previous post next post  

Bring Out The S'mores

Thank God there were no incoming boogies; for if there were, more than a singed foredeck our Navy would have.


Boq

8 Comments

Ahh, the memories!  Actually had to go to Live Leak and read the comments to see just what the heck that launcher was.  Was certain it wasn't US, we never had one like that and everything is VLS now anyway.

We sort of had a similar incident.  Firing a test ASROC from the MK26, had a malfucntion in the latches that hold it, they are supposed to open after X-pounds of thrust, letting it fly.  Problem is, the linkages to the latches were worn, and did not release.  That thing burned on the rail until the fuel was expended.

Was sort of amusing seeing the fire party advance with charged hoses, until someone yelled at them the torpedo itself was salt-water activated.
 
I didn't go to LiveLeak, but it looks like a GWS 30 Sea Dart.  I believe the Brits are the sole operator now, and all their modern gear is VLS, so odds are it's one of the old Type 42 DDGs.  The Type 82s had their Sea Dart on the quarterdeck.
 
Interesting. I can relate, in a way. With a launch malfunction on the Maverick, called a "hangfire," that 10K lbs of thrust w/o release makes for an interesting few seconds of maximum rudder against the rather exciting yaw transients. Of course, in this case, at least the warhead went away. 

It also reminded me of why firefighting skills on a wartime vessel (or any vessel, for that matter) is kinda important. I think it made a difference in the Pacific in WWII (we were better at it than the Japs, or so I'm told).

OBTW, mebbe the Navy's different, but we always spelled it "Bogie." (Boogie is something you pick.) Also, one usually doesn't fire at bogies, it's the "bandits" we engage. One is a confirmed hostile, the other isn't. Just curious--what's standard ROE vis-a-vis terminology/engagement in the USN? -Attila
 
A couple more great fails the second is a french ERYX  that would just about make anyone soil themselves.  The first i have no clue tis a failed missle launch from a ship though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axk76-LS6uc&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGf-sS4js5Y

 
After the USS Stark incident, which was set afire by the burning of the sustain motor on the Exocet rather than the warhead, the Australian Navy was very interested in the process.  My wife was then attached to the Proof and Experimental branch, and they set up a test of a modified rocket motor that they wanted to trial on an old aluminium-structure destroyer before it was scuttled as a reef.  To reduce problems with thrust, they modified/cut off the nozzle.  A test was organised when the execs were present and everyone went to the control bunker to watch the test.  It started OK, but then some pressure anomalies resulted in the missile motor exploding and spreading burning propellant everywhere!  There was quite a delay before anyone could leave the bunker while the outside area was checked for burning or unburnt propellant chunks. An embarrassing fail by the boffins!
 
I didn't realize that was the actual cause of the fire on the Stark.  Interesting.
 
They made a training video about the Stark as well, but I don't remember the mention of the rocket motor.  It was more all the little mistakes that made the incident more trouble that it could have otherwise been.  Like the guy not properly stowing his skivvies, and them getting sucked up into the pump system slowing down the de-flooding, and the guy who took the chain holding a cover on the phone jack, so the circuit shorted causing communication problems.

For all the focus on Damage Control, continuously maintaining and testing watertight integrity, it sure doesn't take much for one thing to spiral out of control.
 
@Mike:  The ERYX thing is both scary and knee slapper at the same time.