nelson_p@apollo.com (11/03/89)
From: nelson_p@apollo.com
Could someone please explain to me the naming conventions
now used by the US Navy? In WWII it was:
Destroyers naval heroes
Cruisers cities
Battleships states
Aircraft Carriers battles, famous ships (and bugs??? (Wasp, Hornet...
or are these also noteworthy ships from an earlier age?))
Submarines sea animals
...Perhaps someone can describe the conventions, if any, for other types
that existed then (hospital ships, supply ships, minesweepers, etc)
[mod.note: Here's a few:
Ammunition Ships: Things that go boom (fun names like "Mauna Loa",
"Pyro", "Nitro", "Vesuvius." Who says the Navy doesn't have a
sense of humor ?
Oilers and Gasoline tankers: Indian names (e.g., Maumee, Ogeechee)
Hospital Ships: Nice things (Samaritan, Comfort, Relief, Mercy)
- Bill ]
The cruiser that was accidentally bombed in the Indian Ocean was
the Reeves, which sounds like a person's name. But it was a cruiser,
right? Is there a city called Reeves, somewhere? And I seem to
recall that we're also naming submarines after places sometimes, too.
---Peter
terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (11/04/89)
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) Unfortunately, ships are now named by political expediency. For ships named after people, it is a *rule* that they have to be dead. A rule that has been violated twice (I think). The Reeves was originally a DLG (a large destroyer) and so was named after a person. Carriers of the Nimitz class are now named after famous Americans; Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Vinson(?!?!?!?). The new Aegis cruisers are named for famous battles, but so are some amphibious warfar ships. Subs are no longer named after sea creatures. SSBN's are named after famous people and states for the Tridents. SSN's are named after cities. Some new subs, such as the Henry Jackson, don't follow this pattern. Destryers are still being named after naval heroes. Amphibs are now named after landmarks (usually a city but not always), famous battles, and famous ships (mainly carriers). Auxiliaries still follow the old paterns with some exceptions. Tenders are now named after famous people (although sub tenders always were named after famous submarine people). Ammo ships have explosive names. Tankers have indian names. Some supply ships are named after cities. Basically there is a convention for all ship names, but the conventions have changed with time. Since ships now last 30-40 years, so I imagine the confusion will only get worse. Political expediency is slowly predomintating the process. The Vinson, Rickover, and Jackson (Henry) were all named solely for political reasons. As budget battles bocome more heated, it will only get worse. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogc.edu
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (11/04/89)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <11070@cbnews.ATT.COM> nelson_p@apollo.com writes: >From: nelson_p@apollo.com > Could someone please explain to me the naming conventions > now used by the US Navy? In WWII it was: > > Destroyers naval heroes > Cruisers cities > Battleships states > Aircraft Carriers battles, famous ships (and bugs??? (Wasp, Hornet... > Submarines sea animals > ...Perhaps someone can describe the conventions, if any, for other types > that existed then (hospital ships, supply ships, minesweepers, etc) >[mod.note: Here's a few: > Ammunition Ships: Things that go boom (fun names like "Mauna Loa", > "Pyro", "Nitro", "Vesuvius." Who says the Navy doesn't have a > sense of humor ? > Oilers and Gasoline tankers: Indian names (e.g., Maumee, Ogeechee) > Hospital Ships: Nice things (Samaritan, Comfort, Relief, Mercy) >- Bill ] to the best of my knowledge the capital ships [battleships & cruisers] were named after states and capital cities respectively. gator navy, [lst's, lpd's, lka's] are named after counties. troop transports are named after *soldiers*. that was then... > > The cruiser that was accidentally bombed in the Indian Ocean was > the Reeves, which sounds like a person's name. But it was a cruiser, > right? Is there a city called Reeves, somewhere? And I seem to > recall that we're also naming submarines after places sometimes, too. > the capital ship is defined as the navy's first [read that 'most important'] line of defense. that's why we are starting to see *submarines* with state names. cruisers are named [usually] after secondary cities in various states though state capitols are still represented. destroyers and FF's are named after famous sailors or other notables in naval lore. gator navy still gets counties and this leads to weird things... for instance, lpd-9 is the denver, i believe lpd-10 is the juneau... is this for the county or the city??? in wwII the battleship was the capital ship, hence the state name... now i guess the submarine has this distinction and is named accordingly... it would appear that the role of the cruiser is also being shifted to the submarine... maybe thats why the 688's are the Los Angeles class. just my $0.02 worth... [former Sgt.] w.c. wood [formerly usmc] /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh) (11/04/89)
From: gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh) In article <11070@cbnews.ATT.COM> nelson_p@apollo.com writes: > > > Could someone please explain to me the naming conventions > now used by the US Navy? > Long ago (i.e. WWII), there was, indeed a fairly consistent nomenclature for US Navy ships: Battleships: States Cruisers: Cities Destroyers: Naval heroes Submarines: Sea creatures Aircraft Carriers: Battles or famous ships The list goes on, with some interesting tidbits here and there. For example, oilers did not simply have Indian names, but were rather named for _rivers_ with Indian names. Similarly, Landing Transport Dock ships (LPD) were named after cities named after historical figures. (Austin, Coronado, Shreveport, etc.) The changes began in the 1960's, with a major change happening in 1975. (Actually the first significant change was the naming of carriers after people in the late 40's and 50's - FDR, Forrestal.) A new name category was chosen for Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) - Famous people from American history. (It's not even "famous Americans", since the type includes the only ship named after a foreign king: Kamehameha.) Since battleships were not being built any more, and naming ships after states was perhaps still a good idea (patriotism, politics), nuclear powered guided missile destroyer leaders (DLGN) were named after states for a while in the early 70's. (California, South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Virginia) In 1975, a major redisignation of ship types took place. Destroyer escorts (DE) became frigates (FF). Guided missile destroyer leaders (DLG, DLGN) became guided missile cruisers (CG, CGN). Thus, many ships, originally named after naval heroes (e.g. Reeves), because they were destroyer types, became cruisers overnight. This was done, officially, better to reflect their missions and capabilities. I have a sneaking suspicion that there was an additional reason: With the retirement of WWII-era "real" cruisers, there was a rapidly-shrinking pool of combatant commands available for Captains. (Cruisers are commanded by Captains, destroyers by Commanders, in general.) The redesignation opened up many more command opportunities for Captains. Another redesignation affected cruiser names (and numbers) in the early 80's. The first class of Aegis-equipped ships was to start with DDG-47, i.e. they were to be guided-missile destroyers. Before Ticonderoga was comissioned, the class was changed to guided-missile cruisers (CG, starting with CG-47). These ships have all been named after battles, as carriers had been. (With one exception, see below.) In fact, most share names with earlier carriers. Cities and states now had no new ships to carry their names. Submarines were chosen for this duty - the Los Angeles class of attack submarines and the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines. Interspersed through all this is the unfortunate (I think) practice of naming ships here and there after politicians or other notable persons. (e.g. Glenard P. Lipscomb (SSN-686), Thomas S. Gates (CG-51), etc.) Actually, there's a tradeoff here in the information provided by the name. Before, the name unambiguously identified the type of ship - if the name was a state it was a battleship. Now, the name gives information about the class within the type. A ship named after a state could be a battleship, a cruiser, or a ballistic missile submarine, but knowing that a cruiser is named for a state tells you something about its age and capabilities. The British use this system to some degree. (e.g. Leander-class frigates with mythological names, Ton-class minesweepers, with names ending in "-ton," Trafalgar-class submarines, with names beginning with "T," etc.) Simple, no? - John Gersh --------------------------------------------------------------------- gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!gersh The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins Rd., Laurel, MD 20707 (301) 953-5503
budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (11/06/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
In recent years, the Navy has taken up what I, as a sailor, consider
a rather bad habit of naming ships (regardless of class) for
people that send them budget money (Vinson) or the state that said
benefactor is from (Michigan). Consequently, the ordering you
described has all gone by the wayside in the grey fleet.
On the other hand...
WHEC-378 class of high endurance cutters were named after Treasury
Secretaries (long standing tradition) until USCG got traded out
of Treasury for a to-be-named draft choice. First ship in the
class is Hamilton, after Alexander. Couple of the last are Munro
(USCG's Medal of Honor (posthumous) winner in WWII), and Midgett
after one of the clan in Carolina.
WMEC-210 class all have highfalutin' adjectives attached: Reliance,
Confidence, Dilligence, Vigorous, Vigilant,...
WMEC-270 -- our newest white ships -- are re-used famous cutter
names like Campbell, Tampa, Harriet Lane, Bear.
WPB-82 class of patrol boats are named after Points of land:
Point Countess, Point Glass, Point Doran. WPB-95 class after
capes: Cape Upright, Cape Henlopen. The currently building class
of 110' WPBs are being named after islands: Attu, Acquidneck.
The next generation of WPB is referred to as the Heritage Class,
but I've not heard any specific hull names as yet.
To the black fleet. WLB-180 buoy tenders are a biology lesson:
Iris, Blackhaw, Mallow, Blackthorn. A sub-class of 3 WLB-157s
have the names they had when we inherited them from USLHS: Fir,
Walnut. [?]. WLM-157s are White Alder, White Holly, White ___.
RFPs for the replacement class of tenders for these (mostly
WWII vets) goes on the street next year. To my knowledge,
names have not been selected.
The 65 foot buoy boats are the smallest class of commissioned cutters
(permanent crew). Here, we get to the berries: Bayberry, Elderberry.
Perhaps most interesting for last: Icebreakers. The Wind
class were to be originally four: Northwind, Southwind, Eastwind,
Westwind. Three of the original hulls were Lend-Leased to USSR.
The original Northwind was named Severny Viinter (North Wind) by
the Soviets. Coast Guard then replaced the three LL'd hulls
with three more and the names were re-used. After the war, the
ships were returned...to the Navy. USS Northwind and USCGC Northwind
didn't work very well, so the 'original' got renamed USS Staten Island
(after Isle de los Etados -- look at the far south end of the
Sourth American cone). In the mid-60s, the Navy's icebreakers were
returned to the Coast Guard -- they operated much more efficiently
when all in one service.
Glacier was built in early 50's -- name obvious.
In the late 60s, CG was planning a class of four icebreakers of
the Polar class. Ultimately, only two got built: Polar Star and
Polar Sea.
Now, is there a lesson here? If we did start naming cutters after
congressmen, would we get any better budget treatment?
Rex Buddenberghenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/06/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: gersh@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh) >... destroyer types ... became cruisers overnight. This was done, >officially, better to reflect their missions and capabilities. I have >a sneaking suspicion that there was an additional reason: With the >retirement of WWII-era "real" cruisers, there was a rapidly-shrinking >pool of combatant commands available for Captains... Another possibly-significant consideration is that with the normal inflation of ship sizes with time, modern "destroyers" are often just as big and just as heavy as WW2 cruisers... if not nearly as well armed. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/06/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) >... The Vinson, Rickover, and >Jackson (Henry) were all named solely for political reasons... Well, be fair. Dunno about Jackson, but Rickover was about as important in the history of the US Navy as any one admiral could possibly be, and if I recall correctly, Vinson was the best friend the USN ever had in Washington. I don't think naming ships after people of major importance in USN history is "political reasons". Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (11/07/89)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <11149@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Another possibly-significant consideration is that with the normal >inflation of ship sizes with time, modern "destroyers" are often just >as big and just as heavy as WW2 cruisers... if not nearly as well armed. > as a former naval gunfire spotter i can assure you that modern "cruisers" arte not anywhere as large as their WWII counterparts. i've seen the old Oklahoma City and fired it once. i think that while the high speed 5" 38's and 54's of the newer ship can provide greater volume of fire the old 8" guns tore up bigger chunks of turf... just a grunts $0.02 worth /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (11/07/89)
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11159@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) >>... The Vinson, Rickover, and >>Jackson (Henry) were all named solely for political reasons... > >Well, be fair. Dunno about Jackson, but Rickover was about as >important in the history of the US Navy as any one admiral could >possibly be, and if I recall correctly, Vinson was the best friend >the USN ever had in Washington. I don't think naming ships after >people of major importance in USN history is "political reasons". > > Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology I was being fair. They are political in that they all violated the naming conventions for their class. I'd have to research dates, but I believe that both the Vinson and Rickover names were chosen before the men were dead, breaking a long standing tradition. Vinson was the best freind of the navy, and the carrier was named for him because he was responsible for the continued existence of the supercarriers. Not incidentally, his constituency included the Norfolk naval complex and Newport News shipyards (guess where the carriers are built). If that isn't a pork barrel I don't know what is. Billy Mitchel was also important to the navy, but I don't see any major vessels named after him. Many will argue that Rickover's influence was negative. It will take a long time to resolve, so naming the sub was premature. It was a token to Rickover's supporters after Lehman forced him out. As a side note, Rickover's legacy may even be haunting the commercial nuclear power industry. I read an article years ago that the size of the navy's nuclear power program forced decisions on the civilian program. Unfortunately, the design constraints for a naval reactor, are very different from those of a commercial power plant. If any one is interested I can dig out the reference.
greg@ncelvax.UUCP (Gregory K. Ramsey) (11/08/89)
From: greg@ncelvax.UUCP (Gregory K. Ramsey) In article <11070@cbnews.ATT.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.com writes: > > The cruiser that was accidentally bombed in the Indian Ocean was > the Reeves, which sounds like a person's name. But it was a cruiser, > right? Is there a city called Reeves, somewhere? And I seem to > recall that we're also naming submarines after places sometimes, too. If my memory serves me right, the Reeves was originally commissioned as a DLG, (Destroyer Leader, Guided Missle) which was a larger than normal Destroyer (for it's time) which when they realigned Destroyer and Cruiser classes some years ago it was placed in the CG (Cruiser, Guided Missle) pool. So there is a reasonable excuse for not fitting the pattern this time. SSBNs (Ballistic Missle Subs) are supposed to be named after states now (Ohio class) since we are not building new battleships now. They started naming SSNs (attack subs) after major cities, (Los Angeles class), but there are so many exceptions nowadays that I don't think you can really make a case for any pattern any more. Greg -- greg@ncelvax.uucp ___ Greg Ramsey _n_n_n____i_i ________ Naval Civil Engineering Lab (____________I I______I Code L54 805/ /ooOOOO OOOOoo oo oooo Port Hueneme, CA 93043 982-1272
jm21%prism@gatech.edu (Jim Marks) (11/08/89)
From: jm21%prism@gatech.edu (Jim Marks) In article <11199@cbnews.ATT.COM> terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: > > Vinson was > the best freind of the navy, and the carrier was named for him because > he was responsible for the continued existence of the supercarriers. > Not incidentally, his constituency included the Norfolk naval complex > and Newport News shipyards (guess where the carriers are built). If > that isn't a pork barrel I don't know what is. > Not unless Norfolk and Newport News were somehow moved to middle Georgia. I don't want to nitpick, but Rep. Carl Vinson was congressman from Perry (I believe), GEORGIA. This isn't even near the coast, so I don't see his support of carriers as pork barrel. > Billy Mitchel was also important to the navy, but I don't see > any major vessels named after him. You might have a good point there, although the Navy might not willingly recognize it :-) -- Jim Marks (404)894-7255 Systems Engineering Laboratory Compuserve: 72310,2410 Georgia Tech Research Institute uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jm21 Internet: jm21@prism.gatech.edu -or- jmarks@gtri01.gatech.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/09/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) >as a former naval gunfire spotter i can assure you that modern "cruisers" >arte not anywhere as large as their WWII counterparts... Early WW2 offical numbers put cruisers at 7000-10000 tons. I don't have good numbers for most of the current classes, but the Spruance class is around 7500. [mod.note: Actually, cruisers went as low as 3000-4000 tons. The bottom edge gets a bit murky; the Japanese Yubari class CL, for example, was about 2900 tons (1923 vintage), while the French Fantasque class DD was a bit over 3000 tons (though it was abnormally large by any opinion). The US Alaska class of Large Cruisers (CB) was about 27,000 tons, though most consider it a battlecruiser. Typically, though, a CL was 5000-8000 tons, a CA 8000-13,000. That, too, is murky, because the distinction was based on guns and armor, not displacement; the USS Cleveland class of 10,000 tonners were CL's as they carried 6" guns. - Bill ] >i've seen the >old Oklahoma City and fired it once. i think that while the high speed >5" 38's and 54's of the newer ship can provide greater volume of fire the >old 8" guns tore up bigger chunks of turf... As I said, the new ships are not nearly as heavily *armed* as the old cruisers. There was a project to build a compact 8-inch gun that could replace the 5-inchers of most of the current ships, to combine rapid fire with heavier shells; the USMC (which cares quite a bit about shore bombardment) was quite unhappy when the bean-counters cancelled it. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
nassio%cfassp12@harvard.harvard.edu (George Nassiopoulos) (11/09/89)
From: nassio%cfassp12@harvard.harvard.edu (George Nassiopoulos) > Billy Mitchel was also important to the navy, but I don't see > any major vessels named after him. Many will argue that > Rickover's influence was negative. It will take a long time to > resolve, so naming the sub was premature. It was a token to > Rickover's supporters after Lehman forced him out I have read that Lehman pushed/rushed the naming of a Los Angeles class submarine after Rickover in order to prevent Congress from ordering that a carrier be named after him. Rickover was not one of Lehman's favorite people and the former Secretary would rather stick Rickover's name on a ``lowly'' sub than a supercarrier... I for one am not thrilled with the use of names of people to name carriers... P.S. I hear that CVN-75 is supposed to be named ``United States'' if it ever gets built -- can anyone confirm this? George Nassiopoulos nassio@cfa.harvard.edu
ferguson@maitai.src.honeywell.com (Dennis Ferguson) (11/10/89)
From: ferguson@maitai.src.honeywell.com (Dennis Ferguson)
In article <11115@cbnews.ATT.COM> eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) writes:
:names. cruisers are named [usually] after secondary cities in various
:states though state capitols are still represented. destroyers and FF's
:are named after famous sailors or other notables in naval lore. gator
:navy still gets counties and this leads to weird things... for instance,
:lpd-9 is the denver, i believe lpd-10 is the juneau... is this for the
:county or the city???
I sorry, I couldn't resist this correction since I served on the USS
Juneau, LPD-7.
Dennisbrandon@nlm-mcs.arpa (Brandon Brylawski) (11/11/89)
From: brandon@nlm-mcs.arpa (Brandon Brylawski) A somewhat silly page in the history of ship naming (and I'm not 100% sure it isn't apocryphal) was a brief period in the 20th century during which it was decided to name certain ships after famous schools, e.g. Harvard and Yale. This practice was abolished (I am told) shortly after a pair of small vessels were officially named the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and the Virginia Normal School for Girls. So much for decorum...
howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) (11/14/89)
From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) In article <11272@cbnews.ATT.COM>, nassio%cfassp12@harvard.harvard.edu (George Nassiopoulos) writes: > I for one am not thrilled with the use of names of people to name > carriers... > > P.S. I hear that CVN-75 is supposed to be named ``United States'' > if it ever gets built -- can anyone confirm this? While I have no specific knowledge of CVN-75, I suspect there is reason to believe that history argues against "national names" for ships. In approximately 1947, we were building the first major post-WW II "supercarrier." It was to have been named United States, but was eventually cancelled. One reason attributed to Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson (I believe by VADM Dan Gallery) was Johnson's concern over headlines such as "United States Stuck in Mud," "United States Blows Up," etc. Nazi Germany had a similar problem with a cruiser originally to have been called Deutschland. They renamed it before it went into service, to, I believe, Lutzow. [mod.note: The Deutschland was renamed Luetzow on 15 November, 1939. The WWI pre-dreadnought Deutschland bore that name throughout the war. Contrast to the Italian Navy, which renamed the battleship Littorio as Italia on 30 June, 1943. - Bill ] It is left to the reader to uncover the significance, if any, of the US responding to possible unfavorable propaganda by cancelling a project, while the Germans simply changed the names to avoid the problem. Half :-). -- howard@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard (703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H] DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.
creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) (11/17/89)
From: creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) In article <11272@cbnews.ATT.COM> nassio%cfassp12@harvard.harvard.edu (George Nassiopoulos) writes: >P.S. I hear that CVN-75 is supposed to be named ``United States'' >if it ever gets built -- can anyone confirm this? For anyone who's interested, "United States" has a history of problems as a name for a ship. The battle cruiser CC-6 (early 1900's, I think) was supposed to be named United States, but was cancelled. The same fate awaited CVA-58. I haven't heard anything about CVN-75, however. We do have CV-66 (ex CVA-66), U.S.S. America. The "United States" might be confused with this ship, anyway. [mod.note: CC-6 was to be the final ship of the Lexington class, ca. 1916. Others were Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, and Constitution; CC-1 and -3 were completed as carriers, the rest abandoned because of the 1921 Washington Treaty - Bill ] Anyone know the names of CVN-71 to 74? I'd like to add them to my list. Personally, I really dislike the present naming scheme. I'd much prefer the one they used through WWII. - - - - - - - - - - Steve Creps creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (129.79.1.6) {inuxc,rutgers,uunet!uiucdcs,pur-ee}!iuvax!silver!creps