Not quite a mission kill....

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

In any event it isn't - it's named after Hornblower's 2iC.

Okay, that'd be a good name then.

[Mikey]

Bloody hell. How many of that family are there?

In any event it isn't - it's named after Hornblower's 2iC.

Oh. William Bush was also the name of George H. W.'s brother (and thusly W.'s uncle) who was a financier/venture capitalist and an investor in some Pentagon contractors who may or may not have sidelined the official bid process while Bush the Younger was in office.

[mwhittington]

I wonder, if they named it the George W. Bush, would it already be full of sh*t in the head?

Actually, it's named after former 41st president George Herbert Walker Bush, who was a naval aviator during World War II.

I kinda got that when the middle name Herbert was used, I was referring to his son, "W". But I probably should have made mention of that, anyway.

[McAvoy]

There is already alot of debate about naming the aircraft carriers after presidents who were alive and had a connection to the Navy. (Ford, Bush). IMO the only presidents who 'deserve' a to have a carrier name after them is both Roosevelts if they deserve it at all. I still think the Navy should have just kept the naming practice by naming them after famous battles. Definitely no senators, Secretaries of the Navy, Congressman, Governors, Mayors, the janitor in the White House etc.

[Deepcrush]

I would enjoy having Enterprise and Yorktown returned to the roster. IMO, after WW2, the USN should always have a carrier named Enterprise. That kind of battle spirit should never be lost.

[McAvoy]

CVN-65 has to decommed first to be off the roster of names.

There is talk about it. The next carrier after Ford is JFK. So it would be the third.

I also agree, Lexington, Yorktown, Enterprise, Saratoga should remain on the carrier name rosters.

Then again, there was some talk about naming a carrier the Arizona too.

[Deepcrush]

Arizona is and will forever be the mamorial of Pearl Harbor and her name should be left for the sailors who parished there. Returning the Lexington and Saratoga to battle would also be a great thing.

[Mikey]

There is already alot of debate about naming the aircraft carriers after presidents who were alive and had a connection to the Navy. (Ford, Bush). IMO the only presidents who 'deserve' a to have a carrier name after them is both Roosevelts if they deserve it at all. I still think the Navy should have just kept the naming practice by naming them after famous battles. Definitely no senators, Secretaries of the Navy, Congressman, Governors, Mayors, the janitor in the White House etc.

So, Nimitz wouldn't be a viable name, then?

[Captain Seafort]

CVN-65 has to decommed first to be off the roster of names.

Then again, there was some talk about naming a carrier the Arizona too.

These two statements are contradictory as, AFAIK, the Arizona is still in commission.

[Captain Seafort]

I would enjoy having Enterprise and Yorktown returned to the roster. IMO, after WW2, the USN should always have a carrier named Enterprise. That kind of battle spirit should never be lost.

Agreed. There are some names that should never be put out to pasture, which is why I'm a bit miffed that neither of our new carriers is being named Ark Royal.

[Deepcrush]

@mikey, as a class name it's fine but it shouldn't have been a name for a carrier.

@seafort, do they have names selected for your new carriers? Please tell me they aren't going with Titan or Invincible...

[Captain Seafort]

@seafort, do they have names selected for your new carriers? Please tell me they aren't going with Titan or Invincible...

Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales

The first is fine - the ship never really did much, but the class as a whole performed magnificently. The latter was a disaster - suffered numerous malfunctions in her first battle and was sunk in her second. This seems to be a recent trend - two of the new Astute-class subs are being named Audacious (last given to a battleship lost to progressive flooding after striking one mine) and Ardent (there were three of them during the 20th century, all lost in action, although they had a decent record of going down stubbornly).

[McAvoy]

CVN-65 has to decommed first to be off the roster of names.

Then again, there was some talk about naming a carrier the Arizona too.

These two statements are contradictory as, AFAIK, the Arizona is still in commission.

Nope. Arizona is not still commissioned.

Placed “in ordinary” at Pearl Harbor on 29 December 1941, Arizona was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 December 1942. Her wreck was cut down so that very little of the superstructure lay above water; her after main battery turrets and guns were removed to be emplaced as coast defense guns. Arizona’s wreck remains at Pearl Harbor, a memorial to the men of her crew lost that December morn in 1941. On 7 March 1950, Admiral Arthur W. Radford, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, instituted the raising of colors over Arizona’s remains, and legislation during the administrations of Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy designated the wreck a national shrine. A memorial was built spanning the ship; it was dedicated on 30 May 1962.

Linky

Stricken off of the Navy Vessel Register is the same as decommissioned more or less. They do that for sunken ships.

[Mikey]

@seafort, do they have names selected for your new carriers? Please tell me they aren't going with Titan or Invincible...

Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales

The first is fine - the ship never really did much, but the class as a whole performed magnificently. The latter was a disaster - suffered numerous malfunctions in her first battle and was sunk in her second. This seems to be a recent trend - two of the new Astute-class subs are being named Audacious (last given to a battleship lost to progressive flooding after striking one mine) and Ardent (there were three of them during the 20th century, all lost in action, although they had a decent record of going down stubbornly).

Has the RN considered re-using the name HMS Warspite? Talk about one hell of a track record...

[Graham Kennedy]

They did, actually. HMS Warspite was a Valiant class nuclear attack submarine. Just missed the Falklands war because she was in a refit, but she patrolled around the area afterwards.

But yeah, they should definitely reuse that one again sometime.