BOSTON (NNS) — Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today the next Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier will be named the USS John F. Kennedy.
The selection John F. Kennedy, designated CVN 79, honors the 35th President of the United States and pays tribute to his service in the Navy, in the government, and to the nation.

“President John F. Kennedy exemplified the meaning of service, not just to country, but service to all humanity,” said Mabus. “I am honored to have the opportunity to name the next aircraft carrier after this great Sailor and inspirational leader, and to keep the rich tradition and history of USS John F. Kennedy sailing in the U.S. Fleet.”

Well, guess that explains why no response from SECNAV to our petition submitted to name the next CVN “Enterprise.”

Going to start a new one to add the signatures from the previous one to.  This fight’s not over. – SJS

13 Comments

  1. CVN-80 here we come!
    -JC

    • Ken

      As it has been said in many different ways, it could have been worse: USS Lyndon B. Johnson, USS William J. Clinton.
      “So let us begin anew…”
      USS Enterprise CVN-80. Period.

      • Richard Martin, Lt. USNR (Ret.)

        No, USS Jimmy Carter or USS Barack Obama would have been worse.

  2. Here’s a big problem – this means an effective 10 year gap in having ‘Enterprise’ in the fleet. Honestly, this smacks of the Obama administration getting involved. Think about it – CVN 76, CVN 77, CVN 78 all named after Republican Presidents.

    Then CV 67 is retired. No question – there was less concern about maintaining the Big E name than there was about this. Now, where I have to be careful is this…………there is great navy history surrounding CV 67, so they can use that to back this up. I have every confidence that this is a political move. Don’t get me wrong – naming CVN 78 after Ford? Also a political move.

    Since they broke protocol by moving the name ‘America’ over to a big deck amphib, is it possible they move the name ‘Enterprise’ over to LHA 7? She will commission w/in a couple of years after CVN 65 decoms. With the naming process they’ve had over the last few years – it’s plausible.

  3. All the more reason to press forward on CVN-80 now.

  4. Tom Upson

    I agree 100% with Wharf Rat. it is past time for politicians to get their noses out of naming U. S. carriers. Since they are the Navy’s most visible assets, they should be given names that represent the nation’s–and the Navy’s–heritage and greatness. CVN-80 should definately be named ENTERPRISE, and those that follow should be given names like RANGER, SARATOGA, CONSTELLATION, UNITED STATES, ALLIANCE, etc. (Come to think of it, if Obama is replaced in 2012, maybe an effort could be made to re-name CVN-79 ENTERPRISE. CV-67 did indeed have a proud history, but the habit of naming the latest carrier after a president from the party in power–regardless of that president’s stature–needs to be broken.)

    • Steel City

      Regardless of personal preferences based on past tours (I would have chosen SARATOGA, having served on her in the mid-late 80s), JFK is a great choice, not related to political pandering. I’m not going to go over all JFK’s positive attributes but it’s safe to say, (1) this continues the legacy of a great ship (CV 67) and (2) comparing the contributions of the last two presidents for which CVNs have been named, it’s a slam dunk, no-brainer which one was merited and which one was named simply for politics.

  5. Look – having had time with CVW-3/JFK and well over a hundred traps on JFK, I’ve no particular beef with another JFK – just think we should have had another Enterprise first. Mabus blew an opportunity to take advantage of a Memorial Day announcement, recognize JFK’s birthday and honor a generation by naming CV-79 and CVN-80 together — just like Clinton did with Truman and Reagan (though for different reasons). And if SECNAV wanted JFK first – OK, use it as the occasion to reset the naming of our carriers back to tradition, beginning with Enterprise (and maybe followed by Midway).

  6. SJ:

    Absolutely – The idea of a 10 year gap of having Enterprise in the Navy simply isn’t plausible. If they are planning LHA 7 as the Big E, howls of protest would erupt, but nothing would change it.

    The Big E would be built, deploy, and we would simply follow another heroic ship. Not my choice, but not a bad choice either.

  7. Moose

    There are more Memorial days yet to come. Lest we forget, there were 14 years between CV-6 and CVN-65 and a new Enterprise has not directly followed an old since the Revolutionary War.

    Let’s all at least be thankful the Goldwater thing didn’t pan out.

  8. Doc Holiday

    I think everybody needs to be patient for a new Enterprise. We have several recent ex-Presidents, 535 more members of Congress, plus innumerable cabinet secretaries that must be elevated to glory before anything as common and base as naming things merely for the rest of the nation’s benefit could be considered. Know your place.

  9. Mark

    The U.S Navy without a aircraft carrier named the Enterprise, what the hell are you thinking of? You go anywhere in the world and ask what kind of ship is the Enterprise and the answer is aircraft carrier. Take the Name Enterprise away and what have you got left? A bunch of names that mean nothing to anyone outside of America.

  10. It’s difficult to find educated people for this subject, however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about!
    Thanks

Comments are closed.