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

191–200 of 210 posts

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#191

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

t0mas88 wrote: post #165
skookumchuck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In piloting aircraft, too, it pays to look out the window now and then.

It does. And then in aircraft there are actually controllers to help us and a little box shouting "traffic, traffic" about 40 seconds before things go wrong. Followed by automated resolution advice if things are really going wrong. Thinking about it, isn't it strange that ships don't have a TCAS-like system to warn for predicted collisions?

The radars I used almost 30 years ago on merchant ships certainly had collision alerts! But I was also trained that there had to be at least one person on the watch whose sole job was to look out for other ships.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#192

Post by mjlee »

CydeWeys wrote: post #177
mjlee wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The tanker was already in contact over radio with the frigate. Voice comms (when established) are better than horns.

VHF is no replacement for Colregs - https://www.marinemec.com/news/view,opinion-avoid-using-vhf-...

There have been multiple collisions attributed to two ships talking to each other, not realising that the ship they were looking out the window was not the ship they were talking to.

Additionally, the sirens are pretty loud and the Captain/Navigator's cabins are normally in a position to hear them. Any CO who hears 5 short blasts in the vicinity of their ship is going to sprint for the bridge.

In short, 5 short blasts is what IRPCS tells you to do - so you should do it.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#193

Post by elcapitan »

depressedpanda wrote: post #188
elcapitan wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually not correct - Germanic is the name for the group, while actual languages are German . Old High German, Middle High German, etc.

Well you argued (without providing any references) that Norwegian "styrbord" was probably from Old German. Given your example of Viking longboats I find it far more likely that the word is from Old Norse. Hence Germanic is correct, but German highly unlikely. Given the history of the British isles, I would also venture that English is more influenced by Old Norse than Old German.

My correction was merely about the usage of "Germanic" vs specific languages with regard to "old" ;) In general classifying it as "Germanic" is correct, yes. My original distinction was more intended to be about the difference between originally Germanic words vs Scandinavian-only ones.

It's probably hard to tell in which of the languages (Norse, German, English) it originated, because there are little sources in that time (talking mid-first millennium here). From what I know German is a little older than Old Norse (700 vs 900).

Regarding "viking boats", I used that as an example for a type of boat, I'm pretty sure it was a common way of building boats at the time - the Romans used similar rudders. The concept would have been known to all people building ships.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#194

Post by pessimizer »

jacobush wrote: post #41
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.

Norwegian is mostly intelligible with Swedish, but the words that differ from Swedish are very often exactly the same word in English. The Danes live on - in England.

Or rather the Angles live on, in Angland and in Denmark.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#195

Post by jacobush »

pessimizer wrote: post #194
jacobush wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norwegian is mostly intelligible with Swedish, but the words that differ from Swedish are very often exactly the same word in English. The Danes live on - in England.

Or rather the Angles live on, in Angland and in Denmark.

First time I hear about that theory, any sources?

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#196

Post by skookumchuck »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #191
t0mas88 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does. And then in aircraft there are actually controllers to help us and a little box shouting "traffic, traffic" about 40 seconds before things go wrong. Followed by automated resolution advice if things are really going wrong. Thinking about it, isn't it strange that ships don't have a TCAS-like system to warn for predicted collisions?

The radars I used almost 30 years ago on merchant ships certainly had collision alerts! But I was also trained that there had to be at least one person on the watch whose sole job was to look out for other ships.

There's no substitute for looking out the window ("Iceberg, right ahead!"). The automated systems are fine as backups because people make misteaks.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#197

Post by hadlock »

rkangel wrote: post #93

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…

Even my $150 marine VHF radio (which is about average cost/features) on my private boat has an AIS receiver and will scream like a bleeding goat if we're on a potential collision path with any AIS devices within a selectable range. You actually have to disable this feature manually as it is on by default.

There is zero reason in 2018 for any commercial or military boat operating under it's own power to collide with anything carrying an AIS beacon. This problem was solved in 1983 with the invention of AIS and all commercial boats have been required to have it since the mid-1990s.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#198

Post by posterboy »

Tor3 wrote: post #111
jonasmst wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Funny enough it does work the same in German and I never lexicalized "erst in der letzten Minute" (only in the last minute) as from "das erste mal" (the first time) and "erstmals" (first-time-ly). Figures that "only" is really "one-ly", but maybe compares to Ger. "ohne" (without), Norse "on" ... English "on" (without). Amazing.

> [only:] From Middle English oonly, onli, onlych, onelich, anely, from Old English ānlīċ, ǣnlīċ (“like; similar; equal”), from Proto-Germanic ainalīkaz, equivalent to one +‎ -ly. Cognate with obsolete Dutch eenlijk, German ähnlich (“similar”), Old Norse álíkr, Swedish enlig (“unified”).

In light of the sentence in question, I wonder how "ähnlich" (similar) compares to "endlich" (finally, surface analysis "end-ly", "ending") historically: The ship finally manouvers in the last minute. Which gives a different tone with opposite meaning.

Given the gloss 'similar' for "only", try "like": The ship, like, maneouvers in the last minute. ... Not quite the same. in fact OE "aenlic" is explainable as 'unlike', too. It has separate meanings. Nevertheless, Ger. "gleich" comes full circle, as it means 'alike' or 'first of all, now, soon', somewhat like 'just' (just the same, just do it), i.e. in "angleichen" (adjust), or German "just in diesem Moment", though this is closer to "gerade" (straight), "gerade in diesem Moment".

Je, jäh, jedoch Est ehst eh du dich versiehst Establish estimate esteem es aus out Eureka eus eu- Finally at last at least mindest min- mint mind mon-ument

"genau" (exact[ly], cp. ') Now narrow. Nur na'ware ... na warte du nur. Na warte. Warte nicht!

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#199

Post by pdonis »

hansthehorse wrote: post #62
zentiggr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This - my time as control room crew on a sub, we knew we were in for as long a maneuvering watch as we had to stand, to get from open water to a pier or vice versa. Only in very unusual circumstances did the watchstanders rotate, with the exception of the helmsman and his relief. Especially not Sonar, Fire Control, Radar and the Quaartermaster. If that discipline has broken down, ah, crap, may as well leave em piersi…

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.

Re: Norwegian frigate sinking has far-reaching implications

#200

Post by Bendingo »

dotancohen wrote: post #153
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…

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 ou…

> constant alert for a Russian attack. Norway is very oil rich

Ridiculous scaremongering. Implying that Russia would invade Norway for it's oil, when Russia has 13 times more proven oil reserves than Norway [1]

Rather than highjacking a thread about Norwegian naval accident, in order to disparage Russia, perhaps you'd simply like to claim that Russians hacked Helge Ingstad ?

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

Post reply on HN