It's time to return some sanity to the way ships are named. Why? Because the silliness is upon us once again:
H. CON. RES. 83
Expressing the sense of Congress that a nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier of the Navy, either the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-79
or the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-80, should be named the
U.S.S. Barry M. Goldwater.
Bill information and status here
It began with CVN-70 ( Nimitz - ok, Ike, yes; but Vinson???) and reached the height of historical blindness with the Truman (honestly, naming a carrier for a president who tried his hardest to kill naval aviation and oversaw the death of the United States (CVA-58) in favor of the B-36). Why not Enterprise (CVN-65 isn't long for this world)? Coral Sea? Yorktown? Hornet? Midway? (Note - this is not/not a slam on the great crews of those ships - its the process of naming that we have a bone to pick with...)
Enough with the politicians - these ships are going to last to the middle of the century and outlive many of us reading these words. Why not go back to naming the carriers after famous battles and reclaim some of our heritage and linkage with notable CVs from the past? And, BTW, what better way to celebrate naval aviation's upcoming centenary?
Leave it to a Chief to put it succintly:
"One man’s hero is another man’s goat. Carriers should be named for things we all have in common, not the party in power’s favorite politician. I vote we go back to the traditional carrier names as a reminder of the great ships and men who held the line when the chips were down and the odds were against us. Those names are a tribute to America’s greatness. Politicians? Not so much."
And yes, I'm familiar with Rickover's quote - how about standing firm this time anyway?
UPDATE: A petition to SECNAV and Congress is in the works - stay tuned...
(cross posted at steeljawscribe.com)