Talk:USS Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

Flags
I'm told that the flag that draped President Reagan's coffin throughout its journey belonged to the USS Ronald Reagan, and was taken down for his funeral and ultimatly presented to Nancy Reagan for safe keeping. Can anyone confirm this? TomStar81 03:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No it was not. The flag was the one that flew over Capitol Hill on January 20, 1981. User:SNIyer12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNIyer12 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about adding some technical details to the article ? Since this is the newest USS hangarship, it probably has the most sophisticated technology of all hangarships ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.27.19 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2005(UTC)


 * The ship has just arrived in Brisbane, Australia: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17920221-1248,00.html--203.94.135.59 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw that on the news. Looks cool. Might try and check it out. Forever young 13:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A flag flown over the U.S.S. Reagan was presented to Mrs. Reagan by the Captain (no name available) of the Reagan at the final funeral in California. See .. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-first-lady-nancy-reagan-is-presented-the-flag-that-news-photo/50951753  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.57.82 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

 * There are many pictures, but their layout is not really good. Equinoxe 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah, the pictures cover the infobox at the bottom Aznfurball 06:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The pictures have been removed in accordance with this Wikipolicy: Image_use_policy. They have been added to this talk page. Once enough information has been added to the article that there is sufficient space to display them properly, they can be added back.
 * -User:Daysleeper47 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian UAV Incident
I moved this off the homepage because it is poorly written, seems somewhat unfounded and doesn't belong even if it is true because it seems minor of international (or national) note. If anyone besides the wikipedia who put it there disagrees, put it back. --Daysleeper47 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned...That's definately the Reagan- you can tell by looking at the island superstructure (longer than a normal Nimitz-class carrier to place the aft radar mast on the island as opposed to its own freestanding structure.) However, the number and type of planes claimed to be visible on the flight deck is highly suspect- seeing as CVW-14 includes only 4 squadrons of Hornets (2 squadrons of legacy F/A-18C's and 2 of the newer F/A-18E/F's), there's no way there were 72 Hornets on deck at that time. In addition, the hangar bay isn't nearly large enough to accomodate every single aircraft carried onboard; during our homeport change from Norfolk to San Diego we left port with a detachment approximately half the size of a regular airwing. While transiting the Straits of Magellan, all the aircraft were pulled down to the hangar deck for protection from the extreme weather conditions often encountered that far south during the winter time. As anybody who was onboard at the time will recall (including the Discovery Channel documentary crew that filmed our cruise), the hangar bay was virtually impassable during that time. Tspencer227 11:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Tspencer227

Shortly after I added this section, a video was released by the IRGC which documents the incident, the video can be seen here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGwFzzIe5EQ I think it's relevant to note the threats that face America's carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.

''The Following are excerpts from an interview with General Yahya-Rahim Safavi, General Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which aired on Channel 2, Iranian TV on August 27, 2006:

General Yahya-Rahim Safavi: "A few months ago, the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, which, to the best of my recollection, was carrying on deck 72 F-18 planes, and which was escorted by several warships, was circled for about 25 minutes by one of our unmanned planes. The unmanned plane filmed and transmitted the footage. Later, its commander ordered all the planes to be removed from the deck of the aircraft carrier. He even gave an order to hit the unmanned plane, but they were unsuccessful. This unmanned plane returned safe and sound to the coasts of the Persian Gulf.

[...]

Obviously, what we did was a response to the fact that more than five unmanned planes were sent into Iran by the Americans or other foreign occupation forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We got hold of those unmanned planes. They did not take responsibility for this operation. [Our operation] was a response to their sending unmanned planes into Iran. This is customary, and we did not violate any international law. However, we have shown them that they are very vulnerable. Even their aircraft carriers and other warships are vulnerable." Middle East Media Research Institute''

The fact is that this is total fabrication - the date claimed is interesting in that the Reagan and her stike group were not even in the gulf at the time!

The Youtube link is broken as it has been removed for a Terms of Use violation. Does anyone know what was on the video? Righteous9000 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First picture on the article while ship is in port....
Anyone know what port the Reagan is in when that picture was taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.58.61 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That picture was taken during the Reagan's South America cruise while moving homeports to San Diego. We were actually transiting the Straits of Magellan at that time, around the end of June 2004, if I remember correctly. Tspencer227 02:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

HMS Gotland
Doesn't this article need a section about it getting "killed" by the swedish submarine HMS Gotland? 217.210.224.224 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be advisable, although the information I have seen and particularly that found on the occurrence in the HMS Gotland article is lacking, but it somebody can relay information from a more reliable source then I say "Go for it!" --TheFinalFraek 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Missions
Hi everyone. The USS Reagan has been sent out on a few missions during its "lifetime." I think there should be some more talk about those, and some more descrptions. Happyme22 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning on working on that as soon as I have time to get all my notes together for dates, places, etc where we were- I was on the ship for a little over 5 years, from the pre-commissiong days through her first deployment. I'll start working on that soon. Tspencer227 (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Modified Nimitz Subclass?
This ship has sufficient differences to call it a Nimitz sub-class. I think its deck angle is increased and it has 4 instead of 5 arresting gear engines. Plus the look of the island and the bulbous bow amongst other things. Yet someone has considered it a Teddy Roosevelt variant. Why is that? WikiphyteMk1 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it may have to do with the modular construction. The first 3 Nimitz- class carriers were constructed traditionally (with a keel laid down, to which frames were welded to), while Theodore Roosevelt and following ships were assembled from subassemblies fabricated at another part of the shipyard, then joined in the drydock. Tspencer227 01:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not in accord with the catbox listing a "RR" subclass. Whereas GHW Bush is significantly different from her predecessors, RR is pretty much the same as CVN 71-75. (That's not the same thing as "identical"- they're all a little different.)  I would vote for moving RR to the Rosie subclass and setting up the GHWB subclass. Solicitr (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Golden Anchors
The USS Ronald Reagan's webpage refers to the ships "Golden Anchors" that one belonged to the USS Ranger. Does anyone have more information on this? Are they real gold, plated, or painted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.54.114 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The anchors did come from USS Ranger, yes, but they're not plated or real gold. A ship in the U.S. Navy will be awarded "Golden Anchors" for high retention (lots of people re- enlisting/ extending in the naval service), and the anchors are then subsequently painted gold by the BM's or the shipyards.

Tspencer227 (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"was the first ship to be named after Reagan"
So, are there other US navy ships called the Ronald Reagan, or is this just a misleading statement? Mycroft7 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it means that it is the first - and only as far as I am aware of - US Navy ship named for President Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that language had been there since like 2003. I've rewritten the lead to, in part, do away with that misleading phrase. Maralia (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

newest?
Ain't this one the newest us aircraft carrier? USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) see wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.229.25 (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, because the USS George H.W. Bush has not been commissioned into service yet. I believe that will happen sometime in 2009. The source talking about the USS Ronald Reagan as the newest aircraft carrier is a recent source from May 2008 as well. Happyme22 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where was Ronald Reagan himself
at the time of christianing? Was he ill? I mean it is a really great honor to be a namesake of a ship which is almost as tall as the Empire state building and cost $ 4.3 billion besides the symbolic meaning of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier... If I would haven been R.R., I'd have been present... --77.4.40.35 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good question that many might not know the answer to. President Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, a neurologial disorder which causes brain cells to die, in 1994. As you may know, it is a common disease. After the diagnosis, Reagan largely retreated from public life. If you want more details, I would recommend reading Ronald Reagan. In any event, he was indeed ill and his wife, Mrs. Nancy Reagan, filled in for him and christened the ship. Happyme22 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks (I did not recall that), maybe it can be mentioned in the article. --77.4.40.35 (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle flag
Could anyone put a text about the battle flag in the article and add the image? Thanks, --Scriberius (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. I also would like to know if that is in fact a Battle ensign and "Battle flag" a synonym.

The flag in question is referred to as a battle flag. The symbology on USS Ronald Reagan's battle flag draw from Ronald Reagan's experience as an enlistedman in the US Army. The "B" and "322" signify his membership with Troop "B" in the 322nd Cavalry. In 1937, Reagan starred in the motion picture "Sergeant Murphy", a movie featuring the Army's 11th Cavalry Regiment. The red and white background of the flag are from the 11th Cavalry's original guidon and unit patch. The crossed swords come from the emblem worn on the covers (hats) of early Cavalry officers. Source: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/battle_flag.html. If someone would like to write that into the article, be my guest; otherwise I'll take a crack at it later. I'm still fairly new to writing Wiki articles. Bdoe (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeport Change
I noticed as I scanned over the article that an incomplete date was given for the ship's arrival to NAS North Island. USS Ronald Reagan arrived at its homeport on the morning of 23 July 2004. I went ahead and completed the date in the article. Although I pulled the date from memory (I served onboard from April 2003 through July 2007), the date can be verified here: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/faq.html Bdoe (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Displacement
What is the source for the displacement figure? The Navy, just to keep us confused, now lists displacements in short tons (whereas Treaty ships were listed in long tons). The conversions from tons to metric tons makes that clear. I cannot find the source here for the displacement, but other sources give the Nimitz class displacement at 97,000 tons, and 89,000+ metric tons, which shows the 97,000 figure is short tons. Kablammo (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Living presidents
The article devotes some space to the fact that the carrier was named for a person living at he time, and pointedly states that the ship was the first carrier to be named for a then-living president. As such, I believe it is necessary to keep this fact in context by noting that the USS Jimmy Carter was the first USN ship naval vessel to be named for a living president, especially since we already have a transcluded list of several ships named for living people. If one part goes, so should the other. - BilCat (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is a an article about the USS Ronald Reagan, not Jimmy Carter. The Reagan was the first ship named for a living former president; if readers want to read about other ships named for former presidents, including the first submarine, they can visit pages elsewhere. The statement is not relevant to this article's subject. Happyme22 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All the junk about vessels named for living people is relevant, but the first naval vessel of any kind to be named for a living US president is not? Again, either it's all relevant, or none of it is. You can't have it both ways. - BilCat (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This entry contradicts itself in the Intro and Naming sections.
The Intro section states "Upon her christening in 2001, she was the first ship to be named for a living former president." The Naming section states "Ronald Reagan was the first aircraft carrier to be named in honor of a living former president.[4] However, the first naval vessel to be named for a living former president was the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), a submarine. Unlike most of the other men honored by inclusion in this group, Reagan was not associated with the United States Navy apart from his term as Commander-in-Chief, though one of his key initiatives in office was the 600-ship Navy program."

According to the Naval Register Reagan was named first http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CVN76.htm on 10 March 2001 and Carter was named later http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/SSN23.htm on 13 May 2004 assuming we use the christening date as the date of naming. Additionally, the contract for Reagan was awarded about 18 months before that for Carter.

Unless someone has a more authoritative reference for the dates I will make the following changes to the Naming paragraph: "Ronald Reagan was the first US Navy warship and the first aircraft carrier to be named in honor of a living former president.[4] Unlike the other two men honored by inclusion in the former group, Reagan was not associated with the United States Navy apart from his term as Commander-in-Chief, though one of his key initiatives in office was the 600-ship Navy program."

The other two men mentioned are Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. Both served in the US Navy before becoming President. Righteous9000 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One, the USS Ronald Reagan is the first ship (surface vessel) named for a living president, but the USS Jimmiy Carter is a submarine, not a ship.


 * Two, the Chrisenting date is not always (if ever) the date when the name is anounced. SSN-23 was named USS Jimmy Carter on April 27, 1998, per this source. I'm not certain exaclty when the USS Ronald Reagan was named, but it was certainly after GW Bush took office in 2001.


 * So, no, there isn;'t a contradiction, though if you have any suggestions for clarifying the info to avoid the confusion, I'm sure that would be helpful. - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that I used the term warship. A submarine is a type of warship. [PBS Warship Series ] The term warship is also included in the title of the Tom Clancy book about the 688 class. He had the US Navy's blessing for the book so I doubt he'd call a submarine a warship if the US Navy didn't see it that way as well.


 * Additionally, I found this from the Congressional Research Service at the Open CRS website: [Link ] I fixed the link and citation here. "Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships. For example, one source states that “[the aircraft carriers] CVN 72 and CVN 73 were named prior to their start [of construction], in part to preempt potential congressional pressure to name one of those ships for Admiral H.G. Rickover ([instead,] the [attack submarine] SSN 709 was named for the admiral).” Another example was a rivalry of sorts in Congress between those who supported naming the aircraft carrier CVN-76 for president Truman and those who supported naming it for president Reagan; the issue was effectively resolved by a decision announced by President Clinton in February 1995 to name one carrier (CVN-75) for Truman and another (CVN-76) for Reagan."


 * Therefore, the USS Ronald Reagan was named in February 1995 about three years before Carter.Righteous9000 (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that the text you were disputing uses the term "ship", not "warship", and that is what I was responding to, to show that it was correct as written. As to the congressional record piece, it kind makes the naming anouncement in 2001 stupid and unnecessary. We need further clarification on this. FAS is not exactly known for its accuarcy. By the way, the link you added for the FAS site is actually the PBS site. Do you have the correct link?


 * Also, by law, the Secretary of the Navy names ships, not Congress. Congress does respect that, and has made "suggestions", but it's still the SecNav's call, legally. That's probably why most sources use the 2001 date. Finally, how do you now the JImmy Carter was not chosen by Congress before 1995? We'll have to look into that too! - BilCat (talk)


 * No, the Secretary of the Navy has a traditional authority for naming new ships. He does not have any legal or regulatory basis for it that I could find in Title 10. The closest item I could find is the following: TITLE 10 Subtitle C PART IV CHAPTER 633 § 7292 (c) "The Secretary of the Navy may change the name of any vessel bought for the Navy." This is intended for ships that have already been constructed and serve or served another owner, not new construction for the US Navy. There is no indication that any Secretary of the Navy has attempted to change the name of CVN-76 at any time. Therefore, if, in February 1995, President Clinton says that CVN-76 is going to be called the USS Ronald Reagan then that's the name of the ship since the President is senior to the Secretary of the Navy and no SecNav, no matter how partisan, would change such an announcement by the President. Additionally, this article in the Washington Post dated 05 February 1998 indicates there were several objections to renaming the Washington National Airport to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport including the fact that "the next Nimitz-class aircraft carrier will be christened the U.S.S. Reagan". This article is also prior to 08 April, 1998 date in your cited article. Hence, Reagan was named first since there would be no reason to include the naming of CVN-76 as an objection to the naming of the airport if it hadn't already happened and been announced publicly. You also seem to be confusing the christening and launch of Reagan on 04 March 2001 with the announcement of the name. The name would have been decided upon a great deal more than 44 days before the christening which would have been the amount of time between George W. Bush taking office on 20 January 2001 and the christening. Righteous9000 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I also found this link which shows a picture of Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Newport News CEO Bill Fricks with a picture a model of the USS Ronald Reagan taken in May 1996. Why have a photo op and present President Reagan with a model of the ship if it isn't going to be named for him? That seems awfully cynical. Also, a submarine is a type of ship, though no one in the submarine service would call it that. Check the byline on this website for the USS Nautilus museum. It clearly states ship. The usage of the word 'boat' appears to come from an older term undersea boat which references the fact that submarines used to be launched from larger ships and such vessels were usually called boats. Therefore, the terms ship, warship or even combatant can be used interchangeably for both Reagan and Carter. I used warship to include submarines in my edit to ensure people reading the article understand that Reagan is the first US Navy warship, of any kind, to be named for a living former President. Righteous9000 (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to get into the guts of this dispute, but there are a couple of points I'd like to make. Firstly, the Navy does not generally own ships under construction, they are transferred to the Navy after acceptance trials and so the provision that the Secretary may change the name of any ship purchased for the navy applies even to new ships. Also, I think that although it is common to use "USS xxxx" for a ship under construction, I think you will find that USS strictly does not apply until the ship is commissioned.  Secondly, the use of "boat" to describe submarines goes back to before the term "unterseeboot" which is the German word I think you were looking for.  "Undersea boat" is a non-idiomatic translation of the German word that has never been used by anyone so far as I am aware.  As an ex-naval officer myself, I never heard submarines called anything but boats by submariners, but obviously that is OR. -  Nick Thorne  talk  12:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that a submarine is a type of ship. Another poster claims that is not the case and is using that to counter my corrections to the article. I am fully aware that the US Navy refers to them as boats. Though it appears that the term boat was used in the US since at least the time of the Hunley. I also know that the Navy does not own a ship while it is under construction. This is why I proposed using the christening date instead of the date of a naming announcement regardless of who makes it. Even if we use the commissioning date Reagan is first. I know the name dates from 1995 as I have shown here. I also remember when I was attending the USMMA at the time and, during the spring of 1995, a classmate of mine remarked that he wanted to be assigned to the USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 when he joined the US Navy. I know I can't use that as a reference but my previous posts include verifiable sources and point to the 1995 date as well. Righteous9000 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Commanding officers
This section was removed with a reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looking at that section, I can't really figure out which of the 6 points listed there applies? Any ideas? -- 签名 sig  at  17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially #5 - if the COs are notable, then they can and should be mentioned in the prose of the article. More broadly speaking, the explanation of the heading is relevant as well: "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion..." Consensus at WT:SHIPS was to avoid lists of COs in ship articles, and to incorporate that information into the prose when it's suitable (mainly when the captain is notable or if you're quoting them - see for instance SMS Von der Tann, which includes a reference to one of her captains, Hans Zenker). Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 5 just refers to events. As all of CVN-75's COs are likely to get articles in Wikipedia, the comparison with SMS Von der Tann doesn't stand either.
 * It's a frequent misconception that Wikipedia prefers lists in prose form. -- 签名 sig  at  06:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In other Media
I'm not sure what kind of section name it should be or how it should be formatted... but anyway, this ship (or a representation of it) appeared in the first episode of Surface. Is this something that would often get noted on pages of real world ships? I see it being done in some instances, but not other, so I was curious. --Terran Officer (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Date formats
This page currently has date formats in a mix of MDY, DMY and YMD. I was adding some references to one section and made the dates all month-day-year or 'US style' as I would expect for a page about a US ship. I'm not sure what the predominant format is, but if anyone has a tool for this they may consider making all dates consistent..--220  of  Borg 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consistency is the key and is supported by the guideline WP:DATEUNIFY. A few people prefer the dates formats on US military articles to be in the DMY format, which they say is supported by MOS:DATETIES. Unfortunately the casual reader/editor of these articles, which are typically American in these cases, commonly use the MDY date format. That is why so many dates are in that format. I've tried to rectify this situation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the past. I've argued that most readers of these articles will be more accustomed to using the MDY format, since its an American article and American articles should use the more common format for that country. But as I said, some feel that since the military sometimes uses the DMY format internally, that Wikipedia articles MUST use the DMY format as well, despite the fact, as I said, the casual reader/editor would normally be accustomed to the MDY format. I find the logic to use DMY format to be seriously flawed, but editors who are not from the United States anyway usually "consensus" up against any change to that MOS.-- JOJ Hutton  16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, consistency is indeed the key. The great majority of dates in this article are in DMY format, I have amended the remaining dates to use that format for consistency. You may not like the current consensus, but until that consensus is changed we you should abide by it.  Making piecemeal changes in individual article such as that by 220 of Borg made to this article today is not the way to change consensus, it more likely to get an editor you identified as as a POV warrior.  If you believe the consensus is wrong you should make your case in the appropriate place - in this case the MOS talk page. -  Nick Thorne  talk  00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No I don't agree with the current "Consensus". That is well known. But I have NEVER edited this article at all. So I take offense to your accusation that I am "making piecemeal changes to an individual article", and that I am somehow a POV warrior, or at least could be identified as one. I don't edit against consensus, so your offensive accusation is a personal attack on me. In fact I'm pretty angry with what you said and how you said it.-- JOJ Hutton  01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread who made the edit today. Amended my comment to reflect. - Nick Thorne  talk  03:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Referring to ship as "she" or "her"
Referring to a ship as she or her is unnecessary personification. Wikipedia's goal is to present the truth, and the truth of the matter is that ships have no reproductive organs. English, unlike some other languages, does not tend to assign gender to most words. For example objects such as television, table, apple, car, shovel, lamp, and so on have no gender assigned.

Neutralizing a word's gender also denotes equality between the sexes. For example: Police Officer instead of policeman, Fire Fighter instead of fireman. Referring to an object as a "she" is objectifying to women. After all would it make sense to refer to the ship as "he"? I recommend that the ship be referred to as "it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartianColony (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Apps are referred to as she or her. End of argument. Please stop making identical posts to multiple ship articles' talk pages. -  Nick Thorne  talk  22:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Battle Flag
My grandmother made the battle flag for the USS Ronald Reagan. She actually had to make two. There is always a backup. The company that was asked to make the battle flag backed out because they were also making the American flag for the commissioning. My cousin was the Assistant Navigator at that time, so she suggested her "Aunt Betty" to make the flag. My grandmother obliged to this great honor, and set out to work on this vigorous task. She had little time to make the two flags because of the short notice from the company that originally had signed up to make it backed out. She hand made every piece to that flag, and she even made Nancy Reagan a miniature sized flag. I was lucky enough to be able to assist my grandmother in making it. She will forever be knows as "Bettsy Ross of Wyalusing". Her name is Betty Poe Krauss, and her art signature is Betty Poe. Poe being from her first marriage to her late husband. My second cousin "Former Assistant Nagivigator of the Reagan", Connie Avery. I was lucky enough to have gone to the commissioning, and it was that time that I sparked a true interest in joining the service. Unfortunately I can not join, but I always make my contribution to the service, and I honor those who serve. Ced37pitt (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

General Characteristics
I believe that a review of the general characteristics would improve this article.

For example, listed in the armament is the Close-in Weapons (sic) System or CIWS. This particular ship was not designed or built with any CIWS, and photographs (original research) do not indicate whether any were added via later retrofitting. Unlike other CVNs, the quantity is not listed, missing, (perhaps because it was zero).

Also, CVN-76 had four (4) then-new Mk 9 Tracking Illuminator Systems (TIS), zero (0) former Mk 91 GMFCS, zero (0) former Mk 95 illuminator systems, and two (2) RAMS's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)