Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Delft..there's only one ship in commission with the USN bearing a name for any battle/engagement from the Vietnam war..That would be the USS Hue City CG-66. The name on the ship commemorates the battle and those lost... not the war.
Delft..there's only one ship in commission with the USN bearing a name for any battle/engagement from the Vietnam war..That would be the USS Hue City CG-66. The name on the ship commemorates the battle and those lost... not the war.
Re: Aircraft Carriers
I didn't object to commemorating the people lost in a battle, I objected to the use of the word liberty. The Vietnamese fought for the liberation of their country from the French who where defeated at Dien Ben Phou. The Geneva Conference of 1954 reach an agreement to divide Vietnam at the 17th parallel temporarily. The country was to be re-united by presidential elections in 1956. Because the US and the US sponsored dictator of South Viet Nam Ngo Dinh Diem expected that the vast majority of the Vietnamese, both North and South, would vote for the North-Vietnamese president Ho those elections were never held. About ten years ago I same on Dutch TV a video by National Geographic Magazine about the terror regime established by Ngo in the 1950's. The liberation war restarted in 1958 and ended in 1975. During that war Da Nang was the largest US basis in the country so there was no possibility of a major battle about the place. I would therefore consider it entirely inappropriate to call a USN ship after Da Nang.
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Like, for example, the million South Vietnamese sent to re-education camps, most of them killed and never heard from again, after the "liberation," which only occurred after the North violated a peace agreement they had signed and invaded the south....and the hundreds of thousands who fled for their lives, taking to rickety junks in the China Sea in the hopes of being rescued by the US Navy. All of which tended to bolster, after the fact, the point the US was making the entire time.
BTW, the vast majority of those South Vietnamese who came to the States have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and gone on to make very admirable citizens of themselves...with very good standards of living. Most, to this day, are very free with their talk about what went on and why...but most are not interviewed for documentaries because their eyewitness accounts to not line up with what passes for political correctness today.
I use this as an example simply to balance what you have already said from your persepective. And I understand how that perspective exists and why. The North was willing to force re-unification at almost any cost and fought long and hard to bring it about. So no need to keep it going...we're even...and no need anyway on this defense board.
This will be an American ship and will clearly be named to represent American reasoning, should it be named for anything associated with that conflict. If the Vietnamese want a Ho Chi Minh vessel, or something of that sort...they are certainly welcome to it and I would understand it happening from their perspective.
If the US wants a Da Nang, the same applies in reverse.
Anyhow, I doubt a carrier will be named for one of those conflicts. They will be named for either very important American heroes (Washington, Lincoln, etc.) or very important vessels in prior service (Enterprise for example) or major, major battles in the World Wars or War of Independence and the like (ie. Yorktown, Saratoga, Midway, etc.).
Anyhow, best to move away fom the politics of that conflict so we can keep this thread on topic and away form emotional defences of opposing positions from 40 years ago.
We could get into a war of words on this subject as there are just as many valid arguements on the other side of the issue...
Like, for example, the million South Vietnamese sent to re-education camps, most of them killed and never heard from again, after the "liberation," which only occurred after the North violated a peace agreement they had signed and invaded the south....and the hundreds of thousands who fled for their lives, taking to rickety junks in the China Sea in the hopes of being rescued by the US Navy. All of which tended to bolster, after the fact, the point the US was making the entire time.
BTW, the vast majority of those South Vietnamese who came to the States have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and gone on to make very admirable citizens of themselves...with very good standards of living. Most, to this day, are very free with their talk about what went on and why...but most are not interviewed for documentaries because their eyewitness accounts to not line up with what passes for political correctness today.
I use this as an example simply to balance what you have already said from your persepective. And I understand how that perspective exists and why. The North was willing to force re-unification at almost any cost and fought long and hard to bring it about. So no need to keep it going...we're even...and no need anyway on this defense board.
This will be an American ship and will clearly be named to represent American reasoning, should it be named for anything associated with that conflict. If the Vietnamese want a Ho Chi Minh vessel, or something of that sort...they are certainly welcome to it and I would understand it happening from their perspective.
If the US wants a Da Nang, the same applies in reverse.
Anyhow, I doubt a carrier will be named for one of those conflicts. They will be named for either very important American heroes (Washington, Lincoln, etc.) or very important vessels in prior service (Enterprise for example) or major, major battles in the World Wars or War of Independence and the like (ie. Yorktown, Saratoga, Midway, etc.).
Anyhow, best to move away fom the politics of that conflict so we can keep this thread on topic and away form emotional defences of opposing positions from 40 years ago.
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Recently MV-22 Oprey has been conducting flight ops on board CVN-77. Why is this? is the USN testing combatiblity? Is a deployment planned?..Perhaps COD Duty? Any ideas..anyone??
Recently MV-22 Oprey has been conducting flight ops on board CVN-77. Why is this? is the USN testing combatiblity? Is a deployment planned?..Perhaps COD Duty? Any ideas..anyone??
Re: Aircraft Carriers
But, are we sure that's a vanilla V-22? Maybe it's outfitted for ASW.
Wouldn't that be nice to have a wing of those for ASW like the old S-3s?
One day perhaps. BTW, Popeye, here's a neat pic of the San Antonio and the New York LPDs operating together.
They sure enough are at the very least qual'ing her.
But, are we sure that's a vanilla V-22? Maybe it's outfitted for ASW.
Wouldn't that be nice to have a wing of those for ASW like the old S-3s?
One day perhaps. BTW, Popeye, here's a neat pic of the San Antonio and the New York LPDs operating together.
Last edited:
- Status