Aircraft Carrier naming

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:11:56 -0600, William Hughes
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:55:33 -0500, in rec.aviation.military.naval Penta
wrote:

Thoughts, all? How WOULD one work on unit pride/unit
identification/unit cohesion in the modern environment?

Not real well. Too much turnover in personnel. Way back when it was possible to
stay with the same ship or unit for several years. Nowadays, I think the average
time on station is two years.

All,

William Hughes's reply brought a number of thoughts to mind, from
the inane to the complex.

Eventually, however, I settled on something.

As an exercise for the group, let me lay out multiple scenarios.

1. The US Navy, or a fictional copy thereof, is (on a whim, basically)
scrapping everything. RAMN contributors have been directed to produce
a replacement. Cover all issues, from uniforms to living conditions to
regulations, including every aspect of personnel policies and general
"cultural" stuff, as well as force structure and equipment buys.
However, limits a Pay changes must keep in mind Congress. Cultural
stuff: Do keep in mind the general society.

2. The navy of a major NATO ally or an important regional country* is
doing the same thing. Describe the projected local security situation,
also, and keep it in mind. In this case, nothing is off-limits.

3. A small country is looking at the same thing. Examples: Panama,
Philippines. No limits, just describe and remember the projected
security situation

*Definition: flippable. Basically, say who you're using, then run with
it.

Thoughts:

1. To organize this and allow for filters, let's try to agree on a
common subject header? [RAMNEX 1: topic, RAMNEX 2: topic, and so
forth?]

2. Sources are, as always, a good idea.

3. Does anybody have free, non-ad-filled webspace we could compile and
host this on? It'd be a cool thing to keep around, but I dunno how to
get access to my school's webserver.

John

In article , Mike Kanze
wrote:

According to my Dad, part of this was due to the circumstances of the
Depression. For many, the armed forces were - literally - a better
alternative to whatever was available at home. So there was a stronger
motivation to treat one's unit as a real "home" and not just as a waypoint.
And thus easier to get folks interested in "community" stuff like softball
leagues.

Mikes Good sense snipped.

If you look at the make-up of the service it has also changed.
Certainly among the enlisted and the JO's many more are married now
than were in the 1920's through the 40's and most live off base. In the
past base housing was much more prevelent for those that were married
and most of the single folks lived in either in the barracks or the Q
and not many of the lower grade E's (or o's) had cars so all were much
more dependent on Navy sponsored activities. Even at in the modern era
I found my squadrons at NUW the squadron was much tighter than in
VAQ-209 where every lives spread all over the DC metro area and
basically gets together for manditory fun and that's about it.

Pugs

"If they can put a man on the moon why can't they put a man on Lifetime
TV?"

Colin Quinn

From TF-38 days

Shangri La = Showboat

Rich

"Yofuri" wrote in message ...
Bonnie Dick - Boney Dick
Dry "I" - Intrepid
Benny Boat - Bennington
Filthy Phil - Philippine Sea
SeaVan 65 - Reusable Container 65 - Enterprise
CVA Sick One - Ranger (ate twelve boilers between Bremerton and Pearl,
1964?)

--
My real e-mail address is:




"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
Forrestal-FID-First in Diffuculty

Forest Fire...

Bonnie Dick

And remember the Dike, when the Ike sailled for the first time with a
female
component....

_____________
José Herculano







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----