Barring renames like the future USS John F. Kennedy, you think they will ever name another future US aircraft carrier after an American President or would it become too controversial?
There’s been a lot of bad movies with a “USS Clinton” or “USS Obama” as aircraft carriers when trying to “predict” future aircraft carriers but I really don’t see it going that way. The USS Nimitz Class had Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Previous carrier lines had John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the current USS Ford class has Gerald Ford (obviously), and John F. Kennedy. All of those Presidents are associated with either the US Navy directly or are seen as “Strong” military Presidents (You can argue about Reagan’s service but his 600 ship Navy proposal was the biggest boost to the US Navy since World War 2).
I’m curious though if you think we will ever see another Aircraft Carrier named after a US President, either after H.W. Bush or named after a previous President? A carrier named U.S. Grant would be pretty cool but I have a feeling we just won’t see anymore US Carriers named after Presidents.
Given how recently carriers have been named for living memory Presidents (some of whom were even still living themselves when the decision was made), what makes you think it wouldn’t happen again?
For what it’s worth, the more common question among those in the Navy is, will we ever stop naming vessels to score political points? Submarines with cool names like Seawolf used to be the norm, now they are the vanishing exception. Ditto with ships like Enterprise. Even recent ships like Freedom and Independence were subject to a sort of bait and switch where early press releases suggested they were being named for those lofty concepts, but subsequent reporting has sought gas light us into believing that they were named, collectively, for all the towns Freedom and Independence throughout the nation. And of course a recent SECNAV was happy to break from that “named for towns and cities” tradition to name an LCS for Congresswoman Giffords following her near assassination (no beef from me, just noting that it’s the easiest thing in the world for a SECNAV to decide to name a ship for someone, even if it breaks with convention for the class of ship).
So, again, I see no reason to doubt that a future CVN will be named for a former POTUS. Obama will get one when he’s dead (not for many decades, I hope) or possibly sooner so long as a Democrat happens to be in office at the same time a new CVN is due to be ordered no he at least appears to be teetering (see Ford, Bush, and I think Reagan as well). Clinton probably not just because he’s too problematic. Bush the Younger, maybe when he’s been successfully rehabilitated for that whole Iraq War thing.
I think and hope that, in a few decades, Obama won’t be so controversial any more. Possibly George W. Bush won’t be either. I agree that Clinton will probably continue to be controversial, as will Trump. But, given the opportunity, I expect Republicans to start naming things after Trump as soon as possible. Not so with Democrats and Clinton.
I don’t know enough about the ship naming process to know if an aircraft carrier will be named after Trump soon or not.
My impression is that submarines with cool names have always been a distinct minority. Whole classes of submarines are named after states or cities. All of the “41 for Freedom” were named after famous people (42 of them - there’s a bit of trivia). Even the ones named for sea creatures included the not particularly cool “Cuttlefish” and “Grunion”
Now if you want cool submarine names, check out the UK subs - “Vengeance,” “Vanguard,” “Renown,” “Revenge” etc.
Part of the deal here is that the old conventions for naming by types and by classes have sort of had to be jettisonned, due to the reduction in numbers and types of vessel.
For instance, for most of WW2 it used to be, battleships = states (Arizona, Iowa); carriers = battles or historic ships (Saratoga, Enterprise); cruisers = cities (Atlanta, Indianapolis); destroyers and escorts = heroes or historic figures (Johnston, Fletcher); attack subs = sea creatures (Squalus, Spadefish); etc. When you had the fleet you had in WW2 and immediately after, you had plenty of places to put names. Now not so much.
For many people the biggest act of blatant political sucking up was when you got the USS John C. Stennis, named after someone still alive at time of launching who had no reason to rate a supercarrier(*) except the former Senator was a big Navy supporter as Armed Services Committee chairman.
(*The GHW Bush and the Gerald Ford at least honor two presidents who served on carriers in the Pacific)
As of now as with many other records I believe Jimmy Carter has the one for the notable that has been around for the longest time with a major vessel named after his still-living self (a sub, of course) in active service (commissioned 2005). The USS Giffords has been in commission only since 2017 and given Gaby is only 51, if she holds on to reasonable health she’s likely to see her namesake vessel taken off duty, as LCSs barely 15 years old are already being mothballed (or else they’ll reclassify it as a reserve training vessel or something like that and keep it nominally in commission as long as she lives).
I would not mind, going forward, to pass some statute similar to those applied to currency and postage, to the effect that nobody alive may even be considered for naming a major combatant ship and no, the Secretary may not override this administratively.
I highly doubt Clinton, Obama or Trump will get a carrier named after them except for pure political pandering since they have almost nothing to do with the “Strong Navy/Military” theme the previous American Presidents have been.
George W Bush is the odd one since he TECHNICALLY served in the military.
Sure, I think the tradition of naming carriers for US Presidents will continue. I mean, even some of those you named was controversial, at least in certain circles, and future ones will be as well, but I doubt the Navy is going to stop naming them after US Presidents.
I expect sometime we’ll get a USS Obama, probably a Clinton and perhaps even a Trump and a Biden, though they might go with safely dead presidents going forward. I doubt we’ll ever see a Nixon carrier though.
Well, we will build them until they become obsolete/useless and/or we can’t afford them anymore. As I don’t see them becoming obsolete any time soon (if ever), it will then depend on our ability to continue building them. I believe the Navy planned for 10 Ford-class carriers in this class, and haven’t heard any plans to stop building the planned ones. And I believe the Navy is already planning a new class, though that’s way down the road at this point.
Kennedy was quite controversial, and people were legitimately terrified he’d sell the UAS out to the Pope. Ford was, to say the least, not a popular President. Half the country hated Abe Lincoln, Truman was wildly unpopular, and Reagan is still despised by many. Time heals a lot.
During WWII all Gato-class and Balao-class submarines were named after marine life and they built a lot of them, so to be honest most of them ranged from silly to mediocre. Not many sailors got to serve on a Gato-class with a badass name like USS Trigger, Sealion, or Hammerhead. Most were stuck aboard such ill-named boats as USS Herring, USS Chub, and the very unfortunate USS Croaker.
They’re all popular names with the Royal Navy before the submarines came along.
Vengeance - 8 times
Vanguard - 11 times
Revenge - 12 times including being renamed from Renown
Renown - 8 times plus three misfires where they decided on another name at the last minute
I thought they were just being silly (and should have put an exclamation point in the official name) until I read the wiki article and found that, yes, JAQ, there is a fish named wahoo.
I tend to agree. Partisan political conflict tends to center around people currently in office or those who held office in the recent past. After a few decades, it all just blends into a common national history.
It’s admittedly a minority view, but some people have been saying for 20 years or more that carriers are obsolete.
The trouble is that there hasn’t been an all-out naval war for several decades, so nobody actually knows how a whole bunch of ships and weapons would perform.
At any given time, in the last 40-some years the US has kept around 12 Fleet Carriers in service, some times as low as 10 or as high as 14 active, as building, mid-life refit, and retirement schedules don’t always meet neatly. As of the retirement of Enterprise CVN-65, there are 11 in commission, 10 Nimitzes and the Ford; Nimitz is due to retire in FY2024 and Eisenhower should follow a couple of years later, already due to be replaced by the new JFK and the new Enterprise. For the next two Nimitzes to retire, the Ford class replacements have one announced to be named after Doris Miller and another as yet unnamed.
(*because, apparently, you’ve got to have a carrier Enterprise in service or in mothballs or building or in the plans at any given time)
Some of the “classic” carrier names are now being assigned to the carrier-like amphibious assault ships (LHA and LHD): America, Essex, Wasp, Bonhomme Richard.
