Talk:USS Bainbridge (DDG-96)

Untitled
Do not place any information that could possibly violate the Privacy Act on this article. The information that has been added to this page is not relevant to the article. If you feel the need to post any other information about this article use another forum and not Wikipedia.

Proposed Addition
USS Bainbridge (DDG 96) will deploy the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System (RMS). The first production Remote Minehunting Vehicle (RMV) was delivered to the U.S. Navy April 2007. RMS is scheduled for its first operational deployment aboard USS Bainbridge in late 2007.

Inclusion of RMS may be useful addition to DDG 96 entry. New article on RMS may also be of interest. MS2Multimedia 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory sentences
''In the future the ship is expected to carry the Remote Minehunting System, an unmanned craft that seeks out underwater mines to protect the ship and sailors. Currently USS Bainbridge is the only ship in the fleet with an operational Remote Minehunting System.''

These two sentences contradict each other. Can anyone resolve this? Does anyone know if the Bainbridge currently has it, or only planned to have it in the future? Aplomado talk 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The USS Bainbridge was testing a BETA RMS in early 2007, however, it broke, actually a few times, and the ship was on NATO deployment schedule, testing of the RMS was postposed. Bainbridge WAS the only ship to hold the technology, but only for testing purposes. In the future, ALL Navy Ships should carry the RMS for the sailors safety, however the Bainbridge ddg-96 was the only ship to physically have it, although not actively using in the capacity for protection. Hope that helps. 12.11.163.66 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to put it in, because I don't have an official source, but the RMS system is currently on hold, but is allegedly being developed on the LCS ships —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.69.210 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DN-SD-06-08197 is a 2004 image of the RMS, aboard USS Momsen (DDG-92). --Dual Freq (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * USS Pinckney, USS Momsen, USS Chung-Hoon, USS Nitze, USS James E. Williams and USS Bainbridge have visible superstructure differences to accommodate the Remote Mine-hunting System (RMS). --Dual Freq (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CIWS
Ships info page does not specifically state that Bainbridge has CIWS. All Flight IIA ships were built without one, however, I have seen pictures of 3 that had them added after the fact, but there is no definitive proof that this one has a CIWS added. Clearly, pictures from 2008 show there is no CIWS on the forward part of the ship. See Preble, Mustin, Chafee for 3 that had CIWS retrofitted. There is no CIWS forward or aft in this 2007 image of Bainbridge, that is not to say that one has been added, but there is no citation thus far that shows one or states that one was added. In any event, the navy will no doubt release new images of the ship once the deployment ends or as soon as the Somalia situation has passed. In the meantime, it is probably best to leave flight IIA ships without a CIWS unless there is proof that one has been added. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does say it has CWIS. All we have to go off of are the sources. Wacko Jack O   03:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Other armament includes the Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile, the 5"/54 gun with improvements that integrate it with the AEGIS weapon system, and the Phalanx Close-in Weapon System for self-defense.. This is from the Bainbridge offical site(ship info) Wacko Jack O   03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. It is a direct copy of the Navy fact file and in the "FLIGHT I/II" section. This is a FLIGHT IIA ship with special modifications for the remote mine system. It was not built with CIWS. There is no CIWS forward or aft in this 2007 image of Bainbridge. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be original research on your part. Wacko Jack O   16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All IIA are definitely planned to have CWIS by 2013 Wacko Jack O   16:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the ship had a CIWS installed aft between the 2008 deployment and the 2009 deployment. This would never have been an issue if they had a ship's info page that was actually solely about their ship. For example, they don't have a 5"/54 gun or a TACTAS either, but both are listed in that same flt I/II section. from 2009 image,  2007 image. Feel free to add it back, but there is still no text source that states the ship specifically has a CIWS and if you consider looking at a picture for an obvious feature (similar to what color is the ship painted) to be OR, than this is still OR. If you're concerned with the actual facts, then re-add it. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the Navy times link, I'll add that as a ref to the class article since it was clear CIWS was being added to some of the ships, but the rational was not clear. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, OR was not the right term. However, looking at the pictures here I don't see it as definitive proof against it if sources say different. For example, maybe it's not in view(in the picture). Also, maybe it was added afterwards. I was just trying to say, if there are sources that say different than the pictures here should not disqualify the sources. Wacko Jack O   23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Surflant fact file still shows the ship without CIWS, but it probably hasn't been changed since it was added last year. It also shows the 5”/62 and doesn't show TACTAS, so it seems more reliable and ship specific, unlike the generic DDG info published on the ship's website. One problem is the ship launch date, Surflant matches NVR, though this is not the first time I've seen the NVR wrong. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Launch dates
An anon pointed out that the launch dates are different between various sources. NVR shows launch date = 10/30/2004 as does Surflant's fact file (which probably sourced NVR). NavSource shows the correct date of November 13, 2004 and they back it with photos. Christenings and launchings are generally the same event, apparently there was no technical "launch", from the associated press article "OLD IRONSIDES" LEGACY LIVES - NEW USS BAINBRIDGE CHRISTENED, "the Bainbridge was floated in a dry dock instead of being launched" published in The Press of Atlantic City November 14, 2004. Does anyone have anything for the October 30 date that NVR uses? It is possible it is just an error, but it might be worth digging a bit deeper. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For ships built in a drydock, the launch date is the date of float-out, because that is when the hull enters the water for the first time. Christening can happen months later, for instance, some cruise ships are christened immediately before their maiden commercial voyage. -MBK004 22:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than my butchering of terminology, which date should we use here? The drydock floating and Christening appear to be Nov 13, 2004, but for some reason NVR lists Oct 30. Navsource is fairly compelling with dates and photos in this case, and the news story says Nov 13th as well. I've seen NVR wrong in the past, but I've seen NavSource wrong as well. Too bad the ship's company doesn't have a very comprehensive web site. I'm sure the plaque on the quarterdeck has the right date. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Somali Pirate
Hi, I just heard on the news yesterday that the USS Bainbridge was named after a navy captain who was captured by pirates and held for ransom. I think that is an interesting fact to bring out in the section on the Somali Pirate episode that just went down a couple of days ago.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good reference for the history of the Bainbridge see.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I see this info is already in the lead.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Bainbridge (DDG-96). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413182144/http://www.bainbridge.navy.mil/site%20pages/shipinfo.aspx to http://www.bainbridge.navy.mil/site%20pages/shipinfo.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Bainbridge (DDG-96). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614051524/http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNSD0608197&JPGPath=%2FAssets%2FStill%2F2006%2FNavy%2FDN-SD-06-08197.JPG to http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNSD0608197&JPGPath=%2FAssets%2FStill%2F2006%2FNavy%2FDN-SD-06-08197.JPG

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)