Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HNoMS Helge Ingstad (F313) collision with tanker Sola TS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post

    I'm surprised that ships are not designed to be equally effective in for all climates and sailing distances. One never knows where one has to end up deplored to, especially for nations tied by alliances.

    I certainly hope that is the case with US ships as we are all over the globe and seem to have alliances with half of the world.
    There was talk that the Australian navy was pushing the limits of the design, but the chief of the navy denies it. The other ongoing issue is the excessive updraft of wind coming up the side of the ship and affecting helicopters when in the shutdown process, which caused the helicopter blades to act erratically, leading to unfavourable blade orientation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    Navantia built Australia's two LHDs, and they had significant engine issues, primarily the azimuth propulsion system. It was written that the Australian versions picked up the issues because of the vast distances they sail compared to the Spanish version. Faulty engine seals and leaking oil into different engine areas were other issues. And given our destroyers are designed by Navantia one has to hope those designs remain trouble free, but during construction design flaws were found, which setback the deadline significantly.
    I'm surprised that ships are not designed to be equally effective in and for all climates and sailing distances. One never knows where one has to end up deplored to, especially for nations tied by alliances.

    I certainly hope that is the case with US ships as we are all over the globe and seem to have alliances with half of the world.
    Last edited by Salinator; 12 Jun 19, 22:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Apparently so. Also the design was supposed to be fully protected against such a event but it just didn't work. I guess the real question is 'why'. And answer to that may affect more than just Norwegian ships.
    Navantia built Australia's two LHDs, and they had significant engine issues, primarily the azimuth propulsion system. It was written that the Australian versions picked up the issues because of the vast distances they sail compared to the Spanish version. Faulty engine seals and leaking oil into different engine areas were other issues. And given our destroyers are designed by Navantia one has to hope those designs remain trouble free, but during construction design flaws were found, which setback the deadline significantly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    So, something along the lines of what caused Prince of Wales to sink, issues with the propeller shaft and seals in that region causing massive progressive flooding forward into the ship.
    Apparently so. Also the design was supposed to be fully protected against such a event but it just didn't work. I guess the real question is 'why'. And answer to that may affect more than just Norwegian ships.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    So, something along the lines of what caused Prince of Wales to sink, issues with the propeller shaft and seals in that region causing massive progressive flooding forward into the ship.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Well... Those waters aren't that cold - they are kept reasonably warm (for the latitude) by the Gulf Stream. And neither are the Norwegian fjords that difficult to navigate - they tend to be rather wide with plenty of water even near the shore lines (try navigating Finnish or Swedish archipelagos and you'll figure out what i meant). Regardless as far as i have understood the problem relates to the propeller shaft or rather how it was boxed (or its gears were boxed). If what has been described is accurate then the hull damage from the collision was not really that big of a thing (sure it was a really nasty gash) but the real problem was that something in the collision resulted in the propeller shaft tunnels or then the hollow propeller shafts (not quite sure which or both) to pretty much siphon as much of at Atlantic inside as they could.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    I still find it rather suspect that the Norse would put up with a design choice that might suffice for Spain, where the ship will always be in warm water ports, but might be problematic in cold-water areas and the tighter navigational situations that would commonly arise in Norway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

    Well, then, aside from the Captain and both watchstanders being sacked (the Captain should Always be sacked IMHO for failure to train/supervise the crew adequately), maybe the next group of frigates the Norwegians get will have more emphasis on watertight integrity.

    I find a lack of watertight integrity somewhat odd for a ship that would spend its whole life operating out of cold water ports where the likelihood of running into an errant chunk of ice or three would be relatively high. You'd think that the hull would be made a bit extra tough to guarantee that a submerged rock in a fjord or large ice chunk wouldn't cause any sort of severe damage.
    As far as I'm aware the problem of persisting leaking was actually the result of some of the design choices done by the Spanish Navantia group which constructed the frigates in question.

    Leave a comment:


  • E.D. Morel
    replied
    Well this wouldn't happen to the Irish Naval Service... we don't have any Frigates.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    Well, looks like the only option open for them was using the ship for spare parts for the other frigates. Between $11 and $45 million worth of spares could be used.
    The cost of rebuilding the HNomS Helge Ingstad was estimated to be around $1.6 billion over 5 years. Back in 2000 this ship cost $500 in the five ship deal with Navantia.
    In addition to blaming the vessel’s lack of watertight integrity for the sinking, the report points to the two ships’ watchstanders as the main factors in the collision itself.
    Well, then, aside from the Captain and both watchstanders being sacked (the Captain should Always be sacked IMHO for failure to train/supervise the crew adequately), maybe the next group of frigates the Norwegians get will have more emphasis on watertight integrity.

    I find a lack of watertight integrity somewhat odd for a ship that would spend its whole life operating out of cold water ports where the likelihood of running into an errant chunk of ice or three would be relatively high. You'd think that the hull would be made a bit extra tough to guarantee that a submerged rock in a fjord or large ice chunk wouldn't cause any sort of severe damage.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Ooops

    20181113jo_1016_1-1000x666.jpg

    Guess there won't be too much to salvage now.
    I'm sure it'll buff out.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    In a perfect world, they could tag onto the USN FFGx order if the F100 derivative is chosen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    The final report (which may be supplemented later on) will be released on November 8 though so until then the matter is still open. Apparently the Royal Norwegian Navy tries to place the blame on the tanker having deck lights still on - which IMO could be considered somewhat reasonable (since they may hide the navigation lights) had the frigate not been repeatedly warned of the collision risk. We shall see how it turns out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Well, looks like the only option open for them was using the ship for spare parts for the other frigates. Between $11 and $45 million worth of spares could be used.
    The cost of rebuilding the HNomS Helge Ingstad was estimated to be around $1.6 billion over 5 years. Back in 2000 this ship cost $500 in the five ship deal with Navantia.
    In addition to blaming the vessel’s lack of watertight integrity for the sinking, the report points to the two ships’ watchstanders as the main factors in the collision itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X