Victoria Class USS Princess Diana
 

Somehow puzzling this name for a sub. What do you think? :roll:

You do realize that news item was a April Fools Joke?

Well it wouldn't be a good April joke if nobody would fall in right? :damn:

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.

Well, we did name the last SW "Jimmy Carter". :damn: :down: :roll:

I'd rather it be named "Princess Diana", that's far more tough sounding. :yep: :cool:

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?

I gotta admit, I fell for it the first time I saw it. :oops: I forgot Neal Stevens is a real joker around April the 1st. :D

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.

Not to mention that that picture is not even a victoria class, and also there was only four built and all reside in canada.

:roll: Picky, I know, but -

SQ: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. ;) :lol:
Only teasing. :-j

You forget about USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 and USS George H. W. Bush CVN-77? :roll:
I'd like to see CVN-78 named USS Franklin D Roosevelt :up:

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.

Amen! :up:

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.

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. :lol:

Although I doubt that can/is going to happen.

I don't think it can...USS Constitution (aka "Old Ironsides," ex-IX-21) is still in commission. Because of this, no other ship can have the name Constitution.

Exactly, I doubt the USN is going to decom Old Ironsides to insert a joke in to the name of a carrier. Although there are ways around the name already used thing. USS United States Constitution. Hay that’s an idea USS United States! That name got wasted so it would be nice to use it.

Personally I'd prefer if submarines were named in the more traditional way, after inhabitents of the sea. And, by the way, it's Virginia Class SSN not Victoria Class, no such class type in the USN submarine service ;) .

Twice: In 1958, the USS United States CV-58, the original supercarrier, was cancelled after her keel had been laid by Harry Truman. In the mid-1990s, CVN-75 was originally supposed to be named USS United States, but was later renamed USS Harry S. Truman.

The problem with this name lies in the implications if the ship is ever sunk. Headlines around the world would read: UNITED STATES SUNK!

Amen to that too! :up:

ON the subject of the Constitution I just discovered that their was to be a Lexington class Battlecruiser called Constitution but it was cannceld. They could do this since Old Ironsides was called "Old Constitution" at the time. :hmm: