Following up to this article, the Navy has continued its streak of not naming carriers after Democratic Presidents. LBJ now has a ship named after him, but a destroyer, rather than a carrier:
The Navy has named the third ship in its class of state-of-the-art destroyers after the late President Lyndon B. Johnson, who served as a naval officer during World War II, the service said in a press release Monday.
“I am pleased to honor President Johnson with the naming of this ship,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said in a statement. “His dedication to a life of public service included bravely stepping forward to fight for his country during our entry into World War II.”
No word on whether the ship would have a tendency to report attacks by imaginary torpedo boats, but some folks have been unable to avoid the sniggering locker room humor that the name might inspire:
That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to ever name a Zumwalt destroyer the JOHNSON. Only Ray Mabus [Secretary of the Navy] is apparently so tone deaf as to not see the irony that during April 2012 – also known as Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) in the Navy – that the 18-22 year old enlisted sailors are going to almost certainly come up with some highly creative (and crude) JOHNSON jokes. OK, so the silver lining is that at least we won’t have a JOHNSON STRIKE GROUP in the Navy, but when a ship’s most prominent feature is often described as 6″ or 155mm, JOHNSON doesn’t quite strike me as the appropriate name.
I’m sure the person was concern-blogging about the USS George HW Bush when it was named.
The only remaining recent Presidents without ships named for them are now Nixon, Clinton, and Shrub. Nixon’s unlikely to get one, which means that naming the next carrier is going to be an interesting decision. My guess? They name it the Enterprise and push back the controversy.
The Edge of the American West 
28 comments
April 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm
JWL
“Are we going to land on an aircraft carrier”?
“Sir, no sir. We’re going to land on the USS Mondale. It’s a laundry ship”.
April 17, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
A United States Navy without an Enterprise? Blasphemy.
Not to mention it handily kicks the can down the road a ways.
April 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm
kevin
Is it too much to hope that the Navy might name a new sonar array, or some other listening device, after Nixon?
April 17, 2012 at 9:07 pm
kathy a.
the navy does not officially have a sense of humor. so kevin, that would be negatory.
April 17, 2012 at 9:09 pm
kathy a.
besides, they only name the really big equipment.
April 18, 2012 at 1:46 am
ajay
“some folks have been unable to avoid the sniggering locker room humor that the name might inspire:”
…which is why the Royal Navy decided not to call one of its battleships HMS Pitt, incidentally.
I must say that, what with the USS Stennis and the USS Vinson, it’s nice to have a ship named after someone who actually supported the civil rights movement for a change.
April 18, 2012 at 4:16 am
chris
Is it too much to hope that the Navy might name a new sonar array, or some other listening device, after Nixon?
Only if they want to have 18 and a half minute gaps in the data they receive from it.
April 18, 2012 at 6:56 am
Main Street Muse
“I’m sure the person was concern-blogging about the USS George HW Bush when it was named.”
One of my favorite lines found in any blog, anywhere…. Kudos!
April 18, 2012 at 10:38 am
pa joe
Payback for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The South is revenged. Again.
April 18, 2012 at 8:03 pm
TF Smith
At least they did not revisit the names of SSBN 601 and SSBN 634…
Mabus’ choices have really been pretty lame; the carrier names have been generally bad (honorable exceptions to CV-60 through 62 and 64 through 66) since the 1950s, but the latest are pathetic.
Never Again Volunteer Yourself
April 19, 2012 at 2:14 am
Lurker
How about the old British custom of re-using the names of enemy ships sunk or captured by Royal Navy? USS Musashi would be pretty cool name for a carrier.
April 19, 2012 at 2:24 am
ajay
How about the old British custom of re-using the names of enemy ships sunk or captured by Royal Navy?
But wasn’t this because the ship itself was transferred into the Royal Navy? i.e. there wasn’t an HMS “Temeraire” because the Navy was particularly proud of having sunk or captured a French ship called “Temeraire”. There was an HMS “Temeraire” which actually used to be the French ship “Temeraire” before it got captured. (And then there were lots of other Temeraires named after that one.)
April 19, 2012 at 5:49 am
silbey
Mabus’ choices have really been pretty lame
I like some of them, like the Giffords, the Chavez, and the Medgar Evers, but the carriers have been bad.
about the old British custom of re-using the names of enemy ships sunk or captured by Royal Navy? USS Musashi would be pretty cool name for a carrier
That _would_ be excellent. The USS Hiryu, the USS Yamato, and the USS Jean Bart.
April 19, 2012 at 9:03 am
ajay
When was the last time that the USN actually captured an enemy warship in battle, anyway? Probably a U-boat in the Second World War, I should think – more than one surrendered to the Royal Navy (of which at least one was taken into the Navy, but not as the HMS U-570; it was renamed HMS Graph).
April 19, 2012 at 9:08 am
silbey
Depends on defining the requirements, but last year?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/somali-pirates-captured-ship-overtaken-marines/story?id=11592662
April 19, 2012 at 1:03 pm
rea
the carrier names have been generally bad (honorable exceptions to CV-60 through 62 and 64 through 66)
What, you don’t like CV 63? Kitty Hawk strikes me as a perfectly cromulent name for a carrier, consitent with CV 1 (Langley–the federal government used to claim that he, rather than the Wright Brothers, invented the airplane) and CVL 49 (Wright–a change of heart).
April 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm
rea
the old British custom of re-using the names of enemy ships sunk or captured by Royal Navy?
There have been USS Macedonian, USS Boxer, and USS Guerriere
April 20, 2012 at 2:39 am
ajay
Langley–the federal government used to claim that he, rather than the Wright Brothers, invented the airplane
Which is why the Wright Flyer spent several years in the Science Museum in London – Wright was so annoyed at the US government that he refused to give it to the Smithsonian until they admitted he was first.
April 20, 2012 at 10:27 am
rea
Wright was so annoyed at the US government that he refused to give it to the Smithsonian until they admitted he was first.
Langley had been head of the Smithsonian, and his “airplane” (which twice crashed on takeoff) was built with Smithsonian funds, so the Smithsonian was the heart of pro-Langley sentiment.
Picture of Langley’s first failed attempt, about 3 weeks before the Wright Brother succeeded:
Note that Langley attempted to launch by catapult from a houseboat.
April 20, 2012 at 10:50 am
Dave
Well, no wonder they named a carrier after him…
April 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm
TF Smith
Giffords, Chavez, and Evers, although all admirable personally, are poor choices to be honored by naming naval vessels after them; first and foremost, none died while in the naval service. Pretty hard to get past that…
An LCS is a small combatant, equivalent to a destroyer escort despite the non-conforming hull numbers and classification, and so – as the precedent has been since the type joined the fleet, their names should be those of distinguished naval and marine corps personnel. There are plenty of MOH and NC recipients to chose from, tragically enough…
And AKs (which is what the other two are, even though they are MSC ships) were traditionally not given personnel names, which, again, were reserved for small combatants (destroyers and destroyer types).
If the idea is to recognize American women and minorities who have contributed to the mission of the naval services, I could suggest:
Lenah Higbee, Edna Place, Marie Louise Hidell, or Lilian Murphy; all four were Navy Cross recipients, the last three posthumously;
Jay Vargas, Jose F. Jimenez, Alfredo Gonzalez, Ralph Dias, Emilio De La Garza; all four were MOH recipients, the last four posthumously;
Robert Henry Jenkins, Jr., Oscar Palmer Austin, Ralph Henry Johnson, Rodney Maxwell Davis, James Anderson, Jr.; all five were posthumous MOH recipents.
============================================================================
As far as an enemy ship taken on the high seas in wartime, the ex-U-505 (i.e. “Can Do Jr,”) fits; see:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq91-1.htm
===========================================================================
As far as CV-63 goes, “Kitty Hawk” is a place name, not a battlefield; carriers from 1927 through the 1960s were supposed to be named after battles or distinguished warships (generally sailing ships) from US history; given that the previous Kitty Hawk was an aircraft transport given a “aviation-related-location” name (as were her sistters, Lakehurst and Hammondsport), Kitty Hawk was a poor choice for CV-63.
===========================================================================
CV-1 gets a pass as an experimental ship later converted to an auxiliary (ie. AV, seaplane tender), as was the original USS Wright; neither names should have been given to the WW II CVLs.
===========================================================================
Naval ship nomenclature should follow the rules of honoring ideals, incidents, or individuals who speak to the values and traditions of the nation, and which allow for easy indentification of a ship type by virtue of the name given; also, once a nomenclature system is created and accepted, it should remain in place, rather then be revoked because of politics.
Call me a conservative, but America, United States, Constitution, Constellation, Ranger, Enterprise, Lexington, Saratoga, and Independence all do a lot more to inspire and engender loyalty than the USS Representative Legislator…
Again, such practices are what led to the names chosen for SSBN 601 and 634, which – thankfully – have not come up again.
Semper Fi
April 21, 2012 at 7:37 am
silbey
Giffords, Chavez, and Evers, although all admirable personally, are poor choices to be honored by naming naval vessels after them; first and foremost, none died while in the naval service. Pretty hard to get past that…
I’m somewhat puzzled by this argument. There are already lots of ships with names of people who didn’t die in naval service. Should we rename all of them to posthumous MOH winners? And if we do that, how do we decide which ones? There are more than a thousand MOH winners with naval or marine connections, many posthumous. Who gets left out?
And there’s much less of a tradition about naming ships than you lay out: these have always been political decisions, with non-traditional choices abounding.
April 22, 2012 at 9:13 am
Dave
Let’s face it, there’s no rational reason to give the dam’ things names at all; any choice about naming is going to be political, and what you think about it is going to be colored by your own politics – that you take for granted and somebody else thinks is despicable. So, frankly, I think we’re better off keeping this discussion light. Anyone for USS Surprising Lack of Fiscal Oversight?
April 22, 2012 at 11:44 am
TF Smith
Should we rename all of them to posthumous MOH winners?
If they are destroyer-type combatants, which is what an LCS is, absent the equally politicized hull classification, then the answer is yes. Auxiliaries should be named after the appropriate categories of the traditional nomenclature system; cargo ships, traditionally, were given astronomical names.
And if we do that, how do we decide which ones?
Reverse chronological order.
There are more than a thousand MOH winners with naval or marine connections, many posthumous. Who gets left out?
The oldest, who are going to be pre-WWI, when the requirements were very different for the MOH then they have been for most of the 20th and 21st centuries.
And there’s much less of a tradition about naming ships than you lay out: these have always been political decisions, with non-traditional choices abounding.
I would differ; the few exceptions for new construction between the 1880s-1950s are just that, exceptions. Even the most questionable (Shangri-La, Franklin, Hancock, Randolph, Cabot, Langley, Wright) were all late in the period and are still within the realm of the possible, since Shangri-La actually was a battle reference and the personnel names were all for previous ships, mostly from the sailing navy – and those personnel who were so honored indirectly were all long dead); the first huge exception, CV-42, did not come until after VE Day and probably would have been opposed by FDR if it had been suggested while he was still alive.
Going back farther, BB-5 was an “honor” for the previous warship, which given what happened off Cherbourg in 1864, seems resonable, since Kearsarge as a name didn’t really fit anywhere else in 1898.
Other than that, I don’t really see many exceptions to the traditional system; occassionally there was a renaming and re-classification based on type or role changes, or to free up a name for a newer ship, but that’s about it. The really oddball names came about during the late Cold War and after, due entirely to domestic US politics.
It is worth considering, from an intellectual history and historical memory point of view, that the tradtional nomenclature system was created in the 1880s, when the steel and steam navy was coming into being (under Whitney and Tracy), originally under to avoid party politics (this was the era of reconciliation vis a vis “waving the bloody shirt” after all) as well as the “Bismarckian” type names prevalent in European and South American navies of the day – which led to more than one series of multiple renamings as political winds shifted.
More’s the pity the apolitical tradition was not followed during the Cold War, rather than the “fish don’t vote” strategies that have led to such absurdities as the “Lipscombfish,” “City of Corpus Christi” and SSBNs named after racist traitors.
Best,
April 22, 2012 at 2:01 pm
beamish
So, TF Smith’s post made me wonder what the current policy is. Insofar as there is a policy, it’s roughly as follows:
Combat ships
(11) Aircraft Carriers: Presidents (mostly)
(89) Destroyers and Frigates: Naval heroes
(62) Attack Submarines, Amphibious Transport Docks: Cities (I don’t think ‘City of Corpus Christi’ is absurd)
(2) Littoral Combat Ships: the current ones are political virtues, most of the planned ones are cities
(22) Cruisers: Battles
(18) Missile Subs: States
(14) Mine Countermeasure Ships: Heroic types
(12) Dock Landing Ships: Forts and buildings
(11) Patrol Boats: Bad weather
(9) Amphibious Assault Ships: Historic ships
(2) Command Ships: Mountains or mountain ranges
Support ships:
(14) Cargo and Container Ships, Maritime Prepositioning Ships: Medal of Honor winners
(9) Dry Cargo Ships: Non-military heroes
(4) Ocean Tugs: Indian tribes
(11) Large Harbor Tugs: Indians or places with indian names
(15) Oilers: Naval engineers and rivers
(4) Ocean Surveillance Ships: Virtues of competence
(4) Salvage Ships: Activities associated with salvage
(7) Survey Ships: Oceanographers and explorers
(2) Submarine Tenders: Naval engineers
(1) Ammunition Ship: Rocks
(1) Cable Repair: Greek gods
(2) Barracks Craft: Counties
(2) Dry Docks: Towns
(4) Fast Combat Support: No pattern
(2) Hospital Ships: Virtues of compassion
(Some numbers may be wrong.)
Isn’t that interesting?
April 23, 2012 at 2:48 am
ajay
I’m somewhat puzzled by this argument. There are already lots of ships with names of people who didn’t die in naval service. Should we rename all of them to posthumous MOH winners?
And why limit it to posthumous? Is TF Smith somehow suggesting that someone who performs an act of supreme valour is somehow second-rate if they manage to avoid dying while doing it?
April 23, 2012 at 10:42 am
silbey
@TF, what you’ve really got is a period from the mid-1930s to about 1944 when naming was somewhat consistent. Before that, you had the mess that was the late-19th century, with types of names switching from ship type to ship type (state names started with cruisers, went to battleships, and stayed.) Ship names taken from previous great ships started to be given to battlecruisers but migrated to carriers along with the Lexington and Saratoga, leaving the poor Langley high and dry. The massive shipbuilding of WWII showed a fair amount of consistency, but even that (as you note) began to break down at the end of the war. Post-1945, it’s all (kinds of) names on deck.
As to the Kearsarge, given how the first ship of that name got the appellation, I’m not sure you want to talk about it in the context of non-political naming:
http://obab.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-came-up-with-name-of-uss-kearsarge.html
April 23, 2012 at 12:48 pm
beamish
I think it’s fine and good to have a system here. It may be a little useful sometimes to tell a ship’s type from its name alone. But the names lose that function if you start naming everything after Medal of Honor winners. Name the cargo ships after famous non-military heroes. That way, you can tell that they’re cargo ships.