Politics behind "decomming" USS JOHN F KENNEDY?

[maxrandb]

Is it possible that there could be more than budget issues driving the elimination of the JFK?

Right now, of our most powerful ships. The only remaining that are named after Democrats are the Kennedy and the Truman.

They recently started construction on the George Herbert Walker Bush, and the Ronald Reagan was just commissioned a couple of years ago. Anyone think that the eventual USS George W Bush is too far-fetched to fathom? Don't think that carrier landing was just for show do you?

Interesting how ships are named. I wonder when we will get around to constructing the USS William Jefferson Clinton.

Anyway, just my thoughts that this BFEE, which I don't think had any love for the Kennedy's, would not pass up an opportunity to strike a blow to JFK's legacy. Not that their petty of anything!

[Cooley Hurd]

1. And the JFK isn't even the oldest...

...the Kitty Hawk is older:

from: Haze Gray and Underway - Naval History Website

Kitty Hawk
CVA 63 - CV 63

Built by New York Shipbuilding. Laid down 27 Dec 1956, launched 21 May 1960, commissioned 29 April 1961. Engine room fire 1965 during first deployment to Vietnam. Redesignated as a multimission carrier (CV 63) 29 April 1973 after being modified to operate ASW aircraft. SLEP at Philadelphia Navy Yard 1/1988 to 7/1991.

Replaced Independence as the forward-deployed carrier in Japan 7/1998. Scheduled to decommission 2008; will be replaced by CVN 77.

John F. Kennedy
CVA 67 - CV 67

Built by Newport News. Laid down 22 Oct 1964, launched 27 May 1967, commissioned 7 Sept 1968.

Redesignated as a multimission carrier (CV 67) 1 Dec 1974 after being modified to operate ASW aircraft. COH life extension at Philadelphia Navy Yard 1993 to 13 Sept 1995.

Scheduled to serve through 2018; will be replaced by CVN 79.

Remember the Roosevelt dime thing?

[Sweet Pea]

3. What Roosevelt Dime thing? n/t

[Florida_Geek]

5. replace Roosevelt with Reagon on the dime nt

[Sweet Pea]

4. ENTERPRISE as well is older n/t

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. but it is nuclear.

[maxrandb]

13. The reason we keep the KITTY HAWK around

is that it is a conventional carrier, not nuke powered, and we keep a carrier and air wing based in Japan. Japan has this weird phobia about things nuclear.

Of course, Kennedy is also conventional and could fill that role. Lot's of discussion and I think some work in progress to base a nuclear powered carrier in Guam. That way, you don't have to worry about Japan's objections.

[MADem]

45. Ah, yes, if I had a nickle for the many times

...I have said to Japanese reporters, ministers, and assorted officials "We can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear material aboard this vessel" well, I'd have a shitload of nickles!

They knew that was the answer they were going to get, but they'd always ask, anyway!

The Shitty Kitty is a step up from the ole Midway...that goes back a bit in time!

[Maria Celeste]

16. Age is not the primary issue

Its current state and when its last overhaul was. The Kennedy was determined to be the most expensive to operate for the next XX years so it was cut. The name is irrelevant.

A fight about moving another carrier to its homeport is already forming. A carrier base is major bucks for the local economy.

In a prior thread on this it was pointed out the JFK was a Navy hero and a strong supporter of the military.

Its not politics, it budget.

[liberal N proud]

2. If there is a Clinton, I am sure they will make it a Submarine.

Why is it cheaper to builed a new floating city than upgrade an existing one?
I don't understand the reasoning behind it except politics.
Then we will sell the scrap metal to China or Japan.

[dave123williams]

21. Please; the Pentagon will make sure the 'Clinton' is a scow.

[MADem]

30. I'd make the CLINTON

...a state of the art, top of the line, continuously deployed, mixed crew (military and civilian), fast response HOSPITAL SHIP.

His theme was peace, justice, help for the sick and forsaken, so it seems appropriate... But that's just me.

[Hobarticus]

6. Kennedy's legacy isn't wrapped up in a ship...

Ships rot. Kennedy's legacy, and Carter's and Clinton's for that matter, won't.

[maxrandb]

15. Not My Point

If you don't think they use these things to drive up favorable opinion about people, then we would just name ships after states. I served on USS RONALD REAGAN. You might be surprised to see the shrine erected to St. Ronald as you come aboard the ship. You might also be shocked that the daily quote that every Sailor reads in the Plan of the Day was from St Ronny.

It's indoctrination. Right now you have a frickin ship that will deploy all over the world and the United States as a giant flashing bill-board to the "greatness" of Reagan. Soon you'll have the same thing with USS GHWB, and yes, eventually, USS GWB.

If this stuff is not important, than why in the hell are they trying to name something after Reagan in every county in the country??

[Hobarticus]

38. I understood your point...

Don't disagree with it.

Are you referring to indoctrination of the sailors, or of other nations?

That must've been unbearable, having to endure daily worship of the Great Communicator!

[Democrats_win]

7. Decom them all. Save US from war. They didn't save US from 9/11.

Why bother with these rust buckets so some tin soldier can say "mission accomplished?"

[Minstrel Boy]

8. And "Cape Kennedy" was renamed Canaveral in 1992.

Which would have been during GHW Bush's tenure.

Of course, it had been Canaveral before (it was christened "Kennedy" in 1973.) But dammit, it ought to be Cape Kennedy.

[Tansy_Gold]

35. Please check your history, Minstrel Boy

Cape Canaveral was changed to "Cape Kennedy" almost immediately after JFK's assassination.


http://www.spaceline.org/capehistory/3a.html

On November 28, 1963 President Lyndon B. Johnson announced in a televised address that Cape Canaveral would be renamed Cape Kennedy in memory of President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated six days earlier. President Johnson said the name change had been sanctioned by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names.

Executive Order Number 11129, issued by President Johnson on November 29, 1963 decreed that the NASA Launch Operations Center (LOC), including facilities on Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral, would be renamed the John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA. That name change officially took effect on December 20, 1963.



It was renamed Cape Canaveral in 1973

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/SPACEFLIGHT/KSC/SP46.htm

In 1962, the overall land mass was generally referred to as Cape Canaveral, containing the Air Force's Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex and NASA's Launch Operations Center on Merritt Island. After President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the two facilities were combined into the John F. Kennedy Space Center and the land mass was renamed Cape Kennedy. In 1973-1974, after protests by local residents who noted the name's long history, the land mass was again renamed Cape Canaveral, and the U.S. Air Force facility became the Cape Canaveral Air Station.




It's been "Kennedy Space Center" at "Cape Canaveral" for a good long time, with nothing to do with the BFEE. Kennedy was the promoter of the original moon missions, and since little booooosh has invoked his name with this absurd Mars mission, I doubt the actual space center will be renamed any time soon.

But I could be wrong.


Tansy Gold

[malmapus]

9. Is the Nimitz older, is it still commisioned even?

Wasn't Navy myself so my knowledge of our carriers is piss poor lol.

[bobweaver]

11. Nimitz is still in service and expected to be through 2025

[Wisc Badger]

24. The Nimitz was commissioned in the 80's

Hell of a thing to watch it do flight ops from one of it's destroyer screen vessel. I did so in 1989, like I said hell of a thing to see.:toast:

[malmapus]

40. Awesome =) Somehow I thought it was older..thanks for clearin it up!

..

[bobweaver]

10. The politics behind it is that the areas where new carriers are built are

represented in Congress by powerful right-wingers (Trent Lott in one case) who are able to squeeze new carriers as pork barrel projects for their own districts (Pascagoula, MS and/or Newport News, VA). Perfectly good and usable ships such as the Midway and the Constellation are decommissioned and sent to the mothball fleet in Washington, even though they are still perfectly functional and usable. Grown men cried at the decommissioning ceremony of the Constellation here in San Diego, and many of them questioned why the ship had to be sent to mothball at all. These old, but still perfectly functional ships are then replaced by costly new monstrosities such as the $4 billion Ronald Reagan. There was no military reason to replace these carriers, it was just $$$$$ politics in Congress. The defense contractors that build these ships have powerful friends in Congress. That's the real politics behind it that nobody will talk about.

[Charon]

43. The politics behind it

Carriers are only constructed at Newport News, VA. Conventional Carriers do not have the military capability of the Nuke Carriers,
Half of their bunker capacity has to be committd to DFM for the boilers. On the Nukes, all of their tankage is available for aviation fuel. This means that the nukes get more flight ops without having to drag along a tanker for either DFM or JP-5. USS Midway
was found unfit for further service due to her poor material condition.I was on the Insurv board that recommended she be taken out of service. Don't know about Connie

[Florida_Geek]

12. Sidenote: the Queen Mary II

built in 18 MONTHS and on cost. It is 1.5 times bigger than the new Bushie AC which is not do out until 2008.

[MADem]

14. Sorry, NOT THE SAME THING

There's a lot of hardening that goes into the construction of a warship. If the Queen took an Exocet at the waterline, she'd be in a serious world of hurt and unable to continue her mission even in the heat of battle. You can't launch fighter and attack aircraft from the Queen.

I do not like their reasoning for decomming the JFK and I find the naming of carriers for LIVING presidents (Reagan was still alive when Nancy broke the champagne) UNSEEMLY. It puts POLITICS into warfighting, and while warfighting occurs as a result of politics, it is not for the warriors to be politicians themselves. We simply have to get back to that mindset.

And name our fighting ships after DEAD PEOPLE.

[Florida_Geek]

17. It isn't well the Bushie carrier is

like the 10th in that class. The plans have been used before. The QM 2 was designed from scratch. Now Bushie AC has some updates but a lot of them where also on the Reagan.

The nuc sub Carter was named after a living ex-President.

[maxrandb]

19. Exactly

I was told by my boss once that since I was on the REAGAN, "I should be prouder and work harder because I represented that great man."

I replied: "Yeah, I was on the USS IOWA, and believe me, I didn't work harder, or take more pride in my job because I was representing a corn producing state".

Point being, it's the country it represents that makes me swell with pride. Well, it used to anyway.

"Stop saying the government should have a military it can be proud of. It's time the military had a government it could be proud of"

-Me

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. kennedy is the last of the oil fired carriers

and is already in FL...the only other oil fired carrier is the Kitty Hawk and it is in Japan...has nothing to do with the legacy of JFK...

theProdigal

[rockymountaindem]

20. Whatever happened to the days

when we named our carriers after famous battles? Back in WWII we had the Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown (I and II), Bunker Hill, Cowpens and others. Noticeably those names all come from the Revolutionary war. After the war we had USS Antietam, Midway, Iwo Jima and others. I think that place and battle names are good non-objectionable names for warships.

Back in WWII it was very simple: Carriers were named for battles, Battleships were named for states, cruisers for cities, subs were named for fish, and destroyers carried the names of dead war heroes (such as the USS Sullivans which was commissioned a couple of years ago). There was no USS Lincoln, Grant or McKinley that I'm aware of.

[Wisc Badger]

25. That stoped with carriers being built in the 60's

such as the Kennedy, in the 70's the Vinson was slated for construction and they have been named for politicians ever since.:shrug:

[Blue Wally]

36. Naming changed.......

in 1944. Prior to that, carriers were named after famous battles (Lexington, Saratoga, Bunker Hill) or famous ships (Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise). The fiirst devitation from that scheme came in 1944 when one of the large Midway class carriers was named Franklin D. Roosevelt after the recently deceased president. First post war carrier was named after James Forestal, Democratic SecNav who commited suicide during the Truman administration. Forestal class carriers included Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence (later three all famous ships). Kitty Hawk was named after the location of the Wright brothers first flight. Kitty Hawk classs included Kitty Hawk, Constellation (famous ship), America (I guess after the USA), and the JFK.

Enterprise (famous ship) was the first of the "nukes". Subseuent nuks have been named after military and political figures (Nimitz, Eisenhower, Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, etc).

[jmowreader]

26. There are two of the three

USS Abraham Lincoln: This has been two vessels:

USS Abraham Lincoln (SSBN 602) was a George Washington-class ballistic missile submarine. It has been decommissioned and scrapped.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 68) is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. This is the current class of aircraft carrier; it includes the Ronald Reagan and the Poppy Bush.

USS Ulysses S. Grant (SSBN 631) was a George Washington-class ballistic missile submarine which has been decommissioned and scrapped.

There is no USS William McKinley.

http://www.nvr.navy.mil is the Naval Vessel Register, which lists every ship the Navy has ever had.

[rockymountaindem]

31. Those were after WWII when those mens' legacies were more academic

than politically passionate. That's all I'm saying.

[Carolina]

22. If any ship should be maintained

commissioned, whatever .... it should be the USS JFK.

Out of all the named presidents, Kennedy was a Naval Officer who served honorably, admirably and valiantly!

Out of all of the named presidents, he is the martyr who inspired people in this nation and around the world!

This is wrong and undoubtedly politically based. Deify and hero-ify the idiot GOPers and decommission, demote, demonize and otherwise destroy Dems.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. it has nothing to do with politics

it has to do with age, type, refit and $$$ to operate. They SHOULD however, have another ship in line with his name (not knowing if it is khosher by naval tradition to do such a thing...)

theProdigal

[Wisc Badger]

27. Sure it is

it's done all the time, see the USS Enterprise (famous WW2 carrier, and first nuke powered carrier) for an example.

Check out the name of Trident boomer boats (submarines) they are named for states, like old battle wagons used to be.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

28. cool...

i was not sure of the etiquette involved...i would still like to see a vessel of prominence named JFK...if anyone deserves it...

theProdigal

[jmowreader]

32. They can do it, but will they?

There are two USS George Washingtons on the NVR. Two Abraham Lincolns. Two ships have been The Sullivans. Theodore Roosevelt's name is on two ships. And the name of Rear Admiral Isaac Campbell Kidd (commander of the USS Arizona who died along with all hands when the Japanese sent her to the bottom) is on three.

The only hard-and-fast rule appears to be that there can be only one ship on active commission with a particular name, to save large amounts of confusion.

The big question is if Bush will allow another ship to be named John F. Kennedy.

[Wisc Badger]

34. Thank you for Reminding Me

The Lincoln and Washington were the first of the boomer (SSBN class 598) navy in commission from the early 60's to the early 80's, now at least the Abraham Lincoln is a carrier, I forgot that in my prior post, thank you for reminding me.

[rppper]

46. the McCains have had 2 destroyers named for them.....

the first was ddg36, named after McCains father, who was a vice admiral and heroicly commanded a squadron of cruisers and destroyers in WW2. the second was ddg56, a new burke class destroyer, named for both father and son. there was a thread here about a year or so ago, when we all found out bush the elder was getting a carrier named for him, on whether or not dimson naming a carrier after daddy was political mud in the eye of McCain, since the jr. McCain was an aviator.

[Blue Wally]

37. Probably....

two or three carrriers down the pike, we will have another JFK. Republicans won't try to stop it. Hell, if the Democrats in congress try to avoid voting for another carrier, the Republicans will just say, "well you guys just killed the JFK".

[maxrandb]

42. You're Wrong

I would love to believe you, but it has everything to do with politics.

If they scrap Kennedy, let's make a proposal. Let's forego naming a carrier after "junior" and name the next in the line JFK. Want to bet how far that would fly? How about re-naming one of the remaining carriers like the ENTERPRISE to the KENNEDY? It won't happen.

Make no mistake about it. This may make sense monetarily, but deep down these "ass pickles" would like nothing more than to destroy, or take some of the polish off the legacy of JFK.

Yeah, and politics had nothing to do with re-naming Washington International Airport.

You may not think it matters, but I am in the Navy. I served on REAGAN. I had to put his rediculous quotes in the ship's Plan of the Day every stickin' day I was on there. I had to listen while the CO at every "all hands" quarters pontificate about what Reagan represented and what a tremendous man he was. If you don't think that makes a difference, you're wrong. Just like having Rush broadcast on AFRTS makes no difference.

Should have seen the shit I got into when I put his "welfare queen" quote in the POD. That did not go over well.

[CO Liberal]

29. The "USS George W Bush" Should Be a Garbage Scow

:-)

[SoCalDem]

33. Dueling Dynasties ......messy business..

The Kennedy name is already fading into history.. Ted's old now, and the people who drooled over Jack & Jackie are ...well lots of them are just plain drooling these days..

The younger Kennedys have been portrayed as "less than exceptional", so there will be no Camelot, Part Deux..

The Bush/Walker/Ellis bunch are vying for the role these days. Their young'uns are all in the news these days. They are not as photogenic a bunch as the young Kennedys were, but times have changed.

For a country that shrugged off the jeweled cape of royalty, we have never quit longing for it at the same time. That's why *²'s election was so important to the Bush clan.

Had he been openly challenged by the public, and then uncermoniously booted oout at the first opportunity, we would be rid of them. They would be a blip on the national radar..

Poppy.. a dirty-trickster lurking on the fringes of the Kennedy assassination....a vice president to a dotty old movie star whose failed policies brought us to the brink of bankruptcy..and finally, a one-term president who was elected mostly by a lack of imagination from the public

*²... failed businessman, propped up by his former president father, governor of Texas, achieved through virtual character assassination, and whose two terms in Texas resulted in the un-doing of the state's tax base, health system and educational system.. The damage he caused, still lingers. Cheated his way into the white house with the help of his father's cronies, and the lackluster opposition by his opponents.... Thrown out when the public awoke..

Jeb...see above..

That would have been the END of their dynasty, but we are a nation in love with "the story"...we are gullible, and we are too forgiving. It has hurt us in the past and it will continue to hurt us..

The ones in charge want the kennedy name G O N E .. One dynasty at a time, folks. :puke:

[Wapsie B]

44. Agreed.

Those in charge have virtually guaranteed the Kennedy name will fade into the sunset. None of them wants to end up like JFK or RFK.

[Vidar]

41. One reason Hitler lost WWII was his obseesion with taking Stalingrad.