Talk:USS Stark

Untitled
This entry has major shortfalls. This a significant enough subject that it deserves a significant expansion. The Stark is perhaps known best for the attack, which ought to go into the first paragraph. It's missing significant details of the attacks, particularly the idea that it was the fuel of the missiles that created the largest problem. I'm going to link to the formal report and hope someone else takes this up before I get around to it. Other stuff: http://usscoontz.tripod.com/id23.html http://www.ussstark.com --Thatnewguy 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note, as a good family friend of mine was an Officer on the Stark and had just left the bridge when the ship was struck by the Iraqi Exocets. The following statement from the original wiki article is misleading and needs clarification:

"Shortly after being routinely challenged by the frigate at around 22:10 the fighter fired two Exocet ASM missiles."

As it was explained to me by my friend, Iraqi fighters regularly flew intercept missions in the gulf and "painted" US warships by radar. Nothing ever came of these radar locks, and it was more or less perceived to be a routine non-hostile occurrence by both sides. I hesitate to use the word "game", but encounters of this nature were relatively routine and generally weren't considered to be a threat by either side. An Iraqi fighter would lock onto the ship, the ship would lock onto the aircraft, and the aircraft would disengage and break off until the next time.

In the events leading up to the attack on the Stark, this same pattern of radar banter took place, except that this time, the Iraqi Mirage unloaded the Exocets straight into the Stark's hull. My friend believes that there was no error on the part of the Iraqi aviator, and that he had every intention of firing on the ship. While this is conjecture on my friend's part and is certainly open for debate, the later claims by the Iraqi aviator that he thought the Stark was an Iranian oil tanker seem suspect at best, given the routine and specific encounters between US Naval Warships and Iraqi fighter aircraft in the gulf at the time.
 * Be bold Make the change that you think should be made. Jinian 17:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

explain what "routinely challenged" means
"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. &mdash;Dgiest c 08:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent 5 years on board the U.S.S DeWert FFG-45, same class of ship as the Stark. i deployed to the Persian gulf in Dec. of 1988. During the time period the Stark and we were there, Iran and Iraq were fighting a war and were shooting at tankers and mining the gulf. therefore the gulf was considered a war / hostile zone. It is standard procedure for any U.S navy ship operating in international waters to "routinely challenge" any air, surface or subsurface vessel approaching it. this merely consists of the ship transmitting over various radio frequencies that the vessel is approaching a us naval warship operating in international waters and to identify itself and state its intentions. This is done prior to taking any action against the vessel approaching (including engaging with weapons)if time allows for the challenge to be issued.Roberts114 (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Way Off
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Punishment of the Iraqi pilot
"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)
 * 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)

I have a question. Could someone explain to me why a pilot who flies a Mirage aircraft specifically designed for anti-shipping-strikes, who- as a result of the fact that the Iranian navy only had three ships warranting an anti-shipping-strike, which effectively never even left port for the duration of hostilities with Iraq- spend his time as a pilot in exercises and on patrols, has the capacity to find a target the size of a frigate, while the navigational skills of Iraqi pilots in general were so refined that they could not even find a target the size of Teheran ? --If I remember correctly, then those very navigational skills were the very reason why AWACS- aircraft were sent to Saudi-Arabia as part of the clandestine support for Iraq during that conflict. They guided Iraqi bombers to their targets acting as radio-beacons. 86.41.214.219 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

TimeZone
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)

CIWS?
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)


 * 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)

The official investigation report {dead link} try JAG.Navy.mil declassified (16-May-20110) indicates the CIWS was in Standby mode, a non-firing mode which I believe means it was not searching for targets, and that the STIR missile fire-control radar was obstructed by the forward mast because of the ships heading. The Exocet's struck the forward-port side (from approx 330 relative to the ship pdf page 9), if the STIR was in a cutout its possible the CIWS was also obstructed, or close to it since it is on the aft part of the ship. I'd say that even if the CIWS was in the right mode, it may have been a close call as far as coverage goes. After reading the investigation report, it seems they had a number of problems with the CIWS anyway. They hadn't done a pre-action calibration because of a misunderstanding as to where they could test fire and the CIWS was intermittently failing a system test (SOT 5, whatever that is). In addition to that, the CIC watchstander in charge of operating the CIWS by remote control was on a bathroom break during the initial stages of the engagement. Since he died in the attack he was probably in or near the berthing area that was hit, and not available to take or recommend defensive action assigning the STIR or activating CIWS. He was replaced by another operator moments before the missiles hit, but the STIR cutout problem prevented a decent track on the aircraft and prevented detection of the inbound missiles. --Dual Freq 00:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (Reworded --Dual Freq 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC))


 * 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)


 * 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)

Reactions of Iraqi and US governments
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).

i seem to recall there was a lawsuit against the Navy and DoD on this, that in part alleges the stark command staff had been pulled off a few days prior and the stark was sailing with unseasoned junior officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.172.36 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Investigation" section
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)

New article Glenn R. Brindel. Retired at a reduced grade due to lack of time in service per The New York Times. Navy Forgoes Courts-Martial for Officers of Stark. July 28, 1987. --Dual Freq 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The USS Stark incident
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)


 * 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)


 * 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." 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)

Name spelling
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)

Mirage F1 or military Falcon ?
You will finds three types of sources for this plane : Among them, Gal Ahmad Sadik, former IrAF Gal and author of many books about warplanes. The Falcon did have two pods. Make your choice ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * sources stating "warplane" quite prudently
 * sources stating Mirage F1, generally with no explanation
 * sources stating Falcon, adding that the Mirage F1 EQ5:
 * did not have the necessary range
 * was fitted with only one Exocet missile, whereas 2 were fired by a single plane.


 * The JAG report says it was an F1. It would be nice to know the location of the attack to calculate the range needed. It took off from Basra which is next to the gulf. The F1 can carry two Exocets according to its own article. So, it sounds possible and the military says its so. IMO, that part needs to say in the article.


 * I found a reference to it being a "Iraqi Falcon 50" ("Ship Strike" ISBN 1853107735) but not sure if this person is just guessing. Maybe we can add " (although some believe it to be an Falcon)" to the text. --MarsRover (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've talked with one of Falcon 50 pilots and he confirmed that they are who did hit the USS Stark. I've written all the details here http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=663 41.46.94.66 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Humm.. it is hearsay at best. And I doubt an Iraqi pilot would be speaking flawless English. --MarsRover (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an "Official Website of the United States Navy... produced by the Defense Media Activity for U.S. Navy Office of Information" that says it was a "Dassault Falcon 50 modified business jet". Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And here's a good one. I think we should go with this, it's a good compromise. "Iraqi F-1 Dassault Falcon 50". Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Only attack againt US navy?
The anti-ship missile article right there sez "The first anti-ship missiles, which were developed and built by Nazi Germany used radio command guidance, and these saw some success in the Mediterranean Theater in 1943 - 44, sinking or heavily damaging several ships, such as the Italian battleship Roma or the cruiser USS Savannah. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.220.243 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010

Need to balance detail
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). Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content re Dassault Falcon 50
This edit, saying  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 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) I've done some more searching and have found more sources mentioning this. One of them is Look at the content startinng with what I've highlighted on page 408 there. As I say, I have no idea what might or might not have actually happened, but it looks to me as if the existence of the Falcon 50 narrative has sufficient weight for inclusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I've found another reasonable-looking source. That has a section titled The Stark Incident beginning on page 306. The pages immediately following that are not previewable online, but I've looked at an e-book version of that source. It says there, "... It turns out that the aircraft that fired at the Stark was not a Mirage, but a French-made Falcon 50 transport aircraft that [...] As a stop-gap measure, the Iraqis had then modified two Falcon 50s with the F1's firing radar and control systems. One of the Falcons was fully equipped to carry Exocets, [...], and gives more detail which I have not requoted here. Again, it looks like this meets inclusion criteria of DUE. Unless there is objection, and if nobody else does it before I get to it, I'll probably add a section to the article about the existence of this alternative narrative. Discussion? Objection? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC (added info) Looking at this material related to this incident, I note that paragraph 2 on page 10/55 of the PDF (being page 2 of the Formal Report letter identified there as 5102, SER000/S-0487, 12 June 1987) is redacted. Looking at the copy of that report located here, I see that this paragraph is unredacred there and contains the information, "About ten minutes prior to being hit by the first Exocet, STARK detected emissions from a Cyrano IV radar correlating to an F1 Mirage fighter". This is probably too far down in the weeds of primary sources to mention in a WP article, and making a linkage in a WP article between this and the mention in the (Murray, Woods 2004) book mentioned above that the Falcon-50s had been fitted with Mirage F1 firing radar and control systems would be WP:OR. Having noticed it, though, I thought that I would make note of that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) (added info) I see here that there's still edit warring going on in the article over this. I'm not going to pursue that as an issue (the edit warrior is an anon with a one-use IP address). I've seen a couple of some other sources (AB CD ) with apparently relevant info, including photos showing Saddam Hussain pictured with a modified Falcon-50 housing what is said to be a Mirage-F1 nose cone with Mirage radar and fire control systems fitted to it. I've seen no discussion from anyone else here, so I'll probably put some content about this in the article next week.

Stopping work on this
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)


 * well, we miss you. 137.188.108.28 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)