3 ms·
Yes it was guaranteed by the bulkheads, and the guarantee has failed. The ship should not have sunk with this amount of damage. The vessel grounded and continu
by varjag 7y ago
Yes it was guaranteed by the bulkheads, and the guarantee has failed. The ship should not have sunk with this amount of damage.
The vessel grounded and continued to take on water, through the propeller shaft and stuffing boxes.[9]
The whole point of stuffing boxes was to contain water in damage like this.
The link you posted is in no way absolves the shipbuilder. Merely states that
The vessel's Spanish designer Navantia received a notification of a critical safety issue in relation to the frigate's watertight compartments
…and the investigation is ongoing.
- alsobrsp 7y ago> The whole point of stuffing boxes was to contain water in damage like this. That is not the point of stuffing boxes. They keep water out when the shaft is not turning and lubricate the the shaft with sea water when it is. A grounding can bend the shaft easily letting lots of water in.
- varjag 7y ago…also The AIBN considers:the vessel's lack of watertight integrity to be a safety issue relating to Nansen-class frigates and therefore issues the following two safety alerts https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330180246_Analysis_and_commentary_of_the_sinking_and_potential_catastrophic_loss_of_HNoMS_HELGE_INGSTAD_by_Robert_Cuthbert_Blake_Senior_Defence_Adviser_to_the_Naval_League_of_Australia_and_NLA_Divisions https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330180246_Analysis_...