General > General Discussion

The Naming of Ships

(1/1)

Pendrake:
Today I stumbled on something very interesting at the USNHC ( http://www.history.navy.mil/ )  It is a lengthy document that carefully explains the total confusion that is US Navy ship-naming policy. This is a serious, scholarly document: it cost 62K tax dollars. I suppose that might mean a civilian staffer in the Navy Department who gets paid 120K a year spent about 6 months putting it together [?]

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/Shipnamingreport.pdf

Turns out SECNAV is who picks the names. The conclusion in the report is that it is not a mixed up, confused mess, oh no, it all makes total sense.

Who knew?

But seriously, it is a very interesting read. Explains the names for the LCS class.

Speaking of names: USS Enterprise (one of the exceptions to: Carriers are named after former presidents...) was officially decommissioned today. :-[

Ruckdog:
Very interesting read so far, I've only gotten about 20 pages in. I'm not sure that I buy this as a "serious" and "scholarly" piece, though; it reads more like a political justification for the Secretary of the Navy naming ships however he or she chooses. Phrases such as "our wonderful sailors" and "America's Navy" (original emphasis) are some of the more eye roll-inducing examples.

Pendrake:
I am willing to amend that to a Navy staffer trying to sound 'serious' and 'scholarly'...

Ruckdog:
Well, I finally got through the whole paper, and I have to say that while it is well researched, I'm not convinced by its central arguments. I found that the author(s) generally didn't do the opposing side a lot of justice, coming off as overly dismissive. Of course, I tend towards what the paper refers to as the "Orthodox Traditionalist" side of the spectrum, so maybe I, just being overly sensitive ;).

Navigation

[0] Message Index