Gothamist: USS New York, Made With WTC Steel, Christened

USSNY

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:30:40 -0500

The USS New York will be commissioned in NYC in summer of 2009. This gala event will honor the men and women who serve on board and the victims of 911. It will also raise money for the crew and their families. For more information about the commissioning of the Uss New York including a schedule of events visit the official website at http://www.USSNY.org

USSNY

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:30:12 -0500

MJG

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:07:45 -0500

I always mess up the links. http://hamptonroads.com/node/251231

MJG

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:55:08 -0500

Apparently, the Nimitz class is done. Now, they are called Ford class. I don't know the difference. But, back to the USS New York...I came across a story from last spring. I hope they worked out these problems.

Art Stewel

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:54:09 -0500

If you don't believe in freedom, this ship will smoke your ass.

Spiritof76

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:19:44 -0500

We're building enough ships that there were alternatives. There are at least 4 or 5 destroyers under construction, plus 3 attack subs. As for the USS Dubya, they used older presidents for the previous Nimitz class, among them the Abe Lincoln, the Harry Truman and the Teddy Roosevelt. I'd rather see any older former president than Dubya. The USS Martin van Buren or Calvin Coolidge sound good by comparison. Even the USS Lyndon Johnson. Hell, I'll rather see a USS Richard Nixon rather than Dubya. The JFK is gone, so they can reuse that name. The other founding fathers were far more important than Dubya could ever hope to be, yet many of them only got destroyers, subs and other non-carrier ships named after them. Historic non-presidential carrier names are being decommissioned, so those can and should be reused. I sure hope there will always be an Enterprise.

MJG

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:51:44 -0500

We're not always building all sorts of ships, so there might not be too many available for naming. I'm sure they wanted a ship to honor the WTC in service ASAP and had to work with what was being developed. While a San Antonio class ship might not be ''sexy'' like a carrier, it still has an important role. There might me be a USS Dubya. The USS Gerald R. Ford is due in 2015 and there are two more carriers due in that class. Jimmy Carter has a sub named for him since he served on subs. So that would lead to Clinton and W carriers. The GOP would love the USS William Jefferson Clinton, wouldn't they? :)

Jen S

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:34:52 -0500

For real, Emily. Can it even float on lava?

Spiritof76

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:09:46 -0500

On second thought, maybe there's still hope. This ship was named after the state, not NYC. The only USS New York City was decommissioned over a decade ago, so the name is available, although new attack subs are switching from city names to state names. The question is why hasn't there been a cruise ship named after New York City? The SS City of New York was scrapped almost a century ago.

emilydickinson

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:56:10 -0500

"If the USS New York has to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell" Good Grief.

Spiritof76

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:48:14 -0500

And why was the christening in Louisiana? Shouldn't it have been in, um, New York Harbor? Because you christen a ship when it's launched from the shipyard where it was built. Northrop Grumman happens to be in Louisiana. There are no shipbuilders, military or otherwise, in NYC. Not a very impressive boat, though. Amphibious assault? An attack sub would have been so much more impressive. Or a destroyer. An aircraft carrier would have been nice, although they like to name those after presidents now. I'm going to barf if there's ever a USS George W. Bush. (There already is a USS George H.W. Bush, but that's not nearly so revolting.)

Jen Chung

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:37:26 -0500

I should clarify it in the post - the christening took place near the Northrup Grumman shipyard, probably because they are still doing work. The "commissioning" will be in NYC next year.

edEx

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:33:58 -0500

Perhaps the steel could have been used as a contribution for the new towers. And why was the christening in Louisiana? Shouldn't it have been in, um, New York Harbor?

Polite New Yorker

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:23:21 -0500

Like much of America, New Yorkers were divided over the issue of independence from Britain, but I don't think New York is considered a "Tory town." The Battle of Brooklyn, which America lost, was one of the bloodiest of the war. The British controlled New York for most of the war due to their naval superiority, not New Yorkers' loyalty.

dlforman

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:17:12 -0500

The steel from the WTC into a warship? I'm all for recycling, but is there a clearer realization of the idea that violence only brings more violence? A more peaceful use of the steel would have been a credit to our city and country.

nonumentalart

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:00:08 -0500

does anyone know that new york was a tory town during the american war for independence?