![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
CNN says in the Bali Strait. I don't think that's right. Most sources seem to be going with 95 km north of Bali. Janes is pretty reliable, they say "26.5 n miles northwest off Singaraja" [1]. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 21:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This source indicates the last seen location of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
"...would still be sufficient for the entire crew and passengers after a day of lost contact". Does this mean there was enough oxygen for one day, or for how long? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Reuters [2] write:
Also, in [3]:
Of course, speculation as to the fate of the submarine is, at this point, just that - speculation - but I think our article should report the facts mentioned above.-- Nø ( talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This page hasn't changed much since yesterday. Is there any new news, such as More people searching, or finding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipgirl your waifu ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
What's with all the daggers (†) in the Command structure section? Were these intended for a footnote that got left out? GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we have to have text sandwiched between the two images and the infobox? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Kursk (K-141) This was the biggest submarine disaster prior to the sinking of the KRI Nanggala — Preceding unsigned comment added by LenovoShoes ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I changed the statement about the UWT back to "hampering" from "possibly hampering" for the following two reasons:
1. Subs use the UWT to communicate while submerged. Without it, voice communication with other vessels is impossible while submerged. According to the Janes article I sourced, before the incident "the boat has been relying on naval frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands for its communications needs while surfaced." Without a functioning UWT, there can be no voice communication while submerged. Granted, if the crew are all dead, a lack of UWT isn't preventing voice communications.
2. However, UWTs can be put into transponder and/or beacon mode in emergencies. Had the UWT been operational before the incident, and given that there were crew members able, the UWT could have been activated in beacon/transponder mode to assist search and rescue attempts.
Current reporting indicates there was not a detected explosion, which leads one to believe the crew had time to react and activate the UWT beacon, had it been operational beforehand.
UWTs are mentioned in NATO's Submarine Search and Rescue Manual, where it states:
If possible, the DISSUB’s crew will use the UWT as a primary source for communicating with the Search and Localization Forces (including the SPAG), as well as with the Escape and Rescue Forces. It is a National responsibility to provide an update to the SMER community with the technical data (e.g, frequencies both radio and UWT), as well as other embarked equipment.
Therefore I would say that not having a functional UWT before the incident is now hampering communication with the sub (not necessarily just voice communication, but also the possibility of utilizing the UWT's transponder function).
Here is some marketing material for a UWT: http://www.123seminarsonly.com/Seminar-Reports/029/47313886-Underwater-Communications.pdf
The sourced article from Jane's also states that "“The lack of this UWT is preventing the boat from communicating with assets...[emphasis added]". The article didn't say the lack of UWT is preventing the crew from communicating. I think that is an important distinction.
See also: Underwater_acoustic_communication#Applications
— Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 07:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
In the article, the map doesn't pinpoint the location unless I click it, or unless I try Firefox. It doesn't work with Edge or Chrome. It is working as I preview it on this talk page, but not in the article. Windows 10. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It also doesn't work on this talk page, except in preview mode. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Just to note that I have vectorised the logo. I did my best to retain most of the imperfections of the original (non-centralised banner for instance), but anyone is welcome to overwrite it if they have a better version, or fixed something I have missed, without notifying me. Cheers. Seloloving ( talk) 17:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Major Harry Setyawan - should read Colonel Harry Setyawan. Corrected. Irish Melkite ( talk) 23:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is the article KRI Nanggala (402) the main article and not KRI Nanggala or KRI Nanggala II and KRI Nanggala a redirect. I couldn't get explanation for the "402" in the text. So the reader is in the dark on the naming. It doesn't seem to be part of the name even in media reports. werldwayd ( talk) 05:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by requester. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
KRI Nanggala (402) →
KRI Nanggala 402 or KRI Nanggala-402 – I have never seen any written source, except Wikipedia, that uses ellipsis parentheses when talking about the ship. The most common nameform is either with a strip for the number, without a strip, or without the number. Regards,
Jeromi Mikhael
05:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There are photos of KRI Cakra and KRI Nanggala's pioneer crew in this Indonesian Navy publication, which would likely be in the public domain per Indonesia's copyright law. I would suggest someone extract the photos as the Indonesian Navy seemed to have purged several pages related to Nanggala since the accident (such as the original link which led to the ship badge). I would do it but I am presently busy at the moment. Seloloving ( talk) 12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
this article currently belongs to the Indonesia submarine accidents category. should this be the Indonesian submarine accidents category instead? the submarine accidents category includes a number of subcategories for individual countries, but they appear to be named with the adjectival form of the country, e.g., Japanese submarine accidents instead of Japan submarine accidents. dying ( talk) 15:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't need the year in the fourth paragraph, "Three days later, on 24 April 2021". Per WP:DATE, "Omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity". I would argue we don't need the date here at all. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 20:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
CNN says in the Bali Strait. I don't think that's right. Most sources seem to be going with 95 km north of Bali. Janes is pretty reliable, they say "26.5 n miles northwest off Singaraja" [1]. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 21:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This source indicates the last seen location of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
"...would still be sufficient for the entire crew and passengers after a day of lost contact". Does this mean there was enough oxygen for one day, or for how long? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Reuters [2] write:
Also, in [3]:
Of course, speculation as to the fate of the submarine is, at this point, just that - speculation - but I think our article should report the facts mentioned above.-- Nø ( talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This page hasn't changed much since yesterday. Is there any new news, such as More people searching, or finding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipgirl your waifu ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
What's with all the daggers (†) in the Command structure section? Were these intended for a footnote that got left out? GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we have to have text sandwiched between the two images and the infobox? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Kursk (K-141) This was the biggest submarine disaster prior to the sinking of the KRI Nanggala — Preceding unsigned comment added by LenovoShoes ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I changed the statement about the UWT back to "hampering" from "possibly hampering" for the following two reasons:
1. Subs use the UWT to communicate while submerged. Without it, voice communication with other vessels is impossible while submerged. According to the Janes article I sourced, before the incident "the boat has been relying on naval frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands for its communications needs while surfaced." Without a functioning UWT, there can be no voice communication while submerged. Granted, if the crew are all dead, a lack of UWT isn't preventing voice communications.
2. However, UWTs can be put into transponder and/or beacon mode in emergencies. Had the UWT been operational before the incident, and given that there were crew members able, the UWT could have been activated in beacon/transponder mode to assist search and rescue attempts.
Current reporting indicates there was not a detected explosion, which leads one to believe the crew had time to react and activate the UWT beacon, had it been operational beforehand.
UWTs are mentioned in NATO's Submarine Search and Rescue Manual, where it states:
If possible, the DISSUB’s crew will use the UWT as a primary source for communicating with the Search and Localization Forces (including the SPAG), as well as with the Escape and Rescue Forces. It is a National responsibility to provide an update to the SMER community with the technical data (e.g, frequencies both radio and UWT), as well as other embarked equipment.
Therefore I would say that not having a functional UWT before the incident is now hampering communication with the sub (not necessarily just voice communication, but also the possibility of utilizing the UWT's transponder function).
Here is some marketing material for a UWT: http://www.123seminarsonly.com/Seminar-Reports/029/47313886-Underwater-Communications.pdf
The sourced article from Jane's also states that "“The lack of this UWT is preventing the boat from communicating with assets...[emphasis added]". The article didn't say the lack of UWT is preventing the crew from communicating. I think that is an important distinction.
See also: Underwater_acoustic_communication#Applications
— Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 07:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
In the article, the map doesn't pinpoint the location unless I click it, or unless I try Firefox. It doesn't work with Edge or Chrome. It is working as I preview it on this talk page, but not in the article. Windows 10. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It also doesn't work on this talk page, except in preview mode. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Just to note that I have vectorised the logo. I did my best to retain most of the imperfections of the original (non-centralised banner for instance), but anyone is welcome to overwrite it if they have a better version, or fixed something I have missed, without notifying me. Cheers. Seloloving ( talk) 17:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Major Harry Setyawan - should read Colonel Harry Setyawan. Corrected. Irish Melkite ( talk) 23:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is the article KRI Nanggala (402) the main article and not KRI Nanggala or KRI Nanggala II and KRI Nanggala a redirect. I couldn't get explanation for the "402" in the text. So the reader is in the dark on the naming. It doesn't seem to be part of the name even in media reports. werldwayd ( talk) 05:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by requester. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
KRI Nanggala (402) →
KRI Nanggala 402 or KRI Nanggala-402 – I have never seen any written source, except Wikipedia, that uses ellipsis parentheses when talking about the ship. The most common nameform is either with a strip for the number, without a strip, or without the number. Regards,
Jeromi Mikhael
05:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There are photos of KRI Cakra and KRI Nanggala's pioneer crew in this Indonesian Navy publication, which would likely be in the public domain per Indonesia's copyright law. I would suggest someone extract the photos as the Indonesian Navy seemed to have purged several pages related to Nanggala since the accident (such as the original link which led to the ship badge). I would do it but I am presently busy at the moment. Seloloving ( talk) 12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
this article currently belongs to the Indonesia submarine accidents category. should this be the Indonesian submarine accidents category instead? the submarine accidents category includes a number of subcategories for individual countries, but they appear to be named with the adjectival form of the country, e.g., Japanese submarine accidents instead of Japan submarine accidents. dying ( talk) 15:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't need the year in the fourth paragraph, "Three days later, on 24 April 2021". Per WP:DATE, "Omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity". I would argue we don't need the date here at all. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 20:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)