Locum, on December 26, 2022, made some interesting comments about the tragic December 18, 2022 sinking of HTMS Sukhothai with many crew drowned.
My theory is the main reason for HTMS Sukhothai's sinking was its short range mission probably meant it was carrying only a small load of diesel fuel. This meant it effectively had little fuel acting as stabilising ballast.
This tended to make Sukhothai top-heavy - thus in a vulnerable condition when it encountered the storm. It was easier for the storm winds to blow Sukhothai over and storm waves to push it over, causing Sukhothai to list on the way to capsising. Meanwhile water entered an exhaust port, causing a fire, shorting out Sukhothai's electricals, stopping water being pumped out and finally causing Sukhothai to sink.
Looking at history three larger USN warships - in a similar condition of carrying little fuel/ballast - where lost in a storm in western Pacific waters in 1944.
An additional possible cause was HTMS Sukhothai being required by onshore high command and/or by the Captain to press on with its mission to attend a commemoration of the late Prince Abhakara Kiartivongse (considered "Father of the Thai Navy"). HTMS Sukhothai heading into port in a timely manner might have risked aborting this mission.
This mission completion issue is implicit where Locum recorded:
"1645 hrs: Sukhothai reports to shore base, that it wants
to return to port".
Maybe the HTMS Sukhothai's Captain was awaiting shore based orders for too long before he decided (or did not decide) to head for port.
Locum also mention additional possibly contributing factors:
- "There are unconfirmed reports about inadequate maintenance and training."
and
- "Accidents
are always caused by different factors at the same time. The snow ball effect."
It will be interesting to read what the committee, set up by Navy Chief Adm Choengchai Chomchoengpaet to inquire into HTMS Sukhothai's sinking, concludes. That is if the conclusions are made public.
I suspected a ballast issue as well. More likely a misjudgment of ballast needs making the ship top heavy and highly susceptible in a squally weather front could have been the immediate cause. A tragedy, and an avoidable one that if I may add...
ReplyDeleteThe USN ships were destroyers and they heeled over almost 90 degrees due to the waves and wind in a typhoon. It may have been a ballast issue like those destroyers, but given that it took this ship some time to sink unlike those destroyers which sank quite quickly, it's probable that she slowly took on water from the waves crashing over her hull. I'm sure someone's in trouble for not providing enough rescue gear and losing a ship, but the inquiry isn't done yet.
ReplyDeleteHi jbmoore
ReplyDeleteWith the likely reticence of the Thai Navy (particularly over insufficient life preservers) yours and my guesswork about the Sukhothai sinking may add value.
We may both be right.
1. Sukhothai would likely have incorporated better liquid (fuel, water) ballast shifting technology than the 3 WW2 destroyers sank by Typhoon Cobra* .
2. Also the storm that sank Sukhothai may have been less severe than Typhoon Cobra permitting Sukhothai to stay afloat longer.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Cobra#Third_Fleet_damage destroying 3 USN ships
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Sukhothai#2022_sinking
I think top heaviness (due to inadequate liquid ballast) was the common factor in all these sinkings.
Regards Pete