Talk:USS Guardian (MCM-5)

message: Is there any indication that other ships with this name existed in the US Navy? I couldn't find any?
Davept 02:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See USS Guardian for other ships of the same name

message: the new york times today says the ship is wooden hulled - surely a typo on the times part ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is indeed wooden hulled, covered by fiberglass. The ship is a minesweeper, so the benefit of having a wooden hull is fairly obvious. Safiel (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: wooden hulled

message: USS GUARDIAN (MCM 5)
MINE COUNTERMEASURES SHIP
UIC:	21406
Class:	MCM 1		Fleet:	Pacific
Status:	Active, in commission		Homeport:	SASEBO, JAPAN
Date status changed:	12/16/1989		Berth:	
Maintenance Category:	
Force:	Battle Force		MARAD Type:	
Builder:	 PETERSON BUILDERS
Delivery Date:	12/05/1989
Award Date:	12/23/1983		Age (since delivery):	23.1 years
Keel Date:	05/08/1985		Commission Date:	12/16/1989
Launch Date:	06/20/1987		Inactivation Date:	
Age (since launch)	25.6 years		Decommission Date:	
Years from Commission to Decommission:	
Stricken Date:
Overall Length:	 224 ft		Waterline Length:	217 ft
Extreme Beam:	39 ft		Waterline Beam:	38 ft
Maximum Navigational Draft:	15 ft		Draft Limit:	12 ft
Light Displacement:	1256 tons		Full Displacement:	1369 tons
Dead Weight:	113 tons			
Hull Material: Wood hull, (except engines and equipment).
Number of Propellers: 2
Number of Waterjets:
Propulsion Type: Diesel Engines
Accommodations:	Officers: 8		Enlisted: 76			
Custodian:	US NAVY		Ships Program Manager:	470
Planning Yard:	 Puget Sound NSY, Bremerton, WA		
Last updated 03/20/2012
 
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/MCM5.htm
Bonvallite (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details on MCM 5 on naval resgitry 

message: The article says that "park rangers" contacted the ship and that their warnings were ignored and THEN the ship ran aground. That appears to be incorrect. The ship was hard aground on the reef at 02:00 local time. At 04:00, the local marine authorities or "park rangers" spotted them on radar and demanded to board the vessel. They were denied boarding, which would be standard procedure for naval vessels of most any navy, and THAT is when they were told by the ship's captain to take it up with the US Embassy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B02E:8BB7:3C58:D4A9:7A83:D905 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What one group says often contradicts what the other says.  174.62.69.11 (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2013
I just removed the sentence, "Before the grounding, Guardian was radioed a warning by park officials that the vessel had entered a restricted area." which gave as reference this TMO news release, which makes no mention of a warning prior to grounding. -- ToE 18:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact AFTER grounding 

message: Although the digital chart had an error, effectively they were navigating by GPS. Charts of the area warn that satellite-derived positions should not be relied upon and visual bearing should be used around the reef. It is self-evident that this was not done. Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Chart 

message: Should we include the cause of grounding? Like the failure of the digital maps and the warnings given by the watchers. The rehabilitation of the said site.
Bonvallite (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grounding additional details 

message: Although the statement "the damage area [was measured] at 2,345.67 square meters" is sourced, it seems completely bogus. It looks a lot like a place-holder value that somebody (the source journalist or the author of the documents it was based on) forgot to replace with the real value. Could they even survey to that precision? Quoting to two decimal places is essentially saying that they measured an irregular, contoured, underwater area about half the size of an American football field to within plus or minus the size of your palm. Dricherby (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage to reef