USN Naming conventions

[Rickshaw]

Some very interesting posts here. My question is, "plank owner", what does that mean?

 

[F-14D]

Some very interesting posts here. My question is, "plank owner", what does that mean?

It's a term that comes down from the days of Wooden Ships and Iron Men (Tony Stark has nothing to do with it). It refers to someone who was assigned to the ship or squadron when it first entered service or was stood up.

 

[F-14D]

"USS Barry Goldwater"
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight"

Aaha! The Arizona Connection around Senator John McCain!
He or They can't USS Arizona because USS Arizona (BB-39) or USS John McCain because of other ships named after his ancestors,
so they found a charismatic politician from Arizona with conservative and also libertarian views.
They brought up this politician, so a big part of 112th Congress (from old republican establishment to the new Tea Party influenced members over the isle to blue dog democrats like Gabrielle Giffords) could vote for this proposal.

IMHO, they should go back to old names like USS Yorktown or USS Enterprise.

Going back to the old way is what the Navy wants. However, politicians and bureaucrats rule. Don't forget, there's a strong movement to name CVN-79 Enterprise, but as we've seen, D.C doesn't care. The fact that LPD-26 is named the John Murtha is the most direct example.

BTW, the Barry Goldwater proposal came up during the 111th Congress, before the Republicans took over.

 

[fightingirish]

Yes, F-14D, I agree with you that the naming of LPD-26 as the John P. Murtha was a bad idea and especially bad timing too.
But let's us not talk about that politician anymore.

 

[F-14D]

Yes, F-14D, I agree with you that the naming of LPD-26 as the John P. Murtha was a bad idea and especially bad timing too.
But let's us not talk about that politician anymore.

Your point is well taken. I don't wish to turn this into a political topic. I just brought it up because some folks were saying that naming for politicians isn't right, and the Navy should not do it. I was trying to show that if D.C forced a Marine ship to be named after that guy, they're totally disconnected with the services, and are going to do whatever they want.

 

[Antonio]

Mod note:

removed some posts. This is going too off-topic. Remember this is "Naval unbuilt projects".

 

[Rickshaw]

Some very interesting posts here. My question is, "plank owner", what does that mean?

It's a term that comes down from the days of Wooden Ships and Iron Men (Tony Stark has nothing to do with it). It refers to someone who was assigned to the ship or squadron when it first entered service or was stood up.

OK, thanks. Very American.

 

[funkychinaman]

I think plankowner refers to a crewmember who helped decommission a ship as well. One of my officers in NROTC had a certificate in his office identifying him as a plankowner of the USS Josephus Daniels, yet wasn't nearly old enough to be around when the ship was commissioned.

 

[F-14D]

I think plankowner refers to a crewmember who helped decommission a ship as well. One of my officers in NROTC had a certificate in his office identifying him as a plankowner of the USS Josephus Daniels, yet wasn't nearly old enough to be around when the ship was commissioned.

I have never heard of a plank owner being part of the decommissioning crew, although someone who was assigned to the commissioning crew and then was also ship's company at decommissioning would be a plankowner. In the days of wooden ships when the term first started, according to tradition a members of the commissioning ship's company was entitled to one plank from her deck when she was decommissioned. Is it possible the certificate was "plank preserver", instead? That is a lesser used term for a member of the decommissioning crew

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Well, I helped commissioned the Truman. And I'm looking right at my plankowner's certificate as I type this.

But for those who are interested, here's a USS UNITED STATES command ballcap for sale.
http://www.soldiercity.com/uss-united-states-cvn-75-ballcap.html?utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=csc&utm_term=2052

 

[Madurai]

I have never heard of a plank owner being part of the decommissioning crew, although someone who was assigned to the commissioning crew and then was also ship's company at decommissioning would be a plankowner. In the days of wooden ships when the term first started, according to tradition a members of the commissioning ship's company was entitled to one plank from her deck when she was decommissioned. Is it possible the certificate was "plank preserver", instead? That is a lesser used term for a member of the decommissioning crew

"Plankowner" was still being used for decommissioning crew the last I saw. I never encountered a "plank preserver." Admittedly, this was 19 years ago.

 

[F-14D]

To no one's great surprise the politicians win again. Many wanted CVN-79 to be named Enterprise, a name that goes back centuries in the US Navy, was the name of the most decorated USN ship of WWII, was the Navy's first nuclear carrier and the name would be available with the early retirement of CVN-65. But of course none of that matters when Washington wishes to glorify one of its own. CVN-79 is to be named John F. Kennedy.

 

[Triton]

I wonder if one of the new America-class amphibious assault ships will be named U.S.S. Enterprise.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I wonder if one of the new America-class amphibious assault ships will be named U.S.S. Enterprise.

Doubtful, I would think.

 

[blackstar]

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

 

[F-14D]

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.

 

[GTX]

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

Try here

 

[TomS]

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.

Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/05/navys-next-carrier-be-named-after-jfk

 

[F-14D]

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.

Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).

"Note to Self: Have article in hand rather than relying on memory".

Still, it also says stop building any future CVNs ("Twilight of the SUPERfluous Carrier"). We're back to the never-ending "Big Deck vs. Small Deck" debate.

 

[blackstar]

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

Try here

Thanks. I had prowled all over that site and couldn't find it.

 

[Triton]

From where did authors Captain Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy, and Lieutenant Colonel J. Noel Williams, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), get their 10,000-ton common hull to replace the LCS and LSD and their 60 ship build figure? Because the Navy wanted 60 LCS type ships? ??? To which near-term solution are they referring? ??? A variant of the paper BAE Systems UXV combatant?

 

[TomS]

From where did authors Captain Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy, and Lieutenant Colonel J. Noel Williams, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), get their 10,000-ton common hull to replace the LCS and LSD and their 60 ship build figure? Because the Navy wanted 60 LCS type ships? ??? To which near-term solution are they referring? ??? A variant of the paper BAE Systems UXV combatant?

I don' think they provide any specific basis - I'd guess it's a combination of most of the Navy's "wish=lsit" for LCS plus the 11 or so LSD(X) that will beneeded to replace the current LSD-41s (though there's no way a 10,000-ton ship is going to provide even a fraction of an LSD-41's cargo capacity, and the Marines are already coming up way short on lift in future force projections...)

I don't find the article at all concincing. It assumes too much about the capability of the F-35B (which even at its best, is going to be grossly outranged by the 35C), dumps far too many cpabilities into a non-existant unmanned vehicle (UCLASS), and doesn't talk at all about many of the specialized capabilities in a big carrier air wing (EW, AEW, tanker, etc are all ignored).

The notion of a c 10,000 ton ship built aroudn a well deck and flight deck is probably the least crazy idea here. A ship like that certainly woudl be a feasible mother ship for various unmanned (or small manned) vehicles, and might be a good alternative to LCS for many roles (I've never been convinced that LCS needed as much speed as it has).

 

[Grey Havoc]

I don't find the article at all concincing. It assumes too much about the capability of the F-35B (which even at its best, is going to be grossly outranged by the 35C), dumps far too many cpabilities into a non-existant unmanned vehicle (UCLASS), and doesn't talk at all about many of the specialized capabilities in a big carrier air wing (EW, AEW, tanker, etc are all ignored).

Actually, the latest reports indicate the the F-35C won't have that much of an operational range advantage over the STOVL variant after all!

 

[JFC Fuller]

Actually, the latest reports indicate the the F-35C won't have that much of an operational range advantage over the STOVL variant after all!

1) Untrue.

2) Completely off-topic.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Actually, the latest reports indicate the the F-35C won't have that much of an operational range advantage over the STOVL variant after all!

1) Untrue.

2) Completely off-topic.

1) True, unfortunately, whether you like it or not.

2) I was just remarking briefly on TomS statement about the F-35B (lack of) capability v that of the F-35C and it's impact as he saw it on the credibility of the article. Definitely on-topic. :|

 

[Arjen]

Copied from Selected Acquisition Report on the Lockheed Martin F-35 program, page 10, as posted on FAS. http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/05/f-35_sar.html

 

[Grey Havoc]

That report is badly out of date. I won't say any more lest I'd be accused again of going off-topic.

 

[Arjen]

The report is dated 31 December 2010, there might be more recent information. If so, I'm interested.

 

[TomS]

The actual latest SAR (reported in the media last month) refers to ranges of 469 nm for the F-35B and 615 nm for the F-35C. So that's roughly 30% more range for the C model in the evaluated configuration. I'd call that very significant.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_military0591_05_17.asp

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The actual latest SAR (reported in the media last month) refers to ranges of 469 nm for the F-35B and 615 nm for the F-35C. So that's roughly 30% more range for the C model in the evaluated configuration. I'd call that very significant.

This issue has been gone over before in another thread in this forum but these figures relate to a standard mission profile. The F-35C aircraft has to recover as part of a formation of aircraft and therefore requires considerable reserves of fuel to ensure a go around capability after a bolter (failure to trap a wire). The standard mission profile provides a very optimistic and minimum reserve capability that is going to be increased considerably in fleet service.

The F-35C in fleet service is still going to have a mission radius advantage over the F-35B but it will be a lot less than 30%. Then you have to factor into the equation the different deployment capabilities of smaller, more flexible STOVL carrier and a larger cyclic ops CATOBAR carrier. The STOVL carrier is going to be closer to the enemy, able to launch and recover aircraft when they need to be rather than when the deck is available and more able to move around to support mission needs than a CATOBAR carrier. All of these things add up.

One would be very wrong to dismiss the professional expertise provided in the Navy League article based on an out of context tabulated data table.

 

[F-14D]

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.

Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).

"Note to Self: Have article in hand rather than relying on memory".

Still, it also says stop building any future CVNs ("Twilight of the SUPERfluous Carrier"). We're back to the never-ending "Big Deck vs. Small Deck" debate.

Supposedly the current issue of USNI Proceedings has an article about an "America class" CV--a gas turbine powered conventional aircraft carrier, cheaper than the very expensive CVNs.

Does anybody have any illustrations from the article (or the article itself)?

I read the article. Basically they're saying we should replace the present CVN fleet with I believe 60(!) America class type ships.

Not quite. It's not terribly well written in this section, but what it suggests is using the roughly 45,000-ton America class LHD as a medium carrier with F35 and a new UCAV (UCLASS). It also suggests replacing LCS and the current LSDs with a run of about 60 smallish (10,000-ton) vessels with flight decks and well-decks. These would also be "carriers" but mainly of unmanned vehicles (or Marines and their equipment).

"Note to Self: Have article in hand rather than relying on memory".

Still, it also says stop building any future CVNs ("Twilight of the SUPERfluous Carrier"). We're back to the never-ending "Big Deck vs. Small Deck" debate.

Granted the above post is a week old, but I dug the article back up and I gotta stand up for myself (kinda) because it is also relevant to where this discussion is going. At one point, the authors are saying what you said, but in the caption to the drawing the reference is specifically to 60 America class ships.

In any case, America ships or 10,000 tonners, you're going to get significantly less capability and have to spend a lot more money to make it up. How the authors can claim the Americas are less vulnerable escapes me. One can reverse one of their points: They say you can get three light carriers for one CVN. That also means that for three light carriers you can get one CVN. If you're talking major carrier duties, I'd take the CVN.

Abraham's post on the required reserve fuel a naval CTOL has to carry is significant. I believe that for a fighter/attack a/c, they want them to arrive overhead the boat carry 25% reserve.

To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers? ;D
[/quote]

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers?

Congressman. USS Anthony Weiner...

 

[Triton]

To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers?

Probably the name will be based entirely on politics, most likely influenced by the party affiliation of the Secretary of the Navy, rather than United States Navy tradition or history. Based on United States Navy naming tradition, these light carriers should be named for historically significant United States Navy sea battles or United States Marine Corps battles.

 

[F-14D]

To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers?

Congressman. USS Anthony Weiner...

Then it wouldn't actually fight, it'd just tweet a picture of its firepower to the enemy and then call everyone a Jackass.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Then it wouldn't actually fight, it'd just tweet a picture of its firepower to the enemy ...

That's silly and needlessly partisan and insulting.

It would tweet photos of its firepower to its support vessels.

 

[Triton]

To keep it on topic, I wonder what they'd name one of these light carriers?

Congressman. USS Anthony Weiner...

Not likely.


Can the authors really claim that the United States Navy can purchase three America-class carriers for the price of one Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier? Or will the program experience cost overruns like the LCS and DD(X) programs?

Who could have imagined that the United States Navy would spend $704 million for U.S.S. Independence (LCS-02) and over $530 million for U.S.S. Freedom (LCS-01). After this much sunk cost, the authors are advocating canceling the program and going with an undesigned 10,000-ton common hull that sounds like a resurrection of the 1970s Sea Control Ship with a well deck.

 

[Brickmuppet]

Can the authors really claim that the United States Navy can purchase three America-class carriers for the price of one Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier? Or will the program experience cost overruns like the LCS and DD(X) programs?

Well it's a development of an existing design and without the well deck its actually simpler in some ways. There will be differences and some surprises but I'm thinking the light carrier ought to stay relatively on track.

 

[F-14D]

Then it wouldn't actually fight, it'd just tweet a picture of its firepower to the enemy ...

That's silly and needlessly partisan and insulting.

It would tweet photos of its firepower to its support vessels.

??? Have you been reading the news? That's what he called a reporter and producer from CNN (on camera).


Besides, I didn't come up with the suggestion.

 

[F-14D]

Can the authors really claim that the United States Navy can purchase three America-class carriers for the price of one Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier? Or will the program experience cost overruns like the LCS and DD(X) programs?

Well it's a development of an existing design and without the well deck its actually simpler in some ways. There will be differences and some surprises but I'm thinking the light carrier ought to stay relatively on track.

As TomS pointed out, that part of the article is not that clear. They may be talking about three of the 10,000 ton ships for one CVN. Still my point remains: Which would you rather have...60 of those, and the consequent costs, or 20 brand new, full-up CVN-78s? I know what I'd pick if people were going to be shooting at me!