Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Three New Submarines Named

One of the dangers of being an unregulated submarine blogger is that you occasionally put out information that's so far "ahead of the curve" that it turns out later to have changed. Such was the case when I "revealed" that SSN 780 would be named USS California. The Secretary of the Navy today proved me wrong when he announced the names of the next three Virginia-class submarines:
Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced today the names of three Virginia class submarines -- the Missouri, California and Mississippi.
The selection of Missouri honors the continuous support of the military by the people of the “Show Me State,” and its leaders. Designated SSN 780, Missouri is the fifth ship of the United States Navy to be named in honor of the U.S. state. The last Missouri (BB 63), a U.S. Navy battleship, saw action in World War II, Korean War, and the 1991 Gulf War. Missouri was also the site where Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz and Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and many other U.S. and Allied officers, accepted the unconditional surrender of the Japanese at the end of World War II on Sept. 2, 1945.
The selection of California, designated SSN 781, honors the thousands of men and women from California who serve in today’s Armed Forces, and the millions of Californian veterans and their families. As home to major Naval and Marine Corps installations, the selection of California also reflects the tremendous support provided to the Navy and Marine Corps by countless communities across the Golden State. This will be the seventh ship to bear the name California.
The selection of Mississippi, designated SSN 782, is dedicated to the state’s long standing tradition of shipbuilding in support of our nation’s defense. It also honors the indomitable spirit of the people of Mississippi who have made great strides in recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. This fighting spirit will be an inspiration to all sailors who embark aboard Mississippi. There have been four previous ships named Mississippi. The first Mississippi, a side wheeler, served as Commodore Matthew Perry’s flagship for his historic voyage to Japan and fought with Admiral Farragut’s forces on the Mississippi River during the Civil War.
I'm sure submarine bloggers of the future will be looking forward to a picture of the new USS Missouri rendering honors to the old one.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a curious comment from a bubblehead down under.... does the USN dislike the state of Montana? 300 years and nothin, drop a zero and its like being married.

1/31/2008 6:35 AM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

Good on ya, mate, for commenting. (I love talking Aussie). Actually, if you look towards the bottom of this post, you'll see that there was a USS Montana from 1908 to 1920, and that Montana's Senator Tester has been stretching the truth when claiming there's never been a ship named for Montana. My guess is SecNav decided not to give in to his whininess -- especially since both the Senator and the Governor of the state are Democrats. Expect the next boat (783) to be named for Montana, though; that is, unless they get beat out again by Washington or Puerto Rico.

1/31/2008 6:52 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would Washingtonians want a ship named after their state? They won't even let their capital's namesake visit the city, seeing as how all those nuclear weapons are so dangerous and all...

1/31/2008 8:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an Idahoan and former nuke, I find it very disrespectful that Idaho hasn't had a sub named. (I know we have USS Boise). Idaho was the place where navy nuclear technology was first tested. The first light bulb lit by nuclear power is in Arco. Maybe Larry Craig should have been tapping his feet for the SecNav.
MM2/SS USS Seawolf '97-'01

1/31/2008 9:27 AM

Blogger FT2(ss) said...

I believe what you mean is that Montana is the only lower 48 states to never have a major capital ship named after the state.

1/31/2008 2:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Augie -

What does that mean? Although they may not be capital ships by the classic definition, USS ALASKA (SSBN 732) and USS HAWAII (SSN 776) both represent the non-CONUS states quite well.

1/31/2008 5:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No worries bubblehead, I always enjoy popping across to your blog to see what our seppo cousins are up to. Always fun. Have you visited Oz before?

And cheers Augie, thats what I meant, the big (capitol) ships. I know that the successor to the Iowa class BB was the simply massive Montana class BB
This wiki

Still at least there is a system for the V boats, unlike the Seawolf's or should that be the Seawolves? [shrug - meh]

1/31/2008 9:31 PM

Blogger FT2(ss) said...

Submarines have never been considered Capital ships as the traditional sense of big massive gun weilding behemoths. Though argument can be made for a SSBN to be considered a capital ship.

2/01/2008 1:59 AM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

Gaz- Yep, I was lucky enough to visit twice. Pulled in to Perth and Hobart in '92-'93 on USS Topeka, and the same ports in '00 on an aircraft carrier. Loved 'em both! (Especially Hobart the first time -- it was kind of overwhelmed when the CVN pulled in.)

2/01/2008 1:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm currently posted to Garden Island south of Perth: HMAS Stirling. I've visited Hobart in the puss, and as far as Aussie sailors think, it is The. Best. Port. Visit. Ever. If you cant have a good time in Hobart, you need to check your pulse. Its not as obvious when we pull in I right that USN sailors (probably below E5 or something) must wear Uniform on the first night of a port visit to a foreign country?

2/02/2008 8:46 PM

Blogger Skippy-san said...

One of the Iowa class battleships under construction was going to be named Montana-or so I was told. It got converted to a carrier and was either the Coral Sea or Shangri-la.

I think naming submarines for States is not right. I wish they would go back to the old naming conventions.

2/15/2008 12:12 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know I'm a little late to this one but:
Augie said...
I believe what you mean is that Montana is the only lower 48 states to never have a major capital ship named after the state.

Alaska was the lead ship in a class of "large cruisers" developed in the late 30's Hawaii the 3rd ship of the class was suspended about 80% complete in 1947. Technically the CB class was a "fast battleship" when pitched to congress. Meaning they were capital ships in intent if not by name.

Skippy-san said...
One of the Iowa class battleships under construction was going to be named Montana-or so I was told. It got converted to a carrier and was either the Coral Sea or Shangri-la.

Montana was the name selected for the follow on class to the Iowa-class, the Montana's would have dwarfed the Iowa class being very close in size to the Yamoto-class (Proposed wartime tonnage 71,000 tons)

As a native Montanan I wish and hope for a PCU to come up Montana.
It seems fitting however that Montana be a Boomer, 3 of the five names chosen for the BB class (Ohio,Maine,and Loiusiana) are SSB/GNs. BUT the days of the Boomer are through just like battleships...waiting to live out thier lives like the Iowas before them.
Perhaps the next nuclear powered surface ship will bear the name of the 41st state.

2/23/2009 9:57 PM

Anonymous palacio de la aljaferia said...

Very helpful info, thank you for your article.

12/03/2011 3:26 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home