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

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#111

Post by Tor3 »

jonasmst wrote: post #78
benj111 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Norwegian here. Indeed, "Krigsskipet gjør først en unnamanøver i siste liten", means "The war ship initially performs a last-minute evasive maneuver". Skimming this, I dismissed kidney robbery as some navy lingo I'm not familiar with, but it's a really bizarre error in translation.

Not entirely correct.. the 'først', in this context, translates a bit differently, something like "The war ship only performs a last-minute evasive maneuver" - which doesn't work that well in English.

So you have to turn the translated sentence around a bit: "The warship doesn't perform an evasive maneuver until the last moment".

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#112

Post by donaltroddyn »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34
andyidsinga wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking about sailors and invincibility - there's a funny story that's circulated around (false according to snopes [1]) about a particular US and Canadian Navy interaction :) :) Text snipped from snopes article: Americans: “Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.” Canadians: “Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.” Americans: “This is the capta…

Yeah, I've heard variants of this story since I was a kid (usually with different countries substituted for "Canadians" here). Funny, nonetheless.

It was an ad for compasses years ago: https://youtu.be/sYsdUgEgJrY

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#113

Post by mjlee »

mcv wrote: post #97
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.

It's better for a warship to be light and maneuverable than heavy and cumbersome. The days of slinging shells at each other are pretty much gone - and no amount of armour is going to save you from Exocet [1] in the way that getting out of the way and firing chaff/flares will.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#114

Post by Tor3 »

rangibaby wrote: post #82
goodcanadian wrote: post #80

There are a lot of good comments on this story. What stood out to me in the article, however, was that they thought the lights on the tanker were part of the port. Sounds like a bit of a stupid mistake in the context of what other commenters are saying, but fine, whatever, you thought they were lights of the port. Why on Earth did you ram the port at 17 knots? EDIT: Yes, I understand they didn't think it was moving,…

It’s probably one of those things where everyone thought everyone else would notice that the port was actually another boat

Yeah, apperently there were 7 people on the bridge.. way too many. Everything becomes "somebody else knows what's going on".

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#115

Post by yason »

I do wonder:

- Why approaching something thought to be a fixed construction didn't trigger any alarms, mechanical or mental? It doesn't matter if the "tanker" was a stationary part of the harbour or a moving vessel because just looking at the change in their relative positions would have indicated a collision course regardless.

- I suppose ships still have radars? Looking at a dot or an edge coming closer and closer on the radar screen should ring some bells.

- The tanker had their identification transponder on as expected: why did not the military vessel get red lights flashing somewhere even if they chose to not turn on theirs?

- Don't ships have any means to communicate emergencies? If the tanker couldn't contact the frigate by radio wouldn't the ship have deck lights or search lights or something that they could starting flashing, as a last resort, as soon as they observed that the frigate would in fact collide with the tanker's course? Heck, couldn't they even shoot flares at the frigate if that's really what it takes?

In the air, accidents usually happen these days because of several things go wrong in sequence. Everything is basically covered for either in procedures or by technology but given enough unlucky sequential failures in various systems makes it possible for something fatal to happen, and sometimes it does.

In contrast, and based on a couple of articles, this sounds like a trivial blunder.

Is there a more comprehensive failure analysis still being worked on, and to be published later?

EDIT: The tanker apparently did manage to contact the fregate by radio. And still they didn't "get it". I would like to see a more substantial breakdown of the causes rather than mere incompetence. Norwegians have lived and breathed the sea for ages, I generally do trust their ability to navigate a ship.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#116

Post by dagw »

flurdy wrote: post #91
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…

but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise.

Where they on a training exercise? The linked VG article makes it sound like the exercise was over and they where on their way home when the accident happened.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#117

Post by Tor3 »

varjag wrote: post #63
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…

It does appear to be the case of gross incompetence. In Norwegian newspapers comments section, most seamen and former Navy tend to suggest just that. This is Norway though. In many other places the captain would be court martialed for that. Here he'd have his promotion delayed a few years at worst.

The captain was not at the bridge during the situation though. He was off shift. He came to the bridge after the collision, and took over the radio communication. Very apparent in the way the communication was handled (after the crash).

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#118

Post by Tor3 »

dagw wrote: post #116
flurdy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

but they were on official navigation training exercise as part of NATO's massive Trident Juncture exercise. Where they on a training exercise? The linked VG article makes it sound like the exercise was over and they where on their way home when the accident happened.

They were. And they were in one of the most busy shipping lanes (due to the port being nearby), and a narrow one. There was no reason in the world why they would have their AIS off. What I wonder is if their own AIS monitor was also off? Why didn't they see the AIS signature of Sola TS and the other ships?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#119

Post by raubtier »

vegardx wrote: post #95
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.

Don't see your point. You can bet that it's quite unique to have 4 out of 5 female navigation officers. They brag about it a lot. One wonder how much affirmative action was needed to get them their. Hopefully none. There is a chance that the investagation is done thoroughly because this is quite serious, then it will show if not classified.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#120

Post by mjlee »

yason wrote: post #115

I do wonder: - Why approaching something thought to be a fixed construction didn't trigger any alarms, mechanical or mental? It doesn't matter if the "tanker" was a stationary part of the harbour or a moving vessel because just looking at the change in their relative positions would have indicated a collision course regardless. - I suppose ships still have radars? Looking at a dot or an edge coming closer and closer…

Ships have a siren (big horn). 5 short blasts is "you're about to hit me". The tanker absolutely should have sounded that as soon as it became apparent that something was wrong.

They also absolutely have radars, and normally ones that will sound an alarm when a collision is possible. I suspect the bridge crew disabled the alarm in this case.

Post reply on HN