posted
The Navy's naming scheme used to make some sense, but it's all screwed up now, probably for the sake of winning support from legislators. State names used to be given only to battleships, but since the Navy hasn't built any new ones since the 1940s, it started giving the names to CGNs in the mid 1970s. Then the Navy started giving state names to Ohio class boomers (launched 1981), which previously had been named after famous statesmen (whose names are now given to aircraft carriers). Now they're giving state names to attack subs, which used to be named after fish, then cities (whose names had been given to cruisers). I guess they give state names to whatever class of ship they most want to get funding, since a congressman or senator is less likely to vote against funding for a ship named for his state.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The Virginias were very good ships, I was quite sad to see them chopped up for scrape at such a young age. They might not have been AEGIS, but I'd like to see a Tico or Burke keep up with and outrun a CGN like the Virginia. They were useful fast escorts for today's speedy and long-legged carriers, and capable air defense platforms even without being tied into an AEGIS equipped ship.
quote:In 2158, Romulan terrorists destroyed the Enterprise tragically, with few survivors, to start the Earth-Romulan War.
Not particular fond of the Ent-nil's crew, Alabin? Did the Romulans really destroy the ship, or was it Future Guy's fault?
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
My whole take on the Enterprise was that it was somehow transported into the future (temporal cold war explanation?)(possibly by Picard's time and to be picked up by the E-E after the events in Nemesis). Earth Starfleet declares her missing and presumed destroyed (which might start the war since it was near Rommie territory). With the UFP and the new Starfleet the NX class is transferred over to the new Starfleet. Since Enterprise is gone, the class is redesignated as Dauntless class after the second ship of the NX class, the Dauntless. She is re-registered as NCC-01 as the first Starfleet ship, but not a prototype. Voyager's crew are not surprised at the fake "USS Dauntless NX-01-A" because they know of the first Dauntless and this is simply a new class commemorating (sp?)the first ship, though it's a second class to bear the name (never done before in Starfleet, but not unprecedented considering US Navy Virginia class). Anyway Archer and co. meet Picard and co. and given that Picard doesn't want to alter history, Archer and co. stay in future and try to make the best of it. Starfleet considers placing Enterprise in museum but decides to keep her in service with Archer and co. as crew. She is modernized (though exterior design is kept largely the same), renamed USS Odyssey and re-registered as NCC-76947.
[ April 23, 2002, 01:04: Message edited by: Dat ]
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oops, wanted to say something profound here but failed to notice that it was already said, on page two of the thread...
Anyhow, Starfleet isn't big on thematic naming. It's more like the Royal Navy in that it recycles time-honored names regardless of ship class or category. Enterprise is the Ark Royal of Starfleet!
Speaking of deep theories, perhaps the repeated references to USS Bozeman and to Montana in Trek are a way of paying a debt of honor - the USN apparently never had a battleship or a boomer named after that state. Go figure. (At least that explains why all those sub movies are situated on a USS Montana...)
Timo Saloniemi
[ April 23, 2002, 05:39: Message edited by: Timo ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Anyhow, Starfleet isn't big on thematic naming. It's more like the Royal Navy in that it recycles time-honored names regardless of ship class or category. Enterprise is the Ark Royal of Starfleet!
Finally; an element of Starfleet that doesn't follow the USNs lead!!!
BTW, who are the USS Carl Vinson and John c. Stennis named after?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Carl Vinson and John C. Stennis, of course
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Carl Vinson & John C. Stennis. Vinson was dead by the time the carrier was named for him, but Stennis was alive, although methinks he's "metabolically different" now.
Interesting side note: CVN-75, the Harry S Truman was originally to have born the name of the originally planned pre-Forrestal supercarrier design, that of United States.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Interesting side note: CVN-75, the Harry S Truman was originally to have born the name of the originally planned pre-Forrestal supercarrier design, that of United States.
Which is good because it would have been awkward to have a carrier named for the country in the class of carriers named after people. Maybe it can be used for CVN-78 seeing as CVN-77 would still be Nimitz class (though highly leaning toward design elements of the CVN-78 class). Has 77 been named yet? I can see it being named USS George Bush following CVN-76 USS Ronald Reagan.
[ April 23, 2002, 17:31: Message edited by: Dat ]
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
USS Montana is sort of an unlucky name. A USS Montana (BB-51) was under construction but was cancelled before completion in 1922. The name was then assigned to a planned battleship, which was cancelled in 1943 before construction began. There was an armoured cruiser named Montana (ACR-13), that was later renamed USS Missoula (CA-13; which, for you fer'ners, is a town in Montana) to make way for BB-51. So, if they give "Montana" to another ship, it'll probably be cancelled!
The Royal Navy does occassionally use theme names for ships, while still reusing names. For example, Trafalgar-class SSNs all have names starting with the letter T (Turbulent, Tireless, Torbay, Trenchant, Talent, and Triumph) and Swiftsure-class subs all start with the letter S (Sovereign, Superb, Sceptre, Spartan, Splendid).
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was once on board the Vinson when it was part of the Pacific fleet and stationed at Naval Air Station Alameda (which has since been decommissioned). It was an authorized "sea cruise" event for the NJROTC program I was in during high school. Vinson didn't set sail, but I did go up the superstructure 2 or 3 levels to one of the bridges, went around the flight and hanger decks and went down 2 or 3 decks below the hanger deck. Too bad it wasn't Enterprise though, but at least it was still a "nuclear wessel"
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote: Which is good because it would have been awkward to have a carrier named for the country in the class of carriers named after people. Maybe it can be used for CVN-78 seeing as CVN-77 would still be Nimitz class (though highly leaning toward design elements of the CVN-78 class). Has 77 been named yet? I can see it being named USS George Bush following CVN-76 USS Ronald Reagan.
Wonder what'll happen when they catch up on themselves...(not to mention the possibility of a USS Bill Clinton, can you imagine the nicknames the crews'll give it? Still, at least it isn't a sub... )
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Did the Romulans really destroy the ship, or was it Future Guy's fault? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
