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

141–150 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#141

Post by quickben »

mjlee wrote: post #126
Spooky23 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a sailor, but I was struck when touring various mueseum ships, including ships in service into the late 70s. They were pretty barebones in terms of equipment, comfort and distraction. With the light distraction of screens, reliance on automated systems, reduced crew levels, and leadership focused on things other than sailing ships, it seems to be an argument that has some merit to me.

The light distraction thing has been taken into account on all ships I've been on, including warships. Everything that can be dimmed is dimmed, normally to the point where it's not really usable without a hood or turning up the brightness when you need it. Everything that can't be dimmed gets a curtain made up for it.

Interesting. What wouldn't be usually dimmable?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#142

Post by mannykannot »

ALittleLight wrote: post #3

One issue the article goes into is that the sailors were distracted by their high tech bridge computers and so failed to notice the ship they were in the process of ramming. I have trouble understanding how this works - what is your high tech bridge gear showing you if not the surrounding area? Someone should be checking where the ship is going and whether they check with their mark one eyeballs or their high tech sh…

Furthermore, as modern surface warships, with all their technology, are having trouble avoiding lumbering merchant ships, what does that imply about their ability in a hostile environment? Is it that modern threats are so fast, stealthy, autonomous and long-range that ship-handling would be largely irrelevant in combat?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#143

Post by angry_octet »

seszett wrote: post #90
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.

I'm just speculating here, but I don't think the Norwegian navy actually operates as if it could potentially be in combat situation at any time. Not sure if what I'm saying is clear (and I don't have the correct terms, especially in English) but on French navy ships and I guess on US ships as well, the general ambiance is that the situation is always serious and whatever operation is done as if it was in the context…

This is an epically uninformed comment.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#144

Post by jzwinck »

alkonaut wrote: post #139
jzwinck wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my several years old car will scream with alarms if I'm closing on an obstacle, and eventually even start handling the danger for me. I have to assume the same systems exist for a huge expensive warship. So not only was the AIS turned off - all collision alarms etc were too? I don't know how the military systems work, but I have used civilian maritime systems like the AIS you mention, some of which are built by sem…

If I understand correctly, AIS is only a transponder like system, so self-reported positions? If you compare to any commercial airliner you have transponder for communicating some things, but you also have collision alarms such as the one screaming "TERRAIN" or "PULL UP" if you are about to smack into the ground. That system is a ground radar of some kind. On a car the navigation system is also separate from the fron…

Yes, AIS shows self-reported positions. Basically it broadcasts your GPS coordinates, your ship's name and other details, plus (unfortunately) any random messages you want to send.

Ships have radar too. But my point here is not about sensors--the problem is in the human-computer interface. We can see on the screen that a ship is (or isn't) on a collision course with us, but the systems commonly installed on civilian craft only tell us if another ship is inside our predefined circle. And we have to make that circle fairly small when travelling in busy areas, or there will be alarms at all times.

Another fun, dumb thing about AIS: it does not self-report anchor state. It is a requirement that ships display a shape on their bow to indicate if they are anchored. But there is no dissemination of such data in AIS. It would be hugely useful to know the difference between a ship 0.5 NM away at anchor vs underway. And just imagine if we are ourselves in a busy anchorage--we would want an alarm if a ship underway is coming toward us, but not if a ship we are anchored next to is still exactly where we left it.

It's not that we don't have sensors to know what we need to know. It's that the displays and audible alerts are not ergonomically advantageous, and are prone to fatiguing their users.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#145

Post by tremon »

varjag wrote: post #64
oh_sigh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a 2009 commissioned stealth frigate, with every navigational aid you can think of (AIS, a range of radars, visible light and FLIR cameras) on the bridge. They also had repeated warnings over the radio.

I'm not sure if the radio transmission from https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/ (linked already in various comments) is accurate, but if so, there were no warnings over the radio. Instead, they were directed to change heading but not informed why. I don't speak Norsk, but it seems like the first time "collision course" is mentioned is at 04:01:08, ten seconds before impact.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#146

Post by jacobush »

elcapitan wrote: post #140
remarkEon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really cool, thanks. I’m actualy pretty surprised how much of the Norwegian language I could imply into English there. It wasn’t that hard to follow along on that map. Context matters a lot, I guess.

Many of the words are probably old German in origin, the modern German word "Steuerbord" means the same, "steuern" = to steer (see "styrboard", could also have become "steerboard" in English, instead of starboard). The nautic right side was called that way because on those old viking boats, the rudder was a big paddle on the right side.

old Germanic if I may :)

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#147

Post by mjlee »

quickben wrote: post #141
mjlee wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The light distraction thing has been taken into account on all ships I've been on, including warships. Everything that can be dimmed is dimmed, normally to the point where it's not really usable without a hood or turning up the brightness when you need it. Everything that can't be dimmed gets a curtain made up for it.

Interesting. What wouldn't be usually dimmable?

Normally equipment that's still in development or is bought off the shelf[1]. Power LEDs on a laptop charger for example.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#148

Post by seszett »

angry_octet wrote: post #143
seszett wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just speculating here, but I don't think the Norwegian navy actually operates as if it could potentially be in combat situation at any time. Not sure if what I'm saying is clear (and I don't have the correct terms, especially in English) but on French navy ships and I guess on US ships as well, the general ambiance is that the situation is always serious and whatever operation is done as if it was in the context…

This is an epically uninformed comment.

It's just my observation from my time aboard ships of the French, Australian and South African navies in the South Indian Ocean.

I didn't work as closely with the men aboard the South African and Australian ships, so maybe I got a wrong idea there.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#149

Post by short_sells_poo »

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.

And boats don't do emergency stops, or turns for that matter.

If you haven't been out on a powerboat at night, I urge you to try it once. It can be extremely disorienting as often you have zero points of reference, the ability to judge distances is compromised and objects can be completely invisible either because of the darkness when away from the shore, or because of the bright background light pollution from onshore lights. In such conditions, I want to take every piece of information about my surroundings (e.g. radar, sonar and AIS), and make sure that others know where I am and where I'm heading, so turning off the AIS in a busy shipping lane is particularly questionable. As another poster wrote, this is the analogue of speeding on a busy highway with all your lights off and having a matte black car.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#150

Post by walrus01 »

Considering the accuracy of the radar systems (and dozens of millions of dollars spent on them) mounted on a modern frigate or destroyer, a warship crew should REALLY NOT be reliant upon other vessels' AIS to avoid collisions. Warships are maneuverable and fast. Physical failings of the ship aside, I think there's something wrong with the complacency of the crew training.
Post reply on HN