News Forum - Sunken HTMS Sukhothai to be raised in one US$3-million piece

[Thaiger]

Raising the the sunken HTMS Sukhothai is going to cost around 100 million baht (US$3 million). HTMS Sukhothai sank in 50 metres of water, 19 nautical miles off the coast of Prachuap Khiri Khan on the night of December 18, with only 76 of the 105 crew on board at the time survived. Adm Adung …

The story Sunken HTMS Sukhothai to be raised in one US$3-million piece as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[KaptainRob]

Reconditioning a 36 year old vessel that's been underwater for months takes a huge sum of money and is IMO not worthwhile.

All engines, mains and auxiliary must be stripped for complete rebuilds.  All tanks, fuel, oil and water must be emptied and opened for cleaning.  All piping, fuel, raw/fresh water, waste, air etc must be flushed.

All electrical wiring must be replaced along with batteries, lights, switches, transformers and switchboards.

All electronic equipment will require replacement.

And then there's interior fit-out, furniture and galley equipment .... 

If they re-allocate salvage & reconditioning funds toward a new ship they'd likely come out ahead compared with this plan.

Better to pump all oil out and leave the ship where she lies.  It's only a danger to trawlers and even then, wrecks are easily avoided.

[Poolie]

Their ship, their money, their decision. Probably cheaper than a compromised/waterlogged F35 at any rate while they allocate the defence budget.

[Chatogaster]

 

I was wondering about the lifetime of ships like this (triggered by KaptainRob's post) and stumbled upon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy which gives a nice table containing commission and decommission years in the US. 

The lifetimes seem to be around 25 yrs. Thailand is not the US, but even so, pumping money into salvaging and then restoring a 36 years old vessel seems to require very special motives and a brilliant rationalization (they weren't provided and I can't imagine any).

 

[palooka]

1 hour ago, Poolie said:

Their ship, their money, their decision. Probably cheaper than a compromised/waterlogged F35 at any rate while they allocate the defence budget.

Or a Chinese sub with no engine.

[Poolie]

21 minutes ago, palooka said:

Or a Chinese sub with no engine.

True, true. Ironic that about 60% of German engines are built in China, eh?

[Alavan]

7 hours ago, KaptainRob said:

Reconditioning a 36 year old vessel that's been underwater for months takes a huge sum of money and is IMO not worthwhile.

All engines, mains and auxiliary must be stripped for complete rebuilds.  All tanks, fuel, oil and water must be emptied and opened for cleaning.  All piping, fuel, raw/fresh water, waste, air etc must be flushed.

All electrical wiring must be replaced along with batteries, lights, switches, transformers and switchboards.

All electronic equipment will require replacement.

And then there's interior fit-out, furniture and galley equipment .... 

If they re-allocate salvage & reconditioning funds toward a new ship they'd likely come out ahead compared with this plan.

Better to pump all oil out and leave the ship where she lies.  It's only a danger to trawlers and even then, wrecks are easily avoided.

Agree.
The only reason for salvaging it would be if it was an obstacle for navigation, like in a fairway.

 

[EdwardV]

12 hours ago, Poolie said:

Their ship, their money, their decision. Probably cheaper than a compromised/waterlogged F35 at any rate while they allocate the defence budget.

Different plane, but nice try.