• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

HMCS Huron To Be Sunk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering cdnaviator and myself use nom de guerres and advocate there use we do practice PERSEC, so rather then fight why we come down on people for violating what we see OPSEC and of concern to us because of what our jobs entails, just co-operate. It will make things easier for all of us.
 
cdnaviator said:
...... for those in doubt of the damage a single ASM can do......do a google search and read up on what destroyed HMS Sheffield in 1982.....thats open source.  The ship now rests at the bottom of the South Atlantic BTW.

Correct me if I am wrong but the Exocet that hit the Sheffield DID NOT EXPLODE the resulting fire is from the friction caused by the missile tearing through the skin of the vessel.  So for those wondering, one ASM can make for a bad day on any of our warships.....
 
Sub_Guy said:
Correct me if I am wrong but the Exocet that hit the Sheffield DID NOT EXPLODE the resulting fire is from the friction caused by the missile tearing through the skin of the vessel.  So for those wondering, one ASM can make for a bad day on any of our warships.....

You are quite correct. The fire devasted the ship.  It sank while being towed
 
Boater said:
I thought they scuttled her

Indeed......The burnt-out hulk was taken in tow by the Rothesay class frigate HMS Yarmouth but was scuttled at 53°04'S, 56°56' W on 10 May 1982 because of bad weather turning the ship into a waterlogged hulk.
 
Hopefully one day we can all have a beer and shoot the manure about everything and anything. Then look back on all this stuff and laugh.

Cheers guys.
 
CTD said:
Hopefully one day we can all have a beer and shoot the manure about everything and anything. Then look back on all this stuff and laugh.

Cheers guys.

i'm always up for that
 
Hopefully there will be more to talk about over beers, than the crap that gets thrown around this site!
 
Holy CSI........LOL (PERSEC-OPSEC)

The EXOCET uses kerosene liquid O2 propellant and hence the fires on Sheffield.
Ref. A. See Google

I like beer, have a merry christmas
 
Disagree !!!  EXOCET has a solid propellant engine not liquid.  Missile hit Sheffield on 2 deck 8 ft above waterline destroying ships electric generating systems and fracturing the ships firemain preventing anti-fire mechanisms from operating dooming the ship to be consumed by the raging fire. The crew of the ship and the British Task force believe that the missle warhead did in fact explode.  Others contend that the warhead did not explode but the remaining rocket motor fuel caused the fire.  The Sheff was not scuttled but sank due to bad weather that flooded the ship while it was under tow.  During the Iran/Iraq war over 200 EXOCETS were launched at  various Tankers & Merchant vessels with various amounts of success and a large percentage failed to explode.  US & UK EOD teams recovered several unexploded warheads & even some complete missiles lending creedence to the Sheffield's missile warhead not exploding.

Cheers
 
After looking at that website I'm wondering why all the nations listed as using this missile (excluding France) are developing countires, this mean it's not as good as western equivalents or is it just cheap?
 
Huron destined for the deep
Navy plans to tow venerable destroyer out to sea where it will be sunk in a live-fire exercise
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=3ab543d4-8526-4a32-9208-e1489279b27d&k=44301

Tim Naumetz For CanWest News Service Wednesday, April 04, 2007

The Federal Environment Department has approved a navy plan to haul retired destroyer HMCS Huron from CFB Esquimalt out to the Pacific Ocean, where U.S. and Canadian ships and jets will use it as target practice until it sinks two kilometres to the ocean floor.

It's a plan environmentalists and one NDP MP say is fraught with problems.

"It's treating the ocean like a garbage dump," said Jennifer Lash, the head of the B.C. activist group Living Oceans.

"No one even knows what kind of marine life there is down there."

Canadian Forces public relations officers were surprised by a barrage of questions yesterday, following the government's publication last weekend of an Environment Canada permit for the long-planned disposal of the Huron.

If all goes as expected, the Iroquois-class destroyer, stripped down to 1,118 metric tonnes of raw steel but still longer than a football field, will succumb to a barrage of missiles, machine-guns, naval cannons and torpedoes in a joint U.S.-Canadian exercise off the B.C. coast next month.

The plan is for the bullet-riddled torn-up hulk of the Huron to sink about 100 kilometres west of Vancouver Island.

"This, as far as I know, is the first Canadian warship that we've sunk in that manner," said Cmdr. Jeff Agnew, head of navy public relations, who noted the practice has been common with other navies for decades.

The Huron, commissioned in 1972, served on blockade patrols during the 1991Gulf War, intercepted illegal Chinese immigrants in 1999 and was decommissioned in 2005 to furnish spare parts to the remaining three Iroquois-class destroyers.

The Environment Department permit appears to set stringent anti-pollution requirements for the event, to the point of listing the ordnance the military will use.

The attack must take place in weather conditions that allow proper positioning of the Huron, the timing must be outside the opening of any commercial fishery and the navy must ensure "all floatables and all petroleum-based products (fuel oil, hydraulic fluids, lubricants, etc.,) are removed from the vessel prior to disposal."

The permit says the route from Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt to the target site in a Canadian military firing area must be "direct."

The method of disposal is listed as: "Firing by naval Sea Sparrow missiles, aircraft machine-guns and naval gunnery (including MK 48 torpedoes)."

Agnew said the missiles and torpedoes that hit the Huron will contain no radioactive material and the ordnance will leave only "background levels" of lead on the ocean bottom.

However, Lash, Green party Leader Elizabeth May and NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen all say that sinking a massive steel ship in the ocean sends the wrong signal in this environmentally sensitive era.

"People don't just drive their car off a cliff into the lake when they're done with it," said Cullen.

Added May: "It's crazy, we've just had the kerfuffle over U.S. navy live-fire exercises in the Great Lakes."

May was referring to a U.S. Coast Guard proposal for live-fire exercises on the lakes, which was withdrawn after opposition from groups concerned about the impact on commercial shipping, recreational boating and the environment.

But if it was sunk closer in and created an artificial reef, there would be less objections.

 
blackadder1916 said:
But if it was sunk closer in and created an artificial reef, there would be less objections.

The problem with this is that the ships that are sunk for reefs are carefully prepped; massive holes are cut in them first, almost all potential hazards for divers are taken out.  They pretty much eliminate any watertight compartments so they go down, in the right attitude, to the right location.  This eliminates their value as targets, since you could probably sink one of these "prepped" ships with a stiff wind, verus getting to see what happens with multiple missile hits, some naval gunfire, and a MK84 or two.

I think they're intentionally putting her in deep water, deep enough that some fool rec diver isn't going to be tempted to poke around without the right kit and training, get themselves trapped, and have the families sue DND for an "attractive nuisance".

DF
 
Sailed in her on Westploy 97 to the Far East. Great ship, great crew. It's sad to see the old girl go. RIP  :salute:
 
IN HOC SIGNO said:
Sailed in her on Westploy 97 to the Far East. Great ship, great crew. It's sad to see the old girl go. RIP  :salute:

As a former "280 Lady" myself I take a different view of the great pigs of the sea :) . Although I never served on Huron, as she was already referred to as building D281 by the time I hit the fleet. I hope they get good footage of the Mk 48 finishing her off - furthermore interesting choice on using Sea Sparrows in surface mode. Although throwing rocks would probably more effective. I guess the brass wants to use up all their stock of the old missile before ESSM hits the west coast.
 
NCS_Eng said:
I hope they get good footage of the Mk 48 finishing her off - furthermore interesting choice on using Sea Sparrows in surface mode. Although throwing rocks would probably more effective.

They could always leave a bos'n aboard to go outside and slap on a fresh coat of paint after each missile hit  ;D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top