The verdict is in ….

January 2009


Teh name: USS John Warner (SSN 785).

Bubblehead’s puzzler is puzzl’n,

Not An April Fool’s Joke!
….While I know that Sen. Warner served our country with honor, wouldn’t a destroyer, which are named after people anyway, have been more appropriate?

Galrahn ain’t giggl’n,

….after 11 states in a row, a Virginia class submarine is now named after a politician. But there is a catch, at least its a Virginia politician. Doesn’t USS John Warner (SSN 785) just roll off the tongue? There was a time when Senator Warner, a WWII vet, was for using names of historical and naval importance for naming warships. I miss that guy.

Does John Warner being from Virginia excuse this naming disruption? Does it even matter? Am I the only one sick and tired of watching history give way to political pandering when it comes to naming our Navy vessels? Look, this is the call of only one person, Secretary Winter, the Secretary of the Navy unless obligated by a Congressional bill (almost never happens) names ships.

I say the only ships that should be named for politicians should be logistics ships and support ships. If we did that, I bet then we would finally build much needed tenders and ice breakers!

BostonMaggie has a head of steam up,

This is wrong.



I don’t give a fat rat’s ass what Mr. Elizabeth Taylor (h/t Mike, Phib’s emailer) has done over the years. He negated any possible good he may have done with his poor treatment of CDR Lippold.

That’s right……..I hold a grudge.

Me, I have always thought that as a Navy you advertise both your complete politicization and vanity when you conduct such naming foolishness – and everyone sees it. The ultimate vanity plate.

What, USS Virginia wasn’t enough for you?

When you boil it down, it is just plain embarrassing. I can’t look the smart-a55 1290 on the SAT YN3 in the face and explain it; can you?

Posted by CDRSalamander in Navy

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Spade

    We’re just replacing a tradition where a man could say, “I served aboard USS Enterprise.” and feel a connection to the men who served aboard CV-6 (who he might meet), or to the men that fought off Tripoli. Or similar for the old Ranger. Would have been a nice use for that shiny reorganized History department.

    But instead of “I served aboard a ship with a long and proud lineage; standing alongside many great men who came before us in this service”, or “My ships namesake was awarded the MOH for serving bravely in combat” you’ll get “I served aboard a ship named for some guy who threw a bunch of money at the Navy.”

    They might as well put out a price sheet. My current rep is a pretty vain guy, but he might be happy with a LCS or something small. Might get us another hull.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    The USS John Warner is a head-scratcher. The break with tradition, as Spade eloquently states, is palpable. Not a big fan of naming CVNs after living Presidents, even the ones I voted for. Or other capital ships after politicians of any ilk, except recognized American historical figures. (Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Barney Frank)

    But we are talking about a Navy that calls a ship as big as a WWII aircraft carrier, a “DDG”. And a vessel with no real survivability other than the illusion of speed, a Littoral “Combat” ship.


  • Byron

    My money says it was to get him to sign off on homeporting a CVN at Mayport. And you’re right, it sucks. I’d stand to make a few bucks off a Mayport carrier, but if they’d name her Ranger, Saratoga, Wasp or Hornet, I’d be glad to keep it in Norfolk.

    Grumpy old fart, departing.

  • Spade

    Not to be picky, Byron, but USS Wasp (LHD-1) is currently homeported in Norfolk.

  • Byron

    Mea culpa, Spade…but you get my meaning 😉

  • Andrew

    I’m sick of ships named after living people. It’s disgustingly political. Utterly beneath the US Navy.

  • The decision to name the vessel after him is one thing. It is another thing entirely for him to accept it.