New Aircraft Carriers Names, Should some oldies be kept?

Hey All,

Now fully understanding that the New presidential Class carriers are the future, and ATM only having one shipbuilding yard to make them, would it be prudent to maybe mothball a couple of the retiring Nimitiz Class encase the US and China end up on a peer on peer war.

If it is taking 10yrs per carrier to build, and China is churning out more quicker…regardless of if they have made the EMS work quicker than the US were able too.

Your thoughts??
Mike

4 Likes

I don’t think the PLAN is (or would be for some time yet) in a position to go toe to toe with US carriers. Their carriers are conventionally powered (so far) and have a deck size of about 50 planes. I believe their main current role is regional supremacy- their main Naval rivals being Japan and India. Their strategy against US Carriers has always been centred around land based aviation and mobile anti-shipping missiles like the nuclear capable DF series.

That being said I’m sure their future plans are to match and even surpass US carrier capability and they certainly have the industrial capacity to try- I would say the US (and plenty of other European and Asian nations) should consider reviving, renewing or creating their often small or non-existent capacity for major military ship building.

3 Likes

I think while many looking at the big shiny object like the carrier, they forgot that logics runs the battle. While the US could stand to go up a few carriers like before to have a good rotation (repair, workup, deployed). Not sure the Navy has the personal to do that but they have other issues with bean, bullets and bandaids for the aircraft to maintain a forward presence. Look to the Red Sea for current issue. As long as the PLA plan doesn’t stretch their supply chain too far they have the advantage. A direct or indirect loss/es will change the US over the horizon projection vs China.

3 Likes

I’ve read up some on the two new Chinese carriers, and short answer is they are POS. Neither are seaworthy or will be deployed anytime in the foreseeable future. China is learning the hard way that cheap welds are expensive, with hull and mechanical leaks. Five years in, they still can’t get the mag - lev catapults to work, they are beyond their technology. Having two aircraft carriers that are slowly sinking on their own, and can’t launch aircraft, is hardly a real threat to the US.

5 Likes

I don’t think the Chinese have the practical experience in operating their carriers as well as their navy. This is learned over time. I would not dare to under estimate them, but we have boatloads of experience.

3 Likes

Even if the welds were good, they’re welding on Chinese steel.

3 Likes

Hate the new names

GW Bush
Bill Clinton

At least they went bipartisan

2 Likes

Yeah but they do tie in with them being the presidential class, I just thought that keeping a couple of the nimitz class mothballed may come in handy.

1 Like

Yes indeed, the US, Britain and a few other nations have a long history with carriers. The PLAN only really began planning, research, development and training in the late 80s. Actual landing and take off operations at sea only started a bit more than a decade ago.

1 Like

I wish they had stuck with places and not names cause we are getting to the point of leaders not having any connection to the Navy or the military.

W had at some time in the military and a pilot.

Shouldn’t have picked Clinton and also goes for future picks Obama, Trump and Biden imho.

7 Likes

Completely agree, only names used should be former service hero’s or stay with places.

5 Likes

Yorktown,Saratoga,and Lexington would’ve been nice

5 Likes

Since I’m not a US citizen my opinion doesn’t matter in this case though I think places would be a more neutral choice.
States (used for battle ships when those were still used), now used to name submarines
Larger cities for cruisers, now also battlefields (like Ticonderoga), cities used for submarines
There are enough towns and places to name destroyers and frigates.
Where would carriers fit in?
Carriers: states
Submarines: large cities or state capitals
Cruisers: battlefields
Destroyers and frigates: Smaller/Smallish towns
native American tribe names might also be a source for names, USS Comanche has a certain ring to it …

Fun fact: Naming a submarine Corpus Christi caused a bit of a controversy …

2 Likes

I guess most of y’all have heard the joke about the time when HMS Battleaxe ridiculed USS Reuben James for the somewhat un-martial ship name.
The American ship replied: At least we don’t name our ships after our mother-in-law …

4 Likes

George HW Bush was more then just reserve,he flew an Avenger off the USS San Jacinto,was shot down off Chi Chi Jima and was rescued,narrowly avoiding the fate of other flyers held there.
Check out “Flyboys” a great but sobering read.

3 Likes

Theres gotta be an Enterprise …

4 Likes

Great question.

I think the US Navy and powers that be decided to use up and wear out the Nimitz class carriers rather than mothball due to cost & time to reactive.

Per AI…



IMHO…naming a class of carriers or really any ship or submarine after any politician born after 1900 makes me want to :nauseated_face:

Traditional names for US Navy ships and heroes should have preference.

2 Likes

Agreed! There’s got to be an Enterprise on active duty at all times.

4 Likes

CVN-80 is slated to be Enterprise

3 Likes

The US Navy has plenty of experience reactivating two big ships- the Battleships New Jersey and Missouri- and as your post points out there was significant costs doing that in the 1980s. Over the long run updating them and keeping them serving would probably cost less than to mothball them and then reactivate them.

3 Likes