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

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#91

Post by flurdy »

prestonbriggs wrote: post #12

I was pretty surprised at the 17 knots in a fjord.

It's fast, but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise. I would assume higher speed and quicker decisions are a normal part of that type of training.

That I think is why there were American officers as well on the bridge at the time of the incident as part of cross training.

Which is then disheartening to hear the Maltese registered, Greek owned tankship speak Norwegian, not English, at the time of crisis, and than then same from the onshore vessel traffic service.

Also, you can travel along a huge chunk of the coast of Norway avoiding open seas by being in "fjords", though mostly they are not real fjords just sounds between islands etc.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#92

Post by MordodeMaru »

close04 wrote: post #88
jabl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the prop shaft or the hull is bent due to the collision, the stuffing boxes would not seal? Then again, with a glancing blow to the side of the ship, this should not happen?

Sure, there are plenty of reasons a good design might still fail. But while further investigation might be necessary, the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision. It doesn't look like they're trying to pass the blame. The ship may have been still able to stay afloat after the collision assuming the seals worked as expected.

Isn't "while further investigation might be necessary" incompatible with "the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision." or is it just me?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#93

Post by rkangel »

Can someone please explain to me how a ship hits another ship that is showing full AIS? I have no understanding of what it's like on the bridge of a ship like that and would appreciate some insight. Surely they have a radar plot of themselves and their vector with the other ship, with a point of closest approach readout (ideally connected to an alarm). As a recreational sailor on a 28' yacht that's what we have, and monitoring that in shipping lanes is the priority. Can someone with understanding explain how this (to me) basic precaution might not happen on a professional naval ship with multiple bridge crew?

For me, lets ignore the whole 'should the navy show AIS', and 'the ship was difficult to see because of lighting', not identifying a collision AIS vector seems like a single egregious failure.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#95

Post by vegardx »

raubtier wrote: post #81

Feminism caused the collision? http://freewestmedia.com/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-... Funny.

Funny how the pictured crew widely circulated on pages like these wasn't even on the ship.

Norwegian Royal Navy has had women serving as captains for a couple of decades. This isn't something new, the only thing that has changed in recent years is that conscription is mandatory for everyone.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#96

Post by close04 »

MordodeMaru wrote: post #92
close04 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are plenty of reasons a good design might still fail. But while further investigation might be necessary, the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision. It doesn't look like they're trying to pass the blame. The ship may have been still able to stay afloat after the collision assuming the seals worked as expected.

Isn't "while further investigation might be necessary" incompatible with "the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision." or is it just me?

Maybe but we can't really tell from the article if that's the final report on the investigation and if the builder agrees, hence the might in "further investigation might be necessary". It just says:

> authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly

The why and the how could make the difference between bad design, bad implementation, or bad luck.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#97

Post by mcv »

donalhunt wrote: post #94

On the positive side, it sounds like there was very little damage to the tanker which would have had a devastating impact to the environment had it leaked its contents / sunk.

Absolutely. When I hear about a collision between a warship and an oil tanker, I'd expect the warship to rip straight through the oil tanker, with devastating results.

It's an unintended benefit of flimsy modern warships, I guess. But it'd be better if they actually watched where they're going.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#100

Post by mcv »

hansthehorse wrote: post #61
nradov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had sailors on lookout duty. But apparently the lookouts didn't understand what they were seeing, or there was a breakdown in bridge resource management.

They were traveling at 17 knots in a busy channel at night. That alone seems crazy.

In traffic terms, that would be speeding, in the dark, with your lights off. And apparently while not paying attention to the other traffic.

All we need now is drunk crew.

Post reply on HN