Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

aspistrategist.org.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#51

Post by gaius »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #27

Like people with a loaded gun, sailors and officiers of warships think they are invincible and anybody else has to avoid them and not vice versa. I guess the bleak reality after such incidents would give them a cold shower to wake up, but probably too late. All modern warships were designed as if they operate on open ocean only when in reality most of the time they must navigate in world where commercial shipping has…

Like people with a loaded gun, sailors and officiers of warships think they are invincible and anybody else has to avoid them and not vice versa

I don’t think anyone in any recent warship collision has thought that. Generally they were simply oblivious to their surroundings. The USN root-caused it to sleep deprivation plus cuts in the training budget 10 years ago. Now the generation of officers who missed the training are commanding ships themselves and they don’t know what they don’t know.

But fooling around in a busy shipping lane without AIS or running lights in a ship designed for stealth should be obviously stupid, I’ll give you that!

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#52

Post by spanxx »

How can you not see a big ship coming towards you even at night? I mean don't you see it's lights. Furthermore, they were warned repeatedly by radio. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but I can't help but think how they can be so incompetent?

I'm afraid there is a worrying trend in these kind of accidents to deflect the blame to the electronics/software. Isn't your job to keep the car/ship/vehicle intact? Technology is there to help you but not to do your job.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#53

Post by oh_sigh »

spanxx wrote: post #52

How can you not see a big ship coming towards you even at night? I mean don't you see it's lights. Furthermore, they were warned repeatedly by radio. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but I can't help but think how they can be so incompetent? I'm afraid there is a worrying trend in these kind of accidents to deflect the blame to the electronics/software. Isn't your job to keep the car/ship/vehicle intact? Technology is ther…

Apparently, because the docks have a bunch of lights on them as well, obscuring the ship lights.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#54

Post by close04 »

MordodeMaru wrote: post #43

Funny thing is that Spanish company Navantia was the first to be accused of this (design errors, inexplicable sinking...) and in this article I still see some indirect finger pointing and yet no proof of that. There is some weird thing going on here.

The initial info is that the ship sank due to design flaws, like water getting through watertight seals. The collision is in no way attributed to the builder but to the ship's crew.

>> Norwegian authorities found that confusion on the Ingstad’s bridge was the immediate cause of the collision, but that the ship sank because of progressive flooding. After the collision, water quickly moved through several watertight compartments, apparently via the ship’s propeller shafts, which pass through the bulkheads between the compartments through theoretically watertight openings (known as stuffing tubes or stuffing boxes) that should prevent progressive flooding.

>> Based on crew interviews, authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly, jeopardising the watertightness of the ship. The investigation report warned that the faults that sunk the Ingstad could also be in other Navantia ships, raising questions about a possible problem with the design.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#55

Post by timonoko »

timonoko wrote: post #48

One solution might be allowing false identities in Marine Traffic aka AIS for navy and coast guard ships. They could claim to be civilian ships of same size. Especially while kayaking in Norway the AIS is essential, as bigger ships do not have any methods to detect kayaks except visual.

They could use ID's of decommissioned ships. Or ID's of ships with only seasonal use. The problem is that smugglers and spies soon learn those false ID's if they are not changed frequently.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#56

Post by SkyMarshal »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #27

Like people with a loaded gun, sailors and officiers of warships think they are invincible and anybody else has to avoid them and not vice versa. I guess the bleak reality after such incidents would give them a cold shower to wake up, but probably too late. All modern warships were designed as if they operate on open ocean only when in reality most of the time they must navigate in world where commercial shipping has…

None of this makes any sense. Modern warship sailors and officers are trained in, and expected to know at a professional level, seamanship, including international rules of right of way [1]. And they've been operating in crowded ports for decades if not centuries, that's nothing new.

All that happened in this case was the warship's watch changed at night and the new watch mistook the oncoming supertanker's lights for shore terminal lights, mistook the radio warnings, and didn't sound the alarm soon enough.

Also the most effective weapon in modern skirmishes remains, er, weapons. A big heavy ship can still be quickly disabled and/or sunk with a single modern cannon, torpedo, or anti-ship missile.

[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_...).

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#57

Post by doikor »

MordodeMaru wrote: post #43

Funny thing is that Spanish company Navantia was the first to be accused of this (design errors, inexplicable sinking...) and in this article I still see some indirect finger pointing and yet no proof of that. There is some weird thing going on here.

Well the article points out the “water sealed” prop shaft not actually being that even when designed/sold as such. Still would have had the collision but most likely the ship would not have sunk in the case that the water would not have spread throughout the ship.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#58

Post by benj111 »

tartoran wrote: post #17

Google transnation: Could "Sola TS" do more? "Sola TS" still had the tire lights when they drove out in the fjord, although ships should not light that obscures the visibility of the red and green lanterns. "Helge Ingstad" had noticed the lights that were the tanker and had plans to take a boat and sail around (ie on the side towards the fjord, not on the side towards the country). 3:58 AM said, "The Sola TS" captain…

"The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery"

Google is failing me. Is this a Norwegian saying, or a mistranslation?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#59

Post by varjag »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #27

Like people with a loaded gun, sailors and officiers of warships think they are invincible and anybody else has to avoid them and not vice versa. I guess the bleak reality after such incidents would give them a cold shower to wake up, but probably too late. All modern warships were designed as if they operate on open ocean only when in reality most of the time they must navigate in world where commercial shipping has…

That's hardly a common attitude with Norwegians and their military. The outcome certainly shows poor training and perhaps poor discipline on the bridge, but there's no reason to attribute it to some bravado.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#60

Post by melcor »

benj111 wrote: post #58
tartoran wrote: post #17

Google transnation: Could "Sola TS" do more? "Sola TS" still had the tire lights when they drove out in the fjord, although ships should not light that obscures the visibility of the red and green lanterns. "Helge Ingstad" had noticed the lights that were the tanker and had plans to take a boat and sail around (ie on the side towards the fjord, not on the side towards the country). 3:58 AM said, "The Sola TS" captain…

"The war ship first carries out a last minute kidney robbery" Google is failing me. Is this a Norwegian saying, or a mistranslation?

Most likely a mistranslation. I've never heard anything that could be translated that way.

I would assume the correct translation would be something like: "The war ship first carries out a last minute port side maneuver" or "The war ship first carries out a last minute evasive action"

Post reply on HN