How the Navy Determines Which Ships to Name After Individuals

Throughout the history of the United States Navy, the process of naming ships has undergone significant changes. In the past, ships were primarily named after courageous individuals who demonstrated valor in combat. However, as time has progressed, this process has become more politicized, leading to an increase in the number of ships named after politicians and influential figures.

Historical Naming Conventions

Initially, ships were named in a way that reflected their function and historical significance. Battleships were often named after states, cruiser names indicated key cities, gunboats were named after smaller municipalities, and destroyers were dedicated to distinguished flag officers and naval heroes. There were also specific naming conventions for submarines, such as using names of fish and sea creatures, and for maritime auxiliaries, such as oilers, ammunition ships, and cargo vehicles, which were named after rivers, volcanoes, and celestial bodies.

The practice of naming ships after certain individuals and political figures began to evolve in the early 20th century. For example, the first aircraft carrier, LANGLEY, was renamed after Samuel Pierpont Langley, a key figure in early aviation development. Subsequent carriers followed this trend, often being named after significant battles or important earlier ship designs.

Early 20th Century to Mid-20th Century

By the late 1950s, the U.S. Navy’s hull designation system underwent significant changes. Guided missile armed surface warships (excluding submarines) were renumbered in their own separate series. This led to the renumbering of ships like Boston CA-68 and Canberra CA-70, and the conversion of the last traditional cruiser, Long Beach, to a guided missile cruiser. Concurrently, the introduction of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) required a new naming scheme, which included the names of American presidents and other prominent figures.

Post-World War II to Modern Day

The post-World War II era saw a significant shift in ship naming conventions. The first supercarrier, UNITED STATES, was cancelled, but the first to be built, FORRESTAL, was named after the Secretary of the Navy who later committed suicide. From the 1960s onward, aircraft carriers began adopting names that reflected post-war presidents, such as CHESTER W. NIMITZ, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, CARL VINSON, and subsequent ships.

During the 1970s, the naming of ships became more politically charged. The death of Admiral Hyman Rickover led to his name being assigned to a nuclear-powered attack submarine, reflecting his significant impact on naval technology. Meanwhile, ex-presidents like Jimmy Carter and Lyndon B. Johnson faced challenges in their naval names, with LBJ being assigned to the third ship of the ZUMMWALT class destroyers.

Modern Naming Practices

Over the past few decades, the trend has been to assign many ships the names of individuals, often with a focus on political correctness. For instance, the fourth ship of the FORD class carrier, DORY MILLER, was named after a Medal of Honor recipient. New oilers and cargo-ammunition ships, known as AKEs, are named after various individuals with no direct connection to the Navy but who support activism or community causes. Submarines continue to be named after states, but with a depleted pool of state names, they are increasingly reverting to fish names. Amphibious assault ships have also adopted a mix of historical ship names and city names.

Currently, the naming of ships is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Navy. Over the past five decades, this role has seen a breaking of conventional naming protocols, leading to a more flexible and often politically driven process.

Conclusion

The evolution of ship naming conventions in the U.S. Navy reflects broader changes in societal and political contexts. From valor and historical significance to politics and inclusivity, the process of naming ships continues to be shaped by numerous factors, with the Secretary of the Navy ultimately responsible for this important naval tradition.