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

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#201

Post by aoki »

pdonis wrote: post #199
hansthehorse wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surface nuclear ops here. Served in the engine room of a nuclear destoyer in the 70s and early 80's. We did not relieve the watch leaving port until we cleared into open water. Same with proceding to dock. You stayed until done. When docking the crew that would have relieved the engine room assisted in pulling shore power cables then went to relieve the watch and shut down the reactors and engine room.

> Served in the engine room of a nuclear destoyer in the 70s and early 80's. Which ship, if you don't mind saying? I know we have nuclear carriers, and had nuclear cruisers (I think all of them are decommissioned now, but I worked on a couple when I was at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in the early 1990s), but I didn't think we had any nuclear destroyers.

The DLGNs were reclassified as CGNs in the 70s. As you say, they were decommed after the Gulf War (after spending all that money on NTU).

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#202

Post by aoki »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #11

Older ship designs had a flying bridge, where one or more lookouts would be posted. Open to the air, with very little equipment to distract or lights to blind. In moby dick the standing order was: Keep your weather-eye open, and sing out every time. Sing out! sing out every time! These newer ships, esp the stealth ships seem to have dispensed with this feature. Perhaps navies have decided that the advantages of steal…

The 70s era DD I served on had a fully enclosed pilothouse. Everybody standing underway deck watch (except the deck sailors standing lookout watch on the bridge wings and aft, and the signalmen in the signal shack above) was in the pilothouse.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#203

Post by aoki »

CydeWeys wrote: post #174
opwieurposiu wrote: post #11

Older ship designs had a flying bridge, where one or more lookouts would be posted. Open to the air, with very little equipment to distract or lights to blind. In moby dick the standing order was: Keep your weather-eye open, and sing out every time. Sing out! sing out every time! These newer ships, esp the stealth ships seem to have dispensed with this feature. Perhaps navies have decided that the advantages of steal…

Would bringing back the crow's nest make more sense? A lot of ships still have masts for varying reasons.

You can’t, in general, put people above the air search radar. (Exercise for the reader: why is it ok for the pilothouse of US AEGIS ships to be located above the SPY-1 arrays?)

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#204

Post by nradov »

rjsw wrote: post #160
jabl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so-called 'Azipod' propulsion systems are quite common on many kinds of commercial vessels. However, for warships capable of 30+ kn, I'd guess there are challenges not faced by commercial Azipod usage.

Engines in external pods won't be as quiet as internal ones, this matters if one of the roles of a warship is to hunt submarines.

Engines will still be inside the hull. Only the motors will be in external pods. So it shouldn't be any noisier.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#205

Post by pdonis »

aoki wrote: post #201
pdonis wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Served in the engine room of a nuclear destoyer in the 70s and early 80's. Which ship, if you don't mind saying? I know we have nuclear carriers, and had nuclear cruisers (I think all of them are decommissioned now, but I worked on a couple when I was at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in the early 1990s), but I didn't think we had any nuclear destroyers.

The DLGNs were reclassified as CGNs in the 70s. As you say, they were decommed after the Gulf War (after spending all that money on NTU).

> The DLGNs were reclassified as CGNs in the 70s.

Ah, ok.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#206

Post by Tor3 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #187
Tor3 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well.. those other ships weren't really on their right (at that time). They were on their left (as can be seen on the video of the radar monitoring). The reason stated by Helge Ingstad's radio operator for not turning starboard was because of some reefs to their starboard. At the time of the crash those reefs were still 750m away (to starboard) though.

I could be wrong, but 750m seems to me to be not very far when traveling 17 knots.

That's true, however at the time of the collision the dangerous reefs were about 90 degrees to their right. Compared to steering just a vee bit to starboard to avoid the collision the 750m starts looking very wide indeed.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#207

Post by stcredzero »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #67
stcredzero wrote: post #2

It seems that this frigate sunk much too easily for a warship because of a failure of watertight compartmentalization. (Specifically, the part which allows the propeller shaft to interpenetrate multiple compartments.) There might be a parallel here with the Kursk. The watertight compartments were supposed to be hardened against explosive over-pressure, but I remember seeing a documentary where it was proposed that th…

Well certainly the front shouldn't have fell off I can tell you that much. Hopefully they'll have removed the ship from the environment.

Well certainly the front shouldn't have fell off I can tell you that much.

Water is quite heavy and dense. When you are jacking around with differential buoyancy, you're dealing with forces that can break the back of a ship. This is how torpedoes often wreak the worst damage. The overpressure can lift a part of the ship and break its back. Flooding the 1st 3rd or a ship could do something similar.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#208

Post by kwhitefoot »

gvb wrote: post #168
kwhitefoot wrote: post #26

How come the ship's radar didn't warn of the impending collision. If my Tesla can do it surely a warship should be able to.

Your Tesla doesn't always warn of impending collisions: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/07/tesla-m... https://electrek.co/2016/11/29/tesla-model-s-crash-truck/ https://www.newsweek.com/autonomous-tesla-crashes-parked-fir... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/06/20/tesla-s...

That it does not do it every time that there is a risk does not outweigh the fact that it is equipped to do it and the warship apparently is not.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#209

Post by jloughry »

aoki wrote: post #203
CydeWeys wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would bringing back the crow's nest make more sense? A lot of ships still have masts for varying reasons.

You can’t, in general, put people above the air search radar. (Exercise for the reader: why is it ok for the pilothouse of US AEGIS ships to be located above the SPY-1 arrays?)

This seems to be relevant:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/DDG51_04-97.htm

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#210

Post by aoki »

jloughry wrote: post #209
aoki wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t, in general, put people above the air search radar. (Exercise for the reader: why is it ok for the pilothouse of US AEGIS ships to be located above the SPY-1 arrays?)

This seems to be relevant: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/DDG51_04-97.htm

the general idea is that it is unhealthy to be right in the beam of a high-power air search radar. when you are in port, you get used to lots of pierside announcements to the effect of "do not rotate or radiate any electrical or electronic equipment while men are working aloft [in the masts of a ship at this pier]."

on most ships, the air search radars are on masts or platforms well above where any people work while underway. but on US AEGIS ships (CG 47, DDG 51), the pilothouse is located above the phased array panels. however, all of the arrays are on the outside of the blocky superstructure, pointing AWAY from the pilothouse. (there was a quote in that message about not leaning over the rails when standing on the bridge wings!)

the navantia design and derivatives (including the Nansens) did not take up this idea. presumably because they're smaller and needed the stability, but i'm just guessing there.

Post reply on HN