Traditions are important.
They help form the pillars and foundations of an organization, providing
the continuity and connectivity to the past that help define the
characteristics of today and the expectations for tomorrow. Traditions help establish pride in an
organization.
Admittedly, carrier naming has always been a bit of a
catch-all process. The first purpose
built carriers, Saratoga and Lexington, were named for Revolutionary War
battles. The following carriers of the
Yorktown class were named for additional battles and to honor previous ships of
the name. The Essex class carriers were
named for famous ships and battles. While
recent carrier naming has migrated to Presidents, the age of the supercarriers has
also seen the bastardization of the naming convention with the Vison,
Forrestal, and Stennis, among others, being named for political purposes.
Given the modern disrespect shown for naming conventions,
one can’t logically argue that naming a carrier after Miller is completely
unprecedented but it most certainly violates any tradition associated with
carrier naming.
While this may seem like a small matter, traditions matter
and are important. This action further
erodes the foundations of the Navy and demonstrates the lack of respect and
appreciation Navy leadership has for their own organization and history.
I have no problem with naming ships after Navy Cross
recipients but there are other ship types that are traditionally named for Navy
medal winners. Honestly, this feels like
political pandering especially in light of the fact that Miller has already had
a ship named after him – the USS Miller (FF-1091, Knox class) – so it’s not as
if he’s been overlooked or unrecognized.
This is yet another mistake by Navy leadership.
No argument about the carrier naming fiasco. Don't forget that the 3rd Ford class carrier is being named "Enterprise" after the legendary carriers. So you have 2 presidents, a ship, and a Navy Cross winner so far.
ReplyDeleteThe mess that I hate is the subs. The USN had a long tradition of naming subs after 'denizens of the deep' until the first SSBN's came out. Then the LA class got named after cities because, as Hymen Rickover said, "Fish don't vote!". Now they are naming them after states. Um...what do you do when you run out o states?
Yeah, the whole naming issue is a mess, all right.
DeleteAfter we run out of states, maybe we could name ships for characteristics that we value as a society, like the USS Inclusivity, USS Sensitivity, USS Diversity, USS Self Esteem, and so on.
We could also name the ships after the characteristics of the ship itself. Maybe USS White Elephant, USS Harbor Queen, or USS Toothless.
DeleteHow do you run out of states? The US won't be building anywhere close to 20 let alone 50 SSBN's anytime soon and then you just re-use the state names again.
DeleteThe Virginia class are using the state names as well.
DeleteRight forgot that. So 38 Virginia's and 12 Columbia class using the 50 states then the improved Virginia or what ever the SSN(X) is eventually called will go back to city names I guess.
Delete"After we run out of states, maybe we could name ships for characteristics that we value as a society, like the USS Inclusivity, USS Sensitivity, USS Diversity, USS Self Esteem, and so on."
DeleteOne could do even better and name ships after Contemporary Navy Values.
Just imagine: USS Cost Bloating, USS Endless Delays, USS Unproven Technology, USS Undermanned, USS Avoided Testing, USS Budget Grab, USS Leadership Failure, USS Outright Fraud...
Nothing makes sense anymore.... I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Rather than name for original frigates, i.e. Congress... or the 50's fiasco, United States, we are completely ignoring 'fine naval traditions' and now are going with this. On MLK weekend. A couple weeks before Black History Month. Something strikes me that we are going a different direction. Perhaps to gain more votes in Congress? Shall we expect the USS Crazy Horse CVN-8x? USS Sheila Lee Jones CV-8x? USS Caesar Chavez CVN-8x?" USS Sacajawea? USS Manny Paquio? I guess I could live with the USS Ira Hayes CVN.... but.... really? Guess I am glad we got ENTERPRISE before this change happened.
ReplyDeleteUh, you may not like this but there is a USNS Caesar Chavez (T-AKE-14) navy logistics ship.
DeleteI vaguely recalled that and the point was to affix an Hispanic surname to an aircraft carrier. Kind of like the thinking on USS Diversity up the thread.... Just came up a bit dry on sympathetic left wing Hispanic names to use. Suppose Pancho Villa would have been as good as any...
DeleteThere's a USS Elijah Cummings. Or USNS. I don't mind the hat tip to achieving folk of all colors, creeds, orientation and such. But there are classes of ships that we traditionally do such things with.
As is the case with Miller who had a smallboy named after him.
But.... Since little makes sense anymore, and since I have zero ability to affect change that carries on traditions, AND knowing that I will be dead before this gets too much nuttier.... I will now return to my little safe world of memories where things are in balance...
Problem is really the USN just being all over place with naming, especially carriers. Ford, JFK, Entreprise, Miller....what's next? Makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteI think it would have been better to name the new FFGX Miller class. Would have made more sense just like everybody knows what class you talking about when say OHP or Burke.
I really like the FFGX Miller class.
DeleteCarriers, we need a Hornet, Saratoga then Lexington.
The RN, got a Queen Elizabeth & Prince of Wales,
proper capital ship names, they do names better than
the USN.
Given Miller's rank and award, I'm not sure about that. Had he won the MOH, perhaps. But, I think every class of warship should be named after someone or something with a strong tie to the Navy and/or service to the country.
DeleteThe Knox-class frigates are named after Commodore Dudley Knox, a distinguished officer who also earned the Navy Cross. The naming rationale behind the Ford and Nimitz-class carriers and the Zumwalt and Burke-class destroyers doesn't need much of an explanation.
Another ship naming issue that I recently read about... Arizona and Oklahoma will be returning to the rolls. While I could accept Oklahoma, since she was raised (and would have been scrapped if she hadnt sunk of her own accord), I think using Arizona is nearly sacreligious. Shes a tomb to this day, and my understanding is that shes still "in commission"... So how does that work?? I think this is a terrible idea!! I understand that Arizonans might like to see the name back at sea, but fate intervened, and Arizona should continue to represent the sneak attack and the tragic losses that propelled us into the World War...
ReplyDeleteUnlike USS Constitution the Arizona is not still 'in commission', although she does fly the flag of the US as if she is still active and in commission. She is under the control of the NPS.
DeleteJust behind the memorial is moored the former USS Missouri BB63.
Really should of been named after Barak Obama to be consistent.
ReplyDeleteIsnt it more Presidents who served in Navy or were connected in a major way. USS LB Johnson is a destroyer and theres no Clinton nor should there be.
DeleteI'd avoid naming ships after living people unless there's a strong connection with the Navy.
DeleteObama (and Clinton, Trump, etc.) should get their ship once they're dead, not before.
Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the Navy. The naming of ships has become 'political' over the last century. Cutter who won the Navy Cross three times, rubbed his superiors up the wrong way and has never had a ship named after him except for the 'Coast Guard Cutter'. LOL.
DeleteFar more likely that the announcement marks termination of the Ford class at the first three vessels, which is the modal build number for NAVSEA's failed programs.
ReplyDeleteThere's not going to be a fourth Ford-class, and there won't be a USS Miller.
It's pandering, but it costs nothing to name vaporware.
Let's remember that this is the same Navy that named an LCS after Gabrielle Giffords, LCS-10. Aside from being married to a former naval aviator and astronaut, she has no connection to the Navy. I get that she survived a horrific shooting in Tucson in 2010, but that is no justification or rationale for naming a warship, albeitly an LCS, after her.
ReplyDeleteWell now you see I think your point stands even for presidents in a republic/democracy.
DeleteSomebody is always going to be annoyed at X president even a dead one, or any other political figure. In some ways even valorous soldier sailors run the same - why not somebody else... etc.
If I had my choice I would stick to victorious battles, place names (as long as you spread them around) and abstractions. I realize CNO is sarcastic above but it need not be his list it could simply be similar to great navies of the past.
The UK say with the Vixen class and than the Viper, and Waterwitch. NIce names for small ships.
Or the rather creative list from Athens
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/triremenames2.htm
Although one wonders how they got sailors to sail on the 'Pandora'. "err no I am really headed for the Leopard over there you must be mistaken"
"While recent carrier naming has migrated to Presidents, the age of the supercarriers has also seen the bastardization of the naming convention with the Vison, Forrestal, and Stennis, among others, being named for political purposes."
ReplyDeleteOne could make a good case for Vinson and Forrestal, but Stennis was a racist senator who supported segregation and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Vinson was an ardent supporter of the Navy and co-sponsored the 1940 Two-Ocean Navy Act which significantly expanded the Navy shortly before we entered WWII. Forrestal, aside from being a WWI veteran, was the first Secretary of Defense and a former Secretary of the Navy.
USS Stennis does have the nickname of "Johnny Reb".
Delete