| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| USS America sunk after weapons test |
| 2005-05-24 |
| May 24, 2005: The U.S. carrier America was sunk, off North Carolina, on May 14th, after 25 days of tests to see what effect various anti-ship weapons had on the 84,000 ton ship. The details of the tests, and the results, were kept secret. This is because the information gained reveal which weapons (torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and bombs) have what kind of impact on the ship. Obviously, none of the weapons used sank the ship, as the actual sinking was done as a "controlled sinking" in 6,000 feet of water. The $22 million series of weapons tests, and controlled sinking, was cheaper than scrapping the ship. Environmental rules make scrapping prohibitively expensive. The America served from 1965-96, after which it was put in reserve. No one has made an attack on a modern carrier (the latest ones weigh 90-100,000 tons), and several generations of new anti-ship weapons have appeared since the last time (1945) an American carrier came under enemy fire. Protection for these ships, and damage control methods, are all derived from theoretical damage from different weapons. Computer simulations have been used as well. But the navy knows that simulations and calculations don't catch everything, so the tests on the America were meant to obtain information needed to improve protection and damage control methods a bit more. This was the largest warship to ever be sunk, in war or peace. The previous record holder was also an aircraft carrier, the Japanese Shinano (a converted Yamato class battleship), that displaced 72,000 tons. Shinano was sunk by four torpedoes from an American sub, and went down largely because the interior of the ship was not complete, and all the compartments were not yet water tight. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #15 |
| Posted by: vote 2005-05-24 21:07 |
| #14 With respect to diesel fuel tanks, weapons and aviation fuel, I think a carrier is pretty safe. I think the JFK is the last of the conventially fueled carriers. Fuel tanks are generally located at the bottom of any ship to ensure stability - they can be ruptured by a mine but they are kept relatively full so there is no oxygen to explode. Ordinance is stored well inside the skin of the ship. Aviation fuel is closer to the flight deck but tanks are, again, kept full. A carrier is vulnerable during operations where it is transfering flammable liquids through pressurized piping or moving ordinance about below decks. A terrorist/enemy would be very lucky to time an attack to hit during these vulnerable periods unless the captain/crew of the carrier increase their vulnerability through sloppy practices. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-05-24 21:00 |
| #13 Shushssssssssss...... 10 shaped charges on the keel were required. It was ugly. Don't tell anyone. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-24 16:47 |
| #12 I imagine there is going to be some amazing scuttlebutt about this for years to come. For reference, check out the salvage and re-scuttling of the Maine. Even back then, there were uncanny amounts of intrigue involved, and everything was Top Secret. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-24 13:49 |
| #11 Damn--just found an excellent and hefty interview piece there with Maj. Richard Winters. That is definitely worth a read! My favorite bit, when he describes the Band of Brothers, Episode 5 "Crossroads" bit where he led the charge that resulted in the destruction of two SS companies: I remember when I was interviewed for the movie, I told one of the writers that as I shot the German, he looked up at me and smiled. Well, I kept going with my story, but later, as it turns out, the writer wanted to play up the thing about the smile. He wanted to play that up as a flashback, the type of bad flashbacks you can have. I have flashbacks every day. But the writer wanted to play up that point. And that is why in the series that German is portrayed as a kid and why later on when I am in Paris they portray me looking at this kid on the train and having another flashback. It's stupid, but I didn't get the chance to review the scenes. Also regarding his choice of Lt. Ronald Speirs as the replacement under fire for Lt. Norman Dike who froze up during the Foy attack: The stories about him [Speirs] are true. When I first heard, I was speechless. What he did was unbelievable, inexcusable. If you talk to somebody in today's Army, they would say, well, how come he wasn't court-martialed? Well, you needed every man you had. ... At Foy, he was the first officer I saw when I turned around. It could have been anybody, but it was Speirs. I didn't ask, "OK, would you mind taking over?" No, I just turned around, saw him and said take over. It was just a roll of the dice that he was standing there when I needed someone. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-05-24 13:45 |
| #10 ed -- Thanks, I just did exactly that. There's a fantastic article on the Franklin here, continuing on four good-sized pages. Some truly incredible stories of heroism and perseverence here. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-05-24 13:26 |
| #9 I guess the best way I put my interest in this is: I am terribly curious about the results, but will be very pissed off if I ever read about them anywhere (meaning somebody leaked). |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-05-24 13:06 |
| #8 Dar, look up the USS Franklin for the worst fire damage ever suffered by a US ship. When hit by 2 bombs, she had a heavy aviation fuel and weapons load. An addition, during the USS Forrestal accident, multiple bombs detonated on her deck and jet fuel poured below. If the weapons magazines blow, then that's all she wrote, but keep in mind magazines are the most heavily armoured areas and will be flooded if threatened by fire. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-05-24 13:03 |
| #7 Better have a long fish line, remote. the actual sinking was done as a âcontrolled sinkingâ in 6,000 feet of water They sunk her in 6,000 feet of water. Don't want just anyone checking to see just how much damage those weapons did. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-05-24 12:55 |
| #6 Simulating most foreign weapons is fairly routine (e.g. expodling a warhead of the same class as that of a Russian 660mm torpedo underneath the keel). What is more interesting, were real pilfered Russian weapons, that the west does not have an analog, (E.g. mach 2 Sunburn missiles used by China and Iran) fired at the carrier or were they simulated (e.g. large supersonic target drone outfitted with a 750 lb. warhead). Carriers can take a lot a damge. Even as far back as WW2 no Essex/Ticonderoga class carrier (41,000 tons full load) was ever sunk, even with the horrible damage suffered by the USS Franklin. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-05-24 12:41 |
| #5 Well the weapon data is all well and good, but that ship is going to be a fish magnet! Get that location loaded into the GPS pronto cause there are going to be some whoppers swimming around there before long. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-05-24 12:30 |
| #4 I think I can assure both of you that *nobody* outside of tight US navy circles was able to get anywhere near these weapons tests. Not that they wouldn't love to; in fact, just outside the security perimeter there were prolly all sorts of foreign trawlers, submarines, and aircraft desperate to observe any detail they could. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-24 12:11 |
| #3 I wonder what kind of weapons they used. Would be nice if they had some Russian missiles or torpedoes, since those (or knockoffs of those) are the most likely to be hitting a US carrier. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-05-24 11:52 |
| #2 I'm always curious how effective these tests are, since there are so many flammables aboard a working ship to begin with that are probably stripped out of a ship like this that is slated to be sunk. The weapon itself usually isn't powerful enough to sink any substantial craft unless it touches off the aviation fuel or a magazine. I'm thinking of those first three Japanese carriers at Midway that were covered with planes in the middle of switching from bombs to torpedoes, and the USS Forrestal fire off Vietnam in '67. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-05-24 11:25 |
| #1 I suspect that the America has always suffered because of superstition. Ships named after continents, oceans, and countries have long been held as unlucky by the sailors who tend towards superstition. Which is most of them. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-24 11:13 |