Readers tell what they’d name new ships - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Readers tell what they’d name new ships

Oct. 13 marks 233 years since the Continental Congress authorized the use of armed ships to harass British shipments of arms to North America — the birth of the U.S. Navy.

Beginning with those wooden sailing ships and continuing to today’s nuclear-powered giants, the Navy has applied the names of thousands of people, places, concepts and fish to its vessels over the centuries.

Some of the names are classics — Constellation, Essex, Enterprise — making consistent appearances in the fleet down the years. Some of the names have taken on a mystique after the exploits of the ships that bore them — Missouri, Parche, Samuel B. Roberts. A few are synonymous with sacrifice — Arizona, Johnston, Cole.

For all of its great ship names, the Navy needs more. The service plans to keep each of its cruisers and destroyers in service for 35 years, meaning it could be 2021 before there can be another Bunker Hill, for example, or 2026 before another ship can be named Arleigh Burke. In the meantime, the Navy needs names for two more San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks, two Zumwalt-class destroyers, eight new Burkes, at least six Virginia-class submarines, two Ford-class carriers and 53 littoral combat ships.

So in August, Navy Times asked readers to submit their favorite ship names. Dozens of them responded, and with a few exceptions, most hewed toward the classics: Enterprise was the most-cited, then England, a name carried by two warships, most recently a cruiser decommissioned in 1994.

And rather than a single favorite, many readers said they favored several names from a particular era, such as the Essex-class aircraft carriers of World War II, which carried names such as Lexington, Hornet and Yorktown. Other votes went to the names of the first six frigates ordered by the Navy when it was reconstituted in 1794: United States, Constellation, Constitution, Chesapeake, Congress and President.

“I like keeping with tradition,” wrote a poster using the name Kydsnipe. “The names of the original six frigates ... should never be without a ship for their namesake. We need to keep in line with our tradition and also we need to remember those great battles that sailors and Marines alike lost their lives in. It is one thing to name an aircraft carrier after great U.S. presidents, but when we start coming up with names that simply do not carry a proud tradition of a person or battle to be honored, the crew has no faith in the ship.”

Other readers had suggestions for specific upcoming ships. User Jeff3166 wrote that he hopes the Navy revives the name Indianapolis for an upcoming San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, the ship class that has taken over carrying city names from Los Angeles-class attack submarines. Not only is the city of Indianapolis worth the honor, he wrote, but the new ship also would commemorate the cruiser Indianapolis, sunk by the Japanese in World War II.

And for what is planned as the Navy’s biggest new ship class by far, the littoral combat ships, one reader suggested a naming convention of character traits: Integrity, Honor, Perseverance and others. The first two littoral combat ships are named Freedom and Independence.

That notion didn’t sit well with another poster, Shep, who wrote: “We don’t need to use Army heroes, irrelevant presidents or ‘inspiring names.’ The British use those hokey names. We’re not the British ... we’re better!”

A fish story

Reader Bruce wrote that he hopes the Navy will revive its convention of naming submarines for fish; the last submarine named for a sea creature was the one-of-a-kind fast-attack submarine Narwhal, commissioned in 1969.

“If you want to talk about great historical ship names, how can we ever forget such legendary Navy vessels as Pogy, Nautilus, Tang, Growler, Parche and Harder, among other great ships,” he wrote. “Those ships and their crews are as much a part of U.S. Navy history as any others.”

Naval expert Norman Polmar said the change from sea creatures was a political move in the late 1960s by the father of the nuclear Navy, then-Vice Adm. Hyman Rickover. First, Rickover wanted to name ships after politicians who supported nuclear power, which led to four such attack submarines, beginning with the Glenard P. Lipscomb. Polmar quoted a phrase attributed to Rickover when the admiral was asked why he didn’t want the subs to be named for fish: “Fish don’t vote.”

By 1974, the Navy began naming submarines after cities, starting with the Los Angeles.

“And who was president of the United States at the time but Richard Nixon,” Polmar said. “And where was Nixon from? Los Angeles.”

Asked for his favorite ship names, Polmar offered “Agamemnon,” although no U.S. warship has carried it. He agreed with Navy Times readers who liked Enterprise and England, and recalled a chance meeting with then-Navy Secretary Gordon England.

“You know, I asked him, I said, ‘Why isn’t there an England in commission now?’” said Polmar, fully aware he was asking the secretary to name a ship after himself. “And he smiled and said, ‘Oh, there are reasons.’”