What Is Wrong With This Picture?

March 1, 2013 ACTivist 29 comments

Those in the know will look at this picture and scratch their heads. I won’t tell you what I see wrong. Rather, I want you to tell me what YOU see wrong. Regardless the article, this isn’t about sequestration or anything to do with lack of funding. I will give you a couple of easy hints: there are between 11 and 14 active nuclear carriers in the fleet and this appears to have happened because Congress wouldn’t confirm Hagel as Sec. of Defense, and Obama was left without one at the time (so he tells us).

Homeland Security, War none

Comments

Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

O.K. I’ll take a wild shot. The Truman (CVN-75) is delayed in departure for the Persian Gulf to join the John C. Stennis (CVN-74). Truman is on quick-deployment orders but nobody knows when she will be released by Washington. The Stennis is supposed to leave the Gulf in March 2013 and proceed to Bremerton, WA, for scheduled maintenance. If the Truman isn’t there yet and/or something heats up in the Middle East, the Stennis conceivably could get delayed in leaving the Gulf. Is there a certain young Budzinski aboard the Stennis who is looking forward to seeing Mom and Pop during the maintenance down time? The Navy still swears that the Stennis is on schedule for Bremerton. Pass or fail?
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

Ah, shucks. My wild guess got shot down. The Eisenhower (CVN-69)(in the photo) is scheduled to replace the Stennis in March.
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

O.K. I get you now. Not very often you will see five carriers nested together like that. This is probably what the Japanese wanted to find at Pearl Harbor in 1941. The sixth, smaller ship is an amphibious assault carrier. Somewhere on the web it said that the photo was taken way back in mid-December before all the sequestration talk. Actually, it is only four active carriers. The Enterprise (CVN-69) is inactive and having its interior gutted before being sent to Bremerton, WA, for her final curtain call. She will be replaced by the Gerald R. Ford currently under construction.
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

Oops, Enterprise (CVN-65).
Written by ACTivist about 3 months ago.

Bingo. There is a directive that came out after Pearl Harbor to stop just this very thing.
Written by Scout about 3 months ago.

Well, another thing that is wrong with this picture is this assinine practice of naming carriers after people, not all of whom are that impressive (the John C. Stennis – give me a break!). Carriers should be named after sea battles or famous warships. Would you rather serve on the Wasp, Hornet, Midway, Bonhomme Richard, Coral Sea, Enterprise, Intrepid, or the John friggin Stennis? Whoever permitted the departure from the old naming protocols should have been keel-hauled.
Written by ACTivist about 3 months ago.

Interesting, Scout. My father flew the decks of over half those carriers and I never heard a peep of disrespect for their name. Let me see; “A rose by any other name…”. Does it really matter that much?
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

Scout, someone must have been reading your thoughts. The next carrier in the Gerald R. Ford-class will be the USS Enterprise (CVN-80) — if we can afford her.
Written by Scout about 3 months ago.

Tradition matters, ACT. Particularly in a service like the Navy. The naming traditions served the Navy well for nearly two centuries, and then someone decides that it all goes in the dumpster. I understand that the extinction of the Battleships (BB) meant that states no longer had a class to which their name could be attached and I don’t have a problem with transferring those names to ballistic missile submarines. But carriers, a new vessel type in the 20th century, were traditionally named for battles and distinguished warships. Giving them guy names just doesn’t do it for me, frankly, even if the guys are presidents. The Stennis really is the pits. If money were no object, the next thing you know they would be building a carrier called the Carl Levin.

Wolve – I think the Enterprise is the exception that proves the rule, although I am glad that there is a sentiment that we should not let that name go out of circulation. I doubt she will be built.
Written by Scout about 3 months ago.

PS – I had the distinct pleasure of being on board the Lincoln when she received her first aircraft off the Virginia Capes. A great president, a great ship, and it’s hard to object to the marriage of the two. But still, I favor the old ways.
Written by ACTivist about 3 months ago.

A valid argument, Scout. Unfortunately, as I often complain, tradition is disappearing in all aspects of our lives with this new society. What can you do. The Enterprise will eventually be built, only because of the long lineage of her namesake. Why do you think Roddenberry used it for his sci-fi conception? Very proud lineage that will live for many generations to come. The most disgraceful happenstance was that of CV-6, the Big E. It was my father’s ship during WWII and the most decorated ship of that war, earning a Presidential citation. Alas, because of politics, it was the Yorktown, instead of the Enterprise, that escaped being scraped. Our family had to live with one pissed-off, plank owning sailor for years after that fiasco. Until he died, it was still a very sore subject when brought up in conversation. I know of only a few of those Essex class sailors still around. It still rescenates in the halls, not soon to be forgotten. Yes, there will be more Enterpises in the future.
Written by Scout about 3 months ago.

As a schoolboy, I sent a hard-earned dollar to Admiral Halsey as part of a campaign to save Enterprise from the scrapyard. It was reminiscent of Oliver Wendell Holmes’s lines about the proposed scrapping of the USS Constitution in the mid 1800s: “the Harpies of the shore shall pluck the eagle of the sea.”
Written by Squiddy about 3 months ago.

Wholeheartedly agree, Scout, re the naming of CVN’s after people/Presidents.

Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown, Wasp, the Constitution, Belleau Wood, Saratoga, Lexington, Cowpens, Coral Sea, Bon Homme, Ranger, Midway – these are all better names for a future CVN than, say the Hoover, the Garfield, the Clinton, or the Obama.
Written by Scout about 3 months ago.

Great names, Squid. I take it you wouldn’t be real enthusiastic about my example of the USS CARL LEVIN.

I had friends who flew off BHR, RANGER and the second SARATOGA(or later – there may have been SARATOGAs before the WWII carrier). The carriers all had nicknames, some a bit irreverent (I won’t mention in a public space where young, impressionable civilians might be lurking the nickname of the BONHOMME RICHARD, but you can imagine proximately what that might have been), that the aviation complement (an irreverent bunch by nature) used to bestow (affectionately) on their ships.

I guess the first deviation was the USS JOHN F. KENNEDY. We then had the NIMITZ (great man, great war leader, but still it just doesn’t seem right to me). The low point had to be the STENNIS, however. Can anyone here explain what the reasoning was on that? I assume there was a political deal somewhere to get the ship funded. I don’t really know what the system is now, other than it appears that at least some of the Aegis cruisers have picked up battle names (e.g., TICONDEROGA), the boomers took the BB state name designations (although there is a relatively new ship called NEW YORK that is something else altogether). Cruisers took city names, but those appear to have also gone to SSNs. Submarines were fish and sealife (a part of the old protocol I really like, giving us great names like SKIPJACK, STURGEON and NAUTILUS). Destroyers used to carry the names of naval heroes. I think that may be by the boards (there was JOSEPH P. KENNEDY – after the President’s brother, a WWII naval aviator who died in combat operations in Europe – before there was a JOHN F. KENNEDY). It all made sense and one could tell immediately by a vessel’s name what type of ship it was.

Maybe a way around the budget problems we have is to sell naming rights. For donation of his entire fortune we could have a CVN (complete with air wing) called the USS WARREN BUFFETT. Lesser vessels might take corporate sponsorships like the USS COCA COLA or USS BUDWEISER. Possibilities are endless and a bit entertaining, if you, like me, don’t have much going on on a Sunday afternoon
Written by BlackOut about 3 months ago.

I would have preferred the USS John Riggins over the USS John Stennis.
Written by ACTivist about 3 months ago.

My father was commanding officer of an attack squadron off the Bonnie Dick in the 60’s. Lots of fond memories and gifts from those Sea of Japan cruises.
Written by Scout about 3 months ago.

Your Dad probably knew some people I knew. I once asked one of my Naval Aviator friends if he was ever scared flying. (This was after he told me, at the ripe age of 45, that flying for the Navy was the greatest thing he could ever have imagined doing and that he felt like he had never worked a day in his life – a very proud boast to make to a 21 year old, child of the 60s, newbie like me). He said the only time he was particularly anxious was during night carrier landings in bad weather, and specifically mentioned one such incident on the BONHOMME RICHARD. This probably was the mid to late 1950s, so it might have been a bit ahead of your father.
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

I believe there is still a USS Bonhomme Richard in the US Navy —- LHD-6, Wasp-class amphibious assault carrier commissioned in 1998.

In speaking of the USS John C. Stennis, we may have forgotten about the Nimitz-class USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70). Stennis and Vinson are the only two former members of Congress for whom carriers have been named. I don’t know about any backdoor deals on funding, but these names were given ostensibly because of the long-time strong support of both men for the US military through many administrations of both major parties. Stennis had the sobriquet in Washington of the “Father of America’s Modern Navy.” Reagan announced the USS Stennis naming in 1988. The politics of funding? Don’t know.

The Carl Vinson already has a place in history staked out — burial of Osama bin Laden at sea.
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

Actually, it looks like the LHD’s and LHA’s — amphibious assault carriers/ships — walked off with many of the historical battle names such as, inter alia, Belleau Wood, Tarawa, Saipan, Okinawa, and Inchon beginning way back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. That’s about the time we got the USS John F. Kennedy – a conventional attack carrier.
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

Tarawa-class LHA’s (amphib assault carriers): USS Peleliu (LHA-5) (only active one left in this class – gone are, inter alia, the Tarawa, Saipan, Belleau Wood, Nassau).

America-class LHA’s (amphib assault carriers): USS America (LHA-6) (to replace the Peleliu and the America class will replace the Tarawa class.)

Wasp-class LHD’s (amphib assault carrers): USS Wasp (LHD-1)(active); USS Essex (LHD-2)(active); USS Kearsarge (LHD-3)(active); USS Boxer (LHD-4)(active); USS Bataan (LHD-5)(active); USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)(active); USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7)(active); USS Makin Island (LHD-8) (active).
Written by Scout about 3 months ago.

My wife once spent some time on the Guadalcanal. All I got out of it was a lousy baseball hat which would tell me, if I were energetic enough to go rummage through my closet, which class it was (my memory says, LHA, but I could be mistaken. It may have been an LHD). What I do remember about the LHAs is that they were lousy sea-keepers and a good example of compromising missions to the point where you have a ship that tries to combine a lot of capabilities and does nothing quite as well as a dedicated purpose ship might have. My wife was once in a very bad stretch of weather off Cape Hatteras on the Guadalcanal. Apparently she and the skipper were the only persons on the bridge who were not completely barfed out.

Wolve – quite right that we completely overlooked the VINSON. I still don’t get this Member of Congress thing. How about the USS DENNIS KUCINICH?
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

Scout — Guadalcanal was LPH-7 of the old Iwo Jima class of amphib assault carriers. Sister to, among others, the Inchon, the Okinawa, Valley Forge, and Tripoli. All of them history. Makes me feel so darned old. I was aboard the USS Inchon during a port visit in Africa in the late 1970’s.

Glad you mentioned the Guadalcanal. It is a good example of the battle naming switch from the old carrier fleet to a newer and different class. The name predecessor of the USS Guadalcanal (LPH-7) was the USS Guadalcanal (CVE-60) — an escort carrier.
Written by Wolverine about 3 months ago.

Oh Lord, now Scout has something running through my head: USS NANCY PELOSI.
Written by ACTivist about 3 months ago.

Oh, come on, guys. You’re putting a downer on such good vibes.
Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 months ago.

http://youtu.be/EfmGajfyv5A

This Guadalcanal?
Written by ACTivist about 2 months ago.

Another poor, poor attempt at humor, Triberal.
Written by Wolverine about 2 months ago.

Reb — You should give Eric a break on this one. Never heard of these people before. When I plugged in Eric’s link, I subsequently ran across a video entitled Top Tracks for Guadalcanal Diary. Dorkiest looking darned group I ever saw. I am still laughing. I needed that.
Written by Squiddy about 2 months ago.

Re: USS NANCY PELOSI

Could work – one more facelift, and she could have a face that launched 1,000 ships …

In that her face will resemble a champagne bottle – hard, smooth, and green …

(Thinking of her and a facelift reminded me of Katherine Helmond in ‘Brazil’ – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnx95KyQEAA )

“Would you like to be Surgeon General?”
Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 months ago.

I thought you would just like a really cool tune, Act, as a change of pace. Dorky is ok by me, Wolv. I’ve got a million of ‘em.