Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN) News and Discussion

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by Systems Adict, Nov 8, 2018.

Share This Page

  1. hauritz

    hauritz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    107
    I feel I am stating the obvious, but there is no way they are getting that thing back into service after 3 months underwater ... right?

    I imagine just about everything will need replacing.
     
  2. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,358
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    NSW
    I imagine they can still use the hull, but would it be worth it slicing and diceing to get everything in/out
     
  3. StevoJH

    StevoJH Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Central NSW
    People/organisations can do strange things when pride is on the line. It depends on if it is looked at in purely monetary terms or not. In financial terms, they would presumably be better off ordering a new ship if the requirement exists.
     
  4. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,358
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    NSW

    Yep it would be like 100% Reno on a house after a major flooding, most likely cheaper to knock down and build new, actually was for me
     
  5. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    196
    Location:
    Sydney
    I would imagine you would have to basically take everything out, inspect/clean/test and then refit.
    Would be cheaper to build a new ship.

    Might be more reasonable if they decide to "upgrade" a lot of the equipment. Engines, radar, computers, electrics etc. I thought the way that Norway crewed these, they could get by without this ship quite easily and it could be used for spares/parts.
     
  6. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    qld
    And the class was built between 2003-11 so not exactly brand new, so even if you decide to build a new one it’s going to be 20 years older then the first of Class Fridtjof Nansen so you are going to end up with a Ship that is an half Sister at best.
     
  7. Systems Adict

    Systems Adict Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    55

    The UK Royal Navy faced a similar dilemma back in the early 00's with HMS Nottingham ran aground. Her crew fought valiantly & saved the ship, but only just.
    The ship was brought back, stripped / repaired & put back to sea after some time, at a cost of over 30 millions of pounds, but it is obvious she was never the same & the details in the link below show that major damage to an older warship are likely to mean that unless it is essential to maintain your fleet, it's better to scrap the ship & start again...

    HMS Nottingham (D91) - Wikipedia
     
  8. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Helge Ingstad was built 2006-9, so is just coming up to 10 years old.
     
  9. StevoJH

    StevoJH Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Central NSW
    Right, but Nottingham didn't spend 3 months completely underwater. And presumably much of the electronics would have been above the maximum water level.
     
    swerve and Cadredave like this.