In article , Penta
writes
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:52:02 GMT, "Andrew.Venor"
wrote:


While I would normally agree, I can think of two exceptions.

I think it was an appropriate when the Navy named a destroyer after Adm.
Arleigh Burke and a supply ship after Bob Hope while they were still alive.

ALV

Maybe.

However, I must admit to a definite prejudice when it comes to how the
US names its ships.

We just....well...

We suck at it, alright?

In WAR (a Play-by-email sim I play in), I was trying to create
something of a naming policy for the Israeli Navy (just so I had a
post in, and because I was bored, and because I figured I may want to
do a round of naval expansion later on, so I may as well set down such
things.). So I wander over to FAS, Navy sites, etc. See how the US
does it, since I don't speak Hebrew IRL.

Policy? What policy?
Besides the fact that most of the names suck. (When compared to, say,
the British naming traditions.)

Names like Invincible and Illustrious are fine, but Indomitable and
Indefatigable are a bit of a mouthful.

I always liked the alternative names for the old RN carriers Glorious,
Furious and Courageous - Curious, Spurious and Outrageous!

I've always found the USN system of naming carriers after presidents a
bit odd, probably because if we did something similar the navy would end
up having to persuade tars that it would be an honour to serve in HMS
Harold Wilson or HMS Tony Blair (shudder). Imagine having to walk around
with "Margaret Thatcher" on your cap band!

We need standards. Badly.

Naming major ships after politicians loses you the traditional names, as
a previous poster pointed out. Surely a sailor would be happier in the
USS Saratoga than in the USS Wilbert Z. Bloggs?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!