Corvette Name

[Martin N.]

Interesting article on NHRA.com in Phil Burgess' column. There's no response yet to the last question, anyone know?
Here's part of the article;

"The car-names info got a few giggles, too. Noting the funny definition that one journalist had come up with for the name Camaro ("loose bowels"), Ken Campbell asked, "So if I have a seriously upset stomach, can I go to the doctor and say I have 'Camaro?' "
Speaking of having to go, Cliff Morgan reminded me of the case of the famous Chevy Nova, which sold poorly in Mexico. Apparently, GM officials were scratching their heads trying to figure out why sales south of the border were so slow until they realized that "no va" is Spanish for "doesn't go." And finally, our old pal Bret Kepner, who called my Piranha piece "probably the most accurate and complete recounting of the car's history ever written," (thank you, thank you) challenged me as to the roots of the Corvette name, which I did know. Do you?"

Marty

[Pat M.]

Re: Corvette Name

Myron Scott named it after a French (or British?) warship.

[Jack H.]

Re: Corvette Name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette

[Duke W.]

Re: Corvette Name

It's basically a French name for a small, fast warship - smaller than a modern destroyer and modern or age-of-sail frigate, but bigger than an age-of-sail sloop-of-war. Many European countries still use the name for modern coastal defense vessels, but it has never been popular/used by the U. S. Navy.

Most current Corvette classes were designed during the Cold War and are primarily defensive in nature, with good AA and ASW capabilities, but would not fair well in a fight with a serious surface combatant.

The name fell out of use in the late 19th century as sail transitioned to steam, but Chuchill revived the name for the Flower Class ASW ships that were based on a commercial trawler hull design. At their maximum speed of about 15 knots, they couldn't catch a German U-boat on the surface, but they did provide some measure of U-boat protection in coastal waters early in the War, and by the time U-boat operations moved to the mid-Atlantic, more specialized designs began to become available such as the U. S. designed destroyer escorts (DE hull numbers).

Back in the fifties, we began building warships that were significantly larger than WW II destoyers - up to about 7000 tons, but somewhat smaller than WW II cruisers and called them "destroyer leaders" (DL hull numbers), but they ended up being called (informally I think) "frigates". Then in the seventies Congress determined that there was a "cruiser gap" since the Soviets had more warships classified as cruisers than we did . (Back in the fifties it was the "bomber gap" then the "missile gap" in the sixties) So in 1975 the Navy reclassified some "figates" as destoyers, but most as cruisers while reclassifying the DEs as "frigates".

So in one fell swoop of the bureaucratic pen, the "cruiser gap" was eliminated. Isn't that special!

The U. S. Navy has a current program called LCS - Littoral Combat Ship, which most European countries would call a Corvette.

As with many DoD programs, everyone and their uncle got a piece of the action and demanded this and that capability, so they ended up with a ship that costs a billion dollars a copy or whatever.

The same thing happened to the Zumalt Class destroyers. They ended up as 3 billion dollar, 15,000 ton warships that by any reasonable definition is a cruiser, but they were sold to Congress as "destroyers" because "cruiser" implies a high priced warship as opposed to a "cheap and disposable destroyer."

The LCS contracts (two different basic designs from different shipbuilders) were cancelled due to overruns, and the basic cause was all the Navy requirements, which drove costs through the roof.

Likewise, the Navy threw in the towel on the Zumwalt class destroyers and cut down the "production run" to two due to high cost (but then Congress added a third that the Navy did not request) - also due to piling on requirements. A number of well known marine architects have also claimed that the "tumblehome" design to achieve some level of stealth is unstable, but that's a whole other story.

The current Arleigh Burke class destroyers will continue in production with, perhaps, more to be built in outlying years. The Arleigh Burkes are very capable "high-tech" warships - better than anything a possible enemy could throw in their path, but the Navy got caught with their pants down in the Persian Gulf a decade ago when it was discovered that these "high-tech" ships could not defend against World War I (Yes, WW I technology.) mines - a few of which were found floating around.

Since that time, organic mine detection and destruction capability has been added to most of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

We seem to be designing weapons systems for some kind of "star wars" event, when typical threats are a bunch of amateur pirates in a rubber boats with AKs and RPGs - something that John Browning's 1917-designed "Ma Deuce" could easily shread before the bad guys got even close to being in range for their weapons to be effective!

BTW, back in the seventies, some DoD brainiacs decided that warships with ALUMINUM superstructures were the way to go, but then in the Falklands War a Royal Navy warship with an aluminum superstructure got hit with an Exocet cruise missile - something that would barely scratch the paint on an Iowa-class battleship - that started a fire, which ran out of control and got so hot the aluminum actually started BURNING! A U. S . Navy warship also suffered a similar fire after being involved in an at-sea collision - not even hostile fire! Fortunately, all those roman candles are now scrapped.

Your tax dollars at work protecting America!

I hope all of you with state primary elections voted, today.

Duke