The Ship Model Forum

I saw an interesting TV show last night about a Sinkex on the HMCS Huron. This destroyer was sunk as an exercise by the Canadians. They attacked it with a variety of naval weapons to judge their effectivess.

First try was by a Sea Sparrow missle. This weapon is an adaptation of the Sparrow air-to-air missle. It struck the destroyer on the starboard bow, penetrated the hull, and exploded in the missle magazine for the VLS.
I'm sure that would have been the end right there if the magazine had not been empty. I was a little surprised that it was able to penetrate the hull so easily. The hit caused no damage that admitted water to the hull.

Next was a shelling with a 57mm gun. This did not seem to have much effect beyond spraying shrapnel about as the shells exploded against the hull. Range was about 3,500 yds, or 1.5 nm. Unrealisticlly close for a surface engagement.

The next attempt was really off the wall. The attacking ships came in really close, less than 500yds, and sprayed the Huron with 20mm fire from CIWS. CIWS was never designed to be used like this, and had to be engaged with manual overide. Lots of holes made in thin structures, not much effect on the hull. I think it would be impossible to sink a destroyer with this weapon.

Finally, the attacking ships backed off again and pummelled the ship with 76mm gunfire. This holed the hull below the waterline and sank the ship.

Two CF-18's were then going to try to sink the ship using 20mm cannon fire down through the decks and hull. Huron sank before they could try this.

As a backup, a sub was there to torpedo the Huron if the air attack failed.

It was pretty interesting. But I'd bet any WWII armored ship of light cruiser size or heavier would have defeated all the attempts to sink her, with the sole exception of the torpedo.

I would like to see this tried again at realistic ranges.

Gerarddm wrote:I still haven't heard a comprehensive rational and mission statement for this class.

Its little more than a ridiculously expensive gunboat.

pingjockey wrote:

chuck wrote:I suspect he won't get around to cutting these. Cutting operational and short-term procurement expenditure, not long-term procurement expenditure, is likely to be his priority. He wants to be remembered for reducing military commitment abroad, not reducing military budget per se.

Actually he has said that he wants to cut future combat systems that he deems are unnecassary. And having said that I hope LCS is on the block, because I really don't see the need for these ships. They should modernize the OHP class and use them as littoral combatants, because they fit the role.

OHP hulls are getting on to 30 years old. They can't last much longer and needs to be replaced.

UT,

If a boat is large enough to mount a missle large enough to be a threat to a ship, it is also large enough to be hit by a missle from that ship. This is why FAC's have fallen into disfavor with most navies.

The utility of such boats lie in roles other than attacks on warships. Coast Guard-type missions, search-and-rescue, security patrols, vessel boarding parties. Plenty of things they can still do, but not attacking warships.

chuck wrote:I suspect he won't get around to cutting these. Cutting operational and short-term procurement expenditure, not long-term procurement expenditure, is likely to be his priority. He wants to be remembered for reducing military commitment abroad, not reducing military budget per se.

Actually he has said that he wants to cut future combat systems that he deems are unnecassary. And having said that I hope LCS is on the block, because I really don't see the need for these ships. They should modernize the OHP class and use them as littoral combatants, because they fit the role.

If they're small enough, they won't need one will they? Surely it's harder to hit a very fast and small water target than one of these LCS's?

Fast Attack Craft have pretty much been discounted as effective these days. The problem being, they are too small to mount effective anti-missle defense.

Why not jsut buy some speedboats and fit them out with small torp launchers and heavy caliber machine guns? Seems a better idea.

Or build some more carriers. Then you can sell one to use in the UK so we don't have to wait 6 years for one

It's to give the Yacht making industry a stake in lobbying for a bigger pentagon budget.

I still haven't heard a comprehensive rational and mission statement for this class.

I suspect he won't get around to cutting these. Cutting operational and short-term procurement expenditure, not long-term procurement expenditure, is likely to be his priority. He wants to be remembered for reducing military commitment abroad, not reducing military budget per se.

ASFC wrote:I don't see this lasting long-infact I see this as the first military casuality on Obamas list of military cuts.

indeed.

hard to believe this is going to last very much past feb 09.

I don't see this lasting long-infact I see this as the first military casuality on Obamas list of military cuts.

I would like to know whether these craft have overcome their alleged deficiencies.

Navy Asks For Bids On Ship
Washington Post
November 5, 2008

The Navy has asked Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to submit bids to build five Littoral combat ships.

The Navy's request follows its decision last month to scrap its plan of awarding a third ship this year to one of the contractors. With a decision by Congress to cut funding for the third ship in the fiscal 2008 budget, which ended Sept. 30, the Navy had to go back and draw up new plans.

The Navy envisions a winning contractor building three ships, while its rival builds the other two, and plans by January to award both contractors a ship each under the current budget.

Lockheed spokesman Craig Quigley confirmed the company had received the bids request. A General Dynamics representative deferred questions to the Navy.