Hey all,

Today was a historic day....The USS New York was christened today. This ship was made from some of the steel from the twin towers and is a reminder to all that the people that lost there lives that day will not be forgotten.

I had thought she was already comissioned. Good to see the Navy adding new ships.

I had thought already was but I just watched a clip on yahoo news and they said today......

Appears she will not be commissioned until next year.

Interesting that despite being in a class of ships named for cities, that per a request from the Governor of the State of New York, this ship is named for the STATE of New York, and not the city (as was the SSN -696 USS New York City) breaking the current practice of using state names for submarines.

The Navy used to have a very nice system of naming classes of ships (BBs for states, CAs for cities, CVs for famous battles and ships) but these days it seems like naming is almost random. Not to insult Carl Vinson, and John Stennis, but it sure seems to me that their names seem out of place with the likes of the rest of the men for whom the other ships in the class are named.

Lord knows what awaits us when it's time to name CVN-79 and CVN-80. Since CVN-65 is likely to be retiring by the time at least one of these is commissioned, if they don't name one of them the USS Enterprise, that will be a sin almost as bad as allowing CV-6 to be scrapped and not preserved.

copy and paste this to go to the story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_re_us/uss_new_york;_ylt=AvrgFtIyUKQkAbjPbnzHEdhvzwcF

You're right Tom- it used to be pretty easy to tell what type of ship you were referring to by the name. I heard a story that may or may not be true that might help explain why the Navy got away from traditional names. Submarines used to be names for fish and other creatures of the sea. When asked why USS Los Angeles was to be named for a city instead of a more traditional name, Admiral Rickover supposedly replied "Because fish don't vote". That would also explain why carriers which were named for battles are now named for Congressmen etc.
v/r,
Cob

Gotta have an Enterprise. Ever since Jim Kirk smacked the space version down and this one retiring. Well, it wouldn't be America without one

But she is a tired old lady. We had the Space shuttle Enterprise to tie the earth bound ships to the fictional Star Trek ships. I believe the Navy will name another ship after Enterprise.

I've heard that one as well, and I don't doubt for a second that it's true!!

What REALLY got me was what they did with the Seawolf class. This class followed the Los Angeles Class (which ended with SSN-773, the Cheyenne) all of which were named for cities.

They then numbered the next SSN the "21" (for 21st Century I guess), named the Seawolf, followed by the SSN-22 USS Connecticut (a State which were usally assigned to SSBNs), then the SSN 23 USS Jimmy Carter (a former President, now usually used for CVNs),

Having completely gone off the reservation, the Navy THEN went to the Virginia Class, and went BACK to the old number sequence starting with SSN-774 the USS Virgina, and at least as far as SSN-782, all these ships are named for States, which I guess makes sense( ), since I suspect they're not going to be building any more "boomers" which took over (for the MOST part) the assignment of state names from Battleships.

At least it's good to see there'll be another USS Missouri back in the fleet with SSN-780.

I just wish the would get another USS Illinois.

Possibly the worst naming was theUSS Clinton. I hope they only build the one.

Even this is too much ship to be named after him/her