Talk:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)/Archive 1

Rumors
There is a humorous story going around the internet, which reads:

This is the actual transcript of a radio interchange between a US Naval ship and Canadian Authorities off the coast of Newfoundland. AMERICANS:Please divert your course 15 degrees north in order to avoid collision. CANADIANS: We reccomend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees south in order to avoid a collision. AMERICANS: THis is the captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert YOUR course. CANADIANS: No. I say again, divert YOUR course. AMERICANS: THIS IS THE COMMANDER OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE US ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS, AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT SHIPS. I DEMAND THAT YOU DIVERT YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP. CANADIANS: We are a lighthouse. Your call.

Can anyone confirm if this was true? I doubt it but it's worth checking out, I believe. JnB987 02:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * False. R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  03:51, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * True. The former british Member of parliament Martin Bell presents this as a true story. Dolive21 12:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Then Martin Bell is wrong. This is an old Reader's Digest joke and has been retold for the last 3 decades or more with a variety of ship names and nationalities.  Sometimes the ship is British, sometimes it's a battleship.  It's an old joke and not true.  ---B- 07:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely. Martin Bell Is extremly well respected, and has a reputation for telling the truth. Dolive21 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * FALSE. This is wrong for three reasons. 1.  The USS Abraham Lincoln was the largest warship afloat in the Pacific fleet due to it's displacement in 1995 (until the USS John C. Stennis was commissioned).   2.  The USS Abraham Lincoln has been in the Pacific Fleet since 1990. 3.  USS Abraham Lincoln was returning from it's thrid deployment in October of 1995 when this is said to have occured. My last cruise :)Du FlyDu Fly 05:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * False. See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/litehuse.html 71.85.197.66 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there even any need to keep any mention of this story on the page? It's not true, it's been told so many times about so many different vessels it's not even specific to the Lincoln and it may even be a little anti-American. The paragraph looks clumsy and superfluous --StoneColdCrazy 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to the references section, as it is not a part of the ship's history. --StoneColdCrazy 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

-Same history, same ship, Spaniard lighthouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.194.224 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mission Accomplished" banner
I think this is the right place to describe the banner episode, because it involves the ship and crew intimately (even if only to be used like toilet paper :-) ). Seems like it would get lost in a larger article on the Bush presidency or the Iraq war, here it's an interesting bit that you won't find in the official Navy story. A pic would round it out, show what all the fuss was about. Stan 07:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I decided to keep this incident seperate from the ships history, so I put it in its own catagory. You can change it if you want. TomStar81 11:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's good. BTW, "minor" changes are spelling fixes and the like that don't change content. I was mystified as to where all the additional content had come from, until it occurred to me to check the minor edits in the history too. One little cheat for spelling errors is to make links out of all the special terms; at 340K+ articles, if a link is red, there's a good chance it's a misspelling of an existing article. Stan 14:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the spelling tip. I'll keep that in mind. TomStar81 00:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Flight suit info removed?
Wwoods, I've asked you on your usertalk page, but have yet to see a response, so I'll ask my question here again: Why are you removing the information on Bush having worn a flight suit for his landing on the Lincoln? Would you prefer to call it something else? Otherwise I don't understand your position, as photographs of his attire are readily available. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 13:18, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see you've answered. I think everything can be fixed to everyone's satisfaction. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 13:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bush's reputation for cowboy machismo seems to have colored some people's recollection of the event. Bush wore a flight suit for his flight out to the carrier--and changed out of it before giving his speech. The text and a link to a video of the speech are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html.


 * The flight itself was sort of a stunt, but it seems to me that wearing a flight suit for a trip on a warplane is about as noteworthy as wearing a hard hat while visiting a construction site--it's a piece of equipment, not a uniform. (Also, I'd bet he was wearing, not carrying, his helmet until after the plane landed.)
 * &mdash;wwoods 20:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your opinion but the flightsuit was included in criticism of the entire photo op and as such it's my opinion that it should at least be mentioned. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you get in a tactical aircraft, you wear the suit and the vest and all the other crap that goes with it, regardless of who you are. It's designed to hold all your safety equipment so that if there's an emergency and you have to eject you have all your gear, and none of your clothes snag. The flight suit, when flying in certain types of aircraft a flight suit *must* be worn as it is regulation - and common sense for many reasons.

Finally, any base/ship/unit commander worth his salt will have organizational clothes available as souvenirs for VIP's and their entourages. It's common sense because the VIP's like getting crap and the Organizations like having photos of their bosses wearing stuff with the organizations name on it.
 * That may or may not be the case, but it's really immaterial to the article here -- the point is that he was criticized for wearing it. That was the news, and that is what has been included in the article.  We as wikipedia editors make no judgments ourselves -- we are here to summarize disagreements, and that was one of them. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 11:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

"the point is that he was criticized for wearing it. That was the news, and that is what has been included in the article."

That seems to be a flimsy excuse to include anti-Bush POV into the article. Everytime I read on Wiki an article about Bush, or anything pertaining to Bush, it always includes a "critics say..." (Just once I'd like to see a "supporters say..."). What Bush's critics have to say is not necessarilly news. Especially when they turn out to be wrong in their criticisms. They were proven to be wrong in their criticisms that Bush wearing the flight suit was not for publicity purposes, but for safety regulations.
 * We don't pass judgment on criticisms, only summarize them if they've been published somewhere. Which these were. Thanks. While you're around, take a minute to read the rules of contributing to Wikipedia, particularly neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Have fun Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what his problem with these articles entails: he sees a failure to maintain a neutral point of view on anything Bush-related. A dispassionate relating of the events is more in line with an encyclopedic article than another anti-Bush screed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.13.1 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Flags
We need to do something about the Flag on this page, It's the US Flag not the US Naval Jack, since September 11th 2001 all US naval vessels have flown the US wartime Jack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Naval_Jack_of_the_United_States.svg But I am Getting annoyed with all My Edits being undone, so Does anyone else feel that change needs be made?Therubicon (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Partial Ejection" Incident of '91
Event: An A-6 Intruder Pilot out on exercise maneuvers tries to unstick a floating valve on the refueling pylon by pitching the aircraft up and down.

Disaster: Due to cumulative Metal Fatigue from the aircraft's numerous takeoffs and landings, a safety lock on the Bombardier Navigator's Ejection Seat malfunctions and breaks under the stress of the pitching.

The Ejection Seat fires its weight slug which breaks the fiberglass canopy and deploys the parachute. The BN's Seat goes up and stops half-way where he is immediately exposed to 250 mph wind forces which rip off his oxygen mask and flight helmet.

The Pilot turns around to see that his BN is in trouble and notifies the Abraham Lincoln to prepare for an emergency landing.

The BN passes out from oxygen deprivation but soon regains consciousness after the Pilot successfully lands on the Carrier. --Arima (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Out Of Time video
Yesterday, I added a reference to the Out of Time video to the section on popular culture. Malo reverted that edit. Why, I don't know. Can anyone here verify that the video in fact features footage from a BBC documentary about the Lincoln? --80.137.113.150 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was important for this article. But maybe other people do.  I don't really have a problem with it, feel free to put it back if you like. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a pop-culture reference?
In the intro sequence of the game People's General, an American aircraft carrier called the "USS Lincoln" is mentioned in the voice over as being deployed to the South China Sea. It is then sunk with the loss of over 3,000 lives, triggering the in-game conflict. Does this count? (name was different). Video is available on youtube. --204.4.131.140 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Details of associated Carrier Strike Group
According to this article the USS Abraham Lincoln heads CSG-9. This should be detailed in this article as is done for another supercarrier, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). __meco (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The USS Sacramento collision
Does anyone have a source on this? I was there and if memory serves we were going straight during the replenishment and the USS Sacramento had rudder problems and rammed us. In fact it was widely reported at the time to have been their fault. For example this web page from the Kitsap Sun newspaper http://m.kitsapsun.com/news/1995/Jun/07/navy-accident-uss-sacramento-collision-linked-to/

So unless someone has an official source that states otherwise, I think that the article needs to be updated.

Lee Vann former crewmwmber 1992 to 1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.128.33 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It was your ships fault, not ours.

In 1995 while in the Persian gulf, where the ship assisted in "Operation Southern Watch" and in "Operation Vigilant Sentinel". During an underway replenishment, the USS Abraham Lincoln trying to position itself for flight operations, caused an incident where it ran into the port side of the Sacramento, crushing the M-frames, partially crushing a female crew berthing area, and punching a large hole in the TACAN room. The Lincoln was able to continue on with her mission while the Sacramento had to dock at Jebel Ali, U.A.E. for several weeks for repair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sacramento_%28AOE-1%29#Service_history Ouelletteb19 (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed Non-notable news content.
This article is approaching a list of indiscriminate collection of information on the Lincoln. Thus I have been bold and removed it. I remind editors that statements such as "lincoln departed xx date and returned xx date" or "entered shipyard and had xxx tank removed" are not noteworthy news events per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Non-notable awards which do not have an article within of themselves (Franklin Covey Leadership Greatness Award anyone?) do not meet the criteria for inclusion. QuAz GaA  19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

where is the USS A LINCOLN NOW
My grandson has orders to the USS Lincoln but he is in A school now in Flordia, just woundering where is the Lincoln NOW, in port or at sea and when if it is at sea when will it return to the US?? AD, R Kinzer retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.42.184 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

lincolin with 4 other supercarriers
http://gizmodo.com/5973189/this-is-why-the-us-navy-is-the-most-formidable-naval-force-in-the-world

the above is a link to a webpage with 5 supercarriers at dock, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). It might be nice to post a picture since this is a rare sight, 5 supercarriers together — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmaldia (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tenth anniversary of mission accomplished.
Can someone add in a section on the Mission accomplished story. 10 years and some historical perspective would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.152 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Introduction Errors Aug 2013
Per ship's history within the article, AH commenced Refueling and Complex Overhaul this year which draws into question: Conrad T. Pino (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Her home port is Norfolk, Virginia, and
 * she is a member of the United States Atlantic Fleet.
 * She is administratively responsible to Commander, Naval Air Forces Atlantic, and, operationally,
 * she is currently the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Nine and
 * host to Carrier Air Wing Two.

Photo Error Sep 2017
The description for the article's main picture says it was taken in the South China Sea in May 2006. Clicking on the photo, however, provides a different description: Operation Southern Watch (which took place in the Persian Gulf, not the South China Sea) November 2002. Someone should clarify this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.197.178 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Range
We have the speed of the ship at 30+ knots and the time as 20-25 years. Should we not then list the range of the ship as >7.6 million miles? That's my two scents 22:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Best to leave it out, since range is a more important statistic for a fuel-limited ship, but not for a nuclear ship. If you feel compelled to put something in (and it's neither compulsory nor desirable to fill all possible fields in an infobox template), "effectively unlimited" or "limited only by stores and aviation fuel" is more meaningful than a number representing 8% of the distance to the sun, that unrealistically assumes full speed at all times over the life of the reactor core.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

2019- 2020 Deployment & Homeport Change
Recently added / occurred- " Lincoln arrived in her new homeport in San Diego on January 20th 2020 following a record breaking 294 days at sea, the longest post-Cold War era deployment for a US carrier, breaking her own record in the process." I believe this is slightly inaccurate - a more accurate statement would be "Lincoln arrived in her new homeport in San Diego on January 20th 2020 following a record breaking 294 days length deployment, the longest post-Cold War era deployment for a US carrier, breaking her own record in the process." Days at sea is time without a port visit; that is a different count. In Contrast the USS Nimitz Was credited with 144 days at sea in 1980, during which se participated supported Operation Eagle Claw. No disrespect intended, just point this out and making some distinction. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Info missing in Ship history section and lede
It states “ On 18 December 2006, Abraham Lincoln left the dry dock…” But there is nothing in the narrative to say when it went into dry dock. There’s a similar piece of missing info in the very first para. of the lede, where we have “She was returned to the fleet on 12 May 2017…” But readers of the lede didn’t know that she had been taken from the fleet. Boscaswell  talk  03:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Attack?
I was on the Lincoln at the time of the so called attack and there was no word about that happenning! It would have been irresponsible to not let the crew and airwing personnel know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8390:6300:F8C3:A5D6:19DF:AB2F (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What attack, on what date, are you referring to? -  wolf  19:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Current location
I was recently in San deigo, the Abraham Lincoln is in San Diego, going under repairs currently, this is provable for anyone outside sd, through satellite images. Would recommend a few sentences in history under 2022 Jackson883941 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Especially as seeing that history for prior years is relatively long comparable to other years in the same sub article Jackson883941 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, content changes need to be supported by reliable sources. - w o lf  01:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC) (oops... forgot to ping . - w o lf  01:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC))