HTMS Sukhothai in the Gulf of Thailand during a CARAT 2013 training exercise
Posted on 12/19/2022 7:54:19 AM PST by BenLurkin
The HTMS Sukhothai sank after water flooded its power controls on Sunday night. Images shared by the navy showed some crew who survived in a life raft.
On Monday, authorities said they had rescued 75 sailors, but 31 were still missing in rough seas.
Officials said the ship went down after it took on water, which flooded its hull and short-circuited its power room.
With the power lost, the crew battled to retain control of the ship which listed on to its side before sinking around 23:30 local time Sunday (16:30 GMT).
The ship had been on a patrol 32km (20 miles) east of Bang Saphan, in the Prachuap Khiri Khan province, when it got caught in the storm on Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
HTMS Sukhothai in the Gulf of Thailand during a CARAT 2013 training exercise
Sukhothai?.......................No thank you............
Isn’t a ship’s crew trained to operate the vessel when electronics go out?
A land lover question here!
From Wiki:
Sukhothai was a Ratanakosin-class corvette. Ordered for the Royal Thai Navy on 9 May 1983, the ship was laid down by Tacoma Boatbuilding Company in Tacoma, Washington, on 26 March 1984. The Ratanakosin-class corvettes, of which there were two, were built to the following dimensions: 76.8 m (252 ft 0 in) in length, 9.6 m (31 ft 6 in) wide, with a displacement of 960 tons at full load. The class shares characteristics with the Royal Saudi Navy Badr-class corvette. The ship was powered by two diesel engines running two propeller shafts, providing a maximum speed of 26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph) and a range of 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km; 3,500 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph). The crew complement was 87, of which 15 were officers, plus an expected contingent of flag officer’s staff. Sukhothai was launched on 20 July 1986. The ship was the last major vessel to be completed at Tacoma Boatbuilding’s Yard 1 on the Hylebos Waterway.
The ship was flooding and it blew out internal communications. Damage control requires coordination and without comms that's hard. Naval ships typically have sound powered telephones that do not require external power specifically for these sorts of situations, not sure if they were not present on this vessel.
Didn’t that happen to Guam that one time?
Yes you are able to pump water out several ways with out power, but if you are taking on more water than the pump is designed to handle then it’s trouble. Ship her size should have tried to out run the storm or at least tried to find a safe harbor somewhere.
I really enjoyed working with the Thai Military when I was in the NAVY. Rest Easy Sailors, We Now Have The Watch!
That’s what damage control is all about.
It comprises the entire system of maintaining watertight integrity, controlling stability, repairing damage, providing for defense against gas, and caring for injured personnel.
Yes it did. Sailed right into a storm because of bad communication and changing track of the storm.
Egad! Actually, she looks a bit top-heavy to me. But that is probably just my eyes. They are pretty careful to design ships where the center of gravity (in ships, the “righting moment”?) with room, but...add on structures and stuff can change that.
For warships, that always seems to be problematic because they always want to add stuff on above the waterline.
At least that is how I see it.
I worked on that ship and its class lead a few years ago. I know their crew having spent several weeks with them. I am heartbroken. They really took care of that ship as the Thai Navy does with all or their vessels. They are a professional Navy in every sense of the word. Others may have different views but mine is based on sailing with them on 7 different ships from the Sukhottai, Rattankosi, all their Frigates and their CVH.
Sad day today for me
For warships, that always seems to be problematic because they always want to add stuff on above the waterline.
**************
Engineering Change Control Boards are supposed to prevent that from happening. Everything that’s added or changed in some way is evaluated for potential impact.
I don’t get it.
I say bad engineering.
No way should have this warship sunk becasue of a bad storm.
We rode out a 1980s super-typhoon in the Pacific off the coast of Guam on the submarine tender USS Proteus (AS 19). The Proteus was built in the 1920s and had its mid bow flex joints removed in the 1960s to accommodate ICBM maintenance. The purpose of flex joints is to allow the ship to give a little when you bottom-out betweet troughs.
DEFINETLY bad naval architecture engineering!
LOL, absolutely, but even we had issues with that in WWII, I am guessing mostly due to wartime contingencies, and we had a dedicated part of the USN (Bureau of Ship Design BuShips I think) that tried to prevent it.
One of the big issues was as the war progressed, they realized they needed far more AA weapons on warships than existed, particularly in 1942-43, so they developed a tub/gun system that could be added, and the addition of those all over the fleet did make some ships marginally (or actually) unstable, especially older ones built before the war.
I read a book recently called “Warship Builders: An Industrial History of US Naval Shipbuilding 1922-1945. Much of it was boring to me dealing with bureaucratic infighting and such with the makeup of the administrative arms of government/shipbuilders, but...the way that we upgraded shipyards with government grants, the equipment they maintained, and the actual shipbuilding processes (especially the Iowa Class BBs) was just fascinating.
In this case of the Thai navy, I don’t know. The ships were probably designed with margin built in, but who knows what was added afterwards, or what process it went through to add them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.