| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is this an adequate name for a Victoria Class Submarine? |
| Absolutely |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
| Yes |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
| I do not care |
|
21% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
17% |
[ 4 ] |
| Absolutely not |
|
43% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Nexus7
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Switzerland
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: Victoria Class USS Princess Diana |
 |
|
Somehow puzzling this name for a sub. What do you think?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You do realize that news item was a April Fools Joke? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nexus7
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well it wouldn't be a good April joke if nobody would fall in right?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I stands though who would want to see a submarine named after princess diana a DDG maybe cause in her life time she did do some wonderful things and go to some realy rough places.
Even after he death nearly 10 years ago people are still touched and moved if not motivated by what she has done no one else in the royal family bar the queen and queen mum have done so much like she has, she didnt have to do it, but she went out of her way to help those who needed that help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, we did name the last SW "Jimmy Carter". :down:
I'd rather it be named "Princess Diana", that's far more tough sounding.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaQueen
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuftWolf wrote: | Well, we did name the last SW "Jimmy Carter". :down:
I'd rather it be named "Princess Diana", that's far more tough sounding. |
You know that the Navy is running low on money when the rule about never naming a warship after a living president gets forgotten.
That being said, I don't think it's a good idea to name an American warship after any monarchs. I think we've gone way too far in a counterproductive direction already. I mean... geez... we fought a whole war to get rid of kings named George. Then we go and elect two more? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sea Demon
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Posts: 970
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I gotta admit, I fell for it the first time I saw it.  I forgot Neal Stevens is a real joker around April the 1st.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JSLTIGER
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 931
Location: Duke University, Durham, North Carolina USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aside from the fact that it was an April Fools day joke, the US does not, and will not operate diesel submarines (excepting a few research boats), let alone foreign ones. Therefore, a Victoria-class USS Princess Diana is impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not to mention that that picture is not even a victoria class, and also there was only four built and all reside in canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Picky, I know, but -
SQ: | Quote: | | I dont think its a good idea to name an American warship after any monarchs |
Diana was a Princess but not a monarch - the Queen allowed her to keep the title as mother of
a potential future monarch.
Neals tease is not far off the mark given Americas historical 'resistance' to monarchy. The divorced Diana
was almost anti-establishment.
However its unlikely that the USA, or the UK for that matter would adopt her name for 'military' purposes
in view of her high profile opposition to the use of landmines..................................................but Canada, who knows.  
Only teasing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GunnersMate
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 225
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SeaQueen wrote: | | LuftWolf wrote: | Well, we did name the last SW "Jimmy Carter". :down:
I'd rather it be named "Princess Diana", that's far more tough sounding. |
You know that the Navy is running low on money when the rule about never naming a warship after a living president gets forgotten.
That being said, I don't think it's a good idea to name an American warship after any monarchs. I think we've gone way too far in a counterproductive direction already. I mean... geez... we fought a whole war to get rid of kings named George. Then we go and elect two more? |
You forget about USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 and USS George H. W. Bush CVN-77?
I'd like to see CVN-78 named USS Franklin D Roosevelt  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JSLTIGER
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 931
Location: Duke University, Durham, North Carolina USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GunnersMate wrote: | | SeaQueen wrote: | | LuftWolf wrote: | Well, we did name the last SW "Jimmy Carter". :down:
I'd rather it be named "Princess Diana", that's far more tough sounding. |
You know that the Navy is running low on money when the rule about never naming a warship after a living president gets forgotten.
That being said, I don't think it's a good idea to name an American warship after any monarchs. I think we've gone way too far in a counterproductive direction already. I mean... geez... we fought a whole war to get rid of kings named George. Then we go and elect two more? |
You forget about USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 and USS George H. W. Bush CVN-77?
I'd like to see CVN-78 named USS Franklin D Roosevelt |
There was already a carrier named USS Franklin D Roosevelt. It was CV-42, Midway-class.
I think that they should go back to the old style names, Langley, Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, etc. I know that there have been rebuilds of some of these, especially in the Wasp-class LHDs, like Essex, but these names were the core of our aircraft carrier fleet for more than a half-century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JSLTIGER wrote: | | I think that they should go back to the old style names, Langley, Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, etc. |
Amen!
We might be needing another Enterprise too as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JSLTIGER
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 931
Location: Duke University, Durham, North Carolina USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: | | JSLTIGER wrote: | | I think that they should go back to the old style names, Langley, Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, etc. |
Amen!
We might be needing another Enterprise too as well. |
Absolutely...that's my pick for CVN-78. Have one Enterprise replace another (being that CVN-78 is supposed to replace Enterprise CVN-65). If not that, Enterprise should be the second unit of the class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If not Enterprise then Constitution would be my pick for the 1st of the new CV class. Come on admit it everyone wants to see a Constitution class USS Enterprise.
Although I doubt that can/is going to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
