|heuhen wrote: *||December 16th, 2018, 4:33 pm|
- the frigate watertight compartment are water tight they are also air tight, chemically tight etc. due to operation area of this ship, heck even our coast guard ships are build to be exposed to chemically and airborne radioactivity. if the watertight compartment didn't work.... oh wait
Chemical and radioactive protection don't work like that. First of all, if this ship is at all similar to US/UK ships in how they do this, the barriers are only at the entrances/exists to the interior, which makes sense because this protection usually relies on double door airlocks for transit during those conditions. On an Burke, there are only two of these on the whole ship. There is no special protection compartment to compartment. In the case of this ship, with gaping holes in the side exposing multiple compartments to the open environment, whatever system was in place to provide chemical/radio-logical protection is completely bypassed. Second, the primary defense against these agents is not a seal, but as previously said double door airlocks to minimize air exchange during movement and positive over pressure of the interior space to ensure any entry vectors is expelling air not sucking it in. Its pretty obvious the ships A/C units are no longer providing this.
And I hate to have to point this out, but given the shaft sealing issues its pretty clear this ship's "watertight" fittings should not be assumed to be up to snuff. Nor are they designed to be watertight for months at a time, because again that would be a waste of money when those portions of a ship being underwater for that period usually indicates its sunk. A couple days or weeks to facilitate rescue? Sure, absolutely. Months? Maybe, but you are relyong on hope as much engineering the longer it remains submerged. The cold water and winter conditions probably help here, less growth and corrosion potential.
Its also important to realize that while you might not see it from our vantage point, in a collision like this a ship suffers warping and other stresses all along its structure, throwing all sorts of things out of alignment including any watertight doors. As someone said these require constant maintenance as it is (which I don't doubt the Norwegian Navy does), but nobody is doing that right now. Even a few millimeters of warping on a frame means leaky doors. This isn't a problem if the crew is onboard to compensate, and is perfectly adequate if you are trying to stop flooding long enough to let the crew abandon ship or to get the ship to dry dock promptly. In this case though, even a small amount of seepage or leak by an hour means flooded compartments on the timescale we are dealing with
- as long the ship is under water, it's not a problem, it's when areas of the ship that have come in contact with air that will rust. so the priority for the Navy, when they lift here up is to wash here down with fresh water and chemicals, thuse the barge that going to transport here have been modified to catch all that chemical.
Think about what you just said...
It certainly is a problem. Maybe not manifested in the specific way you indicate when the ship is again exposed to air, but there are far more problems presented to ship preservation than that which will certainly manifest themselves under these conditions.
- yes electronics are write of, everybody knows that even the radar are. but you still have a ship that is still intact. except for the engine area.
- radar are expensive, for example SPY-1 radar. but it's only the outside that are exposed, all the electronics that are on the inside are still intact.
- all here systems will be dismantled and cleaned.
This is just a fantasy. Again, we don't build the topsides of ships to handle total submergence, because there is really only one situation where this is likely to happen. The skin of the ship was certainly built to be watertight, but anyone who has been on a ship knows the interior of a ship above the waterline relies almost exclusively on false bulkheads within a level, though probably still has watertight doors between levels. I wouldn't be the slightest bet optimistic.
Steel is cheap, the cheapest part of the ship. The electronics suite is the essentially what constitutes the ship these days, not the keel. We are not talking about just the arrays, but all the consoles and cable ways and wave guides and electrical distribution boxes and spar parts and comms racks and antennas and etc. The hull is the least important consideration cost/benefit wise.
The most likely scenario is for Norway to eat the lack of hulls and wait for whatever the successor program is. I also don't see them accepting a one off, at least not one with the same capabilities/complexity of the ship lost. Maybe a more generic stopgap to cover down.
And BTW I would love to be wrong. I would be as happy as anyone else to see her restored and returned to service in short order and was advocating this as the likely scenario until the day her topside submerged.