Talk:USS Simpson (FFG-56)

Armament

Those maintaining this page should update it to reflect deletion of the GMLS Mk.13 M4 following the retirement of the SM-1 missile. This change also removes the Harpoon capability.

Although you would need confirmation, I believe this ship has received (or is about to receive) Mk.53 NULKA decoys.

Rodger Simpson was one of the most heroic and intrepid destroyer men of WW.II. In addition, I can think of Francis X. McInerney, Frederec Moosebrugger, Jesse Coward and Earnest Evans, all of whose service reflect the highest traditions of bravery, leadership and science of the USN. They all deserve biographical pages for the record to be complete. W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundwork745 (talk • contribs) 05:38, August 4, 2006

Done... Supersquid 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WOW...

And I though *I* had too much time on my hands. Wikipedia is not a cruisebook...

Supersquid 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

unnecessary information

Lists of COs are unnecessary...

I disagree; a list of CO's and awards is relevant information and part of a ship’s history.--Liquidvelvet 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

List of citations are likewise unnecessary...

Putting every single deployment/action that the ship has done is unnecessary...

You have a good point here. --Liquidvelvet 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's great to be proud of your ship, esprit de corps is what makes the US Navy what it is. I proudly served five years on the Klakring and three years on the Hawes... yet I only add noteworthy information to the articles as appropriate. Wikipedia is not a cruisebook....

Supersquid 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected. In August 2006 alone there have been over 1,000 edits by one individual, posting from both anonymous IP's and his user ID.--Nobunaga24 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Missile battle

The text claims about Operation Praying Mantis that This surface to surface missile exchange was the first in world naval history. That's clearly a mistake as the first naval battle between surface combatants involving the use of SSMs was the Battle of Latakia which took place in 1973. --Victor12 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Be bold :-)

Supersquid 04:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, missel battle,no disrespect, take it from one that was there, we where the first. It is was with a guided missle. not just a missle. Doc, Helms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.46.225 (talk • contribs) 20:07, May 21, 2007

The Battle of Latakia involved guided missiles as well.[1] ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Necessary Information

Necessary information...

Several other naval battles may have used missiles, however, I would suggest that this was the first true modern day guided missile battle. Electronic contermeasures do not constitute a guided missile. I will not, at this point, reinsert the proclamation of first surface to surface missile exchange but I do believe it is relevant as the first U.S. NAVY surface ship to sink a enemy combatant after being fired upon by a likewise real guided missile. If anyone agrees with me feel free to edit the article. I also believe a true history of a ship should include CO's. I also believe an accurate portrayal of the ship can be reached by listing its commendations. Perhaps, the more relevant commendations should be expanded upon. Please do not be jealous because you were on a lousy ship sinking in its coffee grounds with broken down weapons systems. David Silver might be a bit vain but if you read between the lines he makes valid points which need references. Maybe instead of banning him other wikipedia members should help corroborate his assertions. (Bigfred105 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

You're a Wikipedian too. Feel free to find sources and summarize their assertions. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"One of only two"

• Simpson is one of only two currently commissioned vessels in the U.S. Navy to have sunk an enemy ship with her shipboard weaponry (i.e. not including aircraft.) [2] The others is the USS Constitution.

The source for this assertion goes to a page that says nothing at all about this assertion. It that the right link? If so what is it supposed to tell us? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The source tells us the ship is actively commissioned. You now have to look under naval reserve force active. This is a new status but the ship is active and commissioned. Perhaps you could redirect to the specific page as my www is limited. Thank you. The sinking of the Joshan is cited in the article and another reference would be duplicative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfred105 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The source just tells us that the two ships are commissioned. It says nothing about their combat history. For this particular assertion we need a source specifically saying that the Simpson is one of only two ships to have sunk an enemy ship. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if you go through the list of ships and find another one that has sunk a ship with shipboard weaponry and is commisioned. I would site myself but doing so would not be any fun. Bigfred105 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Porter sunk some pirate skiffs. Can't find a source for the Carter Hall.

Supersquid (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Porter and Carter Hall appear to have sunk boats, not ships. However, until we find a source that confirms the assertion, all we can say is that the Simpson, like the Constitution, sank an enemy ship using its shipboard weaponry. We can't say that tehy are the only two to have done so unless a reliable source says so. Doing our own research and deciding that no other ships sank enemy ships would be original research, prohibited by WP:NOR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but calling the Joshan a ship is kinda pushing it lol! I agree, though, that it'd be original research -- but isn't inferring that the Constitution and the Simpson are the only currently commissioned ships that've sunk a combatant considered original research anyway? The NVR just states ship's statistics (weight, dates, etc), doesn't mention combat stats (from what I've seen). I suggest that the entry is pulled. Ditto with the Suez Canal transit statement. I've looked and looked, but can't find a supporting statement.

I dunno, but it seems like this article gets a LOT of "Simpson first for this" and "Simpson first for that." Part of it is from that Silver guy's megalomania, I believe (personal opinion). Hate to say it, but frigates are the bastard children of the Navy. Unless they get blown up (Stark and Sammy B. Roberts) they don't get a lot of news coverage. Hell the Klakring (FFG-42, my first ship) was the first ship to enter Croatia since the birth of the nation, but I can't find a reference for it ANYWHERE, except for the cruisebook (which I lost lol).

Supersquid (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"One of only four"

• Simpson is one of only four presently commissioned ships in the US Navy known to have sunk an enemy vessel with her shipboard weaponry (as opposed to aircraft). The others are USS Carter Hall (LSD-50), USS Porter (DDG-78), and the USS Constitution.

We still don't have a source for this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be you were all on FFG'S which served in the Persian Gulf but never received any recognition. Did Jesus exist? I can never prove that but I can tell you the USS Simpson sank the Joshan and there is no other factual evidence that any other actively commisssioned ship has done so within the paremeters of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfred105 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't prove that Jesus or Augustus lived (or didn't live) either, but I can provide numerous sources that make those assertions. A claim like this should be reported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We can source the Constitution through it's DANFS history and the ship's exploits in the War of 1812. The others I'm not so sure of. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What we need is s source that ties both ships together in this way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a rather contrived inclusion criteria. Joshan, a 47 meter long PT boat, was sunk by combined fire from 3 ships. It seems inappropriate to assign sole "ownership" of the Joshan sinking to Simpson. Then there is the matter of excluding the other ships that sunk smaller "enemy vessels". We also do not know if there are other ships that have sunk boats or ships during other engagements like counter drug ops in the Caribbean. Citing Constitution and assigning the Joshan sinking soley to Simpson then saying only two commissioned ships have sunk other vessels seems like original research since we don't know if the dozens of other commissioned ships have sunk vessels. For example, Porter apparently sank two "enemy vessels"[3], Carter Hall sank 3 "vessels",[4] and there are a number of ships involved in counter drug operations that may have sunk vessels after seizing them or after they attempted to flee. No where near the same size as Joshan, but they are enemy vessels. I think its adequate and appropriate to mention the actions of the ship and crew in Praying Mantis and the involvement in the sinking of Joshan, but I see no need to invent a trivia criteria so it can be a member of it. Since Simpson is a Naval Reserve ship,[5][6] I suppose now we can say it's the only commissioned Naval Reserve Forces ship to have sunk a ship, but that's OR too. It's simpler to remove the whole statement. --Dual Freq (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As a comprimise, since it appears to be general knowlage that other ships have sunk enemy combatants, but no source can be directly quoted, why not just simply state that 'Simpson is amoung a mere handful of commisioned vessels to have sunk an enemy in combat.' As to why the other two vessels that sunk the Joshan along with the Simpson, they have been decommissioned. Leaving Simpson as the sole remaining commisioned vessel from that particular action.XavierGreen (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Simpson (FFG-56). 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/20080625081910/http://www.cds14.surfor.navy.mil:80/default.aspx to http://www.cds14.surfor.navy.mil/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Date format

This is clearly an article about an American topic; why are UK style dates used? Matt Deres (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Matt Deres (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)