Talk:USS Arthur W. Radford

Primary Mission of this Destroyer

That the primary mission of this Spruance-class destroyer was anti-submarine warfare (ASW), was never mentioned. Besides her ASW helicopters, these ships were equipped with an ASROC ASW missile launcher capable of launching six missiles, plus three full reloads in a below-decks battery, for a grand total of 24 ASROC missiles, far more than any other type of ship carried, except the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which are of the same basic design, except optimized for anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) with their AEGIS radar and missile system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.34.78 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-07

Antennas

The plural of antenna, in ALL technical contexts, has been "antennas" ever since 1950 or even earlier, so I have made that correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.34.78 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-07

Heh. I missed that. You're correct, "antennae" refer to insects, not ships. -Amatulic 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters

The entire Spruance-class of destroyers, of which this was one, was designed and built from the beginning to carry two LAMPS III helicopters, especially for anti-submarine warfare. So, the statement about testing for possible employment of helicopters is seriously in error, and I have changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.34.78 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-07

Missile Launchers

This destroyer eventually carried a Mark-41 missile launcher. Installing this required a MAJOR overhaul, were the previous ASROC launcher and its battery of missiles was removed, and replaced by the Mark-41 launcher. Such a major change in this ship deserves to be mentioned and described - much more so that the diddly, day-to-day activities of the Arthur W. Radford, which are described. This was a major change of the ship and its armament. The Mark-41 was capable of carrying ASROCs, TOMAHAWK cruise missiles, and possibly STANDARD surface-to-air missiles, though those would have had to have been guided to their targets by a nearby guided-missile cruiser, destroyer, or frigate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.34.78 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-07

History

The paragraph on "Fourth deployment and interim" is factually questionable. At the very least it must be said to contain some exaggeration. I take issue with the following sentence in that paragraph:

After touching briefly at Bahrain Arthur W. Radford got underway on 14 March for the Persian Gulf radar picket station. Five days into her time on station, she responded to a "Mayday" from the Liberian-flag tanker Caribbean Breeze which had been attacked and set afire in the central Persian Gulf. The destroyer provided medical advice over the emergency radio channel and launched a helicopter to render assistance.

I can tell you, I was there onboard USS ANTRIM and ARTHUR W RADFORD was not. She may have talked on the radio and she may have launched a helicopter but I don't recall it arriving on the scene of the incident. The only aircraft that I recall were those of the USS ANTRIM and the Royal Omani Air Sea Rescue Service. (I may not have that title exactly accurate.) The USS ANTRIM provided on-the-scene medical emergency services, food, guidance and assitance to the crew of the MV CARIBBEAN BREEZE, and later provided navigational assistance. The Omanis medically evacuated injured personal. As I say, USS ARTHUR W RADFORD was not present.

In the interest of historical accuracy I feel this article should be corrected. But I don't wish to start any flame wars. I observe these particular facts in this article are not cited to any source material.

What is the preferred Wikipedia approach in this matter? Bill Cupp (talk) (cool ASCII art ship missing here) 22:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing the person who put it on wikipedia copied it from http://united-states-navy.com/dd/dd968.htm or similar mirror. To be honest, that text looks copied from some Navy source, possibly the ship's website or a cruisebook or similar such thing. It doesn't appear that it was made up by a random person who dropped it onto wikipedia. If you provide a source that conflicts with it, that would be enough to convince me one way or another. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

DANFS appears to be the original source http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a12/arthur_w_radford.htm I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time DANFS was wrong, but there would have to be a similar quality source saying it was wrong. The NHC has annual command histories sent from each ship's CO, the next step would be to locate the ship history and see what it said. Some of them are online, but the rest would have to be requested FOIA style, I think. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New additions

The Arthur W Radford is the DD-X test platform http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pnav/is_200303/ai_445224708

This was recently added to the article in an unencyclopedic way, which I reverted, but is notable enough as a source that it should be integrated into the article in an appropriate way. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fighting her way back to the channel in the teeth of the gale Arthur W. Radford sighted a capsized motor vessel, Dixie Lee II, 300 yards south of Thimble A Shoals Channel buoy 21."

Actually, we lost all navigation except the fathometer - which, read zero feet. Visibility dropped to zero. The underway Navigation detail immediately recommended to the OOD that we drop anchor to avoid running aground. We dropped anchor until navigation systems - radar and visual - could be restored. I can vouch for this because I was the Navigation detail bearing recorder. I was the one who reported zero fathoms under the keel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.159.197 (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Arthur W. Radford. 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/20110817224545/http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/News/Pages/Preparations_begin_for_Radford_sinking.aspx to http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/News/Pages/Preparations_begin_for_Radford_sinking.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)