While it’s in the link, the four oldest of the class were all converted. That’s, in order, the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia. Which makes for a fun mnemonic to remember them.
It carries 154 Tomahawks… OMFG!!!
Nope. DSRVs are very distinctive. That’s an equpment shelter of some sort. Probably SEAL shit, but could be other functions.
Well, USS Michigan actually is a steamship, so you were close. Sorta kinda close, anyway…
LOL. Good one.
As was the original - for many years, by treaty with Great Britain after the War of 1812, the only U.S. warship on the Great Lakes: USS Michigan (1843) - Wikipedia
As mentioned in yet another carrier thread around now, those guys call their … big thing with jets taking off from them … “boats.”
Is that carrier-I’m-special talk, or what? Now I’m more confused.
Every loss The Senators have had at the hands of the Leafs?
Right. That’s during informal, casual chit-chat.
Everyone in the Navy refers to the ship they are stationed on as “my boat”.
No one that I ever met was particularly hung up on what classifies a sea-going vessel as a boat, motor yacht, ship, etc. If it floats on the water and holds people, it’s a boat, even if it is 1,123 feet long and weighs 93,000 tons.
That usage has changed, and varies. In the merchant ship world years ago you’d get slapped down for calling a ship a boat, and my crusty old professor of naval architecture would not have thought it either cute or in any other way acceptable, one more reason to have it in for you :). But now the common slang of miscalling ships ‘boats’ has become more respectable.
Also besides submarines, large Great Lakes ships have always been ‘boats’.
Back to SS for submarine, see this link listing the ‘new’ USN designations in 1921. The double letter symbolized ‘first line’ vessel of a type, SS, DD, BB, not two different words. Again I’d say ‘Ship, submersible’ was made up non-officially on the idea each letter must stand for a word, but it wasn’t the original idea.
IANA Navy aviator type but my bro was. His take is this. On a carrier there are two kinds of people:
The ones who fly and maintain the aircraft who matter.
And the ones who operate the carrier who don’t. At least according to the former group. That former group are the ones who’re fond of calling their home-away-from-home a boat. The latter group would ever do that.
There’s also some complicated name-calling relating to shoes. The Navy is nothing if not long on ancient terminology to nurse ancient grudges. ISTM subs as “boats” is a variant on the same theme.
******bzzzzzt!!
I was a “black shoe”, a member of the ship’s company (full time crew, not part of the airwing), on the USS Ranger (CV-61) from Jan 1986-Dec 1989. Me and my shipmates (part of the Operations Department) called the boat “the boat”.
At least you corroborated the bit about shoes. 
A-6, A-7, F-14, F/A-18? Or S-3’s?
A-6 during the last few years of its service life.
Corry El, cool you’re a naval architect. That outdoes George Costanza’s most impressive assumed occupations by combining them.
Yes I’ve really built myself up into something (Jerry to George in ‘The Race’). 
Naval architect by training, not in practice in many years.
not sure how relevant this is, but…
From items I have read, though not recently, the original reason for calling a submarine a boat was that the early (think early 1900s) Navy submarines were so cramped and had such poor living quarters that the crews routinely berthed on the sub tenders except when the subs were actually sailing. Given how small and primitive they were, those voyages were short. Since the crew didn’t live on the vessels full-time, the Navy decided to call them boats, not ships.
The theories I found doing a quick search did not include this idea, but were all variations of boats can be carried on board a ship. I don’t think this was ever routine or intended practice for a submarine and it seems a very unlikely reason to me.
-
That’s true. The other aspect of early US (and some other navy’s) subs was they had gasoline engines: fuel leaks were inevitable, and toxic, even aside from the fire/explosion hazard. Crews would get the ‘gasoline jags’ from being aboard for more than limited periods. So this along with the size and theoretical endurance (of fuel storage v consumption) made them practical only in a short ranged coast defense role. Even later equally cramped subs powered by diesels had greater practical endurance.
-
The ‘hoist onto a ship’ idea was definitely not strictly the reason. Some early USN subs were shipped as deck cargo to overseas deployments (like when early USN subs were sent to the Philippines) but there was never a common idea of tactically deploying them that way. But ‘first class’ torpedo boats were also too large to carry on larger warships, speaking here of steam torpedo boats of ca. 100+ tons of late 19th/early 20th century*, not the smaller, later motor torpedo boats of the World Wars. Some lower ‘class’ steam torpedo boats, which launched locomotive torpedoes, were carried on late 19th century ships. And their precursors, spar torpedo boats from ca. Am Civil War era, were all definitely boats.
And I think this reference is the actual answer. Submarines were called boats because early subs had a role somewhat corresponding to that of contemporary (steam) torpedo boats: they were submersible torpedo boats. We could then dig into why steam torpedo boats too big to carry on other ships were still called boats, but they were.
*some navies retained the designation ‘torpedo boat’ for ships up to 600 tons allowed as exemptions to limits on destroyers under post WWI naval limitation treaties, German ones were even larger under their particular treaty situation. These existed in the Italian, French and Japanese navies besides German, among others. Such ships were absent in that time period from the USN and RN, the navies English speakers tend to focus on.
This turned into a most interesting … “drift.” [Who says hijacks are all bad?]
Not only on language. I used to think thought of torpedo boats only as PT 109-type vessels until now. I suspect I’m not alone in that.
The technical term is “target.”