Posted on 10/14/2017 4:10:09 PM PDT by oxcart
(KSFY) - For the first time in decades, a U.S. Navy ship will bear the name South Dakota.
Navy officials will christen a new fast attack submarine the "U.S.S South Dakota" in a ceremony Saturday morning in Groton, Conn. at 9:00 a.m. C.T. You can watch the ceremony live here.
According to Capt. Deb Bodenstedt, the ceremony will include the traditional smashing of champagne across the bow by the boat’s sponsor. “South Dakota’s” sponsor is Mrs. Deanie Dempsey, wife of the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey. Governor Dennis Daugaard will also speak at the event.
The sub will carry a crew of 14 officers and 117 enlisted servicemen. Officials say the ship is powered by a nuclear reactor, offering an unlimited source of fuel lasting the life span of the ship, which is projected to be over 30 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at ksfy.com ...
Block III Virginia class. Nice.
SSN-790
They are very fine and capable and we actually have a good number of them.
> USS South Dakota submarine to be christened Saturday <
I guess I’m a bit of a curmudgeon here, but I’d prefer it if only battleships were named after states. When I first glanced at the title, I really thought it referred to the old battleship USS South Dakota (BB-57) .
So, yeah, name battleships after states. Name submarines after well-known Freepers. Or after fish, if you must.
Uss Humblegunner
But never, ever, name a submarine for an idiot democrat peanut farmer wanna be from the south.
Can they rename ships/boats in the US Navy?
I was thinking carriers or big-deck amphibs are appropriate for states. I think we’ve wore out naming them after presidents.
I never thought that state names should apply to anything but capital ships.
In this day and age is a fast attack sub a capital ship?
I had no problem with boomers being state named. The qualify as a capital ship.
The naming trend I hate is naming carriers after politicians. I would love another Essex, Hornet, Saratoga etc. I am so thankful there is a planned USS Enterprise.
> The naming trend I hate is naming carriers after politicians. <
Yep, and naming ships after living politicians is even worse. That’s banana republic stuff.
I wonder how silent a nuclear attack sub is versus modern hybrid-electric subs.
> USS Humblegunner <
I was thinking more along the lines of the ‘USS Leaning Right’. But that might imply that the ship is heeling to starboard. So I can accept USS ‘Humblegunner’ instead.
As for the ‘USS Al Baby’, sorry, no. But the ‘USS Al’, I can live with.
Two attack subs per year is inadequate to our national security needs.
We need a surge of 4 for two years, then 3 per year thereafter.
And, it wouldn’t hurt to build one DE sub per year for the littorals...Persian Gulf, South China Sea, Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea could all benefit.
The SSN is a Blue Water weapon system.
There was a time when it was required by law for capital ships only to be named after states. Then battleships were the only capital ship. It took an act of congress to name BB-5 USS Kearsarge instead of giving it a state name
We have always named nuke subs after states.
Striking fear in the heart of evil everywhere.
Well since we haven’t built any new battleships in 70+ years and never will again (barring some unforseen revolution in naval warfare), your position amounts to saying no USN ships shall ever be named after states. I’m fine with naming great nuclear powered submarines after states.
The first ballistic missile nuclear subs (SSBN) were named after Revolutionary figures like Patrick Henry.
Before the Los Angeles class, nuclear attack subs were still named after fish like the previous conventional powered subs.
> your position amounts to saying no USN ships shall ever be named after states <
Well...I’ve got to admit that you’re right about that. But since I live in the past, I will stick to my original position. Only battleships should be named after states.
I’d like to say more, but it’s almost time for Jack Benny on the radio. So I’ve got to sign off FR for now.
Not exactly on point but a nice link about the USS Nautilus (SSN-571). I remember reading the book ‘Nautilus 90 North’ by Commander Anderson as a sophomore in high school in 1959. That under ice transit of the north pole was a shot in the arm to the US after Sputnik 1 the previous year. (Some of those ice keels dipped over 150’ below the surface. The depth of the Arctic Ocean below the pole is 13,000’. No problem there but the diving depth could make things problematical. The Nautilus could dive to 700’ I believe.) The crew of the Nautilus was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation by President Eisenhower, the first awarded in peacetime.
http://navsource.org/archives/08/pdf/0857102q.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.