# Missile Misfire and Explosion on German Frigate



## Underway (28 Jun 2018)

Article form the UK defence journal:

*German frigate Sachsen has suffered significant damage as a result of a misfiring missile.*

The accident happened last week, June 21st, off Norwegian coast. We understand from local media reports that only two crew members were hurt, sustaining minor injuries.

The missile was launched from launcher in front of the bridge, but didn’t take off and burned out in launcher, inflicting serious damage.

This comes at a bad time for the German military, not long after the scathing ‘Report on the Operational Readiness of the Bundeswehr’s Primary Weapons Systems’ was published. The report lead the Bundestag’s military commissioner, Hans-Peter Bartels, to complain about “large holes in personnel and equipment” in the Bundeswehr that have resulted in two thirds of the German armed forces being being non-operational.

The problem, he explained, has worsened over time due to the German military not replacing out of date equipment.

The German Navy temporarily lost its last submarine in October, as the rudder of its last Type 212A was severely damaged in a collision with a rock off the Norwegian coast while the rest of the fleet was out of service. It is also understood that none of the new frigates, the Type 125s, are able to enter into operational service due to defects and a similar situation is faced by auxiliary ships, Berlin and Bonn, which were sent to dry dock for a year and a half of repairs.

Article here

Video here


----------



## CBH99 (28 Jun 2018)

Yikes!!  Scary stuff, that could have been so much worse.  Glad there were only minor injuries.


----------



## Furniture (28 Jun 2018)

So Sea Training was right.. I guess those exercises weren't for nothing!


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2018)

Good thing it wasn’t a misfire in a VLS tube...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Jun 2018)

I like how you don't need to speak a word of German to understand exactly what the camera operator said.

That is some serious crap. Any CSEs want to venture a guess at what happened? Restrained fire?


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I like how you don't need to speak a word of German to understand exactly what the camera operator said.



I thought he was just poorly pronouncing the frigate's name............


----------



## Karel Doorman (29 Jun 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Good thing it wasn’t a misfire in a VLS tube...



There is a "deluge"system on board(VLS),means when it missfires within the tube,system automatically "floods"that canister(also on LCF and expect all modern frigates /destroyers)have that.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Jun 2018)

Actually, I looked at the video frame by frame: there is no ejection at all of the missile and the original flames shoot straight up like a geyser, so it did misfire in the VLS launcher. The tube was in the open position, however. And the fast flooding system did work as intended and saved the ship from further fire and from setting off the other missiles. Such system is not meant to extinguish the misfiring missile - because once you set off a solid booster rocket - the type we use for missiles so we don't have to constantly fuel and refuel the missiles - there's no stopping it until the fuel is expanded.

I think that G2G should have said: "Good thing it" didn't have a warhead, or it didn't set it off if it had one.  :nod:

BTW, this video gives you a good idea of why ASuW tactics call for surface to surface missiles to be shot at about half the missile's range: imagine your ship being hit by that missile with a war load exploding a hole in you hull, followed by the booster discharging it's burning power through the hole from half the fuel still in the booster.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2018)

OGBD, it looked like a failed launch from a deck-mounted launcher so much energy from a failed motor casing would be expended atmospherically and not constrained with significant overpressure in a VLS shaft.  

Re: warhead...nope, I think if you look at chemical-based potential energy, an SM2/SM6 motor has a huge amount of P.E. compared to the warhead charge.  Less frag payload (I can’t speak to that effect) I think a ruptured solid-motor casing to allow unconstrained/unprofiled combustion of the solid-fuel in the Mk72 first stage booster alone would be (engineeringly orders-of-magnitude worse than some paltry [semi-dismissive] 160lb RDX warhead) rather damaging to the VLS internal structure. :dunno:

Neither failed booster motor, nor warhead (or second stage motor, for that matter) would be something you’d want to see light off during a failed launch.  Dousing Systems can handle flames, but how much can they do against significant overpressure from a ruptured booster? (Serious, learning question)

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jun 2018)

It is definitely NOT a deck mounted launcher. The SM2 launcher in that position on a Saschen class destroyer/frigate are Strike length VLS. 

Yes, there is a lot of energy in a SM2 propulsion rocket, but it is not an explosive decompression, like a warhead, when it goes bad. The sides  and bottom of the propulsion stage are weak material and the solid fuel ignites but does not "explode" in very close to single time event. Hence the "geyser effect from the opened tube. 

The actual canisters lowered into the VLS launcher and the VLS launchers are built to take that extra pressure and release it upwards in case of failure. This happens here. The next threat to the ship from the misfire is the heat generated being transmitted to other missiles or part of the ship from radiated heat or conducted heat. That is what the fast flood system is there to prevent.

On the other hand, a warhead exploding - even if it has less overall stored energy - is a real explosion of as shaped charge meant to create shrapnel. It is the shrapnel that is is dangerous. And it is the reason why, when a last ditch system like Phalanx kills a missile close in during a kinetic kill on the warhead, the explosion can still create a lot of damage from the said shrapnel hitting the ship, as opposed to a booster kill, which simply explodes the missile safely and drops the warhead into the water. Had there been a warhead, or if present had it exploded, in this case, a lot of people on the bridge would have been killed or injured.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jul 2018)

OGBD, thank you for the very informative post!  Much appreciated.   What was the post-misfire picture I saw of the Saschen that showed an above-deck multitube launcher?
Regards 
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Jul 2018)

That's the forward SeaRAM CIWS. It uses 21 small high-speed missiles instead of a gatling gun for last ditch AA defence of the ship. There is another similar launcher located on top of the helo hangar.


----------



## Underway (1 Jul 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is some serious crap. Any CSEs want to venture a guess at what happened? Restrained fire?



Without more info it definitely looks like a restrained fire.  The cover on the VLS opens, missile goes to launch and doesn't come out.  All that heat and pressure build up until the engine melts through and the whole thing goes up like a firecracker.  In a box.  I'm not well versed on the warhead, and what temps, pressures can set it off, even if I was it's classified.  Frankly most of the energy in an SM2 comes from its rocket motor/fuel, at least at launch.

As OGBD pointed out there are safety systems/designs to prevent this exact thing from causing sympathetic ignitions in adjacent VLS, not the least of which is that the top of the VLS was open, so all that heat and explosive energy gets generally directed out into the air, instead of into the ship.

Looking at the photos, its interesting to see how the entire bridge face was burned but the RAM was basically fine.  Bridge caught and held all that heat.  Also I wouldn't be surprised if the ship could still "keep fighting" even during that damage.  More VLS could possibly have been used, the bridge could still have been manned with appropriate precautions.  Wartime of course.  Not during a missile ex.

I suspect next time there is a missile shoot there won't be any lingerers or tourists on the bridge to see how it goes.  Might be a few more lifebuoy sentry volunteers though!


----------



## winnipegoo7 (1 Jul 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Looking at the photos, its interesting to see how the entire bridge face was burned but the RAM was basically fine.



- I don't know much about fire, but I'm guessing that this is because heat rises (bridge is higher than the fire, while the SeaRam is lower) and because the ship had forward momentum, so was sailing into the fire (bridge is behind fire, while Sea Ram is ahead of fire)... that's my poorly educated guess.

First photo shows damaged VLS in foreground, with undamaged (i assume) Sea Ram in background.
Second photo shows layout of sister ship HAMBURG.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jul 2018)

Ah, photo perspective tricked me earlier, I thought the C-RAM was right near the bridge.  As an aside, that class of FFG looks pretty capable, no?


----------



## Karel Doorman (1 Jul 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ah, photo perspective tricked me earlier, I thought the C-RAM was right near the bridge.  As an aside, that class of FFG looks pretty capable, no?



pretty much "sisters"of the De Zeven class. :nod:


----------

