Bob the Temple Builder | 28 Aug 2015 5:51 a.m. PST |
The following botched missile launch took place during a recent Navy Day in Sevastopol. link |
Saber6 | 28 Aug 2015 5:56 a.m. PST |
Wonderful quality control |
alex757 | 28 Aug 2015 6:16 a.m. PST |
Don't forget that the same thing happened to a US destroyer not too long ago… link |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 28 Aug 2015 6:32 a.m. PST |
Well, if the missile is as old as the ship, no wonder it failed. That's the Krivak II class Ladny, going on 34 years young now. That happened back in July. |
mad monkey 1 | 28 Aug 2015 7:07 a.m. PST |
Got to admit it was entertaining… |
OldGrenadier at work | 28 Aug 2015 7:19 a.m. PST |
Always remember that weapons are produced by the lowest bidder. |
skipper John | 28 Aug 2015 7:24 a.m. PST |
Heads are going to roll….. |
Wretched Peasant Scum | 28 Aug 2015 8:05 a.m. PST |
You should be afraid. No one in the West has such precision control of their missiles that they can do tight circles immediately after launch. One day you will be looking at the horizon, feel a tap on your shoulder, and when you turn--BOOM!! |
Zargon | 28 Aug 2015 9:57 a.m. PST |
And this really has a lot to do with Wargaming in General.. How? Post it in the right category please Bob. |
JeffreyS | 28 Aug 2015 10:29 a.m. PST |
Here's your tie in Bob--"How should failed missile launches be represented in modern war game rules?" keeps the topic police off your case.. |
Mako11 | 28 Aug 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
Wow, that is a pretty impressive launch. I'll bet the personnel on the bridge are breathing a big sigh of relief after that, since it appears it was heading right at them at one point. Perhaps it is a new, anti-submarine missile design, and the corkscrew flight is to help it triangulate in on the target better. Yea, that's the story we're going with, comrades. |
Thomas O | 28 Aug 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
I'm guessing some uniforms needed to be changed after that launch especially on the bridge. |
David Manley | 28 Aug 2015 12:37 p.m. PST |
I'm amazed that they were happy to launch a missile like that during Navy Days :) |
Allen57 | 28 Aug 2015 12:43 p.m. PST |
I look at both launches and sort of wonder how accurate our wargame rules are. In real life how many failures will be seen in combat? |
Woollygooseuk | 28 Aug 2015 12:57 p.m. PST |
And this really has a lot to do with Wargaming in General.. How? Actually I think this is a useful reminder that most naval rules (and space ones I'd suggest) don't put enough emphasis on maintenance. This is a sub-issue of the way bigger player control vs random, scenario vs point buy, game vs simulation debates and I'm a fully paid up member of the 'each to their own' brigade. If, however, you tend towards the random, scenario, simulation end of the spectrum your rules really should reflect your ships having 10-30% of their critical systems OPDEF'd at any one time – quality vs quantity applies as much in the North Atlantic as on the north German plain. Also, in any early war scenarios the rules should also reflect that most of the systems and supporting tactics & doctrine have never been used in anger. One day I'll get around to writing my naval rules for WWIII. It will probably be a players vs scenario set up with CO, PWO and WEO charged with keeping their ship afloat and operational whilst they work out which bits of kit and doctrine actually work against the Red Banner Northern Fleet. It will be a commercially unviable project and sink without trace (no pun intended), but when has that ever stopped a wargamer? |
Bob the Temple Builder | 28 Aug 2015 1:16 p.m. PST |
Zargon, sorry for upsetting you by selecting the incorrect category for this item. I'll try not to do it again. |
David in Coffs | 28 Aug 2015 3:30 p.m. PST |
I'd give it a go Wooley… :-) |
Mako11 | 28 Aug 2015 4:43 p.m. PST |
That is very true Woolly. When the British sent their vessels to the Falklands, a lot of them had significant issues, or developed them over time, while on station there, e.g. boilers needing overhaul, missile systems crashing periodically, etc., etc.. |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Aug 2015 8:07 p.m. PST |
Ooof! Brown-pants moment for the bridge crew! |
Frederick | 29 Aug 2015 7:24 a.m. PST |
Not sure how weapons procurement currently works in the Russian Federation but in the old Soviet Union they had competitions – and lots of them – to determine which was the most effective weapons system That was how the AK-47 was chosen – Chiver's book The Gun describes it in great detail, which was a much better process than most NATO countries were using at the time |
jdpintex | 29 Aug 2015 7:58 a.m. PST |
They were lucky it landed in the ocean. Seems like it could have easily hit the shore in the background. So who fires misses while still in harbor anyway? |
Rubber Suit Theatre | 29 Aug 2015 12:00 p.m. PST |
Egyptians, apparently: INS Eilat was sunk on 21 October 1967 in international waters off Port Said in the Sinai by three Styx missiles launched by Egyptian missile boats.[5] An Egyptian Komar-class missile boat positioned within the harbour at Port Said fired two missiles at the Israeli destroyer. Eilat 's radar did not reveal any suspicious activity or movements because the missile boat was still inside the port when the missiles were fired.[6] Despite evasive action being ordered by the captain when the missiles were detected, the first missile hit the ship just above the waterline at 17:32 hours. Two minutes later, the second missile struck causing additional casualties. While Eilat began to list heavily, the crew tended to the wounded and engaged in rescue and repair operations while waiting for additional ships of the Israeli Navy to come to her rescue. But around an hour later, another Egyptian Komar-class missile boat from Port Said harbour fired two more Styx missiles at Eilat. The third missile hit Eilat amidships, causing more damage and further fires, while the fourth went astray and crashed in the water nearby. Eilat sank about two minutes later. Out of a crew of 199, 47 were killed and more than a hundred were wounded.[7] From here: link |
Zargon | 29 Aug 2015 12:28 p.m. PST |
OK LOL Bob it was funny to see and if it had of been on Utter drivel I'd not hassle you ( I have switched off Modern Media etc. because I end up saying inappropriate stuff and get DH'ed a lot :( ) anyway your a Gent and I'm cool with it. Cheers. |
David in Coffs | 29 Aug 2015 3:33 p.m. PST |
On design acceptance procedures – the mount for the 25 lb was reportedly decided by a show of hands of the gunners with the purpose designed split trail mounts losing to the WW 1 box trail. |
Weasel | 29 Aug 2015 5:30 p.m. PST |
I imagine that plenty of people involved needed a change of trousers after that. A friend of mine told me they had a "wild fire" incident with a multiple rocket launch system during an exercise. It fired several dummy rounds at what turned out to be a farm house well outside of the approved training area. There were some nervous grunts that day. |
David in Coffs | 30 Aug 2015 2:55 a.m. PST |
"Accidents" don't happen! That is just the cover story put out by THEM! It was a vast complicated implausible sinister diabolical conspiracy! Quick – pass the tin foil! ;-p |
Weasel | 30 Aug 2015 10:43 a.m. PST |
The lizards are at it again? |