JFK over to NATO ?

Ahh, I would separate out the economics and foreign policy bits, they make for an uncomfortable mix (foreign policy conservatives generally seem to favour interventionism, but economic/fiscal conservatives favour a non-interventionist method, which is cheaper!).

How about Zell Miller? He is a Democrat, but he has a certain following in the Republican camp, after his endorsement of Bush for the election in ’04. He has left congress now, but if you needed to find a Democrat that Republicans could cope with, he would probably be at the top of a short list!

I personally support the Republican party in general, though I tend to be a fiscal conservative more than a social conservative (i.e. I support the lean government part, but not the whole ‘change the constitution to outlaw {insert pet hate here}’ part that seems popular at the moment).

yeah, it seems most of the Americans here are just fiscally conservative. The few I talked to here aren’t into the issue about gay marriage, stem cells, and abortion.. just economics and foreign policy.

How about Zell Miller? He is a Democrat, but he has a certain following in the Republican camp, after his endorsement of Bush for the election in ’04. He has left congress now, but if you needed to find a Democrat that Republicans could cope with, he would probably be at the top of a short list!

I personally support the Republican party in general, though I tend to be a fiscal conservative more than a social conservative (i.e. I support the lean government part, but not the whole ‘change the constitution to outlaw {insert pet hate here}’ part that seems popular at the moment).

I was merely making an observation that naming new carriers after Republicans, and retiring one named after a Democrat might not go down well in some circles. Instead of simply taking that statement for what it was, you seem to feel that somehow it is a slight on the reputation of one former President – I note you choose not to boast of GHWBs outstanding popularity!

I can’t think of any Democrat politician that Republicans would like to see having a ship named after. likewise on the issue of Reagan.. Reagan is to Democrats as is Clinton is to Republicans.. one side thinks he’s the greatest thing that ever happened, the other think he’s one of the worst.

Although oddly, it seems most of the Americans posting in this forum are republican leaning. Most of the military ones I met in person usually sided with the Dems or neutral.

I apologise for my typo, indeed, it should indeed have been CVN-76, not 77 as I said, CVN-77 is actually the last (as currently scheduled) Nimitz class, i.e. the GHWB. CVN-78 will actually be the first of what was to be CVN-21/CVNX, the post-Nimitz design, though there is significant debate as to the genuine cost savings, since the predicted whole life savings are questionable in light of the higher unit cost.

Reagan did indeed have high ratings when president, but since the way history judges a person is rarely based on popularity ratings when alive – a lot of facts which alter people’s opinions only come out after their deaths (or upon their leaving office). Since this thread is not about Reagan, it is hardly relevant to turn it into a discussion of his popularity ratings. His ‘pole’ (sic) or poll ratings do not affect the issue of ship naming, nor mean that a ship should not be named after another popular president! As I made perfectly clear in my response to Vortex, I was merely making an observation that naming new carriers after Republicans, and retiring one named after a Democrat might not go down well in some circles. Instead of simply taking that statement for what it was, you seem to feel that somehow it is a slight on the reputation of one former President – I note you choose not to boast of GHWBs outstanding popularity!

Considering the fact that you are new to this forum, it is quite amusing that you choose to make your first posting an insult!

All presidents have a following. The guy was only “admired” after he was dead. His approval rating was quite low iirc….got us started with the Cuban and Vietnamese mess…and you’re fine with that? Talk about irony and lack of historical knowledge. If you think having ties with big oil is bad….how about the mob 😮 :rolleyes: By the way, Regan is already a carrier…and the way things are going, all the recent ones and the ones in the future will get a carrier after them.

Hopefully not Clinton the way he gutted the military. (BTW I wasn’t crazy about the Bush either. Reagan? Yeah) How about pulling out some of the more traditional names like Midway, Coral Sea, America, Forrestal, Saratoga, etc?

I am certainly not ignorant of US history as you imply…

My point was that he is admired now, and the idea of having a Reagan and GHWB would be quite difficult politically…

The CVN-77 was entering service before Reagan was dead…

CVN-76 is the USS Ronald Reagan not CVN-77… CVN-77 is the first of the new post Nimitz Class Carriers…

President Reagan was the most admired President in modern times. He was also the most popular President we ever had while he was still in office. He was re-elected by the largest majority of votes ever in our history. I.E. Landslide Vote!

He was also voted our best President since George Washington in a national pole last year.

I would have to say you really dont know much about our history…

I’d rather see the next one named Lexington.

Does that mean we’ll see carriers named after Clinton? what about Ford?

I believe carriers are named after individuals who were either in the US Navy or contributed in someway? JFK and Daddy Bush were both in the Navy. Reagan… well he was sick, but he did do Hellcats of the Navy :dev2: Truman was an artillery guy but he was very pro Navy.. and Dubya.. was a flight jockey and seems to have a heavier emphasis on the AF along with Rummy.

Not true…recently they start to name them after recent Presidents (don’t need naval connections at all, afterall they are “CinCs”)…iirc, USN got criticized for naming carriers after people (important to USN) that most Americans can’t identify and Presidents too long ago to identify with (mind you most Americans aren’t very good in history 🙁 ). Even “Truman” is a bit a dinosaur 😀

They will have to name the next carrier in line (after the GHWB) the JFK – you cannot possibly have carriers for Reagan and Bush, without one for JFK, one of the most admired US presidents!

I believe carriers are named after individuals who were either in the US Navy or contributed in someway? JFK and Daddy Bush were both in the Navy. Reagan… well he was sick, but he did do Hellcats of the Navy :dev2: Truman was an artillery guy but he was very pro Navy.. and Dubya.. was a flight jockey and seems to have a heavier emphasis on the AF along with Rummy.

I am certainly not ignorant of US history as you imply, and your assumption that anyone who is not born and raised in the US is ignorant of US history is almost the definition of condescending! I actually used to live in the US, and I am well aware of the fact that Reagan was more popular while alive, but since both are dead, that is hardly relevant. My point was that having carriers named after both Reagan and GHWB might be politically questionable, and you cannot possibly tell me that GHWB is more admired than JFK! Quite how you consider this to be ‘rewriting our history’ is not entirely clear!

I believe that your statement was condescending, and, in fact in error – I made no comment about Reagan not being popular, and I did not endorse either one. They both have a following, and both have detractors, but that is not the point. My statement was a simple observation, with no hidden meaning – I simply gave my supposition that having ships named after two recent Republican presidents, and retiring one named after a Democrat, especially while a Republican is in office, could prove politically amusing. Your immediate assumption that my statement, which ran to just 36 words (on just over one line!), was somehow a sign of ignorance would be amusing if it were not so condescending.

I suggest we agree to disagree, and leave it at that – I am not going to apologise for making a simple political observation, and I suspect you are not going to apologise for your reaction to it. This forum is generally very pleasant, and things like this are not needed.

EXACTLY…political comments from outsiders that’s trying to create more problems than fact about US political systems. Before continue to preach your one sided political view, consider the fact that it would’ve been USS Jimmy Carter as a Nimitz class carrier…however, given that Carter was part of the silent service, SPECIAL consideration was given to honor him by naming the most powerful US nuclear attack submarine after him…SSN-23 Jimmy Carter, the last of ONLY 3 Sea Wolf class and considered the most advanced of them all. THE MOST ADVANCED USN VESSEL. What now? favortism to a Democrat? Mind you that Carter is still alive and well, irregardless of how i do or don’t like him. How goes your theory now? :rolleyes: Now is it still condescending that someone simply pointing out to you the facts? The next major naval ship after Regan will be USS George H.W. Bush, then Clinton, then G.W. Bush. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I am certainly not ignorant of US history as you imply, and your assumption that anyone who is not born and raised in the US is ignorant of US history is almost the definition of condescending! I actually used to live in the US, and I am well aware of the fact that Reagan was more popular while alive, but since both are dead, that is hardly relevant. My point was that having carriers named after both Reagan and GHWB might be politically questionable, and you cannot possibly tell me that GHWB is more admired than JFK! Quite how you consider this to be ‘rewriting our history’ is not entirely clear!

I believe that your statement was condescending, and, in fact in error – I made no comment about Reagan not being popular, and I did not endorse either one. They both have a following, and both have detractors, but that is not the point. My statement was a simple observation, with no hidden meaning – I simply gave my supposition that having ships named after two recent Republican presidents, and retiring one named after a Democrat, especially while a Republican is in office, could prove politically amusing. Your immediate assumption that my statement, which ran to just 36 words (on just over one line!), was somehow a sign of ignorance would be amusing if it were not so condescending.

I suggest we agree to disagree, and leave it at that – I am not going to apologise for making a simple political observation, and I suspect you are not going to apologise for your reaction to it. This forum is generally very pleasant, and things like this are not needed.

My statement is in reference to the comments by Vortex, which were extremely condescending, and I stand by my statement.

wow just one factual sentence that’s not to your liking “Talk about irony and lack of historical knowledge. and you call that “condescending”…fortunately i’m here long enough to brush that aside. 😉 That claim is not condescending at all my friend…you are suggesting that JFK is more admired than Regan in the US and i’m merely pointing to you the contrary…both are admired. In fact, the reality is that Regan was more admired by more Americans than JFK were when they were alive and well. Are you an American anyways Ed? If not, tell me how is that fact to a non-American be condescending, it’s call blunt with the facts and don’t rewrite our history of what you like to believe….notice i didn’t straight out use the word “ignorance” :rolleyes:

My statement is in reference to the comments by Vortex, which were extremely condescending, and I stand by my statement.

Actually when it comes to this:

“I would ask that you check your condescending attitude at the door, it is not welcomed!”

The author of the above should heed his own advice!!!

Of course I know that Reagan is dead (I did use ‘was’ in reference to him!), and that is my point, he is easier to admire now. The CVN-77 was entering service before Reagan was dead, but Reagan had been out of the political scene for a long time, due mainly to Alzheimers, which actually helped to avoid some of the trickier questions over his past policies (like the famous statements about the aids crisis in the ’80s). I did not miss either point.

As for the Foch, the Brazilians decided that they wanted to bring back carrier aviation, and since the Minas Gerais was barely sea-worthy, they had few choices. They managed to buy a batch of A-4 Skyhawks from Kuwait, and needed a carrier. Since they did not have the money to buy a new carrier – none of the ex-US carriers were well suited, for a number of good reasons. With the French retiring Foch and Clemenceau, the opportunity to buy a medium sized carrier for a low price appeared. The Foch was, reportedly, in reasonably good condition, and needed little work to be brought into service.

The American carriers are too manpower intensive for their worth – they use huge crews (c.4500-5000 for the JFK, versus c.1800 for the Foch, though it would be lower in foreign service due to a smaller airwing, though still towards double the crew number). The fact is that nobody that wants carriers and can afford them (France and the UK mainly) would want a 40 year old vessel, and the nations that want carriers but cannot afford them (Brazil was an example, and as shown by the current operational tempo of the Sao Paulo, they cannot afford to genuinely operate carriers, as is Argentina, as discussed in a different thread) would not be foolish enough to buy the JFK.

The fact remains, there are no customers for the JFK, because nobody who can afford to own carriers would want a 40 year old carrier, especially one in poor material condition. It is not because it is too large, it is because it would not make any sense – the CVF will not be much smaller, but will have much lower running costs.

I would ask that you check your condescending attitude at the door, it is not welcomed!

Vortex: I am under no illusions about Kennedy, but you are forgetting the number one lesson – it is easier to admire a dead president than a living one! The fact is that Kennedy was a deeply flawed individual, and in some ways, his death was the best thing that could happen for his reputation. My point was that he is admired now, and the idea of having a Reagan and GHWB would be quite difficult politically – Reagan had his following, but again, he was a deeply flawed individual, with all the Iran-Contra, and his social policies etc.

Unicorn: We all recognise the problems with manning a large carrier, but manning is one of the smaller problems with the whole idea. The much bigger problem is with the fact that nobody wants a 40 year old carrier, which uses four times the number of crew that a modern one would. Both the French and British are planning to operate two-carrier forces, with further amphibs, but to be honest, there is no need for an old, unwanted carrier. If the US adopted some modern warship practices, it would have fewer manning difficulties itself!

Ed, you do know that Regan is dead also right?….and just like Kennedy, he’s highly admired in the US. Sure there’s also those that hates each one, but the admiration is quite high for Regan. And, i think you missed the fact that there is a carrier named after Regan. In fact Nancy got to christian it. As to “nobody wants a 40 year old carrier”. Sure they do, just not the Europeans. The fact is, it’s simply too large. Why did Brazil bother with Foch then? It is also a 40+ year old carrier. All the American carriers are simply too large for any of our close allies. I don’t know what’s the big deal with some politician talking crap? There’s plenty of that on both sides of Atlantic…

Vortex: I am under no illusions about Kennedy, but you are forgetting the number one lesson – it is easier to admire a dead president than a living one! The fact is that Kennedy was a deeply flawed individual, and in some ways, his death was the best thing that could happen for his reputation. My point was that he is admired now, and the idea of having a Reagan and GHWB would be quite difficult politically – Reagan had his following, but again, he was a deeply flawed individual, with all the Iran-Contra, and his social policies etc.

Unicorn: We all recognise the problems with manning a large carrier, but manning is one of the smaller problems with the whole idea. The much bigger problem is with the fact that nobody wants a 40 year old carrier, which uses four times the number of crew that a modern one would. Both the French and British are planning to operate two-carrier forces, with further amphibs, but to be honest, there is no need for an old, unwanted carrier. If the US adopted some modern warship practices, it would have fewer manning difficulties itself!

Guys, a small amount of realism needs to be injected into this thought.

The JFK has a combined ships crew and air group numbering in the THOUSANDS!!!

Most european navies have issues manning effectively the frigate and destroyer navies they have, where the hell would they get the people to man a white elephant of this size?

Australia sure as hell couldn’t, neither could the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, Argentina or Chile.

The Royal Navy might, but onoy at the cost of immediately decommissioning both of the remaining Invincible class CVS and probably half the frigate force.

There is a reason only the USN operates a fleet of operational large deck CTOL carriers, they are the only country rich enough and the only navy large enough to do so.

Unicorn