Hey KILAUEA, you’re back is broken. U.S. Navy Photo.
The ex-USS Kilauea, a former ammunition ship and a later staple of the Military Sealift Command for almost 30 years, was sunk earlier this week at the hands of a Australian submarine near Hawaii.
Not to worry, however. The ship, along with the USNS Niagara Falls, were sunk as part of a SINKEX (sink exercise) during the 2012 Rim of The Pacific, or RIMPAC, exercise. This years RIMPAC saw representatives from twenty two of the world’s Navies spending their July near the Hawaiian Islands in what is being called the largest international maritime exercise in the world. More than 40 ships and submarines, 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel are in attendance
To help crews gain proficiency in live firing, the U.S. offered up the ex-USS Kilauea as a target vessel in one of two SINKEX’s to be conducted during this years exercise. And on June 22 at approximately 9:32 a.m., the vessel was fired upon and sunk at the hands of the Australian Navy’s HMAS Farncomb submarine in waters 15,480 feet deep.
“HMAS Farncomb’s success reminds us yet again of the invaluable role submarines play in modern warfare,” said Australian Commodore Stuart Mayer, Combined Forces Maritime Component commander for RIMPAC.
While some are praising the exercise for its as-real-as-it-gets experience it gains, others are saying the only thing sunk was millions of taxpayer dollars. Let’s hope the Australian Navy hits their next target…
What do you think? Are SINKEX’s a waste of taxpayer dollars or are they invaluable for training? Join the discussion.
These ships do more harm rotting away in Hawaii's mothball fleet than at 15,480 ft. It cost more to dismantle her than to sink her.
whats the chance of someone buying them
I was chief engineer on this ship (the USNS KILAUEA), as well as the USNS NIAGARA FALLS. In fact, it was on this ship that I proved a new maintenance philosophy. While it pains me to see her sunk by a submarine, all things must pass. I do know that she was stripped of all her serviceable parts and made ecologically neutral prior to her sinking. There are many sea stories associated with this ship as well…and her sinking will be just one more story.
Navies need targets and the construction of real targets is more of a waste than sinking old ships. For the Navy, the cost to decommission the ship was more than it would have received from auction anyway, so pardon the pun, but the “sunk costs” made the ship a better target than an auction item.
Why at the hands of some Aussies though? We’re allies and this is an international exercise, I know, but we should have done it ourselves.
it would be logical if we could better align the goals of SINKEX and REEFEX. Other than there is less opposition to SINKEX as it occurs far from sight of folks, assuming that is an advantage, why these ships can't achieve training value AND an economic return on investment to the nation (like the ex-USAFS Vandenberg in Key West, FL) isn't at all clear. By merging SINKEX and REEFEX goals we could both strengthen our military's readiness and also give America an additional return on her investment.
The US Navy’s experience with the Mark 14 torpedo highlighted the need of performing live testing of ordnance in real-world conditions.
I believe the Australian navy uses the same torpedo’s as the USA.