What? No USS Trayvon Martin?

| April 13, 2012 | 23 Comments

The Navy issued a press release today about the Secretary of the Navy naming five new subarines. Recently Secretary Mabus has been catching flak for his choices of vessel appellations, so I’m surprised, as was Bobo who sent us the link, that there was no USS Tryvon Martin. Anyway here are the new subs to join the fleet;

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today the next five Virginia-class attack submarines will be named the USS Illinois, the USS Washington, the USS Colorado, the USS Indiana, and the USS South Dakota.

Mabus named the Virginia-class submarines to honor the great contributions and support these states have given the military through the years.

“Each of these five states serves as home to military bases that support our national defense and provides men and women who volunteer to serve their country,” Mabus said. “I look forward to these submarines joining the fleet and representing these great states around the world.”

None of the five states has had a ship named for it for more than 49 years. The most recent to serve was the battleship the USS Indiana, which was decommissioned in October 1963.

Category: Navy

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Claymore says:

    The good news is that we have 57 states, so there will be plenty of names for more Navy ships.

  2. Poohbah, Lord High Everything Else says:

    Trivia question: name the one state from the battleship era that never had a battleship named for her put into commission.

  3. Jack says:

    Sorry there is two Alaska and Hawaii because they were not states then.

  4. Old Tanker says:

    That’s playing it safe!

  5. Hondo says:

    Poobah: that would be Montana.

  6. Crucible says:

    Maybe Mabus will get himself a Bronze Star for this clearly heroic naming effort.

  7. Hondo says:

    Crucible: he can’t get a BSM – he’s not currently drawing hostile fire or imminent danger pay. Since the signing of the 2001 NDA on 30 October 2000, per Federal law that’s been a requirement. (smile)

  8. Pat says:

    Durn it, Hondo, you beat me again.:)

    By the time I was getting to write “Montana”, you answer was already posted.

    Jack,, I thought the US Battleship Era ended in the 1940s.

    Am I wrong?

  9. Adirondack Patriot says:

    I think they should name three of the subs “USS Hillary Rosen”. Great counterintelligence move. Confuses the hell out of the Obama White House in keeping their visitor’s log, maybe it’ll work with other Socialist regimes as well.

  10. Just Plain Jason says:

    Maybe he’ll name one the USS Teddy Kenne…Chappaquiddick.

  11. Punisher says:

    USS Teddy Kennedy. Hah. No female sailors and better make damn sure its rigged for dive…

  12. Hondo says:

    @10, 11: Well, Mabus was naming submarines . . . .

  13. DaveO says:

    Hmmm, all 5 states happen to be expected to have tough political campaigns this summer and fall, from POTUS on down.

    Heard tale the next two mine-layers will be named the USS Bernadine Dohrn and the USS William Ayers. Fitting.

  14. streetsweeper says:

    @#13- *giggle snort*

  15. Poohbah, Lord High Everything Else says:

    @3: Alaska and Hawaii got large cruisers named for them, not battleships.

    @5 & @8: Got it right. The name came up twice in planning, but she never got one built. One was canceled after the Washington Treaty, the other was canceled in 1943.

  16. Hondo says:

    Poobah: the 1st battleship Montana (BB-51) went substantially farther than mere planning. She was begun at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Feb 1920, but construction halted in Sep 1922 and the partial hull sold to be scrapped in Oct 1923 per the terms of the Washington Naval Limitations Treaty. A photo of the hull under construction is shown at

    http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb51.htm

    The 2nd battleship Montana, BB-67, was solely a planning exercise. The entire class of ships was cancelled in 1943 before the BB-67′s keel was laid.

  17. Anonymous says:

    a word of warning being from Washington they can still fuck this up by putting some “social justice advocate” as the ships sponsor.

  18. UpNorth says:

    Anon, in #17, you mean Insipid could be the sponsor?

  19. Cedo Alteram says:

    It least they’re states. A safe selection? Yes. It’s likely the best you can hope for with Obama appointees, nothing radical or national pride damaging.

  20. insipid says:

    Almost as surpised as i am that there’s no SS George Zimmerman.

  21. UpNorth says:

    As usual, Insipid, you reveal your ignorance, yet again. Or, were you going for a private company naming something for Zimmerman?
    Navy ships would be prefaced with “USS”, support ships manned by civilians are prefaced with “USNS”.

  22. NHSparky says:

    insipid–why not, fuckstick? I mean, can you really tell me what Cesar Chavez did for the Navy that warrants a ship being named after him?

  23. insipid says:

    Yeah, cause it could’t possibly be a typo, Sparky.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *