Ship names

[Timmy C]

That it is, but if you read the name from the Chinese perspective and take the literal Chinese translation, it does mean Big Harmony.

[chuck]

What's the point of such a perspective? It neither convey the intended meaning nor the intended sounds. It would be like trying to look at written Turkish from the perspective of some completely coincidental English letter combinations that might be found in written Turkish.

[Francisco P. de Nanclares]

...it would be a magnanimous act if the politicians would...

Magnanimous and politicians can�t go in the same phrase...

[kennylibben]

Additionally Timmy - why would you read it from the Chinese perspective when its a Japanese ship?


I'm afraid you should just admit defeat now.

[MichelB]

Dutch capital warships are named for our great admirals of the 17th century, occasionally a city (LHD Rotterdam), and 17th century politician (LHD Johan de Witt). Submarines are always named after fish. It is rumored that the 4 new OPV's will be named after provinces once again. Last time we had those were destroyers in the 60's.

[Timmy C]

Because I'm Chinese?

The point of my original post was to point out the irony and humor in the shipname that can be garnered from a different point of view.

Besides, quite often the same characters in Chinese and Japanese -do- have the same meaning. There is no real way to tell when you can see one from the perspective of the other and have the right meaning.

[kennylibben]

except the fact that A. You didn't see characters - you saw english letters. and B. You KNEW it was a Japanese.

Point, Set, and Match.

[Timmy C]

What? I wasn't looking at English letters...I was looking at/referring to the Asiatic characters...>.<

[kennylibben]

on your own accord, they weren't posted here.... and you didn't post them afterwards either.


Your resistance is futile.

[Timmy C]

/facepalm

[Mark Petersen]

If we have carriers named after presidents why is there not one named for John Adams?

Because we don't have 43 aircraft carriers?

But isn't Adams considered the Father of the USN?

[kennylibben]

NO!

John Paul Jones is!

[Werner]

Give me a fast ship, for I intend to go in harm's way."
~ Captain John Paul Jones before Congress.

His history is inflated by revisionist historians, but he was a great man at a time in a need for many of them.

The Navy was authorized on 13 October, 1775; Adams promulgated the Navy's regulations and codified it's size.

The first captains of the Navy were:

Esek Hopkins, (appointed commander-in-chief 22 December, 1775)
Dudley Saltonstall,
John Burroughs Hopkins,
Abraham Whipple,
Nicholas Biddle, and
John Paul Jones

The order of appointment was to cause some difficulties in later years, as the more enterprising captains were lower on the list.

The USN eschewed flag rank for years because it seemed to smack of nobility. Commodore, an ad-hoc rank, was more suitable.

[Walt]

Because we don't have 43 aircraft carriers?

But isn't Adams considered the Father of the USN?

We have already had a fine ship named for him which was one of the 40 most powerful in the USN inventory ( pre Ohios of course) The John Adams SSBN 620.. we also have a fine beer named for him.. America has continued to name it's first line Warships after States and Cities as they always did before. I do miss the fish and marine life names though.. I agree with a prior post about not reusing a name.. Not for at least 50 years or so...

[kennylibben]

We have a beer named for him? Sure you're not mistaking him for his cousin Samuel?

[Seasick]

The F-16 lost to the F-17 in the Navy's opinion because of several factors.
1. The F-16 is ill suited to carrier operations. The airframe and landing gear need to be strengthened significantly, for catipult launches and arrested landings. The F-16 would put on quite a bit of weight having this done. The forward landing gear would need a substantial redesign.
2. The Navy perfers multiple engines and the F-17's landing gear would be easier to redesign.

Other points:
USAF pilots who transitioned from A-7D to F-16A had many of the same complaints as heard in the Navy. A-37 and F-4D pilots didn't.

The A-7E had range and payload but it under performed in the Gulf War. The A-7E's advanced bomb sites didn't perform better than earlier models. It was one of the reasons the Navy started the program that would be merged with an identical project in the USAF to develop the JDAM. The F/A-18E and F/A-18F can't carry the same weight in bombs that the A-7E could but it don't need to. The Super Hornet is a very good strike aircraft and a good fighter, its not a super interceptor. If you have a complaint about the Hornet you should blame the Republican party: Donald Rumsfeld forced the Navy to choose either the F-16 or F-17 and not any other plane. Secretary Lehman who let the A-12 get out of control on his watch, and Dick Cheney who canceled the F-14D. The A-12 was low observable but it was subsonic, short ranged, and had a payload not buch bigger than tha F/A-18C.

[Werner]

You can cancel military systems and let the uniforms get threadbare without substantially changing the vote. In this sense, both parties are hypocrites.

The procurement system is broken at all levels. One hand giveth away and the next hand cancels. Procurement should be taken away from politicians. Proof of this is that both the F-16 and the F/A-18 started out as a proposal for a lightweight daylight interceptor, and morphed into overweight fighter-bombers.

The F/A-18 may not need to carry as many bombs as an A-7, but it needs to go more than 290nm unrefueled, especially when we've also scrapped the carrier tanker aircraft, and all that's left are buddy packs making the attack group even smaller.

The carrier with an A-6G would be an entirely different beast than the short-armed thing it is today.

[Seasick]

Nobody in Washington DC wants to fix the procurement system. Its a great way to bring home the bacon to your district. The Makin Island for instance was pushed through the Congress by Trent Lott. Senator Byrd had the Navy buy another atomic clock. It goes on and on. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have always had somthing against Grumman.

[Werner]

Nobody in Washington DC wants to fix the procurement system. Its a great way to bring home the bacon to your district. The Makin Island for instance was pushed through the Congress by Trent Lott. Senator Byrd had the Navy buy another atomic clock. It goes on and on. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have always had somthing against Grumman.

Please refer to the "Off Topic Section: International" thread: Right to keep and bear arms.

It is abundantly clear from their own writings that the Founders of the Republic were aware the day of corruption would come; therefore they required and obligated the great mass of the people to keep and bear arms to throw down their corrupt masters in Washington and put them to the sword they so richly deserve. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."� George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


I think the only surprise Monroe, Adams, Jay, Hamilton, and Jefferson would have is the degree of Roman decadence to which our masters would descend, and how quiet we plebes would remain, mostly out of habit.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said around 200 years ago, "The American Republic will last only until the politicians discover they can bribe the people with their own money."

[Gone Asiatic]

[quote="Walt
I do miss the fish and marine life names though.....[/quote]

YYYESS!!

What do you think of USS GARGANTUAN LIGHTBULB FISH for an SSN name? Huh? Huh?