> Despite the very heavy investment in warship survivability measures, this makes one wonder just how little damage modern combatants can sustain without being immediately crippled.

The essence of the article.

▲

potato3732842 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Look at the damage that the tanker did in terms of hole size and compartments breaches. It's on the order of a hit from an anti-ship missile.

The frigate was in a peacetime "basically in my home harbor" configuration so it's not like the ship was all buttoned up in preparation to take battle damage nor was the crew on any sort of alert.

Had they been in a more "normal for situations where you might get shot at" state of alertness they wouldn't have blundered into hitting a tanker and if they did it wouldn't have sunk them.

There's a reason these accidents happen in friendly waters and not the area of the world where you have both oil tankers and unfriendly forces.

	▲	lazide 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Notably, however, enemy navies love to surprise their opponents like this. So it’s a pretty good indicator of what would happen if you caught a frigate like this off guard (or it hit a mine).

▲

sgt101 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Compare and contrast to the recent collision of Chinese combat ships around the Philippines - much more severe damage, much less severe outcome.

Someone needs to take a very hard look at this.

	▲	potato3732842 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's more illustrative of the state of readiness of the ship and crew than construction or crew quality or anything else. Furthermore, just plowing head on into something is way more survivable for a ship than a side swipe. I would say it actually took less damage, albeit more dramatically visible above the waterline.
	▲	palijer 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you are making this comparison to build quality, I think there are some large problems in your logic. The Chinese combat ships were at a much higher level of combat readiness, and hence a lot more crew who knew what they were actively doing and had their stations prepared accordingly. The Norwegian vessel had most of her crew asleep and we're navigating in friendly waters.

▲

closewith 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, and blue water navy advocates have been wilfully ignorant to this for at least a decade now.

In this instance, the excuses given are always:

* the small number on watch did not provide enough people to effectively commence damage control,

* the poorly trained crew did not close bulkheads as they evacuated from berths,

* the design did not have sufficient redundancy.

This ignores that all navies now:

* run lean crews and ultra-lean watches, relying on automation,

* training standards are dropping everywhere due to cost, and far fewer seafarers enter naval service with prior experience,

* ships are becoming more automated and cost-sensitive, so new frigates like the Type 26 (that will replace the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates) or the upcoming US DDG(X)-class are likely to have significantly reduced redundancies and damage-control capacity, given tonnage is increasing by 40+% but crews are shrinking.

▲

bell-cot 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> ... already inadequate bilge pump system which failed to remove any water from the ship. Many hatches and doors that would maintain watertight integrity were left open, essentially to facilitate movement of personnel and portable pumps which proved ineffective.

And the article goes on to say that the ship's watertight doors and hatches would have save her from sinking, if the crew had bothered to close those on their way out.

If you are miserably incompetent at the very basics of both design and operation, then "investing" in more advanced stuff is just a cool-sounding waste of money.

▲

M95D 4 days ago | parent [-]

I would expect a war ship to not even have doors between compartments - only move between compartments at the end of shift, by climbing stairs above the section wall and descend on the other side.

	▲	aoki 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		The deepest compartments (below the waterline) are often like this. It is not always possible for taller equipment spaces (engineering, magazines) in small ships. Crew berthing is often below the waterline and accessed via deck hatches as you say, but you do end up with hard choices when the space is flooding and people are still unaccounted for. Hope you can stabilize the ship or run it aground before it sinks, or 100% guarantee that some crew will drown? Above the waterline, it is common to have “loops” of passageways for movement of equipment and people (including casualties). Firemain stations will be spaced along such a loop because they are used to both fight nearby fires and dewater the compartments below.

▲

Ekaros 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Makes one thing just how effective simple ramming could be. Not to even talk about explosives... Take a basic steel boat. Fill with say styrox, mount large engines and remote controls. Just drive it at full speed to warship.

You could mass produce something like that for less than 100k from stock standard parts.

▲

jjmarr 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Japan used explosive motorboats during World War 2, building thousands. They were not as effective as planes, I'd guess due to difficulties in evading defensive fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyo_(suicide_motorboat)

I'd imagine a larger boat would be even easier to sink.

	▲	Ekaros 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you do not need the internal volume you could fill it with something which even with hole would still float. I think you could find some reasonably buoyant material that could take some beating. And on other side I think there might have been changes in ship construction and armaments which might still make this approach valid for a while.

▲

ehnto 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suspect the logistics of having such a ship close enough to the conflict at the right time would be the biggest challenge. You wouldn't want to drag them around with you on larger ships. I think you're right though, there's probably an appropriate balance of range, size and location where it makes a lot of sense, especially during wartime where it's harder to spin up complex weapon pipelines and simple stuff can be churned out faster.

	▲	Ekaros 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think it might work in coastal areas. You could transport them to suitable locations on very basic trailer. Or just on board of a truck with simple crane lift. In general such things would only travel relatively short distances, be relatively simple to conceal and probably relatively easy to have not too big radar cross section.

▲

antonymoose 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You’ve mostly described big part of the Iranian naval strategy. Small, fast attack boats that can Zerg-rush larger vessels.

The drone aspect, however, is not in play I don’t believe.

▲

advisedwang 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm by no means a military expert, but with modern missiles is it really reasonable to take a hit and continue operation? It's a valid strategy to invest in defenses to prevent a hit from landing rather than survivability if one does.

	▲	datadrivenangel 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		With good damage control a modern missile hit may not even mission kill you if you get somewhat lucky. A single hit shouldn't sink you unless you suck at damage control.