Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
9/17/2020 5:59:48 PM
Posted: 5/18/2007 2:51:57 AM EDT
Friendly barrage sinks Huron
Military exercise off Vancouver Island's west coast

Veronica Rhodes, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, May 15, 2007



HMCS Huron came under friendly attack and sank to the ocean floor in waters off Vancouver Island on Monday.
Department of National Defence

ONBOARD HMCS REGINA -- The first shot put a hole in the bow of the former HMCS Huron. And by about 1 p.m. yesterday, a decommissioned warship that played a key role in Canada's modern naval history had been sunk in waters 100 kilometres west of Vancouver Island.

The sinking, part of the Canada-U.S. military exercise Trident Fury, marks the first time the navy has sunk a ship with live ammunition in Canadian waters.

The Huron, an 1,118-metric tonne destroyer, was decommissioned two years ago.

Yesterday's exercise was designed to serve as a rare chance for military personnel to role-play the sinking of a large vessel.

Esquimalt-based HMCS Regina was given the first opportunity to fire on the Huron. Then the warship, stripped and engineless, faced artillery barrages from both Canadian and U.S. vessels and strafing from Canadian CF-18 jets.

Originally, the coup de grace was to be delivered via a torpedo from the USS Topeka submarine. But the artillery barrage had already sent the Huron 2,000 metres down to the bottom of the sea.

In about six months, a report about the sinking will be released. The report will help military personnel work more effectively in real situations, said. Lt.-Cmdr. Brent Travis of the Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre, which will analyze the results.

"From the data, various things can happen. We could change tactics, we could change various ways of doing things so essentially, we fight better," Travis said.

The Huron was commissioned in 1972. The destroyer, which was based in Esquimalt, served Canada in major roles, including blockade patrols in the 1991 Gulf War and the interception of Chinese migrants in 1999.

More than $4 million was spent cleaning and dismantling the ship before the navy could get an Environment Canada permit to sink her.

Equipment, weapons and all other military systems were removed, along with storage containers, flotation devices, radiation devices, mercury gauges, refrigerant containers, fuel tanks, loose paint and flaking rust.

Then the Huron was towed out to sea off the west coast of the Island, a process that took two days. It took only a couple of hours to sink her.

Trident Fury is one of the largest joint military exercises in Western Canada, bringing together eight warships, one submarine, 40 aircraft and more than 2,000 military personnel from Canada and the United States. The exercise wraps up Friday.


Sinking a war ship not always a precise science
 
Veronica Rhodes
Leader-Post

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

ONBOARD HMCS REGINA -- This ship's first shot on the former HMCS Huron put a hole in the bow of the decommissioned warship but whether everything went as planned has yet to be determined.

HMCS Regina was given the first chance to perform a live fire exercise on the former HMCS Huron, in an exercise referred to by the crew as Sinkex. Taking place about 100 kilometres off the coast of Vancouver Island, the firing on and subsequent sinking of the ship is considered the main event during Exercise Trident Fury, a nearly two-week-long exercise engaging both naval and air force elements from Canada and the United States.

HMCS Regina, Algonquin, Vancouver and Saskatoon are the four Canadian Pacific Fleet ships taking part, along with four naval vessels, a U.S. Coast Guard vessel and roughly 40 aircraft from both countries air forces.

Being sunk in 2,000 metres of water, the Huron is the first operational sinking of a Canadian ship in Canadian waters, according to the Canadian Navy.

Regina was given the first opportunity for firing on the ship on Monday and once all vessels completed their exercises, the plan was to clear the area in a 56-kilometre radius so the Huron could be sunk by a torpedo from the USS Topeka submarine.

But not all went according to plan. Early Monday afternoon, after the Canadian and American ships each took a turn firing on the Huron, airforce jets fired on the empty hull on their first pass. But when they returned for a second round, only 20 feet of the bow was visible above the waterline. Eventually, the ship went completely under.

Regina's first shot on the Huron came from the Sea Sparow missile followed by fire from the 57 mm Bofors gun and lastly, the close-in weapons system, known as CIWS.

Besides being an exercise for the Regina crew, Sinkex was also analyzed by a six-person team from the Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre, based in Halifax.

Lt.-Cmdr. Brent Travis from the centre explained that the warheads on the missiles were replaced with telemetric heads, which will transmit all data about the missile's operations before and after the launch. HMCS Ottawa was positioned near the exercise area in order to collect all the telemetry data.

Originally, four missiles were fitted with telemetric heads, but two were not transmitting data, so only two missiles were to be fired as part of the exercise. But Travis said that after the first missile was launched, the second did not fire and was deemed a dud.

Due to the warhead being replaced by the telemetric head, no explosion occurred when the missile struck the Huron and no one on Regina's bridge could visually see where, or if, the missile struck. But when the ship got closer, Travis explained that a hole that could only be made by a missile was spotted on the bow.

Now, whether the missile hit the target as planned will be determined in the next few days when an analysis and reconstruction of its launch is done.

"Visually we see the missile hit, but that may be a fluke. We don't know until we analyze the telemetry whether or not the missile actually held the target ... or if it didn't hold the target and just blindly impacted," explained Travis.

The priority for the centre's crew is to analyze the missile first. It is expected to report back in roughly three days. All other firings from Regina on the Huron will be assessed when the crew returns to Halifax.

"The most investment is in the missile test, the most money is spent. You want to make sure everything is in order so you don't waste that money, waste taxpayer's money, bottom line. So you concentrate on that so you get the most bang for the buck," said Travis, who could not say exactly how much one missile costs.

Not only is data collected from the telemetric heads of the missiles, but several cameras are set up outside and inside Regina to capture the entire exercise. George Csukly from the Naval Engineering Test Establishment was in charge of the photography and set up both still and video cameras in the operations room, outside the ship and in the bridge -- a large quantity of gear adding up to 1,200 pounds.

"If the warfare centre is on board for tests, I'm along for visual," Csukly explained, adding this was the 22nd live fire exercise he has captured on film for the centre.

After 34 years of service, the Huron was paid off March 30, 2005. While past warships that served their time were sold for scrap or sunk as artificial reefs, the Huron's use as a target during the live-fire exercise is believed to provide the most realistic operational training possible in peacetime.

In preparation for the sinking, the ship was stripped bare. Equipment, weapons and all other military systems were removed, along with other components such as storage containers, flotation devices, radiation devices, mercury gauges and heat sensors, refrigerant containers, fuel tanks and fuel lines.

Any loose paint and flaking rust was also taken off. Navy environmental departments worked with Environment Canada and other federal departments to ensure all laws and regulations were followed.

While the warfare centre had cameras just on Regina, Environment Canada had cameras on the Huron. Travis explained the cameras are specially designed to release and float to the surface when the Huron sinks and will be picked up later by Environment Canada staff.

Normally, the ship's crew would be briefed on the results of the missile analysis within days, but with Trident Fury wrapping up Friday and Regina heading back home to Esquimalt for the long weekend, the briefing will be postponed to a later date. In roughly six months, a written report on the firing will be ready.

"From the data, various things can happen. We could change tactics, we could change various ways of doing things so essentially, we fight better," Travis explained.

Based on his three years analyzing such exercises for the centre, Travis said Regina's crew performed well during the exercise.

"Regina was very well prepared for the firing. Their team was very knowledgeable about what they needed to do," said Travis.

"I think it all fell into place very well."
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 12:03:20 PM EDT
Bump for the pretty picture....
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 12:48:54 PM EDT
Is it normal to fire the CIWS shit to ship?

Also, I thought the Sea Sparrow was an AA missile - is it normal to fire one of those at another ship too?  Isn't that what we have the Harpoon for?




-K
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 12:52:00 PM EDT
Canada has a warship...?
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 12:57:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Canada has a warship...?


Had.  
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 1:01:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2007 1:04:58 PM EDT by LOW2000]

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Canada has a warship...?




Link Posted: 5/18/2007 8:52:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Also, I thought the Sea Sparrow was an AA missile - is it normal to fire one of those at another ship too?  Isn't that what we have the Harpoon for?


Well, you guys started it: Coral Sea (Or some such carrier) put a Sea Sparrow into the bridge of a Turkish destroyer...

Seriously, though, Sea Sparrow has a shorter minimum range, and is a lot faster than a Harpoon. It also has an entirely different warhead, so if you're more inclined to board the ship afterwards, use the Sea Sparrow's fragmentation warhead to shred the opposition and its equipment as opposed to using a Harpoon's unitary warhead to blast it to the sea floor.

NTM
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 9:00:57 PM EDT
FFS, they cant even get set-ups straight anymore. They should have made it look like the Chinese sunk it, giving us a good excuse to ramp up the production of more better newer ships to go kick some chicom ass. I'm disapointed, this is a big let down.

Link Posted: 5/18/2007 9:31:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCanuck:
FFS, they cant even get set-ups straight anymore. They should have made it look like the Chinese sunk it, giving us a good excuse to ramp up the production of more better newer ships to go kick some chicom ass. I'm disapointed, this is a big let down.



Dude, have you seen the Canadian military's shopping list in the last while? It's Christmas, Ramadan and Yom Kippur all in one.

NTM
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 9:35:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Also, I thought the Sea Sparrow was an AA missile - is it normal to fire one of those at another ship too?  Isn't that what we have the Harpoon for?


Well, you guys started it: Coral Sea (Or some such carrier) put a Sea Sparrow into the bridge of a Turkish destroyer...

Seriously, though, Sea Sparrow has a shorter minimum range, and is a lot faster than a Harpoon. It also has an entirely different warhead, so if you're more inclined to board the ship afterwards, use the Sea Sparrow's fragmentation warhead to shred the opposition and its equipment as opposed to using a Harpoon's unitary warhead to blast it to the sea floor.

NTM


The Frag off of them is nasty.  I can remember blowing up a SM-2 "crow" warhead, that warhead leaves frag that looks like chain-link fence all over the damn place for over a 100 meters.
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 9:37:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Is it normal to fire the CIWS shit to ship?


One of the newer mods to CIWS is a FLIR / TV camera and joystick control for ASUW*.






*ASUW = Anti-SUrface Warfare
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 10:06:21 PM EDT

More than $4 million was spent cleaning and dismantling the ship before the navy could get an Environment Canada permit to sink her.

Equipment, weapons and all other military systems were removed, along with storage containers, flotation devices, radiation devices, mercury gauges, refrigerant containers, fuel tanks, loose paint and flaking rust.


 Seriously.  I don't know what to say.
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 10:20:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2007 10:20:55 PM EDT by TheCanuck]

Originally Posted By TacticalPenguin:

Originally Posted By TheCanuck:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Canada has a warship...?


Still sore about that distance-record-killshot?



I'm sore about the fact i can't own a freaking MacMillan TAc-50



Sure you can, you just can't own it LEGALLY


I think it is prohibited by name....

Evil bolt action rifle

BobertBobson: I know i was thinkning the same thing. Why didnt they just fill up a suitcase with 4 million dollars, take a boat ride 100 kilometers off the coast, and dump it in the ocean.
Link Posted: 5/18/2007 10:23:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BobertBobson:

More than $4 million was spent cleaning and dismantling the ship before the navy could get an Environment Canada permit to sink her.

Equipment, weapons and all other military systems were removed, along with storage containers, flotation devices, radiation devices, mercury gauges, refrigerant containers, fuel tanks, loose paint and flaking rust.


 Seriously.  I don't know what to say.


They spent money to remove rust from a ship they intended on sinking? o.O
Link Posted: 5/19/2007 4:44:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Also, I thought the Sea Sparrow was an AA missile - is it normal to fire one of those at another ship too?  Isn't that what we have the Harpoon for?


Well, you guys started it: Coral Sea (Or some such carrier) put a Sea Sparrow into the bridge of a Turkish destroyer...

Seriously, though, Sea Sparrow has a shorter minimum range, and is a lot faster than a Harpoon. It also has an entirely different warhead, so if you're more inclined to board the ship afterwards, use the Sea Sparrow's fragmentation warhead to shred the opposition and its equipment as opposed to using a Harpoon's unitary warhead to blast it to the sea floor.

NTM


In 1992 USS SARATOGA (CV 62) fired two NATO Seasparrow missiles at one of her escorts, Turkish destroyer Mauvenet.  Here are the results.  I was involved in writing the final report, since I had been a Seasparrow test officer for Naval Sea Systems Command from 1987 to 1990:

Mauvenet

Here are the after action photos.  Note that the missiles hit exactly where intended, at the point of largest radar centroid return from the target, in this case, the bridge superstructure.

If the enemy vessel is within visual range (horizon), it is a good target for a Seasparrow engagement.  One of the advantages is that if he fires a missile at you while your bird is in flight you can engage it immediately.  The SAM is pretty fast (marginally supersonic) with a good first-shot Ph.  When I was playing sailor as Tactical Action Officer on a Spruance, my plan was to engage with Seasparrow and guns simultaneously.  At max range, my Ph wasn't that hot.  A missile hit in the superstructure as shown here is an almost assured mission kill.  Then you can kill the bastard at your leisure.

Anyway...





Oh...and the Turks wanted us to hang the officers and men responsible.  One day I'll 'splain what happened, if anyone is interested.
Link Posted: 5/19/2007 5:07:02 AM EDT

The Canadians seem to sink a lot of their own ships; at least I see more articles about that topic than the ships they buy or build.

Maybe it's a residual French thing goin' on up there.
Link Posted: 5/19/2007 5:36:38 AM EDT
LWilde:  What is the story?
Link Posted: 5/19/2007 5:43:33 AM EDT
where is the video of the live fire??
Link Posted: 5/19/2007 5:44:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 4:31:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2007 4:31:56 AM EDT by LWilde]

Originally Posted By Sandguard:
LWilde:  What is the story?


The NATO carrier battle group was operating in the Med.  Mauvanet was an escort, on the carrier's 240 at a few thousand yards.  It was the middle of the mid watch.

The carrier's senior officer on watch in CIC decided to conduct a no-notice drill for the missileers and his CIC crew.  The drill was unplanned so the missile crew thought they were engaging a real hostile suface unit.

The leaders in CIC were aviators, and unfamiliar with the missile system.  They operated the engagement system in a manner consistant with a real engagement.  Training mode was not used.

When the electronic and voice "engage order" was sent from CIC to the after port Seasparrow system, the operators followed correct procedures and prepared two missiles for firing.  When they were granted permission to fire, they did so.

The CO on the Mauvenet saw the missiles coming and warned his crew, but it had little effect.  Both missiles worked perfectly.  The CO and most of his bridge and CIC team were killed.

The Board of Inquiry found several factors:

-The missile crew was undermanned.  Junior personnel were manning the system and failed to ensure that the engagement was a drill.

-The CIC team was poorly trained in the missile system and inexperienced.

-Senior CIC watch team personnel used improper terminology.

-The drill was not properly planned and senior missile team personnel were not informed so that they could take necessary procedures to preclude a launching of a real missile.

-The missile crew arming and safing systems were all set to arm.  This requires a minimum of two positive manual actions to fire a missile.  The missile crew did both.  That should have been an alarm to anyone.

-The missile system was not in the test and training mode.  It should have been.

-Overall crew training was inadequate.

-The missile crew and CIC were essentially operating on a war footing and didn't know it.  They failed to take the proper procedures to prevent an unauthorized launch.

-The Turks wanted to get their hands on our officers and men and hang them in Turkey.

There is much more...but its been almost 15 years now...and my memory is fuzzy.
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 4:43:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Canada has a warship...?


Still sore about that distance-record-killshot?



Still sore that my taxes are used for Canadian defence.
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 5:00:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Canada has a warship...?

Did you know that Canada had originally planned to commit two warships and a division of troops in Iraq?

Problem is, once you figure the exchange rate, it's really two inflatable rafts, half a dozen RCMPs, and Rocky and Bullwinkle.
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 2:05:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Quintin:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Canada has a warship...?

Did you know that Canada had originally planned to commit two warships and a division of troops in Iraq?

Problem is, once you figure the exchange rate, it's really two inflatable rafts, half a dozen RCMPs, and Rocky and Bullwinkle.






Dude........... That was wrong.  











-K
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 2:07:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Also, I thought the Sea Sparrow was an AA missile - is it normal to fire one of those at another ship too?  Isn't that what we have the Harpoon for?


Well, you guys started it: Coral Sea (Or some such carrier) put a Sea Sparrow into the bridge of a Turkish destroyer...

Seriously, though, Sea Sparrow has a shorter minimum range, and is a lot faster than a Harpoon. It also has an entirely different warhead, so if you're more inclined to board the ship afterwards, use the Sea Sparrow's fragmentation warhead to shred the opposition and its equipment as opposed to using a Harpoon's unitary warhead to blast it to the sea floor.

NTM


In 1992 USS SARATOGA (CV 62) fired two NATO Seasparrow missiles at one of her escorts, Turkish destroyer Mauvenet.  Here are the results.  I was involved in writing the final report, since I had been a Seasparrow test officer for Naval Sea Systems Command from 1987 to 1990:

Mauvenet

Here are the after action photos.  Note that the missiles hit exactly where intended, at the point of largest radar centroid return from the target, in this case, the bridge superstructure.

If the enemy vessel is within visual range (horizon), it is a good target for a Seasparrow engagement.  One of the advantages is that if he fires a missile at you while your bird is in flight you can engage it immediately.  The SAM is pretty fast (marginally supersonic) with a good first-shot Ph.  When I was playing sailor as Tactical Action Officer on a Spruance, my plan was to engage with Seasparrow and guns simultaneously.  At max range, my Ph wasn't that hot.  A missile hit in the superstructure as shown here is an almost assured mission kill.  Then you can kill the bastard at your leisure.

Anyway...

img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/LWilde/Muave1.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/LWilde/412px-Muavenet2.jpg

Oh...and the Turks wanted us to hang the officers and men responsible.  One day I'll 'splain what happened, if anyone is interested.




Thanks.  Your posts were very informative.  I did not know we had the capability to fire AA missils in a SS role.  Pretty cool!




-K
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 2:13:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sandguard:
LWilde:  What is the story?


+1

Link Posted: 5/20/2007 2:32:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XDBACKUPGUN:

Originally Posted By Sandguard:
LWilde:  What is the story?


+1


Read teh bottom of page 1
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 2:34:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:

Originally Posted By Quintin:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Canada has a warship...?

Did you know that Canada had originally planned to commit two warships and a division of troops in Iraq?

Problem is, once you figure the exchange rate, it's really two inflatable rafts, half a dozen RCMPs, and Rocky and Bullwinkle.






Dude........... That was wrong.  









-K


It would be funny if the exchange rate was worse than it is now.... Canada's pretty close to our dollar now :/ 20% less or so..



I fucking hate how our dollar is becoming so sad. Its painful thinking that in the 1960's and 70's i could buy a car with 5 grand with top o line shit in it. now 50 grand... thats fucked.
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 3:45:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2007 3:46:01 PM EDT by TheCanuck]

Originally Posted By Journier:


It would be funny if the exchange rate was worse than it is now.... Canada's pretty close to our dollar now :/ 20% less or so..



I fucking hate how our dollar is becoming so sad. Its painful thinking that in the 1960's and 70's i could buy a car with 5 grand with top o line shit in it. now 50 grand... thats fucked.



Actualy, 1US $ buys you 1.0883 CDN $ as of friday
Link Posted: 5/20/2007 10:00:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
-Overall crew training was inadequate.


They still managed to get two out of two hits...

NTM
Top Top