HMCS Vancouver sends decommissioned US Destroyer to watery grave

[guest]

Does anyone have any photos of this?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Communi...ol9-10_navy#e1

By SLt Aaron Butler

“Take surface hostile track number 3 000 with Bulldog!” With this final order, Commander Kurt Salchert, commanding officer of HMCS Vancouver, began the weapon engagements that sent ex-USS O’Brien, a Spruance-class destroyer, to her final resting place off the Pacific Missile Range Facility near Kauai, Hawaii.

HMCS Vancouver conducted two successful missile launches with two American P3C Orion patrol aircraft, similar to the CF Auroras. The Harpoon surface-to-surface missile can hit surface targets up to 60 nautical miles away at Mach 0.9—almost the speed of sound. Vancouver can carry eight missiles in two quad launchers.

“The missile firings demonstrated a new level of sophistication in the Navy’s tactical procedures …Vancouver and the P3 executed a co-ordinated attack from over the horizon to achieve a simultaneous impact on the target from multiple directions,” said Cdr Salchert.

After firing the missiles, Vancouver used 50-calibre heavy machine-gun fire at close range to close the burning hulk and assess the damage. The destructive power of modern weaponry completely destroyed and set ablaze the ex-USS O’Brien’s hull.

It did not take long for the magnificent ship to roll on her side and gracefully succumb to her wounds. Many members of Vancouver’s ship’s company were on deck to pay their final respects, as ex-USS O’Brien descended to her watery grave minutes before a glorious Hawaiian sunset. Crew paused in silence to reflect on the death of a fine ship, and ponder their own role in delivering the deadly consequences of modern weaponry.

SLt Butler is the UIO for HMCS Vancouver.


Pic of USS O'Brien:
http://navysite.de/dd/dd975_2.jpg

Pic of HMCS Vancouver:
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_im...01-0360-57.jpg

[Kaplanr]

I guess it's a generational thing. Compared to a Forrest Sherman or Gearing Class, I didn't like the Spruance lines. But compared to the Vancouver (no offense meant guys) and the newer stealth ships, the Spruance looks almost classic.

Wasn't she worth selling to anyone?

[Para]

Looking at the pictures I can't but help but wonder if they sank the right ship????

[skyler]

I've always been a fan of the Spruance Class...beauty in the eye of the beholder I guess. A 'classic' look is a good description I would say.

Wish we had had the chance to fire on a decommisioned ship while I was in, would have been interesting to see the effects in person instead of on TV.

Court

[Leftcoaster]

I guess it's a generational thing. Compared to a Forrest Sherman or Gearing Class, I didn't like the Spruance lines. But compared to the Vancouver (no offense meant guys) and the newer stealth ships, the Spruance looks almost classic.

I agree even if we might not agree on classes we prefer (I can't visualize Forrest Sherman or Gearing class at the moment).

The new ships visually appear to be a downgrade, rather than an obvious improvement; at least to ignorant sorts such as I.

Having so much of what makes a contemporary warship lethal hidden away makes the ships look less potent to my eye than their predecessors, though I realize that isn't the actual case. Just a visual perceptional bias it's hard for me to overcome even though I know its in play.

[sp2c]

that ovservation is not as ignorant as you would think!!!

sure technically they are a huge inprovement, they have lower radar signatures, need less crew, with better radar etc. etc. etc. but hiding all the weaponry under the skin of the ship means they can carry less ammunition compared to it's predecessors and they are usually smaller too, while the weapon systems tend to be the same!!

so they are slightly less potent in some ways ... infenately more accurate though

[Kaplanr]

I guess it's also a factor of the given navy's role - coastal and regional v. blue water and projection of force.

Here's some imagery.

Spruance Class:


Gearing Class:


Forrest Sherman Class:


Fletcher Class: (Predominant US DD in WWII)

[sp2c]

our destroyers from back in the day


I think these older ships have more character then the modern ones

[Leftcoaster]

sure technically they are a huge inprovement, they have lower radar signatures, need less crew, with better radar etc. etc. etc. but hiding all the weaponry under the skin of the ship means they can carry less ammunition compared to it's predecessors and they are usually smaller too, while the weapon systems tend to be the same!!

I don't/haven't followed the evolution and deployment of weapon systems too closely. I'd somehow concluded that the small ships of today (in the strongest navies, at least) carried weaponry that outmatched their size in comparison to earlier classes. Thanks for noting the decreased available storage space for ammunition, again I figured they'd found a way of magically escaping that sort of tradeoff.

Looking at the images you and Kaplanr have provided, coupled with your comment about the new ships needing less crew reminds me of that second part of my perceptional preference toward the older warships. It wasn't just seeing my first destroyer with one gun in apparent attendence that made me think rationally or not that the navy of yore was superior due to having multiple guns bristling, it was also the seeming dearth of large crews bustling that added to the image.

I realize that is a matter of increased efficency, but it was difficult for some time for me to embrace what visually appeared as less as being more.

[Leftcoaster]

I guess it's also a factor of the given navy's role - coastal and regional v. blue water and projection of force.

Here's some imagery.



Forrest Sherman Class:

Thanks for the images. I think I'm dinosaur enough that the Fletcher Class still seems most attractive, though the Forest Sherman class is purty.

Looks somehow strange lined up with the others though, and not only because they show it in its entirety. I looked at the four and was struck with a 'Which doesn't belong in this group' quiz type feeling.

The Forest Sherman doesn't look like it came from the same family as the other classes. Especially at the bow, but that may be in part because the scale is dramatically different from the others shown?

[Yimmy]

http://www.candoo.com/ncot/norriepage/daring.jpg

The ship class with the nicest lines/looks imo.

[guest]

that ovservation is not as ignorant as you would think!!!

sure technically they are a huge inprovement, they have lower radar signatures, need less crew, with better radar etc. etc. etc. but hiding all the weaponry under the skin of the ship means they can carry less ammunition compared to it's predecessors and they are usually smaller too, while the weapon systems tend to be the same!!

so they are slightly less potent in some ways ... infenately more accurate though

Huh?!?

Do you know how much space it takes to have a large calibler gun mount + magazines?

While a gun cruiser certainly looks "cool", In a fight, I'd take the Vancouver with her Harpoons over "Guns" anyday.

When we modified our destroyers, we actually removed the larger foward gun so we could put in SM2 missles. (We certainly didn't *lose* firepower on that trade)

Lets look at an extreme example: IOWA class battleship in her most modern form.

She certainly had big guns alright, ones that could do some damage for sure, but in a fight.. a modern ship wouldn't let her get close enough to use them.

No, even for the Iowa, her most effective offensive weapons were her ant-ship missles, and her tomahawks.

[Kaplanr]

I was talking pretty not functional. No doubt that the modern ships are more versatile and powerful (though I guess they'd be hard-pressed to do shore bombardment.

The Egyptians proved the efficacy of the small missile boat after the 6 Day War by sinking the INS Eilat without leaving harbor. The Israelis in turn proved the worth of the missile boat in 73 at Latakia. But neither the Egyptian Komars or the Israeli "Cherbourgs" are Blue Water types of ships.

[sp2c]

Huh?!?

Do you know how much space it takes to have a large calibler gun mount + magazines?

While a gun cruiser certainly looks "cool", In a fight, I'd take the Vancouver with her Harpoons over "Guns" anyday.

When we modified our destroyers, we actually removed the larger foward gun so we could put in SM2 missles. (We certainly didn't *lose* firepower on that trade)

Lets look at an extreme example: IOWA class battleship in her most modern form.

She certainly had big guns alright, ones that could do some damage for sure, but in a fight.. a modern ship wouldn't let her get close enough to use them.

No, even for the Iowa, her most effective offensive weapons were her ant-ship missles, and her tomahawks.

well I wasn't really thinking that far back, onviously there's going to be large differences in 50+ years, I was thinking more like 25 years, the new frigates carry less ammunition for the same weapons (earlier versions obviously) as the old ones ... but new weapons guidance systems make them infinately more powerfull and they have a smaller radar profile making them more durable against current radar guided weaponry

for instance our old Kortenaer frigates carried Goalkeeper, Sparrow and Harpoon just like the new Karel Doorman frigates but carried more ammunition, was larger (had a larger crew as well) and had space for 2 helicopters inboard instead of one yet they had the same role.
This doesn't really matter because the Doorman is 'smarter' then the Kortenaer, it needs less ammunition to get the job done and helicopter reliability has increased to such standards that it isn't really neccesary anymore to carry 2 helicopters

but it does take away the charm of the ships of old, you just don't get as awed anymore as my (grand)father was when he saw one of our destroyers pull in to the docks with guns sticking out from all directions

[Leftcoaster]

Lets look at an extreme example: IOWA class battleship in her most modern form.

She certainly had big guns alright, ones that could do some damage for sure, but in a fight.. a modern ship wouldn't let her get close enough to use them.

No, even for the Iowa, her most effective offensive weapons were her ant-ship missles, and her tomahawks.

That would depend on what sort of fight she was in, wouldn't it? In her later incarnation wouldn't her arrival off your shore pretty much be an indicator that your ass was hers and all the other water and aircraft joining her in the festivities?

I see your point about another ship not allowing her to close, but the opposite also held as well, didn't it?

I don't believe the guns and Tomahawks (on the Iowa) are systems that can be contrasted for effectiveness all that well having served two different purposes. Her guns were still devestating and intimidating in their effectiveness when they were employed. She lucked out getting Tomahawks and anti-ship missiles, complementing her already formidable might.