Wednesday, December 7, 2022

A Proud Name ...

(Source)
She lies there, in roughly forty feet of water, where she has lain since the 7th of December, 1941. Most of her crew are still aboard, they too have been there since that fateful moment when she exploded at roughly 0806 on a beautiful Sunday morning, lying at anchor at Pearl Harbor, on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

I've written about the attack on Pearl Harbor just about every December 7th since I started blogging back in 2012. I reckon I'll do so until the blog ends, which I hope won't be for quite some time.

This year, rather than reminisce about that "date which will live in infamy," another topic sprang to mind, namely the re-use of the name Arizona for a United States warship. I wasn't aware of this until fairly recently, not sure how I missed it.

SSN-803, a Block 5 Virginia-class nuclear attack boat will bear the name USS Arizona. A small part of me likes the idea that that name shall once again sail the seas. Three other ships have borne that name prior to this one -
  • USS Arizona, an iron-hulled, side-wheel merchant steamship. Seized by the Confederate States of America in 1862 during the American Civil War, she was captured later the same year by the United States Navy. (Read more about her here.)
  • USS Neshaminy was a large and powerful 3,850-ton screw frigate with a length of 335 feet that was under construction at the Philadelphia Navy Yard when she was surveyed by Navy officials who found her construction work to be poor. Construction was halted by the Navy, which eventually sold her for scrap. (Read more about her here.) She had been renamed Arizona, then Nevada.
  • USS Arizona (BB-39), a Pennsylvania-class battleship launched in 1915 and sunk by Japanese bombers in the attack on Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941. (Read more about her here.)
Yet there is another part of me which absolutely abhors the idea of another warship bearing that name. Part of that abhorrence is that BB-39 went to the bottom on one of the most painful days in American history, she was lost in a terrible defeat. She is an ever-present reminder of that defeat while, not that far away, is moored the USS Missouri (BB-63), a reminder of our eventual victory in World War II.

The decision to resurrect the name Arizona was announced back in December of 2019 by Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly, a fellow for whom I don't have a very high opinion of due to his actions during the fiasco surrounding the relief of the commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) during the initial stages of the great WuFlu "crisis" of the past few years. Which you can read about here, I shan't go into the details. Suffice to say, my son-in-law Big Time was a member of TR's Air Wing at the time.

As I recall, no one was happy with anything surrounding that event, in my opinion, Acting Secretary Modly brought great shame upon himself and the United States Navy during that fiasco. For which he quite rightly resigned. I'll say this for him, he f**ked up, but he owned up to it. Well, he is an Annapolis alumnus and a former active rotor-head (helicopter pilot), so credit where credit is due. At least he has a sense of honor.

At any rate, what say you as to the resurrection of the name Arizona? I confess to having mixed feelings, the Navy hasn't always named its ships in a fashion which makes any logical sense at times, but this goes beyond that. It is a proud name and meets the standards by which we name capital ships.

Chime in, I've said my piece.




46 comments:

  1. Going to say never, repeat, never use the name again. Let that name rest, just like the ship and the crew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Royal Navy has a very long-lasting tradition of never re-using the name of a valiant vessel and her crew. For instance, there will never be another HMS Victory. That name belongs to one ship, and one ship only for ever.

      Delete
  2. It does seem just wrong. like naming the unknown soldier.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not until the oil stops coming up from the hull. Seems wrong. But if the name is to be re-used this is a good use, much better than an LCS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points, it does seem wrong, as you say. If it was an LCS, I'd be apoplectic.

      Delete
    2. Ich auch. I'm at reef-points about reusing the name. On the one hand it could be skin to rebuilding the WTC, on t'other; we've got other names. If it is to be reused, make it a boomer.
      Boat Guy

      Delete
  4. I'm sorry, The Arizona is right there in that picture, heck there is even a flag flying over it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sarge, we retire sportsball players' numbers to hang in gyms and stadiums and no one bats an eye.

    No from me. There is a sanctity and sacredness about that ship name now, and it seems a travesty - and almost blasphemy - to re-use it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sarge,

    If you have ever visited the USS ARIZONA BB-39, seeing a warship just a few feet below the surface, and smelling the fuel bunker that continues to leak is a haunting memory, especially for any man or woman who has ever served on a warship at sea. Let the name and her crew continue to rest.

    A NJ NavyVet

    ReplyDelete
  7. The name should be sacred, never to be used again.

    Now here is the controversy. Use the 'Arizona' name, but call the next one 'Arizona II.' That way both can share the name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure if the Navy has ever done that, but it's a compromise, Do we do those any more?

      Delete
  8. Sarge,
    I agree with all the others above. No, do not rename it. For all their reasons as well as one other. I think it serves as an excellent reminder to egotistical politicians what the price is for their stupid, boneheaded decisions and/or policies. Frankly, I think there should be a Constitutional amendment that requires the Presidential Oath of Office to be administered on board her. At about 7:30 AM 7 December. Not that there's anything significant about that particular date. No, nothing at all.
    Probably should also be applied to Senators, Congressmen, the Cabinet, Supreme Court...
    But that's just me...being charitable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some things are just wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.

    It all started going downhill when ADM Rickover sagely opined that "Fish don't vote" and began using state and city names traditionally used for battleships and cruisers.

    Later, hack politicians began to glorify their friends, living and dead, often totally absent any maritime or naval relevance. An amphibious assault ship was besmirched with the name of an ex-Marine, and flagrantly corrupt politician. A congresswoman maimed by a madman had her name tattooed on the butt of one of the world's least useful "warships" as a useful tool to raise support for infringement on Second Amendment rights of people who had nothing to do with the despicable attack on the politician.

    SECNAV Ray Maybus sucked up to the left's loyal LGBTQ+ supporters naming an oiler USNS Harvey Milk. Don't be mislead by the apocryphal claim that Sir Winston Churchill once responded to criticism of his shifting the RN from traditional coal to oil with- “Don’t talk to me about naval tradition. It’s nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.” When asked about that claim, Churchill responded to a biographer: “I never said it. I wish I had.”

    Let's revert to the traditional naming conventions for U.S. warships, the pitiful handful we have (the fewest since 1931, and heading lower).

    Fleet Admiral once promised "There will always be [a ship named USS] England." Not named after our former colonial masters, later our staunchest ally, bur for Ensign John C. England. The 20 year old Ensign died at Pearl Harbor aboard USS Oklahoma (BB-37) after three successful rescue trips into the capsized ship, but perished on the fourth. A destroyer escort (DE-635) was named in his honor and in 12 days in May 1944 it sank SIX Jap subs, earning King's accolade. Decommissioned in 1945, a new USS England was commissioned 7 December 1963 as DDG-22 later CG-22, serving until 1994. We are long overdue for another.

    But, a submarine should carry a submarine name. A fish name. USS Barb (SS-220) which "sank a freight train" certainly has a reputation worthy of resurrecting. But there are many others.

    There is only one USS Arizona, and its place in history and role as a reminder of a "day which shall live in infamy" must not be tarnished. We need to remember not only the perfidy of a surprise attack by inscrutable Orientals, but the gigantic costs of military weakness, and insufficient attention to the need for robust and respected intelligence and cryptographic professionals, and leaders who will listen to them and act wisely.
    John Blackshoe

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well they did name one the "Harvey Milk".

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's a great overhead shot of the memorial, Sarge! I visited there about twenty years ago, I guess! (Time flies whether you're having fun or not!) Anyone who makes it to Oahu should try to visit and pay their respects.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now, remember, I have never served in the military...but, IMHO, I think that Arizona is a special case. I think that the name should be retired--like names of Hurricanes that cause catastrophic damage. There are other names that have lived on down through the centuries and go forward into our future culture--Enterprise would be the one name that springs right to mind. Columbia is another one--there have have been 22 ships named Columbia since 1773 including a spaceship. Even though some of those ships were sunk in war. Or in the case of the space shuttle, had catastrophic failure.
    But the USS Arizona is a name that should be retired. It is a very special symbol not only of catastrophic loss of life, as well as a catastrophic failure of our government, it, like the Twin Towers, the Empire State building, the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of our nation. It is a symbol that inspired a generation to help beat back an overwhelming evil to help freedom prevail. Like The Alamo. People all over the world know about the Arizona.
    We need all the inspiring symbols we can get these days, at least in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We will visit her tomorrow as we are on Oahu for a squadron reunion. I agree with most, let her rest in honor. As long as there sailors aboard let her and them rest, in honor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let them know they're not forgotten.

      Delete
    2. Give a thought also to the 58 dead entombed in USS Utah, also sunk on 7 December. Although launched in 1909 as a battleship, she was woefully obsolete and in 1931 was converted to a target ship/training ship for anti-aircraft guns. With no military value, unlike the BBs on Battleship Row, nor occupying prime berthing space, a failed attempt to right and raise the hulk ended with her partially exposed above water where she remains today. Her name was later used on a SSN.
      John Blackshoe

      Delete
    3. I just read a short article about USS Utah, I need to look into that.

      Delete
  14. I'm ok with the re-use of the name, as the ship and crew will likely honor the battleship even more than it would honor the state. Heck, we've named ships after dishonorable people! By the way, I've been quite scarce 'round the blog as I've been planning and am in the middle of executing a 200 person conference for my command. It's going well and it's almost over so I found the time to come up for air and read the blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it was any other name, I'd be okay with it. But the Arizona is both a monument and a tomb, she's more than just a ship now.

      Delete
  15. Leave Her Be. Our Nation's heritage and the State of Arizona are well served by USS Arizona. In service since 1918, "colors" has been a daily celebration on Arizona. In so doing, she has become part of over 100-years of naval tradition. A move to christen a new vessel USS Arizona is a leap to relegate BB39 to "the dustbin of history". As a line from a once popular movie proclaimed; "there can be only one".
    Perhaps primarily recognized as a USN memorial, USS Arizona is equally a "joint service" tribute to all services defending against the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Navy should have kept her instead of turning her over to the Park people.
      Boat Guy

      Delete
    2. No doubt money had something to do with it.

      Delete
  16. I am rather uncomfortable with the naming of the sub ARIZONA. I am much more happy with the second COLUMBIA being the USS WISCONSIN. But given the job of an SSN is ASW, what an honor for the second Big Badger Boat having one of the subs watching her back, or sterilizing her passage in out out of King's Bay, being the ARIZONA!

    There were people who objected to the naming of the LOS ANGELES class SSN USS CORPUS CHRISTI. People said it slandered Jesus, by naming a weapon of war. So the sub wound up being USS CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. USS STATE OF ARIZONA, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't know that about Corpus Christi. Rickover ruined everything with his "fish don't vote" nonsense. Pandering to those assholes in Congress.

      Delete
    2. Rickover was an asshole, so he knew how their minds worked.

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.