Talk:USS Stark

message: "Shortly after being routinely challenged by the frigate at around 22:10 the fighter fired two Exocet ASM missiles."
What does this mean? This sounds like milspeak that the average person would not understand. Please elaborate.
: The article has no info on what (if any) IFF mode, if any, was in use. —Dgiest c 08:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  explain what "routinely challenged" means 

message: I'd suggest searching online for other accounts of the attack.  The book didn't even get my name spelled right, so has lower credibility with me.  You'll find plenty of the survivors out there to use as primary sources.
Both missiles struck in the same spot, in the hull, port side, just aft of the fore end of the superstructure.  The first warhead did not explode; it passed completely through the ship and struck the inside of the starboard hull without exiting.  That warhead was later removed by an explosives disposal team.  The second missile exploded immediately upon impact, leaving the huge hole in the port side hull.  Note that neither missile operated as designed; they were supposed to penetrate far into a ship and explode deep within it.
The two missiles dumped a total of around 600 pounds of propellent into the ship, and the resulting fires were devestating, far more so than the warheads.  The fires took over twelve hours to extinguish, and could not have been defeated without equipment and assistance from nearby ships.
Stark was towed back to Bahrain for temporary repairs, and later returned to the United States under her own power.
The Captain and two other officers were found to be at fault in the attack, but the crew as a whole was cited for "clear thinking, exceptional courage and extraordinary herosim" in saving the ship.  The two officers found at fault with the Captain were still awarded the Navy/Marine Corps Medal for their efforts and valor in the damage control.
Source:  FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ATTACK ON THE USS STARK (FFG 31) ON 17 MAY 1987; by Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group Two, Ser00/S-0487, 12 June 1987 (edited to be made unclassified)
If you're looking for Post Traumatic Stress patients, several can be found in this crew.
207.190.80.125 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a question for you: If Stark had a CIWS system did the R2D2 attempt to shoot down the incoming missile? And for the matter did Stark have any anti-missile missile systems that could have intercepted the vampire? TomStar81 02:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exocet is a fire and forget anti ship cruise missile. As a sea-skimming missile, it has a rocket motor burning solid fuel propellant, the warhead is activitated by a delay proximity fuse. The operational requirement for exocet at the design stage was to disable ships and not sink them. Hence the size of it and the adaptability of the design to be launched off of different platforms, e.g. ship, aircraft, land battery and submarine. The missile travels subsonically at 600mph, which means that the delay fuse, has to be very short if it is to detonate correctly inside the ship. From the information given the fuse setting was too long with the first missile, at 600mph that is 880ft in 1s. In the case of the second I would argue that this missile detonated correctly inside the ship, after the delay proximity fuse has wound down, when the head had punctured the ships side. At 600mph the missile travels: 22ft in (1/40)s i.e 0.025s. It is aparrent that the settings of the fusing was different in both missiles, although, they were fired from the same platform. This could be pilot error in the data transfers programming the missiles from the aircrafts weapons system. Aquizard 5:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way Off 

message: "According to Iraqi officials, the pilot who attacked the Stark was not punished. Though American officials believed he had been executed, journalist Robert Fisk, in his book The Great War For Civilisation, quotes an ex-Iraqi Air Force commander who says the pilot is still alive." This could use an explanation - why would one expect the Iraqi pilot be punished?--Nonpareility 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was during the Iran-Iraq war. The United States was not at war with Iraq at the time, and so the attack was most likely not authorized. ♠ SG →Talk 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Punishment of the Iraqi pilot

message: The times listed during the attack are meaningless w/o a timezone attached.  Can some one update?--J Clear 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TimeZone 

message: Just out of interest, why exactly did the CIWS not shoot down the Exocets? Although I have seen a source that says that no Phalanx system has ever intercepted and destroyed an incoming missile in a war time situation (SeaDart having destroyed the Silkworm(?) missle fired in the gulf war) TheMongoose 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think CIWS are left in an active state.  I'm guessing there's a good chance they'd lock up on approaching aircraft, such as the ship's own LAMPS, so are left in standby or off.  Ever see the movie Under Siege?  So if, as stated in the article, the Stark did not detect the Exocet launch, the CIWS would not have been enabled, thus never even attempted to destroy them. --J Clear 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a port bow view of USS Ford to give kind of an idea the angle the missile may have approached toward Stark. The pdf says 330° relative, so 30° off the bow on the port side, similar to the image. From this image you can see that the STIR is obstructed by the mast, as mentioned in the report, and it looks like a very poor angle for a CIWS engagement, depending on the altitude of the inbound missiles. Its a close call, they might have had a shot, certainly better odds if they had maneuvered as mentioned in the investigation pdf. --Dual Freq 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Higher Honor website Stark section,  says the first missile hit 8 feet above the waterline. I'm guessing the impact point must have been close to the cruising altitude of the Exocet. If that is correct, that would mean the camera angle on the Ford above should be a bit lower, making it even harder for the CIWS to shoot without the Stacks or the superstructure getting in the way of the bullets. --Dual Freq 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIWS? 

message: Any sources on reactions to the Exocet attack? Did the Iraqis apologise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions of Iraqi and US governments

message: I have moved the followed newly added (and ill-proofed) text here pending citations. Among other things, Brindel was a commander, not a captain, and was not demoted.
:Captain Glenn Brindel who just on year earlier been warned by Lieutenant Commander Chris Scoppa the damage control engineer of how they where susceptible to attack. And asked for more safety precautions on the different areas of the ship. After Captain Brindel had ignored a list of memo’s and letters, Chris Scoppa had a heated argument with the Captain, which ended in the court-martial of the lieutenant Commander for insubordination. Due to overwhelming evidence that the captain had ignored precautions and blatantly dismissed what the damage control officer said Lieutenant Commander Chris Scoppa was found not guilty and was reassigned to the N.A.T.O. position. After the bombing of the coal Captain Brindel was given serious attention due to the evidence of negligence brought forward in the court-martial of Chris Scoppa. Captain brindel was demoted and later retired from the navy.
PRRfan 12:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Investigation" section

message: Iran hit the stark, not Iraq. 
From Senate Resolution 82, May 5, 1997. 
"Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am submitting today a resolution to address a matter that I consider vital to our national security. I have here a picture of the U.S.S. Stark that was disabled 10 years ago by an Exocet missile fired by the Iranians. Thirty-seven American sailors were killed in this disaster."
65.183.163.148 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you and Mr. Bennett are in error. See, among every other credible source, the Navy's report on the matter. PRRfan 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the text from the Congressional record:
"Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am submitting today a resolution to address a matter that I consider vital to our national security. I have here a picture of the U.S.S. Stark that was disabled 10 years ago by an Exocet missile fired by the Iranians [sic; the missile was fired by Iraq]. Thirty-seven American sailors were killed in this disaster." http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1997/s970505b.htm Where is says "sic" is a correction that was inserted later. I think the error was intentional.--Two way time (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The USS Stark incident 

message: One question, SN Mark R. Caouette's last name is spelled Caouette in most news articles and in the investigation report. However, it is spelled Caquette on the :Image:USS Stark (FFG-31) memorial in Mayport.jpg (4th from top left side). Which is correct, and should it be changed here? Personally, I hope the memorial is spelled correctly since I think someone would have complained about a mispelling on a monument and the QU makes sense to me, but the bulk of the articles back the first spelling and there are virtually no hits for Caquette and Stark on google. --Dual Freq 00:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name spelling 

message: WP:Summary style level of detail re the missile attack incident needs balancing between the USS Stark (FFG-31) and the USS Stark incident articles, or perhaps the latter article should be merged into the former. Please discuss at Talk:USS Stark (FFG-31)#Need to balance detail. Thanks. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to balance detail 

message: This edit, saying  Removed conspiracy theory content caught my eye. The edit also removed the cite of this source to support the removed content. I see that this has been discussed in the #Mirage F1 or military Falcon ? section above, and I think I remember seeing it come up re this article on other occasions. I don't have any inside info or personal POV re this content, but WP:DUE comes to mind. Reliability of supporting sources is one criterion under DUE. The cite which was removed was to an article at the website of The National Interest; that article mentions this book as a source of information. I haven't looked at the book, but I did glance at this list of books credited to one of the authors. Offhand, this looks to me as if it might meet the "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" criterion of DUE for inclusion. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: well, we miss you. 137.188.108.28 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content re Dassault Falcon 50 

message: I apologize, but I'm going to have to stop work on this. It looks to me as if I've turned up sufficient sources to, at minimum, support the inclusion of a summary of the Falcon-50 attacker narrative as an alternative to the Mirage attacker narrative. However, it also looks to me that doing that would involve significant rewriting in this article and major rewriting in the USS Stark incident article, and I am not up to doing that. I have linked the online sources I've found above, but I'm going to have to back out of doing the rewriting. Apologies for that. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: well, we miss you. 137.188.108.28 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Stopping work on this