Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications • Hacker News Board

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#151

Post by short_sells_poo » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #6

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…

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.

Light distraction is real. It's like trying to drive with your headlights off, while a bright lcd panel is glaring into your eyes. Your vision is going to be seriously compromised.

Another good reason for relatively barebones or simple equipment is the old Murphy's law that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. Both electric and mechanical systems will routinely break, and things that can be repaired with a duct tape, hammer or screwdriver will be much less of a hassle than a fancy digital doodad.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#152

Post by unixhero » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:15 PM UTC

kristofferR wrote: post #9

burfog wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, or more recently the Vista security alerts. People tune out warnings, or even disable them, if they are constant.

They were warned by radio too. "Helge Ingstad, Turn right." "We will do that, but can't now" "You have to take starboard, you are closing in rapidly. TURN!! There's gonna be a collition here then..." https://www.vg.no/spesial/2018/helge-ingstad-ulykken/

So insanely arrogant.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#153

Post by dotancohen » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

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…

A few years ago in Tromso I had the pleasure of talking with a Norwegian infantry soldier. Having served in Israeli infantry it was very interesting to both of us to share what we could. Note that this was 2013, before Russia invaded Ukraine.

From what I gathered, the Norwegian army (don't know about navy) is on constant alert for a Russian attack. Norway is very oil rich, and sits right at Russia's border. Russia outguns and outnumbers Norway, and they have experience in similar climates. From what I gathered, the Norwegian military is about as vigilant as I felt the Israeli military is. They may not be attacked constantly as we are, but they know that a single attack could end their way of life in minutes.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#154

Post by Symmetry » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #142

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?

Modern surface warfare involves firing cruise missiles from over 100 miles away. Ship handling is involved to the extent that you need to turn to bring your point defense systems to bear but you don't expect there to be obstacles anywhere nearby.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#155

Post by belenos46 » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

mjlee wrote: post #147

quickben wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Power LEDs on a laptop charger for example.

...Oh, right. The things under the electrical tape patch on my laptop :D

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#156

Post by MordodeMaru » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #96

MordodeMaru wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's actually my concern: while it is impossible to determine that from the article, the burden is already in someone's shoulders already.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#157

Post by Symmetry » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

It looks like a big contributing factor in the recent US destroyer collision was lack of sleep on the part of the crew. Are Norwegian crews also chronically sleep deprived?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#158

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:51 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #142

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?

A huge part of the problem is that the crew lets down their guard in friendly waters making these collisions possible.

In a combat environment no unidentified ship would been able to get nearly as close without getting some holes put in it.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#159

Post by mjlee » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

belenos46 wrote: post #155

mjlee wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Power LEDs on a laptop charger for example. ...Oh, right. The things under the electrical tape patch on my laptop :D

Yeah, probably a bad example. A screen on a laptop that nobody has admin rights on to properly dim might be a better case.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#160

Post by rjsw » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

jabl wrote: post #73

nradov wrote: post #16

Shipbuilders are designing shaftless propulsion systems for future warships which would put electric motors and propellors in pods under the hull. That would improve hull integrity and reduce the risk of flooding multiple compartments.

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.