USS Ronald Reagan Question

Jay

The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
one that is oldest now. It's condition inspection may have shown it to
be in best shape so was extended until the Carter comes on line?

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming a carrier after
him (

Big John


On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:52:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

The results of a little quick Googling:
http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cv64/noflash/home.htm

Thanks, John. Interesting that they are de-commissioning the SECOND oldest
carrier in the arsenal, the Constellation.

Why not put the FIRST oldest (whatever it may be) carrier out to pasture
first?

"Big John" wrote

The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
one that is oldest now.

The next carrier (the 10th Nimitz class) will be the
"USS George H. W. Bush."

The "USS Jimmy Carter" will be a Seawolf class
submarine.

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming
a carrier after him (

He graduated (with distinction) from the US Naval Academy,
for one. Served seven years in the Navy for another, including
being selected by Rickover for the nuclear navy. He resigned
to take over the family business when his father died or he'd
probably never have went into politics.

All in all, I'd say he's *far* more appropriate a choice than
Reagan. And arguably a better choice than Bush. But he
gets a sub named after him, which seems to be appropriate
since he's the only submariner to serve as President.

As an another aside, ships also have sponsors, as Nancy
Reagan is for the USS Ronald Reagan and Rosalind
Carter is for the USS Jimmy Carter. For the USS George
HW Bush? Doro B. Koch, Bush's daughter. What's up
with that? Koch is the Bush's sponsor?

Wolfe

Six lashes with a wet noodle (

Thought I read someplace that one of the next new carriers would be
'Carter' but must have dozed and blinked when I was reading GShows
how exciting the reading was.

A sub would be more appropriate since he was in that service. Being
President, no matter how smart or dumb you were, probably warrants
something to commensurate you?

Thanks for getting me back on the track. My train sometimes takes the
wrong turn at a 'Y with the speed I'm running'. Need to slow down
below Mach One I guess G


Big John

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:47:18 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote:


"Big John" wrote

The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
one that is oldest now.

The next carrier (the 10th Nimitz class) will be the
"USS George H. W. Bush."

The "USS Jimmy Carter" will be a Seawolf class
submarine.

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming
a carrier after him (

He graduated (with distinction) from the US Naval Academy,
for one. Served seven years in the Navy for another, including
being selected by Rickover for the nuclear navy. He resigned
to take over the family business when his father died or he'd
probably never have went into politics.

All in all, I'd say he's *far* more appropriate a choice than
Reagan. And arguably a better choice than Bush. But he
gets a sub named after him, which seems to be appropriate
since he's the only submariner to serve as President.

As an another aside, ships also have sponsors, as Nancy
Reagan is for the USS Ronald Reagan and Rosalind
Carter is for the USS Jimmy Carter. For the USS George
HW Bush? Doro B. Koch, Bush's daughter. What's up
with that? Koch is the Bush's sponsor?

In article , Big John
wrote:

Jay

The "Jimmy Carter" is under construction and will probably replace the
one that is oldest now. It's condition inspection may have shown it to
be in best shape so was extended until the Carter comes on line?

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming a carrier after
him (

iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , Big John
wrote:

[snipped]

As an aside, what did Jimmy ever do to warrant naming a carrier after
him (

iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.


I thought Carter was the man who presided over the "Hollow Navy" at the time
the Soviets had announced their intention to build a true blue-water fleet
with long reach. Reagan was the man who started the build-up to a "600 Ship
Navy", wasn't he?

Chip, ZTL

Bob Noel wrote:


iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.

"Newps" wrote

Bob Noel wrote:

iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.

When Carter took office, the Navy had about 182 surface warships.
When he left office, the Navy had 196. When Reagan left office,
that number had grown to 212. That's a 7.7% growth under
Carter and a 8.1% growth under Reagan. That's rather insignificant,
IMO, especially since the *overall* strength (including non-surface
warships) only changed by *eight* from the time Carter left office to
when Reagan left office. Carrier forces increased by one.
Carter added 10 subs; Reagan 12.

One thing Reagan did do was postpone the retirement of some
ships and bring others out of mothballs to increase the strength
during his Presidency. Obviously there's been a major force
reduction since then with the end of the Cold War and the
Navy has the fewest number of surface warships now since
1921, IIRC.

At any rate, Carter was President when the Navy started to
grow again after the post-Vietnam force reduction.

The navy got to 600 ships under Reagan(or was it 500? I forget, it was
some large round number.)

Wolfie wrote:

"Newps" wrote

Bob Noel wrote:


iirc, during his administration the Navy buildup was started.

Not hardly. Reagan and John Lehman built the Navy back up.


When Carter took office, the Navy had about 182 surface warships.
When he left office, the Navy had 196. When Reagan left office,
that number had grown to 212. That's a 7.7% growth under
Carter and a 8.1% growth under Reagan. That's rather insignificant,
IMO, especially since the *overall* strength (including non-surface
warships) only changed by *eight* from the time Carter left office to
when Reagan left office. Carrier forces increased by one.
Carter added 10 subs; Reagan 12.

One thing Reagan did do was postpone the retirement of some
ships and bring others out of mothballs to increase the strength
during his Presidency. Obviously there's been a major force
reduction since then with the end of the Cold War and the
Navy has the fewest number of surface warships now since
1921, IIRC.

At any rate, Carter was President when the Navy started to
grow again after the post-Vietnam force reduction.

"Newps" wrote

The navy got to 600 ships under Reagan(or was it 500? I forget, it was
some large round number.)

Close but not quite. Post-Vietnam peak was 594
total active ships (with 223 surface warfare ships, 14
carriers, and 139 submarines) in 1987.

I wouldn't rule out a "publicity stunt" active force of
600 at some moment, though, although the Navy
provides the above peak numbers officially.