posted
Excellent. Still going to have a 12 year gap, give or take, where the fleet has no Enterprise, but that's awesome.
It's also nice to see them not naming ships after people anymore for goodness sake. I think all our active duty ships are named for presidents and naval figures now, unless the Ranger is still in service.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm partial to the USS Heinlein.
IP: Logged |
Different classes of ships have different naming conventions that are (usually) followed. It's only carriers that are named after presidents. Enterprise, Freedom, and a few others are exceptions to the rule.
Destroyers are often named after historical naval figures, LCS's are named after cities. Subs are named after states. Cruisers are named after battles. Etc....
posted
But we've had a ton of Carriers not named after presidents. Independence, Ranger, Freedom, America, Enterprise. More recently the Carl Vinson and the Stennis.
That naming scheme has changed all over the place in the last 40 years. It used to be that battleships were named for states. And for that matter, nuclear subs used to be named after cities, not states, except for boomers in the Ohio-Class. Every Los Angeles-Class sub was named for a city. Just about every forthcoming Virginia-Class boat is named for a state.
I just think it's boring. Thank God we're almost out of recent presidents to name ships after. Roosevelt I'm fine with, because he was a badass.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I like the USS Devastator. Unless I'm just really bad with my presidential history....
Maybe, but your Decepticon knowledge is spot on.
I think we should start naming carriers after Star Destroyers. I want a USS Imperator, a USS Invidious, USS Executor, etc.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Its because of local senatorial politics that the naming convention went all screwy for a while.
IP: Logged |