2006).

Any confirmation to the rumor that nuclear carrier USS Tom DeLay is in the works?

This is from an official Navy site..

"CVN 79 is programmed to begin construction in 2012 and to be placed in commission in 2018, replacing USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) in her 50th year."

50 years is old for a carrier. I've served aboard the Nimitz(1991-1996) and the Kitty Hawk(1999-2003) and neither one of them are that old and they've been through a lot of overhauls.

If you want to read the whole thing.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html

 

[John Z]

This is from an official Navy site..

"CVN 79 is programmed to begin construction in 2012 and to be placed in commission in 2018, replacing USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) in her 50th year."

Yes, officially that is the current story. But I read in 2/7/2005 Defense News that the 2006 Pentagon Budget Request to Congress includes the early retirement of CV 67. I don't think this will be "official" until the budget is approved (and then it would filter into the Navy's public info website). And plans might change too, so who knows?

 

[Railroad]

Yes, officially that is the current story. But I read in 2/7/2005 Defense News that the 2006 Pentagon Budget Request to Congress includes the early retirement of CV 67. I don't think this will be "official" until the budget is approved (and then it would filter into the Navy's public info website). And plans might change too, so who knows?

Well said!

 

[Bruzilla]

And to think he was a skipper of a sub.

Who? Carter? Carter never commanded a rowboat in the Navy. He was only a LT in submarines, and only became "qualified" for command (not placed in command) because at the time, about 1950, they were still allowing JOs to command boats.

 

[Bruzilla]

Are you suggesting Kennedy was a weak military leader? I don't think he was weak in the Navy nor as a President.

I wouldn't say that he was weak in the Navy, however letting your boat get chopped in half isn't the mark of a good skipper, especially when you're driving a fast, maneuverable, small vessel and you get chopped by a big, slow-moving, less manueverable ship. What he did to get his crew rescued was commendable, but the action that necessitated that effort was not.

He was a weak President. He was able to backdown the Soviets because he had the inside information on their military limits IRT nuclear attack and he knew they would have to back down. When it came to unknowns, like during the Bay of Pigs, he backed down with nary a whisper. Had Kennedy really been a strong President he would have been more proactive with Minh and avoided the Vietnam War and he would have sent Castro packing.

 

[Bruzilla]

The decomming of the Kennedy is big news down here. What's been funny is that there are a lot of Democrats hollering for Jeb Bush to do more to get George Bush to keep the carrier, but with all of the mud they've tossed on suppossed preferential treatment received by Jeb there's no way he can do it.

It's looking more and more like the Kennedy is history based on the fact that all of the powers-that-be are now focusing on modifying Mayport Naval Station to support a nuclear carrier moved from NORVA. The CNO just said he wants to maintain two East Coast carrier bases, so it'll likely be that the Kennedy will get decommed in 2005, and then a nuc from NORVA will move here about 2008.

 

[scupper trout]

Who? Carter? Carter never commanded a rowboat in the Navy. He was only a LT in submarines, and only became "qualified" for command (not placed in command) because at the time, about 1950, they were still allowing JOs to command boats.

I stand corrected.

:

 

[Bruzilla]

When I think of Carter in the Navy, I think of David Hedison's line in "The Enemy Below" when he's asked why he isn't in command of the ship: "The Navy may have been desperate enough to put me in uniform, but they aren't silly enough to let me sail away by myself."

 

[Hessian]

In the 'Good ole Days..."

We used to sell out-dated vessels/planes to allies (or the top bidder)
Can/should we sell the JFK to Taiwan..Philippines...South Korea?

I just remember seeing the Carrier getting scrapped in Baltimore about a dozen years ago and it was sort of sad. (Nimitz?)...better to sell it,..make our enemies ponder how that throws the strategic balance out of wack, opens up a chance for US defense contractors to keep working on it with allied training & supplies.

Back to the Sub "Jimmy"...part of the honor/gratitude shown toward Reagan was the contrast he presented in comparison to Carter. I feel it is embarrassing to name a vessel for such a genuine failure.
Perhaps in the future we will start patterning our ship naming after the British.

HMS Indefatiguable?...HMS Frolic? HMS Poincters?...HMS Ark Royal?
Names ranged from being unpronouncible to outright pansy.

 

[Triggerfish]

He was able to backdown the Soviets because he had the inside information on their military limits IRT nuclear attack and he knew they would have to back down. When it came to unknowns, like during the Bay of Pigs, he backed down with nary a whisper. Had Kennedy really been a strong President he would have been more proactive with Minh and avoided the Vietnam War and he would have sent Castro packing.

Soviets actually didn't really back down. They got more out of the deal than the U.S. They agreed to pull the missles out of Cuba(according to recent declassified information some were already active.) in exchange the U.S. pulled missles out of Turkey(which were all active) and agreed to never again help try to overthrow the communist government in Cuba again.

 

[Ken King]

I heard the crew has already came up with the unofficial nickname for the vessel, in Carter's honor they will call it the "Goober Pea".

 

[Lenny]

... I feel it is embarrassing to name a vessel for such a genuine failure.

Maybe that's why the Navy elected to name a submarine after a failure. After all, it does its work (sneaking around, listening to other peoples' phone calls, etc.) out of sight.

 

[Hessian]

Oh...I get it now!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1491764,00.html

This might help explain the British naming of ships! This is the latest designation from our Blokes on the other side of the pond.
HMS Safron? HMS Daisy? HMS Mauve? HMS Lavender?..now it makes a lot more sense.

 

[Bustem' Down]

We used to sell out-dated vessels/planes to allies (or the top bidder)
Can/should we sell the JFK to Taiwan..Philippines...South Korea?

I just remember seeing the Carrier getting scrapped in Baltimore about a dozen years ago and it was sort of sad. (Nimitz?)...better to sell it,..make our enemies ponder how that throws the strategic balance out of wack, opens up a chance for US defense contractors to keep working on it with allied training & supplies.

Back to the Sub "Jimmy"...part of the honor/gratitude shown toward Reagan was the contrast he presented in comparison to Carter. I feel it is embarrassing to name a vessel for such a genuine failure.
Perhaps in the future we will start patterning our ship naming after the British.

HMS Indefatiguable?...HMS Frolic? HMS Poincters?...HMS Ark Royal?
Names ranged from being unpronouncible to outright pansy.

A country has to be able to afford that too. JFK is an old non nuclear powered carrier. A ship that size eats a lot of fuel. We did the math on our boat, a cruiser only about 560 feet long, and it came out to something like 5 feet per gallon. That's a lot of deasil to pay for.

I prefer some of the brithish ship names. Like HMS Battleaxe and HMS Broadsword. But then they also have ships named for people, like HMS Marbourogh. (The Lord not the cigarette.)