Well, the Navy has announced the names of the next three Virginia-class submarines. They're being named after states, and SSN-780 through SSN-782 will be the USS Missouri, the USS California, and the USS Mississippi.
All three names were worn by World War II batttleships. The California was mauled at Pearl Harbor, while the Mississippi was transferred from the Atlantic after the attack. Both ships served nobly in the Pacific throughout the war. Afterwards, the California was placed in reserve and eventually scrapped; the Mississippi spent about a decade as a new-gun testbed and training ship before she, too, was sent to the scrap heap.
Both names were revived in the 1970's as nuclear powered cruisers. The Mississippi served for just over 20 years, the California almost 30, before both were decommissioned in the late 1990's.
The Missouri, on the other hand, was the very last battleship built by the United States. Her deck hosted the official surrender of the Japanese empire, and she was the only one of her class (the mighty Iowa-class) that was not retired after the war -- President Truman, that proud Missourian, would not let her go off active duty. She served off Korea, and was retired in 1955. Then, in 1984, she and her three sisters were revived by the Reagan administration and served valiantly once again, the Mighty Mo even taking part in the first Gulf War, before being retired again. In 1993 she became a museum ship, and is now at anchor in Pearl Harbor, near the wreck and memorial of the USS Arizona. The two dreadnoughts serve as bookends for the US involvement in World War II -- the Arizona, destroyed in the Pearl Harbor attack, and the Missouri, where the Japanese signed the instruments of surrender.
(Here are two remarkable photographs of the Missouri. The first is seconds before she was hit by a Kamikaze, the second shows her with the Arizona wreck and memorial.)
And while I am proud to see those noble names revived, I am yet again discouraged. Of the 48 states in the Union by the end of World War II, 47 had been honored with the names of battleships. Since then, Alaska and Hawaii have joined, and been honored with submarines. And several have been honored more than once.
That accounts for 49 states. Who's been getting the shaft for almost a century now? Who's been the Butte of the contempt of Congress and the Navy?
Montana.
It's even become a staple of fiction. Need the name of a US Navy warship, but don't want to use a real one? Call it the "Montana."
I don't know if it's just some sort of benign neglect, or some kind of odd conspiracy, but I'd really like to see the fine people of Montana get their due, the same recognition and honor that the rest of us states have enjoyed. It's considered bad form to rename a ship once it's been given a name (although it has been done on numerous occasions), so I'd like to see Congress reserve the name of a future submarine (say, SSN-783) for the Big Sky state.
It's only fair.
Author's note: yes, I am repeating myself a bit. I don't care. Montana deserves a ship of its own, dammit.
Update: Dang it, I forgot to give Murdoc credit for this story. Sorry, chum...
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Military
Comments (15)
The Navy needs to re-examin... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Pro Cynic | February 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The Navy needs to re-examine its system of naimg ships in general. Montana is another example of the Navy's problems in this regard, but I'm more angry about having our capital ships named after politicans instead of famous battles or warships. We no longer have a Lexington or Saratoga in the fleet. The Yorktown is just a cruiser, and (I think) a mothballed one at that, as its the Ticonderoga. Wasp is just an assault ship, but Hornet, Essex and Ranger are gone. Enterprise will soon be gone.
But we have a USS Jimmy Carter? Gerald Ford? John Stennis? Carl Vinson?
1. Posted by Pro Cynic | February 1, 2008 11:22 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 11:22
2. Posted by Paul | February 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
>I don't know if it's just some sort of benign neglect, or some kind of odd conspiracy
cough electoral college cough
But on another note I strongly disagree with naming anything the USS Missouri.
They retire NFL numbers for a reason.
It's not that I have anything against Missouri... heck if I lived in the state I'd be more vocal.
We're talking history here.
2. Posted by Paul | February 1, 2008 11:54 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 11:54
3. Posted by Pro Cynic | February 1, 2008 12:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why is it that I can never send a trackback ping to Wizbang?
3. Posted by Pro Cynic | February 1, 2008 12:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 12:11
4. Posted by Big Mo | February 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Paul - what do you have against naming anything USS Missouri?
I built a model of the USS Missouri when I was a kid.
4. Posted by Big Mo | February 1, 2008 12:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 12:23
5. Posted by jim2 | February 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's actually a bit worse than you stated!
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-a/cb1.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-h/cb3.htm
5. Posted by jim2 | February 1, 2008 12:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 12:46
6. Posted by Jayemay | February 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As a native Montanan I agree with this message whole-heartedly.
6. Posted by Jayemay | February 1, 2008 1:16 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 13:16
7. Posted by kb | February 1, 2008 1:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
According to recent news articles I am sure California would be proud to NOT have a military ship named after. I propose the name "USS Montana"!
7. Posted by kb | February 1, 2008 1:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 13:28
8. Posted by Korla Pundit | February 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yes, wouldn't Berkeleyites say "Not in My Name" anyway?
8. Posted by Korla Pundit | February 1, 2008 1:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 13:43
9. Posted by Mark L | February 1, 2008 1:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Montana holds the record for the number of unbuilt battleships named after the state. Not only was there the Montana-class beloved of WWII naval wargamers (it had 12 16-inch guns in 4 triple turrets), but the last ship scheduled for the West Virginia class of battleships was to be named Montana. (Six others were given names that went to the Iowa-class ships in WWII.) The ships planned, four of which were under construction (afair) were scrapped under the Naval Limitations Treaty of the 1920s.
Ironically every other state has at least had a keel laid, but Montana did not even get that far in the 1920s.
9. Posted by Mark L | February 1, 2008 1:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 13:53
10. Posted by 509th Bob | February 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
For what it's worth, I think that the next class of battleships afer the Missouri class were scheduled to be designated as the Montana Class. But the end of World War II and the dominance of the aircraft carrier cancelled the production of the Montana Class.
Also, I agree with Pro Cynic, the current naming of aircraft carriers is garbage.
10. Posted by 509th Bob | February 1, 2008 3:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 15:27
11. Posted by DANEgerus | February 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Not quite... the BB USS Montana was the lead ship of the cancelled class of Battleships that would have replaced the Iowa class ships.
Now the USS Jimmy Carter... that's a punchline.
11. Posted by DANEgerus | February 1, 2008 4:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 16:53
12. Posted by jdgjtr | February 1, 2008 6:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree about the naming of ships. Previously you could tell a DD from a CG from a CV by its name. For heaven's, if you must name a ship after a politician, wait until he or she has been dead for fifty years. No live admirals either; there are plenty of Medal of Honor winners who deserve it more.
12. Posted by jdgjtr | February 1, 2008 6:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 18:30
13. Posted by William | February 2, 2008 10:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I would hate to be on a ship named the USS Jimmy Carter
13. Posted by William | February 2, 2008 10:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 2, 2008 22:00
14. Posted by Zeke | April 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think retired ships are like retired numbers, if they still exist: Intrepid, Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown, Constitution, Missouri, Iowa, New Jersey, et al, should NOT have namesakes.
That said, naming stuff after living politicians bothers me. Even RECENTLY dead ones bothers me.
14. Posted by Zeke | April 29, 2008 11:25 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 29, 2008 11:25
15. Posted by Chris | November 16, 2008 2:28 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just stumbled across this. Are you saying your upset because Montana has never had a battleship named after it or no U.S. warship named after it?
If it is the battleship issue, I whole heartedly agree. If, however, you are saying that there has never been a warship named after Montana you are wrong.
ACR-13 was laid down and commissioned as the USS Montana, she was renamed the Missoula when the navy decided to have all the cruisers named after cities.
15. Posted by Chris | November 16, 2008 2:28 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 16, 2008 02:28