"This may be the most powerful arsenal gathered on the seven seas." A series of several US Carrier Task Groups would like to have a word with the narrator...
marineman2031 the subs are the last effort to bring it down. Although it really isn’t an effort for the subs and can’t be shown either way even if it did fire.
The Bismarck would have given those attackers a hell of a beating, even with her dated technology. The Bismarck's gunnery and fire control was some of the best in the German Navy, and her armor was very thick.
My guess it's to insure a steady sink to the bottom and to be fish friendly but still it's a destroyer that class of ships aren't designed to take a fight like larger classes it's designed to be quick, cheap, make heavy punches and be able to take some hits. But these days the Destroyer class is slowly turning into the MBT of ships.
Using sea sparrows they bought from the US. The ship also had harpoon missiles that are intended for anti-ship use, unlike the sea sparrow. The harpoons were also purchased from the US. And then they finished up with F/A-18s that they purchased from the UK second hand. The UK bought them from the US but actually wanted to update their aircraft since those are very outdated variants.
@@doktorsljukex4174 documentaries are supposed to be the real thing and if any simulation is used it's supposed to be mentioned. Clearly that did not happen.
Some of the firing video was fake too. And I cracked up laughing when they said this could be the most powerful formation of ships on the seven seas. They obviously don't know much about their topic.
@Allen Tompkins well, if you remember what the US Navy did to Iran in 88 when we kicked their asses 8-0 in a 9 hour long battle that at one point a ship commander told an Iranain commander he intended to sink his ship and they had ten minutes to abandon ship. He then sank it on the 11th minute 😆
@Allen Tompkins btw, a Russian destroyer? lol, now there is a joke. Russia is not what you think it is. In fact their navy is pretty much the second worst in the world behind Germany. Their weapons misfire constantly and we'll, they have to have tugs go where the navy goes. Even their newest frigates have to have tugs go with. Russian navy is zero threat.
That was the most Canadian engagement ever. I about fell out of my chair with the Regina gun failing to battery, then followed by the missile not launching, followed by the CWISS not being able to get a radar lock on something the size of the moon. Very good laugh eh?
@@Veraxu1227 did you just go and say they might beat a modern PC? You know PC stands for personal computer and those were like the size of a rather large server. ROFL And no they are not ubber modern computing devices they are in the military and running software from the 70s-90s. They can't be modern or they wouldn't be compatible with the rest of the military tech. Nice try tho.
The ship's electronics could be hardened against EMP and RF interference. That could be why it looks that way. Or maybe everything is from 1975 and they're praying ameicans save them if real conflict breaks out.
@@xXxcastenada I'll type it again... Military systems are as a rule old and ment for old hardware. If they were to run modern computing hardware it wouldn't be compatible with all of the other old systems. Also more modern hardware is much much more sensitive to things like EMP and other forms of interference. Smaller dye sizes means it takes less RF/EM power to interfere.
@@anonpers0n Modern intel and AMD chips are compatible with what is known as 386 or 486 standards. Meaning in theory they adhere to the same opcodes as ancient 80386/80486 intel CPUs. It makes them backwards compatible to a limited degree. Military systems could follow a similar trend. Given how defense contracts are prone towards making things as expensive as possible, rather than the opposite with trends following proprietary rather than open source software, dont expect much from military contractors who are typically protectionist, dysfunctional and bloated industries incapable of producing cutting edge technology.
Actually there have been real naval battles since 1945. Maybe Canada wasn't involved but the US Navy has been. The last major sea battle was with Iran in 1988 when we sank or destroyed 8 Iranian ships in a 9 hour battle that saw Iran give up.
From what I understand the same thing happened to the USS Conyngham DDG-17. Another proud ship that served it's country proudly for many years. Go Navy!
@@devonm5037 are you really defending the canadian navy? lol this was lame and very disappoointing haha they were supposed to use a torpedo from the sub as well before it "sank", they already know torpedoes work since like ww2 right? lol
@@devonm5037 yeah i did, the fake explosions from the on "board" cam was cringe as well. Canada doesn't really need a navy though, the big brother down south is all they need lol
its an exercise to test their weapons on that ship..since they are not used in real war. this is for research purpose...if your not from the military you woudn't understand why they did not used an anti-ship missile
@@qwerrtywerty5705 don't know where you got that idea from. The US does sink-x's and uses real weapons including anti-ship missiles. I spent the 1980s in the US Navy
@@joecombs7468 thats in the 80's..in the video its an exercise and weapon testing..unless its an enemy and its a real battle then anti ship missile will be used...what if by chance the anti ship missile is being reloaded then upper deck weapons will be used whats the used of that machine guns if you rely only on missiles
Run of the mill target practice. The climax is when the young officer says, "The gun is jammed. We don't know why this happens, but we'll have to go on deck and look at it." I can't imagine why the Canadian Navy would have allowed that bit of film to get off the ship. Another gem is when the gun crew doesn't want to fire the weapon. I could imagine the laughs Russian sailors would be having while reading the captions. Aside from the sloppy uniforms, beer guts, systems failing, and crews not wanting to fire weapons, all is well in the Navy of the Great White North. I am convinced that the Canadian Navy believes that it will never be in a major conflict, so what is the point. It is amazing to me how different Canada's military is from the U.S. Granted, things go wrong, but it is surely a different world in the U.S. military. Some pluses. The EOD team and Helo crews seemed professional. I am happily surprised that the Canadians still have air refueling capability. I find the F-18s to be a bit odd in a military that lacks aircraft carriers but I also find it surprising that a country that once had the third largest Navy in the world now has nothing bigger than a frigate.
That was a handicap match with no crew, no hatches, no damage control, no active bilge, and no defenses. Had she had an active status the battle could have lasted weeks or more. Not a fitting end for a ship that performed many successful missions in service of her country. It was target practice on a paraplegic. The same results could have been achieved using a barge or retired tanker.
@Kully you could always weld some steel to a hull on anything. I was speaking in terms of it wouldn't have so easy to sink her if she was crewed and functioning. I agree it's much better than scrap but they made it sound like it would be impossible to sink.
Kully Killy, unless the armor was examined after the exercise to see how it held up, it had no bearing on this exercise. Obviously the missile fired did some damage, but considering that it hit an empty ship above the waterline, it most certainly didn’t sink the ship. And as the ship had also been entirely gutted before the exercise, there wasn’t anything left that could really burn either. The real damage came from the 5” and 3” guns that put numerous holes in her at the waterline. With all those hatches removed and left wide open, she didn’t have a chance. But the exercise proved absolutely NOTHING. They would’ve gotten the same results from an old barge. At the beginning they talked about how hard these ships would be to sink because they’ve got so many compartments. It doesn’t matter how many compartments there are if all the hatches are left open. So the exercise was a complete waste of time and money. It proved nothing. If you really want to see how well a ship can hold up, close all those hatches, give it power so her pumps can run, and bring all her defensive weapons on line so she can maneuver AND COUNTER the incoming threats. The Sea Sparrow missile might have been shot out of the air by CIWS, and hitting a ship that’s moving with guns isn’t nearly as easy as hitting one at anchor. Without a doubt, the submarine stood the best chance of causing any real damage. I’ve yet to see a Sinkex yet that actually proved a thing ... other than a floating object will sink if you put holes in it that allow the water to enter.
@@mudman6156 the sub also had the heaviest weapons but why where American ships at standby for the possibility of a failed Canadian exercise that's the question lol. Did the Canadians not believe jets and several of the sister ships could put a dent in her when she was a ghost ship. Idk how to feel about the exercise kinda seems like the ship wanted to have a fighting chance. I would be without a doubt certain the ship would want to be taken down and sunk trying to defend her carrier
I was a sailor on the INS SAAR missle carrier. I think the general idea of the exercise was to see if non navale weapons could sink a ship. 20mm aircraft rounds are a joke. One harpoon missle or one torpedo are more than enough for the job. We actually shot one missle without an explosive warhead at a target ship and it just went through it like butter. By the way, there was at least one naval missle battle I know of that took place in 1973 between Israeli and Syrian navy ships.
48:57 I know the feeling having served on a old warship having been through hard and good times in the ship so many sacrifices and to see your old ship go down does give you mixed feelings. At the end thats what there built for, to fight and not to become scrap for other ships. To see a old warship go down like that is a honor to the ship itself and those that served on her. Few get to see and live that and be given that honor I am one of those that was fortunate enough to have gained that opportunity.
I want my money back from this "free documentary" no wonder it was free... They had so much wrong information about all the weapon systems and pretty much everything. CGI made no sense, and was very poor production. Dont waste your time watching this.
It's always a sad day to watch the ship you proudly served on slip beneath the waves. At least its a better way to go,instead of being scrapped.😭😭 My ship, the USS Concord AFS5, met the same fate during SINKEX2012 off Hawaii, but she was sunk with a torpedo by the HMCS Victoria. 😢 RIP USS CONCORD AFS5 You will live in our hearts forever.😢🇺🇲
I’m not normally a military documentary watcher... but this was really interesting. I also like the idea that the vessel will make a man-made reef to assist in ocean conservation.🦑🐠
I was the TAO aboard USS CURTS during the SINKEX, and one of the planners for Exercise Trident Fury. We were only allowed to use inert rounds (not High EX), as to not sink the the ship immediately, so as many platforms could target her as possible. There were no “explosions” as much as dust when the shells hit, as everything that could catch fire or be toxic was abated from the ship. Had we been fragmentary or hi explosive rounds it would have been over too soon -- especially with USS Shoup lobbing 5in shells.
As a US Navy Vet, this was hard to watch, but not for the obvious emotional reasons. As any US sailor with their ESWS certification would also know, thinking anything short of the largest gun (76mm i believe) is a waste of ammo. I know they had to play it up for the documentary, but the Sparrow, CWIS and 5 inch gun did NOTHING to that ship, as that’s not what they are designed to do. Plus they were firing 32mm and .60 machine guns at it. Those might as well been tooth picks. Lastly, you have a CD-18 Hornet, and only give it a Gatling gun? Are you kidding? That’s not gonna do anything. As a former sea dog myself, this documentary is slightly embarrassing to those who know anything about these weapon systems.
That’s about the level of fitness required to serve aboard a ship. There’s no real physical rigors on ship’s anymore since most everything is autonomous or far too great for individuals. That’s why it’s acceptable. In the digital age the private sector has much greater incentives versus the Navy. Therefore we can’t afford to turn away great, willing minds due to being a little overweight or physically out of shape.
@@MachewTate And I understand that logic, however I see some problems with having such fat and physically undisciplined sailors. Physical fitness is important because it helps you stay mentally alert, for longer periods of time. Harsh training is also a crucible of humility and strength and discipline. And in the rare circumstance they go down, you can imagine why fitness would matter. Simply put, out-of-shape but brilliant soldiers, are inferior to in-shape brilliant soldiers.
Saxon Israel The minimum push-ups, sit-ups, and 1.5 mile run required to remain in the Navy is still much higher than a large majority of people in America are able to do. If we make it even harder, those brilliant minds are gone to the private sector. I understand what you’re saying, but I can’t explain how long of hours we sometimes work in the Navy along with the mental fatigue of just being isolated from everyone you care about. Also, physical fitness plays a very minimal role in an abandon ship situation. If we got sunk by a torpedo, everyone is dead no amount of strength can help you. If we run aground and sink, then land must be near! If we’re sinking, the life rafts automatically deploy. There’s just no slightly probable situations I can think of where physical fitness is going to play an important role in survival at sea. I’m probably wrong, but having served on multiple ships in my time in, (while being in great shape, btw), I’ve accepted that death is all that awaits if our ship is sunk in battle.
Saxon Israel by the way, I’m in no way disagreeing with you. I wish the standards were raised too. But many great sailors I’ve worked with and for have given me that answer and it makes sense. Even if I don’t like it either.
@@MachewTate Yes sir I think you make fair points. I would suggest that the whole system needs to be reworked to make sure the men aren't overburdened. Fitness, although hard to muster up the will to get started, quickly relieves a lot of stress, depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Again, if it is so impractical to exercise sailors in fitness, which I agree it is, I think that means that the current system is flawed. Thank you for your insight.
Drean WW2 Battleships were formidable opponents for their time, but compared to modern technology they wouldn’t stand a chance. Why have so many guns and get up close to your opponent when you can sink them with a missile 200+ Ks away.
CAG Hotshot what do you mean many didn’t perform as designed. A 20mm would never sink a ship unless the ship is made of wood. The missile had a misfire and then worked fine after. The sub never got to test it’s torpedo but it showed a video of how a ship gets sinked by a torpedo. The only thing I saw was one of the cannons not firing and then the cwis not locking on the ship. But the cwis was never designed to aim for ship. It was for missiles, and planes. Not a ship. That’s why they had to manually control it. Either way the missile did its job and the 76 as well. Everything else wasn’t ever gonna sink that shit. Even in the state it was in.
@@knightlife98 Well ... He was referring to the Helge Ingstad (A Norwegian Fregate) That was rammed by a civilian cargo carrier and sank ;) You can google it ;)
@@knightlife98 Yeah, that was quite an emberassment. She was a brand new state of the art warship, yet somehow due to dense fog wasn't able to see the cargo ship while sailing in a fjord, got rammed, and sunk to the bottom of the fjord. Norway's ego must have gotten pretty bruised that day...
My God the amount of RU-vid Generals and Admirals in the comment section complaining how the military is not doing it right is simply mind blowing. This is mostly a military exercise to see what type of ammunition works best and what parts of Navy ships are most vulnerable during battle, but everyone in the comment section was expecting an all out war against the ghost ship. Please people stop with the stupid comments because you're making yourself look like a bunch of wannabe idiots, you will never be a General or an Admiral just by pretending to be one on RU-vid.
I loved the Idea. However, they should have set the Destroyer up to follow its human commands wirelessly allowing it to defend while using Blank offensive in defensive strategies measures to fend off attackers. Id of used the exsplosives in Defense on the destroyer and if selected by attacking teams. Also, remote any emergency handlings it can utilize w/o sweat n blood. This would be Pricey but the data acquired would be priceless., and film it to utilize the public’s curiosity in a way of a challenge to create a source of revenue to cut some cost of this epic showdown never before seen by the public eyes.
I never understood how these "live fire exercises" are considered reliable methods to find out how a ship does in combat when the target ship has been stripped of everything - countermeasures, pumps, powerplant, even ammo. This just shows how the hull floating high in the water will take random damage.
What did i watch? Close the doors and bulkheads! Welding them open or removing them?? SO you wanted it to sink fast? I don't get it. And that "camera" on ship.
Pretty impressive display of pointblank shooting against a drifting defenseless hulk...once the guns and missiles finally started working. 'Might not have been so easy if the Huron had been underway without compromised internal watertight integrity and while returning fire. In that case the sub would have had to do the job instead to reduce casualties. Those surface ships would have never come within range to dish out the shellacking they did with their pea-shooters if they were under fire themselves. Likewise, the aircraft would have had to deal with sea sparrows and a phalanx gun themselves. The Huron would have been sunk for sure, but would probably have dished out a lot of casualties, perhaps sunk one or more of its attackers if a surface attack had been attempted and might have even shot down aircraft. IMO exercises like this are great to work on fleet cooperation and test weapons to get out the unanticipated kinks as found with the Regina. Beyond that they indicate little about what would transpire in actual combat.
Now I kinda know how the sailors on the Bismarck must have felt. She was finished with a couple of torpedoes also. A couple dozen cheap drones on the Heiron to act as enemy fire would have added a new level of urgency to the attacking ships. Who knows the Heiron might have scored some hits. Would have been a great exercise for damage and fire control. We don't fight battles when everything is hunky dory.
@@americanseal7683 It was Nevada. And the Iowa used it for target practice for it's 16" guns and STILL couldn't sink it. That's when they broke out the torpedoes, lol. several torpedoes and bombs? No problem! We'll just refloat it, modernize it, and fight a war with it! Then, 2 nukes, for one of which it was the target, and a bunch of 16" shells couldn't sink it- so they had to resort to torpedoes. That's a well built battleship! From all reports, if it weren't glowing in the dark after the nukes- they could have fired up the boilers and sailed it back to Pearl, lol. Check out The History Guy's video on it- it's a hell of a story!
If they dont know how to take out other countrys military how do you expect them to protect us? Its not like theyre doing this for no reason theyre doing this so they can know how to protect us when wwIII happens because eventually it will. If you dont like where your taxes are going then move.
Ok...you'd be slaving in a gulag if they weren't protecting your ass. Oh, that's right. You're a communist until someone takes your soy away, right????
I'm surprised that the largest cannon the destroyer carries is only 75mm. I would have thought something comparable to a Paladin's 155mm artillery shell would be more appropriate.
A much more realistic test would have been achieved if all the compartments were sealed; i think it could have withstood hours of shooting at it with the minor Canadian guns. I served aboard the U.S.S. New Jersey. Nuff said
Also, ballast the ship with environmentally friendly stuff. The video clearly states it was inherently unstable after preliminary modifications. Not a true test.
No, there is another option, and a definite game changer. Somewhat expensive, but indeed challenging. Put close in weapon systems on the derolec ship and give it the ability to move. All backed by remote control. See if you can sink her then. Anybody can sink a sitting target that does cannot defend. ...and once you sink it, you can monitor how it sinks.
Ok bud they did add fake gear noises but all guns make different noises when they shoot. It mite be because of the round, caliber, barrel, muzzle, angle, or condshion.
I thought all modern warships we’re all powered by nuclear power so they don’t have to use diesel fuel for the Navy, whatever kind of fuel they use but great video
One anti-shipping missile, which can be fired from fixed wing, rotor wing, land based and ship based, would easily sink it with one shot, and an almost 100% probability of hitting it. In an ocean conflict with any country half way sophisticated, anti-shipping missiles are a serious threat. Just go back to 1982 with the Falklands conflict, and the missiles have become way better since then.
Way to church up all the “danger” associated with getting ready to sink a decommissioned ship. If a stripped down ship is so dangerous, why not just give it to the enemy?
"Fire the main gun." "We can't Captain. It's jammed for some reason." "Oh, that's okay. Fire a missile." "Captain, that misfired." "Fire another missile." Ship launches the missile and returns to port with an armed unfired missile still in the launcher. Crew departs the ship, it later blows up tied to the dock. This was just for laughs. I know the crew would have cleared the missile and fixed the gun before returning to port.
@@somerandomguyfromthebeyond1821 Since there is no coral growing on the ship it's more of a haven then a reef.I understood coral needs sunlight and since they call a coral reef where coral grows again I will say this is not a reel.
@@COYO-T well actually deep-sea coral do in fact exist, but they're not as prevalent as there shallow-water cousins though they rarely from the traditional reefs that you and I think off