# Loss of Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad



## Eye In The Sky

A Norwegian frigate collided with a tanker and is reportedly sinking.

=68.ARCfh9CZExe8xu1AYsvY0NebEJKDQpS-INQipb24ZxEMnz1hWDtF4yChQeJbOM3T36F2kPFykT7rQ8bYzBejcXtTcOenh6ISDLyS5cWBKRH1geFUSVuIAA4W0ppaOLbMFLaNRYwMbqV2bhNqys--GxWIyiZYK-GWd2ZAIf53m9z75frll53UHUtte9VntWiPUqDKvVrEcqLdY80oWX7-Xeh12jvK5ZnjM7O7uH2SqW-VRDX4C7XvOgryRQ&__tn__=C-R]Facebook Post - Deutsche Marine

#Tridentjuncture18 Norwegian frigate helge ingstad collide after maneuvers with tankers

During the return of nato maneuver trident juncture, a Norwegian frigate collided with a tanker in the early morning. The frigate helge ingstad has a list and threatens to sink according to the fire department.
 The Helge Ingstad and the tanker sola ts were collided at 4 pm in the Norwegian Municipality of low in hordaland. Why, it's still unclear. A tug is holding the warship at the place, declared the Norwegian Fire Brigade. The frigate is a leak. You have no control over the leak. The tanker loaded with crude oil was easily damaged.
 In the misfortune, seven people were easily injured. According to the rescue central hrs, 137 people were aboard the frigate. Everyone was saved, said a spokesman of the Norwegian agency ntb. The 23 man strong crew of the tank ship didn't happen.
 The Helge Ingstad is a 2009-metre-long, and has a displacement of 5290 tonnes. It carries a helicopter and is equipped with torpedoes and missiles for ship and anti-aircraft. Source: Dpa

We wish the Norwegian comrades good recovery! 

Article Link

Norwegian frigate could sink after being rammed by tanker

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — A Norwegian Navy frigate was rammed by a tanker while it was docked in a harbor on the country's west coast Thursday, the military said. The crew of 127 was evacuated amid fears the ship will sink.

Eight people on the KNM Helge Instad were slightly injured when the accident occurred at 4 a.m. local time in Sture, north of Bergen, the Joint Rescue Coordination Center for southern Norway said. The military said the ship, which had recently taken part in the vast NATO drill Trident Juncture, is taking on water.

Eirik Walle, with the rescue center, told Norwegian news agency NTB that the collision caused an opening in the frigate's hull and "it is taking in more water than they can pump out. There is no control over the leak and the stern is heavily in the sea."

The Maltese-flagged tanker, Sola TS, was not damaged and its 23-man crew remained on board.

Details of the accident were still unclear. Norway's Accident Investigation Board said a towboat was also involved in the accident, but didn't say how.

The shipping site Sysla said the tanker had been loaded with crude oil and was being towed out of the harbor when it somehow rammed the frigate. The tanker was on its way to Britain, Sysla said.

The Norwegian Navy has planned a news conference for later in the day.

Johan Marius Ly of the Norwegian Coast Guard said the extent of leakage was unknown.

The 442-foot frigate, built in Spain in 2009, has a helipad platform on its stern.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hoping the crew is safe and no one was injured.


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_8EIcjUsyc


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_8EIcjUsyc



Uff da....


----------



## medicineman

My first thought was it was a Russian ship that hit them...


----------



## Retired AF Guy

medicineman said:
			
		

> My first thought was it was a Russian ship that hit them...



Actually she is Maltese flagged. More info and photos can be found here on the Marine Traffic webpage.

Attached below is PDF image showing the Sola TS maneuvering for the last two days. Presently in it is stopped (red dot on image)  with a tugboat monitoring it. Map is from the Marine Traffic webpage.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

More info on the accident. Apparently frigate has been towed inshore to prevent it from sinking.



> Norwegian frigate damaged in collision with tanker, Update frigate to blame VIDEO
> 
> Posted in Accidents by Mikhail Voytenko on Nov. 8, 2018 at 06:01.
> 
> Greek Aframax tanker SOLA TS collided with Norway Navy frigate HNOMS HELGE INGSTAD in the morning Nov 8, probably around 0300 UTC, in North sea north of Bergen, Norway. Laden tanker left Sture Terminal shortly before collision. According to Norway media reports, frigate sustained heavy damages, water ingress, probably in danger of sinking, all 137 crew evacuated, 7 were slightly injured. Tanker said not to suffer serious damages, as of 0530 UTC she was near collision site, moving in northern direction at dead slow speed, escorted by tug. Salvage under way, many tugs and SAR ships in collision area.
> 
> Norwegian Navy frigate HNOMS HELGE INGSTAD (F313), displacement 5290, commissioned 2009, complement 120, armament missiles, torpedoes, guns, helicopter.
> 
> Update: Frigate understood to sustain stb bow hull breach with massive water ingress, she’s said to develop heavy bow tilt.
> Update: 0700 UTC – according to latest reports frigate was taken to shallow waters to avoid sinking, water ingress is incontrollable.
> 
> Comment: Again, laden massive cargo ship collided with Navy frigate, similar to accidents which occurred with USA Nay frigates in Japan and ff Singapore, recently. Understood frigate was hit by tanker, it’s like feather-weight boxer being hit by super weight clumsy, slow moving giant boxer. Whatever the situation and ships positions were according to COLREG, Navy is the main culprit. Aframax tanker in full load is restricted in maneuverability by definition, while frigate, by definition, is speedy maneuverable vehicle, supposedly always ready for dangerous situation, manned by a numerous crew.
> 
> IMRRA, FleetMon’s official Vessel Risk Rating Partner, risk assessed this tanker as having a ‘green’ risk rating, with a specific risk rating of 30% (12-JUL-18), compared to the fleet average 35%. New risk assessment reports can be purchased via FleetMon.
> Red: Poorest performing; Amber: Average value; Green: Good indicator.



Article Link.  Link contains maps, photos and videos.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Looks like she might be a write-off.

Article Link  Pictures avail on link

The Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad has almost completely sunk based on the latest footage released by the Norwegian Navy.

Despite being anchored to the land, the ill-fated frigate continued to sink over night and now only the radar tower is seen above the water surface.

The Norwegian Coast Guard said that there have been fuel leaks detected around the ship, but nothing of significance. A containment boom has been placed around the vessel.

The frigate started listing after colliding with Sola TS oil tanker at the Sture terminal in Øygarden, Norway, on Thursday morning, November 8. Eight people sustained minor injuries and 137 people were evacuated from the Norwegian frigate.

There were 23 people on board the oil tanker Sola TS when the collision occurred and there were no reported injuries. The Maltese-flagged Aframax, part of Tsakos Energy Navigation’s fleet, did not sustain damages below the waterline.

The navy ship suffered a large gash below the waterline and its helicopter tank was punctured in the collision, resulting in a minor spill. The amount of leakage was not considered to be actionable as the thin layer of helicopter fuel was expected to evaporate and dissolve naturally.

The Norwegian Navy and Coast Guard managed to stabilize the vessel post collision, as the ship was intentionally grounded and moved to a safe place. The Navy was planning to rescue the frigate and inked a deal with BOA management for the ship’s salvage.

Based on the latest update from the Norwegian Coast Guard, the Navy is yet to determine its next steps on the matter.

Initial reports indicate that the frigate was repeatedly warned to alter course but failed to undertake corrective action to avoid the collision with the tanker, which is more than ten times bigger than the frigate.

Citing radar images and audio logs, local media reported that the Norwegian frigate crashed into the fully-loaded tanker at a speed of 17 knots.

The frigate just returned from Trident Juncture, a NATO-led military exercise, held in Norway, when the incident occurred.

The Fridtjof Nansen class frigate was built by the Spanish shipbuilders Navantia and was commissioned into service in 2009. The


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Damm I was hoping they would be able to salvage her and keep most of the electronics, that`s going to hurt the budget badly.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> Damm I was hoping they would be able to salvage her and keep most of the electronics, that`s going to hurt the budget badly.



Not to mention they just lost 20% of their fleet. Heads will roll. 

I've seen the AIS and audio video. Looks like they turned left when they had the space and opportunity to turn right.

Also doesn't seem like they were appropriately guarding the radio.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It's a European warship just "driving back home" after having completed an Ex. You and I know that the most likely size of the duty watch was no larger than one you would find on your average merchant ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apparently 5 on the bridge, which is two more than a CCG ship and 3 more than a merchant ship not under pilotage. Most of the tugs on this coast operate with 1 on the bridge and deckhand to do all the other stuff.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Not a sailor, but still sad to see a fine piece of engineering going down in such a lousy way. Fortunately no crew were lost. Below are two photos taken earlier today showing all that remains above the waves. 
 Link to photos.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Apparently 5 on the bridge, which is two more than a CCG ship and 3 more than a merchant ship not under pilotage. Most of the tugs on this coast operate with 1 on the bridge and deckhand to do all the other stuff.



I believe you will find, Colin, that it is because the engineering watch is kept on the bridge, as is damage control. One, if not two of those five would have been engineers.

As for merchant ships, I haven't been onboard one for a while, but I recall that, in coastal waters where there is more traffic, they tended to have three on watch, so that the lookout function could be split from the helmsman duties. In many merchant ships, I have also seen the practice, when a cadet officer is sailing with the ship, of pairing him/her with the watch keeping mate when in coastal as opposed to on the high seas, to provide an extra hand for navigation/collision avoidance.

And Retired AF Guy, I agree that it is a sad end for such a nice ship. On the other hand, It's a good reminder that in war, warships of the size of destroyers and below remain the expandable ones, regardless of their high cost.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Not a sailor, but still sad to see a fine piece of engineering going down in such a lousy way. Fortunately no crew were lost. Below are two photos taken earlier today showing all that remains above the waves.
> Link to photos.



It seems traditional in those waters, for destroyers. I recall viewing the Georg Thiele in Narvik harbour, which has an interesting history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_destroyer_Z2_Georg_Thiele


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It seems traditional in those waters, for destroyers. I recall viewing the Georg Thiele in Narvik harbour, which has an interesting history:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_destroyer_Z2_Georg_Thiele



I dove her in 1992, thanks to some friends i made in the Norwegian Army.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I dove her in 1992, thanks to some friends i made in the Norwegian Army.



I am ripping the veins out of my left arm in jealousy... 

I once did a shore dive onto a 300ft long British AA cruiser, sunk near Harstad in 1940, and wondered what all those 'logs' were doing on the bottom. Turned out they were 3.7 inch AA shells


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Breaking news, Canada to buy Norwegian Frigate. "But it's sunk", says the public.

"No it's not sunk, it's pining for the fjords" says the Liberals

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2071616222895303&set=gm.2720284374652023&type=3&eid=ARCgjEvUOAiFiHgjDCRNGNTFWZEydJXcorqlf732Db9g_FBx2HDZsRq721pzUopwhqCBWUQbjCcwpV1e


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> Breaking news, Canada to buy Norwegian Frigate. "But it's sunk", says the public.
> 
> "No it's not sunk, it's pining for the fjords" says the Liberals
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2071616222895303&set=gm.2720284374652023&type=3&eid=ARCgjEvUOAiFiHgjDCRNGNTFWZEydJXcorqlf732Db9g_FBx2HDZsRq721pzUopwhqCBWUQbjCcwpV1e



I saw a lot of potential in this joke, but you lost me, as I do not know what the term "pining for" means in this context...


----------



## brihard

Lumber said:
			
		

> I saw a lot of potential in this joke, but you lost me, as I do not know what the term "pining for" means in this context...



It's a reference to Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch, featuring a gentleman atempting to return a newly bought Norweigian Blue parrot which, he finds, is in fact nailed to his perch. The shop keep attempts to claim he's not dead but merely resting/stunned/pining for the Fjords, etc. "Pining for" in this context would mean 'to miss and to long for the return of'. Classic comedy gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It seems traditional in those waters, for destroyers. I recall viewing the Georg Thiele in Narvik harbour, which has an interesting history:



I was flying around Bardufoss and Narvik a lot in Feb/Mar and Oct/Nov 1983. I wasn't able to get close to Georg Thiele, only seeing it from some distance, but I did hover over Hermann Kuhne on the north shore of Ofotfjorden quite frequently (https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Trollvik/@68.5237198,17.4147182,1048m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x45db964ddf7da597:0xe73caa91a1a9f83a!8m2!3d68.5237204!4d17.4234729, if I remember correctly thirty-five years later). There are about thirty merchant ships on the bottom of Ofotfjorden as well. I was able to make a few out when the tide was low, wind was dead calm, and the sun was bright.

We also flew around the site of the Tirpitz sinking - the water is crystal clear and one could see the Tallboy craters on the sea floor, plus one that's partially submerged when the tide's out, and one completely on shore. If I've got it right, the marker at https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tirpitz-platen/@69.6475594,18.8028456,255m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sTirpitz,+Norway!3m4!1s0x0:0x82bfedbfab3e50eb!8m2!3d69.647536!4d18.8031006 should be over the one on shore.

And I landed on one of the Adolfkanone at Trondenes https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Adolfkanone/@68.8345448,16.5821985,258m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x45dc7dc16488b153:0xffc1310bd640c1ab!8m2!3d68.8345448!4d16.5843873 a couple of times.

Great place to be a Loachman...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> I was flying around Bardufoss and Narvik a lot in Feb/Mar and Oct/Nov 1983. I wasn't able to get close to Georg Thiele, only seeing it from some distance, but I did hover over Hermann Kuhne on the north shore of Ofotfjorden quite frequently (https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Trollvik/@68.5237198,17.4147182,1048m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x45db964ddf7da597:0xe73caa91a1a9f83a!8m2!3d68.5237204!4d17.4234729, if I remember correctly thirty-five years later). There are about thirty merchant ships on the bottom of Ofotfjorden as well. I was able to make a few out when the tide was low, wind was dead calm, and the sun was bright.
> 
> We also flew around the site of the Tirpitz sinking - the water is crystal clear and one could see the Tallboy craters on the sea floor, plus one that's partially submerged when the tide's out, and one completely on shore. If I've got it right, the marker at https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tirpitz-platen/@69.6475594,18.8028456,255m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sTirpitz,+Norway!3m4!1s0x0:0x82bfedbfab3e50eb!8m2!3d69.647536!4d18.8031006 should be over the one on shore.
> 
> And I landed on one of the Adolfkanone at Trondenes https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Adolfkanone/@68.8345448,16.5821985,258m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x45dc7dc16488b153:0xffc1310bd640c1ab!8m2!3d68.8345448!4d16.5843873 a couple of times.
> 
> Great place to be a Loachman...



It's a humbling experience for any keen Naval rating


----------



## brihard

Man, that ship looks like she's toast. Anyone here got any insight on what salvage/recovery/refit would look like for something like this? I assume the probably near total ingress of salt water will necessitate a pretty thorough gutting of systems?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely they raise her, and gut her for any salvageable spare parts and scrap the rest. The Electronics are toast, which is a shame, as had they been able to keep her upright and mostly dry, they could have salvage all of that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Listening to this, the Frigate bridge crew appears to have no grasp of the traffic around them, no plan to deal with it and then confusion about what hit them and where they are.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYqGxbKF0AI


----------



## Stoker

Brihard said:
			
		

> Man, that ship looks like she's toast. Anyone here got any insight on what salvage/recovery/refit would look like for something like this? I assume the probably near total ingress of salt water will necessitate a pretty thorough gutting of systems?




I wouldn't say there's much salvageable, any salvage effort will now be complicated by the weather. I would say it will be weeks to get her up. Every piece of equipment, wiring, insulation is now compromised by SW. I would be very surprised if they can save anything.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Does the path of the freighter indicate normal activity? I would have thought a freighter would just go directly between two ports. Is there a reason they just went around in circles?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say there's much salvageable, any salvage effort will now be complicated by the weather. I would say it will be weeks to get her up. Every piece of equipment, wiring, insulation is now compromised by SW. I would be very surprised if they can save anything.



I read on one report that she also had a full load of munitions onboard which, according to Wikipedia includes 32 RIM-162 ESSM, 8 x Naval Strike SSM, unk number of String Ray torpedoes, unk number of depth charges, ammo of 76mm Oto Melara cannon and 4 x remote weapon systems, plus ships and aviation fuel.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I read on one report that she also had a full load of munitions onboard which, according to Wikipedia includes 32 RIM-162 ESSM, 8 x Naval Strike SSM, unk number of String Ray torpedoes, unk number of depth charges, ammo of 76mm Oto Melara cannon and 4 x remote weapon systems, plus ships and aviation fuel.



Just enough to destroy the career of one ship's Captain then?


----------



## Underway

We had a Norwegian watchkeep aboard an MCDV once.  All he cared about was if the contact was drawing left or right.  It seemed like no concern about anything else in contact avoidance.  No reports to the CO.  Wondered why we had so many people on the bridge (helm, POOW, 2OOW, OOW, lookout), not including the MCR watchkeeper.  On a frigate there are even more ppl, add a throttle, Navcom, and sometimes a second lookout and 3OOW.  

Just part of the true Canadian naval doctrine I guess.  Maximize warfighting while minimize risk.   Those may be inverted in priority at times.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> We had a Norwegian watchkeep aboard an MCDV once.  All he cared about was if the contact was drawing left or right.  It seemed like no concern about anything else in contact avoidance.  No reports to the CO.  Wondered why we had so many people on the bridge (helm, POOW, 2OOW, OOW, lookout), not including the MCR watchkeeper.  On a frigate there are even more ppl, add a throttle, Navcom, and sometimes a second lookout and 3OOW.
> 
> Just part of the true Canadian naval doctrine I guess.  Maximize warfighting while minimize risk.   Those may be inverted in priority at times.



Was he normally posted on one of the Skjold-class boats?  If so, I can understand since they go so quickly that by the time the report goes out, the situation would have resolved itself.


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Was he normally posted on one of the Skjold-class boats?  If so, I can understand since they go so quickly that by the time the report goes out, the situation would have resolved itself.



Yes, and that's exactly what he told us.  It's not like we don't do the same thing sometimes, "Sir see that speedboat? *points to speedboat*  Drawing left, safe." may be all you can get out before wheel over or another contact needs reporting...

The difference mainly was their reporting.  The bridge watchkeeper is expected to not bother reporting things to the CO most of the time, as if you are qualified you are supposed to be competent.  If you are reporting contacts the CO will start questioning your competence...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Same in the CCG, Capt has standing orders of how to react, normally the Mate on duty works within whatever those orders are without bugging the Captain. the mate may call the Captain up if things are going squirrelly, although good Captains often sense that beforehand and show up on the bridge just prior to being called.    

On another forum, I have heard that the watch changed minutes before the collision, which might explain the lack of awareness.

As to the Salvage ops,  criticisms are coming out already, someone noted that the cables where secured incorrectly with the bulldog clamps.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aldrimer.no%2Fsjoforsvaret-ville-spare-penger-pa-bergingen%2F


----------



## Good2Golf

In addition to radar and AIS (even though NATO 313 wasn't TX'ing until post-crash), don't modern FFGs and other similar class warships have some decent IRST capabilities, so the bridge crew would have some solid visual cues to assist their SA, especially in tight confines at night?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Radar, radio, windows, binoculars, home waters so you know there is an active oil terminal with ships calling that they are outbound from said terminal......

If there was a watch change and traffic was within a near CPA, the off going OOW should have stayed till he was satisfied that the new OOW had proper situational awareness, no matter how much you long for some food and the bunk.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Radar, radio, windows, binoculars, home waters so you know there is an active oil terminal with ships calling that they are outbound from said terminal......
> 
> If there was a watch change and traffic was within a near CPA, the off going OOW should have stayed till he was satisfied that the new OOW had proper situational awareness, no matter how much you long for some food and the bunk.



Particularly 0.0nm CPA. :nod:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Just some questions regarding terminology. Some I get: OOW - Officer of the Watch, but whats a POOW, 2OOW, MCR watchkeeper, or 3OOW.  CPA - Closet Point of Approach?


----------



## dimsum

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Just some questions regarding terminology. Some I get: OOW - Officer of the Watch, but whats a POOW, 2OOW, MCR watchkeeper, or 3OOW.  CPA - Closet Point of Approach?



POOW:  Petty Officer of the Watch
2/3OOW:  2nd and 3rd Officer of the Watch
MCR:  Machinery Control Room
CPA:  Closest Point of Approach


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> POOW:  Petty Officer of the Watch
> 2/3OOW:  2nd and 3rd Officer of the Watch
> MCR:  Machinery Control Room
> CPA:  Closest Point of Approach



Thank You. Any day I learn something new is a bonus.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> .
> 
> If there was a watch change and traffic was within a near CPA, the off going OOW should have stayed till he was satisfied that the new OOW had proper situational awareness, no matter how much you long for some food and the bunk.



Generally speaking, a component OOW wouldn't take the watch in they middle of a complex situation. The guys who's on watch has watched the situation develop and has a better fix on it. It can be dangerous to try and force a turnover.

One time in the Persian gulf, my relief showed up to the bridge as I was manoeuvring to avoid a dumb cargo ship while trying to stay out of Iranian TTW. As soon as I avoided that ship, another ship got in our way, and another one after that. The oncoming OOW just stood quietly at the back of the bridge watching and listening for probably 20 mins past when we're supposed to have turned over, but I could not catch a break to turn over the watch to him. Eventually he was there watching long enough that he didn't need a formal turnover, he was as aware of the situation as I das getting watching for 30 mins. So despite being in the middle of a bunch of crap, he just came up to me and said "alright I got this". We high fived and I left the bridge without doing the formal turnover.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In Norwegian, but some more graphics and pictures

 https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/xl/dette-er-_sola-ts_-og-_helge-ingstad_-kollisjonen-1.14289883?fbclid=IwAR2jk3jMr8oLxdoVt_fs8xHlCh8lOIe5wggzsu2HeBt41hXPf-MeopWimj4


----------



## blacktriangle

Lumber said:
			
		

> So despite being in the middle of a bunch of crap, he just came up to me and said "alright I got this". We high fived and I left the bridge without doing the formal turnover.



Awesome.  :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> In Norwegian, but some more graphics and pictures
> 
> https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/xl/dette-er-_sola-ts_-og-_helge-ingstad_-kollisjonen-1.14289883?fbclid=IwAR2jk3jMr8oLxdoVt_fs8xHlCh8lOIe5wggzsu2HeBt41hXPf-MeopWimj4



Amazing that sailors down in the engine room weren’t badly injured!  The damage in the starboard quarter is incredible.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Spencer100

Nice website. I like the tech.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Nice website. I like the tech.



My thoughts exactly...very well done! :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apparently a heavy lift crane is on site, the wreck is still moving quite a bit and there is worry she will break free and slide into deeper water (40m I think)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A rendition of the damage she received.


----------



## brihard

I’m no shipologist, but that looks like if it ain’t a write off, it’s the closest thing to one.


----------



## dapaterson

Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m no shipologist, but that looks like if it ain’t a write off, it’s the closest thing to one.


Don't downplay yourself.  Plenty of people think you are full of ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Looking at the area in GE, the waterway where they collided, is the almost widest part, Likely they were returning to the naval base at Haakonsvern about 23nm to the south and through much more challenging waters.

location of the tanker terminal at Strue
 60°37'14.52"N   4°51'32.79"E


Location of navy base
 60°20'11.70"N    5°14'18.09"E


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> A rendition of the damage she received.



4-6 watertight bulkheads if my guess is right.  Tough to survive that.  The progressive flooding would be to much for the crew to handle.  Brutal.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The damage c ontrol lessons from this and the USN ships will be useful and hopefully will show the importance of such training and perhaps instruct ship designers to make changes to improve ship survival. It may also influence the argument between using civilian vs military ship standards.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> The damage c ontrol lessons from this and the USN ships will be useful and hopefully will show the importance of such training and perhaps instruct ship designers to make changes to improve ship survival. It may also influence the argument between using civilian vs military ship standards.



Not really, that damage surpassed all DC design considerations and they were foxed.  They were lucky to have drifted aground as it gave them time to get everyone off safely.  In open ocean they probably would have quickly gone down with a lot of people trapped on board or unable to get into the rafts.  Sometimes the only DC lesson you learn is on the prevention side (IE don't let things hit you, and fire prevention is important) or when you are no longer fighting to save the ship.


----------



## Pelorus

Colin P said:
			
		

> Looking at the area in GE, the waterway where they collided, is the almost widest part, Likely they were returning to the naval base at Haakonsvern about 23nm to the south and through much more challenging waters.
> 
> location of the tanker terminal at Strue
> 60°37'14.52"N   4°51'32.79"E
> 
> 
> Location of navy base
> 60°20'11.70"N    5°14'18.09"E



***Disclaimer: Lots of speculation below***

I have a suspicion that when the details finally come out regarding this incident that the highlighted part of your statement will end up being seen as a major contributing factor.

The approximate location of the incident is shown below, and about 2 hours north of their home base in Bergen. Given the time of the incident (0400ish local), that would coincide with a speed plan for an early morning close up of Special Sea Dutymen, etc. to come alongside during the forenoon, which leads me to speculate that she was in a steaming watch with no Captain or Navigator awake (or at least on the Bridge). In my experience with the Norwegians, when peacetime sailing there is no ORO on-watch during the night (they typically have one that is designated to be shaken should the need arise), so it's likely that the OOW was the senior person awake at the time.

By the red pin you can see a shoal in an otherwise deep fjord that I suspect the Helge Ingstad was referring to in her VHF calls as to why she didn't want to come to starboard. The channel is approximately 2.0NM wide at that part, which is quite a bit of sea room, especially considering it's home waters for them. For reference, Haro Straits around Turn Point in BC is about 1.6NM wide.

I can't speak to how the Norwegians do risk management. For us, every time a ship has to transit constrained waters, the amount of precautions taken to mitigate risk can range from no change to normal SOPs to full Special Sea Dutymen and Cable Party closed up, with a number of mitigation strategies in between. The captain will make this decision based on a variety of factors both internal and external to the ship.

The RCN from my experience typically gives their subordinate personnel less rope than many allied navies regarding what the OOW or ORO is permitted to do without informing the Captain. Undoubtedly at some point the Norwegian OOW passed a tripwire of when the CO had to be called, although at what point this happened we won't be able to say until the investigation is published. Why the CO was not called early enough to make a decision that would have prevented this collision is likely due to a wide variety of factors related to SOPs, human psychology, organizational culture, etc. that are far too difficult to speculate about.

I am very interested in what the investigation reveals. I can only hope that it is made available as a case study to persons outside of the Norwegian Navy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks for the chart, what I do find interesting is that from the reports I seen the tanker appears to be on a outbound track nearer to the western side of the channel. I am assuming that the magenta dotted line is their VTS and would assume that outbound on the East and inbound on the west? I would have thought the tanker would have taken an immediate NE course to move over to the eastern side asap, but appears to have turned North almost immediately from leaving berth. The tanker is likely to have called on the traffic channel that she was departing and that should have alerted the bridge crew of the frigate to start planning to set up a passing or crossing situation. As the frigate was as I recall roughly 1.2km offshore, likely they felt the tanker would be further east and therefore didn't pay close attention to her and a typical ARPA radar would have given the frigate crew the ability to determine that the CPA was to tight.


----------



## brihard

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not really, that damage surpassed all DC design considerations and they were foxed.  They were lucky to have drifted aground as it gave them time to get everyone off safely.  In open ocean they probably would have quickly gone down with a lot of people trapped on board or unable to get into the rafts.  Sometimes the only DC lesson you learn is on the prevention side (IE don't let things hit you, and fire prevention is important) or when you are no longer fighting to save the ship.



On that note- I think/assume that when something is going sideways, they basically clsoe up all hatches, render as many individual compartments as possible watertight, no?

If my assumption on that is correct- something catastrophic happens; you've got all these sailors in individual sealed compartments. Having those compartments sealed - some of them presumably being compromised and taking water - what does it then look like if an abandon ship is ordered? Is it not going to speed up things going badly wrong / sinking if not watertightness between compartments is lost? Or at that point is it basically an accepted consequence in a 'sauve qui peut' situation, and whoever can get out gets out versus a more deliberate and controlled evacuation that potentially saves more people at the knowing expense of dooming those in a fe compartments?

Forgive my ignorance, I've never sailed and my worst evacuations have been from an improvised shelter that suddenly have a smoke grenade introduced while I was sleeping. I have no idea what this stuff looks like.


----------



## Pelorus

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thanks for the chart, what I do find interesting is that from the reports I seen the tanker appears to be on a outbound track nearer to the western side of the channel. I am assuming that the magenta dotted line is their VTS and would assume that outbound on the East and inbound on the west? I would have thought the tanker would have taken an immediate NE course to move over to the eastern side asap, but appears to have turned North almost immediately from leaving berth. The tanker is likely to have called on the traffic channel that she was departing and that should have alerted the bridge crew of the frigate to start planning to set up a passing or crossing situation. As the frigate was as I recall roughly 1.2km offshore, likely they felt the tanker would be further east and therefore didn't pay close attention to her and a typical ARPA radar would have given the frigate crew the ability to determine that the CPA was to tight.



Looking at chart again (free web app should anyone be interested), the magenta dotted lines appear to be just municipal borders and not suggested routing or anything like that. 

Typically you would expect the tanker to move to the starboard/eastern side of the channel, yes. However, it looks like the Stura crude port is only about 8NM or so from the western exit of the fjord taking them to open ocean. If the Helge Ingstad wasn't up on AIS (and possibly not participating in the traffic reporting scheme), the local pilot on the tanker may not expected any opposing traffic and just suggested to take the most direct route towards the pilot station rather than adding an extra 25% distance by moving over to the starboard side. 

Additionally, AIS can be hampered quite severely by proximity to land and terrain which blocks the signal (happens all the time in Halifax harbour), so it's quite possible that the Ingstad didn't see for a while if they missed the departure calls on VHF to VTMS.

Again, with incomplete details, it seems obvious to me that ideally the frigate hears the call to VTMS, picks up either the AIS track or radar paint well in advance, and manoeuvers with ample time to port to see the tanker Green to Green (likely with a call to the tanker to explain their intentions). Obviously this didn't happen, and we'll have to wait and see what the investigation reveals.


----------



## Navy_Pete

You can listen to the audio of the calls between the Ingstad and the tanker, and see the radar tracks here;

https://medium.com/@cargun/radar-images-audio-log-of-knm-helge-ingstad-frigate-sola-ts-oil-tanker-collision-a71e3f516b54

The tanker called them and told them they needed to maneuver well before the collision, so it's not like they came out of nowhere.  The sounds of the guy's voice when he calls in and tells the shore control he hit a warship was every dad that has told their kid not to be a dumbass, then they do it anyway.


Brihard, to answer your question, the sailor trapped in a space flooding/on fire is normally table topped with the CO, but one of the reasons why we have a list of where everyone is supposed to be at any emergency station (based around who is on/off watch) and check it when we go to emergency stations.  Having to make the decision to possibly close a hatch to stop flooding to lose the ship always kept me up at night as the DC guy.  This is actually happened during the USN Fitzgerald collision.  Pretty heartbreaking, but particularly as one of the guys went back in to try and get a few people out of the messdeck that had flooded. The NPR did a good report on it here; https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/09/06/548718231/a-heros-story-from-the-scramble-to-survive-on-the-uss-fitzgerald

It's a judgement call that could be made by the sailors on the scene, or from up the chain, but would be a pretty extreme flood.

Generally though, commercial and naval ships have a manual of stability that gives you your stability for a bunch of different intact scenarios, as well as if you are damaged. They give you a number of starting points (light on fuel, fully loaded, etc), run through a bunch of theoretical damage scenarios, and tell you if you pass/fail a few key stability criteria. You'll never hit it exactly, but gives you a good idea if you are still safe, and also has some suggestions for ways to make it better. It's a lot of 'what ifs' but better than trying to do the math when you are in the middle of an emergency, so pretty useful.

In this case, once they got their initial response, figured out what was going on, and had an idea of the damage and rate of flooding, you should be able to open up the book, find a matching scenario, and see if you were okay.  With that much damage, they probably had major flooding in a number of adjacent compartments with some other aggravating factors, blew their reserve stability, and were foxed.  I'm sure they probably did as much as they could to slow it down to get everyone off safely, but if the water comes in faster than you can get it off, you can only do so much.  Once you list over far enough, vents and exhausts start downflooding, so it gets worse.

We practice all this stuff, but the 'abandon ship' drill is something that is only ever done once a blue moon, (and even then it's a walkthrough) so impressive that everyone made it off safely given the extent of the damage and the injuries.

Can't really say anything about the watchkeeping, but this was a pretty professional response to what is a literal worse case scenario, so impressed from that perspective.  People will likely lose their jobs over this, but surprised no one was killed given how bad it was.


----------



## NavyShooter

As a navigation systems guy (W Eng SONAR background - we fix nav gear too) this article has given me cause to consider whether or not there were 'other factors' at play as well:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/13/russia-accused-of-jamming-gps-signals-during-major-nato-wargames/

Additionally, knowing how our GPS and other systems have performed in Vestfjorden once upon a time (I was summoned to the bridge by the NAVO 'at the double' because our ship's course/track on the SHINNADS system was not a line, it was a square-tooth wave pattern) I would be curious to see what the chart notes indicate about GPS performance in the area.

Our 'squaretooth track' was caused by interference from a large overhead high-voltage power cable that passed OVER the Fjord - and due to the angles/elevations of the mountains, we were not getting good satellite coverage anyhow.  I read the chart notes - showed it to the NAVO, and he learned...

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The radar imagery and the AIS data explains why the tanker was closer to the west, the tanker was doing 7kts and had two over taking vessels on it's Starboard quarter doing around 12kts. Interesting choice on the magenta lines, same colour used here for traffic control markings. what was the weather like, was visibility obscured? 

Here is the AIS tracks the frigate appears at :18 seconds 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=izbXbQ1Shmk


----------



## Edward Campbell

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As a navigation systems guy (W Eng SONAR background - we fix nav gear too) this article has given me cause to consider whether or not there were 'other factors' at play as well:
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/13/russia-accused-of-jamming-gps-signals-during-major-nato-wargames/
> 
> Additionally, knowing how our GPS and other systems have performed in Vestfjorden once upon a time (I was summoned to the bridge by the NAVO 'at the double' because our ship's course/track on the SHINNADS system was not a line, it was a square-tooth wave pattern) I would be curious to see what the chart notes indicate about GPS performance in the area.
> 
> Our 'squaretooth track' was caused by interference from a large overhead high-voltage power cable that passed OVER the Fjord - and due to the angles/elevations of the mountains, we were not getting good satellite coverage anyhow.  I read the chart notes - showed it to the NAVO, and he learned...
> 
> NS




And both are common problems ... the first, RF interference from non-traditional or unanticipated sources, is increasing as infrastructure develops everywhere, and the second, the limitations of satellite services in Northern (and Southern) latitudes, is well known (and taught) but is, unsurprisingly, sometimes a surprise to individual users who encounter it for the first time.


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And both are common problems ... the first, RF interference from non-traditional or unanticipated sources, is increasing as infrastructure develops everywhere, and the second, the limitations of satellite services in Northern (and Southern) latitudes, is well known (and taught) but is, unsurprisingly, sometimes a surprise to individual users who encounter it for the first time.



There is a solution to all this.  LOOK OUT THE DAMN WINDOW!  This is why lighting is so important on ships.  Why fog signals and such are so important on ships.  Why a backup paper chart is so important and knowing how to do a visual fix.  There is no reason besides human error that this collision happened based on current information.  None.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> There is a solution to all this.  LOOK OUT THE DAMN WINDOW!  This is why lighting is so important on ships.  Why fog signals and such are so important on ships.  Why a backup paper chart is so important and knowing how to do a visual fix.  There is no reason besides human error that this collision happened based on current information.  None.



Do ships have backup paper charts and is visual fixing still taught for pilotage?


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Do ships have backup paper charts and is visual fixing still taught for pilotage?



Yes.  Very much so.  HMCS TORONTO experienced a 5+ hour power outage off the coast of Ireland just last month.  Paper charts were definitely used.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:
			
		

> Yes.  Very much so.  HMCS TORONTO experienced a 5+ hour power outage off the coast of Ireland just last month.  Paper charts were definitely used.



Good to hear!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As a navigation systems guy (W Eng SONAR background - we fix nav gear too) this article has given me cause to consider whether or not there were 'other factors' at play as well:
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/13/russia-accused-of-jamming-gps-signals-during-major-nato-wargames/
> 
> Additionally, knowing how our GPS and other systems have performed in Vestfjorden once upon a time (I was summoned to the bridge by the NAVO 'at the double' because our ship's course/track on the SHINNADS system was not a line, it was a square-tooth wave pattern) I would be curious to see what the chart notes indicate about GPS performance in the area.
> 
> Our 'squaretooth track' was caused by interference from a large overhead high-voltage power cable that passed OVER the Fjord - and due to the angles/elevations of the mountains, we were not getting good satellite coverage anyhow.  I read the chart notes - showed it to the NAVO, and he learned...
> 
> NS



Several places on the west coast where this is evident, along with oddball magnetic variations spots. Going up the Fraser at 30kts in the fog at night in a Hovercraft, we knew the buoy under the powerlines would not show on the radar, along with any other targets. I was around for Loran C, early GPS, differential GPS and even had to learn Decca and plotting CPA's on a radar screen with grease pencils.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Initial assessments are out, some possible watertight integrity concerns with the design/builder. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/11/29/early-report-blames-confused-watchstanders-possible-design-flaws-for-norways-sunken-frigate/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+DFN&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2Vg1dhXHNqhwDYjuCN0dcJM7BAsvVlOmz0YlB5_8iY9MpOyVyaXE2l40w


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> Initial assessments are out, some possible watertight integrity concerns with the design/builder. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/11/29/early-report-blames-confused-watchstanders-possible-design-flaws-for-norways-sunken-frigate/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+DFN&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2Vg1dhXHNqhwDYjuCN0dcJM7BAsvVlOmz0YlB5_8iY9MpOyVyaXE2l40w



From the link above:
"a pair of warnings that the issues that sunk Ingstad could also apply to other Navantia ships, raising questions about a widespread quality issue at the Spanish shipbuilder.

“The AIBN has found safety critical issues relating to the vessel’s watertight compartments,” the report reads. “This must be assumed to also apply to the other four Nansen-class frigates.

“It cannot be excluded that the same applies to vessels of a similar design delivered by Navantia, or that the design concept continues to be used for similar vessel models."

Isn't Navantia one of the three finalists for the Halifax replacement programme?

Haven't some recently speculated that if BAE Systems/Lockheed disqualified and the Dutch design penalized for launching the lawsuit  that Navantia might just squeak through as the winner?  We might want to be rethinking this in light of the above findings.....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

This  Russian tweeter feed, besides having having some interesting shots of Russian military equipment, also has some imagery of the Norwegian attempts to recover the Helge Ingstad.

https://twitter.com/iren_maxx


----------



## chrisf

Underway said:
			
		

> Yes.  Very much so.  HMCS TORONTO experienced a 5+ hour power outage off the coast of Ireland just last month.  Paper charts were definitely used.



For what it's worth, in the civillian shipping world at least, ships can be exempt from carrying paper charts with the latest generation of ECDIS systems when appropriately redundant.


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:
			
		

> 4-6 watertight bulkheads if my guess is right.  Tough to survive that.  The progressive flooding would be to much for the crew to handle.  Brutal.



Going back to the preliminary report, I have read in some spanish forum:
https://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1543582172.57417&user=morato

- the norwegian frigates were designed with a reinforced hull, bulkheads and watertight compartments to some extent as for some ice capabilities (no mention of the ice thickness) as well as to withstand mines from WWII.

- design and requisites were approved by norwegian authorities as well as by a british company hired by them as 3rd party (consultant). The frigates passed all tests to the satisfaction of both, who also scrutinized the whole manufacturing process.

- from the report: "The investigation is therefore demanding in terms of time and resources. The AIBN stresses that this is a preliminary report and that it may consequently contain some errors and inaccuracies. Because of considerations relating to the duty of confidentiality, classified material and the investigation process, the AIBN does not publish all its information at the present time."

- in any case, there are still 4 more Nansen frigates to be checked about tightening and maintenance. Once inspected, it could be determined if the lack of tightness is prior or subsequent to the collision.

In this newspaper we can find more (in spanish): https://www.abc.es/espana/abci-diseno-fragata-noruega-no-influyo-hundimiento-201812020257_noticia.html
[using google translator]: There is clear evidence that the initial damage was extended to four watertight compartments and indications that there could have been five really damaged in the collision, which exceeds the survival criteria of the design of the ship. "


I have to admit I might have some bias in favour of Navantia since I was born in Spain, that being said, I am a civilian only, passionate about warships and so, but in no way related to Navantia, never worked for them or subsidiaries. 

Edited: I have removed the link because the picture is no longer there.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> This  Russian tweeter feed, besides having having some interesting shots of Russian military equipment, also has some imagery of the Norwegian attempts to recover the Helge Ingstad.
> 
> https://twitter.com/iren_maxx



Really great pics in many aspects. The BUK launch sequence was instructive- made notes. Also, the night time air to air refuelling shots were quite well done.
Seems also that Syrian* Iranian SU22’s were refreshed and updated. Treasure trove, really.

*thanks JM.


----------



## Uzlu

> Spanish Shipyard Says Norwegian Navy 'Passes the Buck' Over Sunken Frigate
> 
> *While the Norwegian Navy has taken urgent measures abroad for the peers of the sunken frigate KNM Helge Ingstad to prevent inundation, the Spanish shipyard that manufactured the hapless warship has accused the Norwegian authorities of looking for excuses.*
> 
> Following an interim report by the Norwegian accident investigation commission, which blamed technical errors in waterproof bulkheads on board the KNM Helge Ingstad that sank after a collision with an oil tanker while returning from NATO drills, the Norwegian Navy has completed temporary measures to prevent rapid inundation of warships of the same class in the event of similar collisions, the tabloid daily Verdens Gang reported.
> 
> The Defence Material Agency said inflatable belts were installed as a temporary solution to seal the hollow propeller shaft in order to prevent water from entering the frigate's engine room in case of an emergency.
> 
> According to the report, which blamed the frigate's rapid sinking on a construction error, saltwater first penetrated the generator room of the KNM Helge Ingstad, before spreading to other rooms and finally reaching the engine room.
> 
> "All the [Nansen-class] frigates are built in the same way. The Navy has implemented interim measures on three out of four frigates", Steinar Nilsen, maritime chief at the Defence Material Agency told Verdens Gang.
> 
> The fourth frigate, the flagship KNM Fridjof Nansen is currently in the process of a major, planned maintenance. The vessel will receive inflatable belts when it is re-launched in April next year.
> 
> However, the claims of the warships being less waterproof than stated made the Spanish shipyard that manufactured the Nansen-class frigates, currently considered the backbone of the Norwegian Navy, see red.
> 
> *"We have never received such complaints ever before. Not even once", Navantia Shipyard official and union leader Javier Galán told national Norwegian broadcaster NRK.*
> 
> He dispelled the Norwegian Navy's allegations of a faulty construction of the propeller shaft being the culprit.
> 
> "Had the shaft leaked water in this way, it would have become obvious far earlier. Also, the frigate would have sunk long ago", Galán said.
> 
> According to him, the propeller shaft must have been damaged during the collision itself, which is the only explanation why water appeared between the sections altogether.
> 
> *"Imagine you have a car. Even if it's a good one, it will run into problems if you crash it", Galán said.*
> 
> Galán blamed erroneous navigation, venturing that the crew had misinterpreted the lights from the Maltese-flagged tanker Sola TS, mistaking it for solid land.
> 
> *"I believe the only thing they are looking for is cop-outs. The way I see it, it's just passing the buck. The crew should have avoided the collision", Galán said.*
> 
> Navantia issued a statement ensuring that the Nansen-class frigates shipped between 2006 and 2011 to the tune of NOK 21 billion ($2.5 billion), fulfilled all technical requirements before handed over to Norway. Meanwhile, Galán stressed that the accusations may lead to the company's reputation being damaged, which is the fifth-largest in Europe and ninth-largest internationally.
> 
> *"We are an international company. And this makes a terrible damage, because it leaves an impression that we are unable to make ships. Even though we have been doing it for centuries", Galán said.*
> 
> Navantia dates back to military shipyards established by the Spanish crown in 1730. Over centuries, it has gone through several name changes, the recent one in 2005. It is 100 percent owned by a government holding.


https://sputniknews.com/military/201812071070473716-norway-frigate-spain-shipyard/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Article on raising her with a link about the missiles being removed by navy divers https://forsvaret.no/presse/fregatt-i-sammenst%C3%B8t-med-annet-fart%C3%B8y/heving-helgeingstad


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> From the link above:
> "a pair of warnings that the issues that sunk Ingstad could also apply to other Navantia ships, raising questions about a widespread quality issue at the Spanish shipbuilder.
> 
> “The AIBN has found safety critical issues relating to the vessel’s watertight compartments,” the report reads. “This must be assumed to also apply to the other four Nansen-class frigates.
> 
> “It cannot be excluded that the same applies to vessels of a similar design delivered by Navantia, or that the design concept continues to be used for similar vessel models."
> 
> Isn't Navantia one of the three finalists for the Halifax replacement programme?
> 
> Haven't some recently speculated that if BAE Systems/Lockheed disqualified and the Dutch design penalized for launching the lawsuit  that Navantia might just squeak through as the winner?  We might want to be rethinking this in light of the above findings.....


If flawed, might it also be in the _De Zeven Provinciën_-class frigates?





> The Netherlands, Germany and Spain set up the trilateral frigate agreement for the national construction of frigates. In addition to the De Zeven Provincien, the F100 (Alvaro de Bazan) is being built in Spain by Navantia and the F124 (Sachsen) built in Germany by ARGE F124 (Blohme and Voss, HDW and Thyssen Nordseewerke). The cooperation extends to the ship platform and not to the systems.


https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/


----------



## FSTO

The Norwegians have released a 3D representation of the collision. 

https://www.vgtv.no/video/168039/se-den-unike-3d-videoen-av-da-knm-helge-ingstad-krasjet?jwsource=cl


----------



## Uzlu

> Underwater VIDEO Reveals HUGE Damage to 'Torn Apart' Norwegian Frigate
> 
> Norway's Defence Ministry has released underwater footage showing, for the first time, the extent of the damage to its frigate KNM Helge Ingstad, which sank after colliding with an oil tanker erroneously taken for an immobile object.
> 
> The footage, uploaded to Dropbox due to temporary website failures, was taken by a marine diving unit (MDK) normally used for planting and disarming underwater mines, ammunition and bombs. Its members have been diving around the mostly sunken wreckage of the frigate for weeks, removing ammunition, weapons and other hazardous material.
> 
> Previously, the damage to the hull of the frigate was believed to be a long gash in the starboard side. The footage taken from the depth of the Hjelte Fjord, where the vessel lies half-submerged, indicated that the damage is much worse than thought. The gash was estimated at around 45 metres long and eight metres high. By contrast, the tanker only suffered minor damage and is expected to become operative again by the end of December.
> 
> The video shows cabins and rooms smashed, flooring torn up and ventilation fans hanging from what's left of ceilings. The footage also shows what used to be the vessel's accommodation area, sleeping quarters, machine rooms and a generator room.
> 
> *"It's really something to see one of our frigates lying under water", Commander Bengt Berdal, the leader of MDK, told Norwegian broadcaster NRK. "When we see the hull torn apart in this way, you can only imagine what it was like for those on board".*
> 
> Berdal called it "sheer luck" that all 137 people on board the frigate survived the collision, with only a few sustaining minor injuries before successfully being evacuated in the early hours of 8 November.
> 
> Meanwhile, Rolf Ole Eriksen, former accident preparedness official for oil company Norske Shell and now a maritime security consultant, has penned a searing commentary in the newspaper _Aftenposten_. In Eriksen's own words, "only a miracle averted a gigantic catastrophe that had potential for large loss of life, fire, explosions and extensive pollution". The frigate was returning to its home port at Haakonsvern in Bergen after participating in NATO's huge drill Trident Juncture around Trondheim and was carrying weapons, ammunition, missiles and helicopter oil in addition to its fuel.
> 
> Eriksen was highly critical of the preliminary report released by Norway's accident investigation commission, venturing that the investigators were downplaying the severity of the collision between a fixture of the Norwegian Navy and fully loaded oil tanker, and clouding the responsibility. According to Eriksen, the responsibility lies with the crew on the bridge of the KNM Helge Ingstad, which the report was "under-communicating", he claimed. The frigate was sailing at a high speed of 17-18 knots, with its crew oblivious of their own whereabouts or the appearance of the tanker, which was sailing out of the Sture terminal in Øygarden northwest of Bergen.
> 
> "With its top modern radar and navigational equipment on board, the frigate was capable of following every movement of all vessels in the area", Eriksen wrote.
> 
> A more detailed and conclusive report may take months to be released. Meanwhile, the frigate lies mostly underwater. Around 350 people are now working every day in connection with the salvage of the frigate.
> 
> Commander Berdal calls the divers' work "challenging" and dependent on good weather. So far, the salvaging mission has been delayed several times by storms. The vessel won't be raised until 25 December at the earliest. The collision has cost the Norwegian Navy billions of kronor and resulted in the nation's maritime defence being greatly reduced.


https://sputniknews.com/military/201812171070749438-norway-frigate-damage-video/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peQjN0LSsy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGVlpapvb8


----------



## Colin Parkinson

private analysis of the collision https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/f-313-collision-facts-report-pedro-carrasco-pena?fbclid=IwAR3QsbWW5ky8q9LoKM22936N3DAXvW_lsuc7uhuyY-h0Uprtf0oZJ6YA4iY


----------



## Navy_Pete

Thanks Colin,

Interesting analysis; would be interested to know the rationale into pushing her aground (as they seemed to be upright and fairly level when abandoning ship previously).  From the voice recordings, sounded more like they ran aground in a panic after getting run over by the big tanker they sailed in front of, which makes more sense if they had lost propulsion.  Would have thought they would have towed her alongside the jetty at the fuel station to stabilize it, but easy to play arm chair admiral I guess.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201902051072130801-norway-frigate-explosion/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Removal of torpedo's from the wreck by divers

https://www.facebook.com/blueyerobotics/videos/vb.452616248259819/1319271408214772/?type=2&theater


some extra footage and pics https://www.blueyerobotics.com/page/complex-underwater-operations


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Removal of torpedo's from the wreck by divers
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/blueyerobotics/videos/vb.452616248259819/1319271408214772/?type=2&theater
> 
> 
> some extra footage and pics https://www.blueyerobotics.com/page/complex-underwater-operations



Not enough money in the world....


----------



## FJAG

I'm not a sailor but that's a sad thing to watch. Amazing what a few moments of bad decisions can bring about.

 :not-again:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Not enough money in the world....



for commercial divers this is a nice job, shallow water, clear, clean, no bodies and your not swimming in a sewage pond.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://navaltoday.com/2019/02/26/operation-to-lift-sunken-norwegian-frigate-gets-underway/

HNoMS Helge Ingstad is expected to be onboard the submersible barge “Boa barge 33” by Thursday or Friday, the navy said. The entire operation is expected to be completed by the end of the weekend.

The schedule of the delicate operation could still be affected by the weather, the navy noted.

Live feed of salvage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iynqr4FaJK4&feature=share


----------



## Cloud Cover

"Operation planing will be based on a great amount of data and extensive calculation, the navy said." Same as the harbour approach.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

She is up, the latest live youtube stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AQ1fSm1evo


----------



## Uzlu

> Salvors Begin Assessment of Wrecked Norwegian Frigate
> 
> The floating shearlegs barges _Rambiz_ and _Gulliver_ have successfully raised and carried the sunken frigate _Helge Ingstad_ back to port at Hanøytangen, Norway, bringing a multi-month effort to recover the ship to a close.
> 
> On Thursday, salvage teams from the Royal Norwegian Navy boarded the _Ingstad_ to conduct an initial damage assessment and to dewater flooded compartments. Upon her arrival, the _Ingstad_ was too heavy to be hoisted onto a semi-submersible barge for transport, and pumping off more water will allow the salvage effort to proceed.
> 
> A Navy team suited up with oxygen tanks and dry suits to conduct an examination of the frigate's interior, and they wore helmet cameras to document their findings. Among other clues gathered on the video, investigators hope to preserve evidence of which watertight doors were closed and which were left open at the time of the sinking, which will help them to model the flooding that took the _Ingstad_ down.
> 
> Some 300 people - including over 100 members of the _Ingstad_'s crew - are on hand to help with dewatering and initial salvage efforts. Anita Eide, 26, was among those on board the _Ingstad_ on the night of the collision, and Eide was one of the first people to board the wreck after her arrival in port. "The vessel is as dirty inside as it is on the outside," she told NRK.
> 
> In advance of the raising, Norway's defense department prepared a precise plan to remove and preserve the most sensitive equipment on board the _Ingstad_. Saltwater is more corrosive when in contact with air, so the crew will remove about 1,400 pieces of gear from the wreck and submerge it in freshwater for the best possible chance of preservation. Some of these items - especially bridge electronics - will be transferred to Norway's Accident Investigation Board (AIBN) for use in its inquiry.
> 
> During the lifting operation, salvors found that _Ingstad_ had several hundred tons of buoyancy. "This may indicate air pockets," said Anders Penna, the leader of the operation for salvage contractor BOA. Any compartments that remained watertight could contain undamaged equipment.
> 
> The OEM suppliers for the _Ingstad_'s systems will assist with the effort to save components. Though _Ingstad_ has been underwater for months, Forsvaret believes there may be value in assessing the state of her turbines and diesel engines, among other valuable machinery.
> 
> Norway's defense department (Forsvaret) has not yet reached a conclusion about the possibility of repairing the _Ingstad_ and returning her to service, but it has begun exploring options to shore up Norway's naval capabilities in her absence. _Ingstad_ is one of only five main surface combatants in the Royal Norwegian Navy, and her loss represents a considerable reduction in capability. Among other options, Forsvaret is considering extending the life of a class of small missile boats which are currently slated for decommissioning. It also has the option of adding one more unit onto an existing contract for new submarines.


https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/salvors-begin-assessment-of-wrecked-norwegian-frigate


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely the air pockets are in the tanks and air trapped in deckheads.


----------



## JMCanada

A few more pics.

https://i.imgur.com/Y39l5pi.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0zlqcDXcAYp9wO.jpg:large
https://i.ibb.co/LgjmG7j/choque.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0zl58iWsAAhzrK.jpg:large

In this video (the 2nd), surprisingly, most of the doors remained open.

https://www.bt.no/nyheter/i/l16O0A/Hele-fregatten-er-kommet-over-vannet#&gid=1&pid=1?jwsource=cl


----------



## Uzlu

> Forlorn frigate may sail once again
> 
> *The once-proud Norwegian frigate KNM Helge Ingstad is finally back at home port in Bergen, severely gashed and rusting after four months underwater. Raising the sunken frigate, which collided with an oil tanker in early November, has already cost taxpayers dearly and now government officials want to repair it so it can sail again.*
> 
> Naval officers were already claiming on Monday that the frigate could be refloated within six weeks. “The goal is get _KNM Helge Ingstad_ down on the water and afloat on its own,” Flag Commander Thomas Wedervang told reporters on Monday, just after the frigate arrived back at the _Haakonsvern_ naval base Sunday night.
> 
> Crews have already been on board the vessel since it was raised, then chained to heavy-lift barges and ultimately loaded onto a barge that towed it back to Bergen. The salvage operation itself proceeded relatively quickly, following numerous delays since the frigate sank off coastal islands northwest of Bergen after its collision with a tanker that its crew mistook for part of the oil terminal at Sture. Once the frigate was raised, it took just over a week to bring it to home port.
> 
> “Now our focus is on salvaging as much as possible” off the frigate, Wedervang said. Naval crews have already removed “much of value” from the wreckage, he said, including 1,400 unspecified “components” from a list of 2,500 on board. The last of the frigate’s weapons and ammunition will be removed, then the hull and the rest of the frigate’s condition will be evaluated.
> 
> Defense Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen told Norwegian Broadcasting Monday evening that the government wants to make the frigate operable again. “The work to clarify how _KNM Helge Ingstad_ can be repaired starts now,” Bakke-Jensen wrote in an email to NRK. “The government wants to re-establish the frigate’s operative capability.”
> 
> He said the salvage operation so far has already cost “at least NOK 640 million” (USD 75 million). If the badly damaged vessel can’t be repaired, or if that option becomes too expensive, the minister said other alternatives will be evaluated, from replacing the frigate with a new one or investing instead in smaller vessels, submarines or maritime patrol flights.
> 
> The government will put forth a new long-term plan for the defense department in 2020. The work on that plan will likely determine the ultimate fate of the frigate.
> 
> There’s been little talk about the fate of the crew members on the bridge of the frigate since they collided in the early morning hours of November 8 with the fully laden tanker sailing from the Sture terminal. The tanker had a pilot on board and an escort vessel, and its crew frantically tried to get the _Helge Ingstad_’s crew to slow down and change course to avoid the collision, to no avail.
> 
> Both Naval officials and Bakke-Jensen himself have seemed keen to gloss over blame for the collision, opting instead to praise how well the vessel’s evacuation went and how well the salvage operation went this past week, despite its delayed start. The frigate’s captain has also defended his crew, while a preliminary report from Norway’s state accident investigation board merely claimed that a string of events led to the collision, while other maritime experts suggest the frigate’s crew was at fault. Bakke-Jensen and the Norwegian Navy seem most intent now on simply moving on, and learning how to deal with the loss of 20 percent of the fleet and a huge blow to Norway’s defense capacity.


https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/03/04/forlorn-frigate-may-sail-once-again/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My guess is that the hull is twisted and if brought back into service, will be a money pit to keep working and many gremlins from hidden corrosion in the wiring.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> My guess is that the hull is twisted and if brought back into service, will be a money pit to keep working and many gremlins from hidden corrosion in the wiring.



My guess if they did get it back in the water it would be a pride thing, not a save money thing. Every bit of wiring, insulation, fire proofing, equipment is compromised from SW. We're talking much more than a 6 week job.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> My guess if they did get it back in the water it would be a pride thing, not a save money thing. Every bit of wiring, insulation, fire proofing, equipment is compromised from SW. We're talking much more than a 6 week job.



It's probably both faster and cheaper to simply build a new one; it's something like 5-10 times the labour to install things once the ship built (compared to doing it at the module stage), and they'd also have to do a damage assessment, come up with a repair plan, and execute.

They are being weirdly relaxed about finding fault; not a fan of scapegoating, but you can't let people slide for making mistakes that put the lives of the entire crew at risk.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely as the rot goes far higher than the Captain and a indepth exam will cause all sorts of problems.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Colin P said:
			
		

> Likely as the rot goes far higher than the Captain and a indepth exam will cause all sorts of problems.


Which Navy are you talking about? They have a very small org, no??


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well it could apply to several......

Rumour has it that various initiatives were being pushed that took precedence over good seamanship. That sort of stuff comes from senior management, both political and military.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Yes, it would seem to apply to several!


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well it could apply to several......
> 
> Rumour has it that various initiatives were being pushed that took precedence over good seamanship. That sort of stuff comes from senior management, both political and military.



To your point - have a read of this article.  I cannot comment on the validity of the information.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/22/gender-politics-and-sinking-of-knm-helge-ingstad.html


----------



## FJAG

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> To your point - have a read of this article.  I cannot comment on the validity of the information.
> 
> https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/22/gender-politics-and-sinking-of-knm-helge-ingstad.html



I'm not sure that the article has any validity or even a point to it.

Basically it rambles on about the poor seamanship displayed (which I presume correct because of the result) and the Norwegian Forces publishing articles wherein which they express their pride in the extent of the integration of women in their Navy. 

There is nothing in the article which indicates that there was a lowering of standards or any "woman" issues which caused the accident. Just the usual blathering that in the past there had been some:



> debate [that] had centred around the number of women in the Navy, the extent to which they are quoted in requirements compared to men, and what effect it had on the professional “culture” of the Armed Forces.



Completely useless article that adds nothing to our knowledge of the real issues.

 :cheers:


----------



## Pelorus

The Norwegians are undoubtedly struggling with the interrelated problem of recruitment/retention/training/experience/expertise. This is a complicated question which is likely affecting all navies to some extent, including our own.



			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> To your point - have a read of this article.  I cannot comment on the validity of the information.
> 
> https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/22/gender-politics-and-sinking-of-knm-helge-ingstad.html



That said, the above blog post (I hesitate to call it an article) first made the rounds shortly after the incident and is really just a load of unsubstantiated garbage which invents "evidence" to support the author's predetermined sexist conclusions. 

If you read the comments on the original blog post (strategic-culture is just a re-host) you'll quickly wade into a cesspool of misogyny, red-pilling and bizarre speculation about menstrual cycles. From a quick Google search of the article title it appears that the post got the majority of its traction elsewhere on the internet on various right wing blogs and forums looking to take a regressive stance on the role of women in modern society.

The only data point it draws on is a public affairs article written at least a year prior to the incident, which is a long time in a typical ship's posting cycle. From experience, low female representation in highly skilled positions within the RCN is a recruitment issue vice a talent one. Women who enrol and enter the system as NWOs experience no significant difference in success rate in training or on operations than their male colleagues. Norway's use of conscription likely addresses the enrolment challenge to some extent, making it unsurprising that their ships have women employed in demanding positions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have served on ships with female bridge officers and found them to be fine. The biggest issue with woman on a ship or in the camp is the younger ones who occupy non-management jobs and are busy enjoying a high male to female environment and causing havoc while they do it. I have also seen where a more maternal women even at these lower end jobs can have a very beneficial effect by providing good advice and demanding a certain level of decorum.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That article is just drivel.

There are very few things going on in a warship today that require brute strength, where the average male would have an advantage over the average female. None of those few things relate to any of the watch keeping activities. These require knowledge, skill and experience - things found equally in both male and female (and any other identity of your liking  ).

There is, however, an aspect of the H.I. incident that I have not seen mentioned anywhere and is pretty typical of all navies: Homeward Bound Syndrome. The ship was coming back from a large NATO exercise, the crew had worked hard for a few weeks, going through war like drills and had performed well. There was feeling of "invincibility" from having survived that, etc. etc. Then, you are going home back to family and friend. It's night, there are no drills planned, just a few hours and you are there, it's your home waters you know like the back of your hand and you've been there a hundred times. In those circumstances, the atmosphere on the bridge is relaxed, almost idyllic, everybody is smiling and the minds are wandering. And the crew on the bridge fails to assess the situation properly and disaster strike.

The syndrome is real and all who have sailed in warship know it. Personally, I always made sure I was on the bridge for the last 50 to 100 N.M. of such a return home. I always claimed (for my OOW's consumption) that it was because I just wanted to enjoy the last bit of home waters. It was actually because I knew the crew relaxed too much sometimes at the end like that.


----------



## Cronicbny

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The syndrome is real and all who have sailed in warship know it. Personally, I always made sure I was on the bridge for the last 50 to 100 N.M. of such a return home. I always claimed (for my OOW's consumption) that it was because I just wanted to enjoy the last bit of home waters. It was actually because I knew the crew relaxed too much sometimes at the end like that.



Every time we returned home I would do the same - on each occasion in my night orders is written "call me 30 minutes prior to entering the traffic lanes IVO Buoy J" - often the XO and I would enjoy a coffee or six on the bridge (or on the gun deck in summer months) to reminisce about the delpoyment/ex and to provide that little extra oversight. It proved a prescient measure on almost every occasion (particularly during open fishery windows)


----------



## Good2Golf

The Air Force calls it “get home-itis...”  People have died because of it.  It can be unforgiving...the crew were lucky that night.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The Air Force calls it *“get home-itis...”*  People have died because of it.  It can be unforgiving...the crew were lucky that night.



That is a brilliantly apt term  :nod:


----------



## Uzlu

> Three face blame for frigate collision
> 
> *No charges have been filed yet, but the police investigation into the spectacular collision between a Norwegian frigate and an oil tanker last fall is now targeting three people. They’re all believed to have played “central roles” in the maritime drama.*
> 
> “These are the three who were responsible for the three entities involved,” Ole Bjørn Mevatne, prosecutor for the West Police District that’s responsible for the investigation, told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK). The three entities include the frigate _KNM Helge Ingstad_, the tanker _Sola TS_ and the marine traffic station at Fedje, which was responsible for monitoring vessel movements in the area northwest of Bergen where the collision occurred in the early morning hours of November 8.
> 
> Metvatne’s comments came just after the state accident investigations board (_Havarikommisjonen_), which is responsible for determining the cause of the collision, conducted a re-enactment of the collision earlier this week. It involved the police, state oil company Equinor of the terminal from which the tanker was departing, the coastal administration agency _Kystverket_ and the Norwegian Navy.
> 
> *Navigation rules violated*
> The people now officially viewed as suspected of contributing to the collision include the pilot on board the tanker _Sola TS_, the duty chief on the bridge of the frigate and the man who was on duty at Fedje and responsible for monitoring traffic in the area.
> 
> Mevatne told NRK that the pilot is suspected of violating navigation regulations regarding how the tanker was lying in the water while sailing fully loaded from the Sture oil terminal, and whether the pilot issued the correct signals to the frigate sailing towards the tanker. Tapes of urgent conversations between the tanker and the frigate reveal how the pilot was desperately trying to get the frigate to turn as it sailed towards the tanker at high speed, but the frigate did not respond quickly enough. A preliminary report from the accident investigation board revealed that the frigate’s crew seemed confused by the lights of both the terminal and the tanker, and mistook the tanker for being part of the terminal itself.
> 
> The crew on the bridge of the frigate had just undergone a duty shift. The duty officer in charge of the bridge was also responsible for the seven crew members on the bridge in connection with the collision. “Navigation regulations also play a role here, along with whether those on the bridge were negligent and caused the collision that could have led to loss of life,” Mevatne told NRK.
> 
> The man monitoring marine traffic in the fjord that night is suspected of dereliction of duty. “He had independent responsibility as traffic leader in the area,” Mevatne said. “Fedje (the traffic station) is supposed to serve like traffic police in the area.” There was an apparent lack of response, however, to how the frigate, which was returning to its home port in Bergen from participation in NATO exercises last fall, and the tanker were on a collision course.
> 
> *‘No comment’*
> The duty chief on the frigate refused to comment, referring all questions to the defense department (_Forsvaret_), which also declined comment on the suspicions or whether the collision has had any consequences for the duty chief’s position and daily work.
> 
> The head of the Fedje traffic station, Arnt Runar Sævrøy, said they were aware that one of their employees was under suspicion. “This isn’t new to us,” he told NRK. “Other than that, we have no comment.” A defense attorney has been appointed for the pilot on board the tanker, who also had no further comment.
> 
> Defense Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen, who has political responsibility for the Norwegian Navy, has also declined comment on who was to blame for the collision. He has chosen instead to praise the frigate crew’s quick evacuation of the vessel before it sank, and express relief that no lives were lost.
> 
> The captain of the frigate was sleeping at the time and both he and the frigate’s crew have been shielded by the Navy. The captain recently broke his silence and offered his version of events, but was not on the bridge at the time of the collision.


https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/04/03/three-targeted-in-frigate-collision/


----------



## Uzlu

> 'Cheaper to Buy a New One': Norway Discovers Sunken Frigate's True Repair Costs
> 
> *Although raised and set afloat after four months underwater, the frigate Helge Ingstad, which sank following NATO drills in late 2018, is far from operational and still demands enormous investments.*
> 
> Repairing the frigate KNM Helge Ingstad will cost over NOK 12 billion ($1.37 billion), which is three times as much as its original cost, the newspaper _Bergens Tidende_ reported.
> 
> *"The cost of repairing the frigate will exceed NOK 12 billion. Building a new one will be cheaper", the damage assessment to be presented on Wednesday said.*
> 
> Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency communications adviser Vigdis Hvaal said that no comments will be issued until the Wednesday condition report, which will determine the frigate's future.
> 
> It set the Norwegian military budget back NOK 4.3 billion (almost $500 million) to buy the frigate. The ship was delivered in 2009. The costs of the Helge Ingstad's replacement haven't been estimated yet, but the defence department reckons that ordering several ships at once will be much cheaper, as restarting production for just one ship could result in a disproportionately high per ship cost.
> 
> *"When you talk about the costs associated with building a new frigate, it is important to remember that building just one is far more expensive than building more", the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency concluded.*
> 
> The price for a new frigate is expected to be lower than the cost of repair.
> 
> In their annual report, the Armed Forces wrote that it is relevant to consider re-using the details for remaining vessels or sell the steel.
> 
> The loss of the KNM Helge Ingstad has left Norway's defence capability weakened, adding an extra burden on the four remaining frigates.
> 
> *"The accident will affect the Armed Forces' operational ability, deliveries and preparedness", the Armed Forces admitted.*
> 
> The Helge Ingstad collided with the Maltese-flagged tanker Sola in November of last year while heading back after the major NATO exercise Trident Juncture, billed as the largest on Norwegian soil in decades. While some of the 137-member crew sustained light injuries, the frigate suffered a 45-metre-long gash on its starboard and went down shortly after. The tanker, by contrast, emerged from the collision with only minor damage and is back in service.
> 
> The frigate remained underwater for almost four months before it was raised and transported to Haakonsvern in Bergen. On 10 April, the frigate was relaunched after the gash was plugged using steel plates. So far, rescuing, salvaging and transporting costs associated with the accident cost NOK 726 million ($83 million), according to the 2018 Armed Forces annual report.


https://sputniknews.com/military/201905141074987978-norway-frigate-repair-cost/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt anyone with ship experience is surprised, strip it of valuable metals, hatches and possible modules, like the Bridge, bow etc as spares and training aids.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I know when we looked at pulling sections of the ships for training aids, realized it was actually cheaper to build a structure from scratch then do pull it apart to make a bridge, RAS station trainer, etc.

Awesome way to get diesels, pumps and motors for training; great to have a real set that you can practice pulling it apart and reassembling. The big valves are probably salvageable with some minor overhaul, but anything smaller or with electronics is probably scrap.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I know when we looked at pulling sections of the ships for training aids, realized it was actually cheaper to build a structure from scratch then do pull it apart to make a bridge, RAS station trainer, etc.
> 
> Awesome way to get diesels, pumps and motors for training; great to have a real set that you can practice pulling it apart and reassembling. The big valves are probably salvageable with some minor overhaul, but anything smaller or with electronics is probably scrap.



We could use another recreational dive site in BC. Maybe the Artificial Reef Society could take it off their hands for a dollar?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am going to go with them to look at a ship in a couple of weeks, I mention it to them


----------



## Uzlu

> Norway to discard sunken navy frigate due to cost consideration
> 
> OSLO, June 21 (Xinhua) -- Norway said on Friday that due to cost consideration and uncertainty in reparation, it would discard its damaged KNM Helge Ingstad navy frigate that sank after colliding with an oil tanker off its western coast last year.
> 
> "The government has now decided that it is more appropriate to dispose of KNM Helge Ingstad than to repair it," Norwegian Minister of Defense Frank Bakke-Jensen said in a statement.
> 
> According to the Ministry of Defense, the cost of reparation was estimated to be between 12 billion kroner (1.4 billion U.S. dollars) and 14 billion kroner (1.6 billion U.S. dollars), while building a similar vessel would cost 11-13 billion kroner.
> 
> Bakke-Jensen said the disposal of the navy frigate will have significant consequences for Norway's defense.
> 
> "We have large sea areas and a long coastline. Good control at sea is absolutely essential in the defense of the country. Therefore, we have been aware all the way that the capacity represented by KNM Helge Ingstad must be re-established," he said.
> 
> The ministry will therefore search for military advice from Norwegian Chief of Defense Haakon Bruun-Hanssen on how the operational capacity can be replaced, Bakke-Jensen said.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Armed Forces have already implemented measures to maintain operational capability in the short term, including the use of double crews on the other vessels in operation.
> 
> The Norwegian navy's frigate KNM Helge Ingstad collided with the Malta-registered oil tanker Sola TS on Nov. 8. near Bergen, Norway.
> 
> In late November, investigators ruled out technical errors in the collision, saying the "preliminary assessment is that the accident was not caused by any single act or event, but can be explained by a series of interacting complex factors and circumstances."
> 
> In late February, Norway started the operation to raise the sunken KNM Helge Ingstad frigate and the vessel arrived at the Haakonsvern naval base in early March. (1 U.S. dollar = 8.56 Norwegian kroner)


http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-06/22/c_138163210.htm


----------



## Jarnhamar

Is it normal that it would cost less to build a new ship than it would float one back to the surface and fix it?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is it normal that it would cost less to build a new ship than it would float one back to the surface and fix it?



Absolutely. After that long a soak in salt water, virtually everything would have to be stripped from the hull and replaced. It would be a nightmare to control corrosion in places salt water was never intended to go.

In this case, it is easier to start with a new build.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Ahh, ha. Yes salt water. Embarrassingly overlooked that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Needs to be translated but some actual video of the collision. Accident report on the incident has been released. https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/GGX5JB/helge-ingstad-rapporten-derfor-kolliderte-fregatten


----------



## Sub_Guy

I ran the story through google translate.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fi%2FGGX5JB%2Fhelge-ingstad-rapporten-derfor-kolliderte-fregatten


“The helmsman saw - but did not say

The helmsman was the first to discover that something was moving towards them, minutes before the collision. But he did not say because he thought the officer was aware of what was ahead.”

Speak up kids!  I have always emphasized the importance of speaking up, when something doesn’t feel right, to my MOAT students.  The helmsman was just one hole in the Swiss cheese, there were plenty of holes and they lined up perfectly.


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> “The helmsman saw - but did not say
> 
> The helmsman was the first to discover that something was moving towards them, minutes before the collision. But he did not say because he thought the officer was aware of what was ahead.”
> 
> Speak up kids!  I have always emphasized the importance of speaking up, when something doesn’t feel right, to my MOAT students.  The helmsman was just one hole in the Swiss cheese, there were plenty of holes and they lined up perfectly.



Everyone on the bridge is a lookout.  Report it no matter what, and report it again if something changes.  And then report it if you were dismissed to easily!

Always made sure my lookouts were praised for reports and counseled/trained up for being too shy.  Didn't care who was on the bridge or talking I want those reports.  I wasn't the best watchkeeper so I needed all the help I could get!

That being said "Helmsman... mind your helm" situation there makes me concerned in a different way.


----------



## Pelorus

An English article:

https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/11/08/many-to-blame-for-frigate-fiasco/

The Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN)'s page for the event, also in English, which offers a ~15pg .pdf summary and the full 200+ page Part 1 of the report (events up until the collision):

https://www.aibn.no/Sjofart/Avgitte-rapporter/2019-08-eng


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> Everyone on the bridge is a lookout.  Report it no matter what, and report it again if something changes.  And then report it if you were dismissed to easily!
> 
> Always made sure my lookouts were praised for reports and counseled/trained up for being too shy.  Didn't care who was on the bridge or talking I want those reports.  I wasn't the best watchkeeper so I needed all the help I could get!
> 
> That being said "Helmsman... mind your helm" situation there makes me concerned in a different way.



Big lesson as young sailor, I reported a vessel and the mate sarcastically commented that he had eyes as well. The Captain reamed in out on the spot and told me to always report everything I saw. I took that lesson to heart and always thank a lookout for a report when I became a Master, even my kids in the car are told to pass on reports of things they think are a concern.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frigate sank after rules were broken
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2020/08/12/frigate-sank-after-rules-were-broken/

Fully 53 of 88 applicable safety rules and “barriers” were broken before one of Norway’s five frigates collided with an oil tanker near its home port nearly two years ago. The Norwegian defense department’s own report also noted that the crew on the bridge of the KNM Helge Ingstad had little experience.

“Even though all technical navigational assistance was in working order and functioned, and all mandatory posts on the bridge were staffed,” reads the report released Tuesday, the tanker Sola TS was not identified in time as a vessel moving towards the frigate as it left a local refinery fully laden and bound for the UK.

Defense officials went through all 88 regulations meant to hinder such a collision, and concluded that 53 were broken. Details weren’t revealed, reportedly to shield those responsible. As in earlier investigations of the collision in the busy waters of the Hjeltefjorden northwest of Bergen, right near a large oil refinery, no single error was found that set off the collision but rather a long string of them.

There was also “too little experience and competence among the crew and weak coordination among them.” Even though the crew on the tanker sent out repeated warnings and frantically asked the frigate to turn, communication between the two vessels was described as “imprecise” and the frigate’s crew simply didn’t grasp the looming danger. The captain of the frigate was not on the bridge in the early morning hours when the collision occurred on November 8, 2018. The frigate later sank slowly after all crew and officers on board had to abandon ship.

Naval officials vowed to learn from their mistakes, which have proven very costly for Norwegian taxpayers. The vessel was valued at around NOK 5 billion, would cost much more than that to replace, and is now being scrapped.

newsinenglish.no staff


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Norway is suing the Class Society over the sinking of the Frigate. The fallout and how it effects other naval ships being considered for this sort of classification should be interesting. The translation is not the best.

https://sputniknews.com/europe/202011051081014016-norway-sues-consultancy-for-16-billion-over-sunken-frigate/


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> Norway is suing the Class Society over the sinking of the Frigate. The fallout and how it effects other naval ships being considered for this sort of classification should be interesting. The translation is not the best.
> 
> https://sputniknews.com/europe/202011051081014016-norway-sues-consultancy-for-16-billion-over-sunken-frigate/



Lol, that's pretty funny. I'm sure the hollow propeller shafts were the real reason the ship sank, not the fact that the crew somehow missed a giant tanker and ran into it.

Classification society rules can result in some really poor design choices if you look in the weeds, but this isn't one of them. Worth a try I guess if you already have lawyers on retainer, but kind of embarrassing if it lets DNV-GL bring the full details out into court and conduct some independent investigations.

I don't think this will change anything really, the best designs in the world won't save you from incompetence.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There will be an extra fee from now on to cover legal cost from future lawsuits.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Forsvarsmateriell (FMA), the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency, signed a contract with Norscrap West on 11 January to scrap the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate KNM _Helge Ingstad._ The company will scrap the frigate at its facility at Hanøytangen by the end of the year, according to the FMA website. The agency valued the contract at approximately NOK60 million (nearly USD7 million), with sales of the metal recovered expected to reduce the cost by several million kroner.






						Norway scraps frigate Helge Ingstad
					

The Forsvarsmateriell (FMA), the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency, signed a contract with Norscrap West on 11 January to scrap the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate KNM...



					www.janes.com


----------



## FJAG

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Forsvarsmateriell (FMA), the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency, signed a contract with Norscrap West on 11 January to scrap the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate KNM _Helge Ingstad._ The company will scrap the frigate at its facility at Hanøytangen by the end of the year, according to the FMA website. The agency valued the contract at approximately NOK60 million (nearly USD7 million), with sales of the metal recovered expected to reduce the cost by several million kroner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norway scraps frigate Helge Ingstad
> 
> 
> The Forsvarsmateriell (FMA), the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency, signed a contract with Norscrap West on 11 January to scrap the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate KNM...
> 
> 
> 
> www.janes.com


They could have just towed it to India and had the job done here in exchange for the metal.







But I guess that wouldn't have been very Scandinavian of them, would it?

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe Norway will want to send some of their crews to take the USN Damage control courses? 








						'Lack of Adequate Training': Report Reprimands Norwegian Navy Over Loss of Frigate
					

The KNM Helge Ingstad crashed into an oil tanker and sank after NATO's largest military drills in Norway, leaving a huge gap in the Norwegian Navy's defence capability and a $600 million dent in the state coffers as well as becoming a...




					sputniknews.com


----------



## Underway

This just reinforces my Anglosphere bias' when it comes to damage control.  From how the ships are built, the number of crew, doctrine, and traditions.  

I'm likely wrong but that's why its called a bias... lol


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some more on the report, sinking and aftermath





						Learning the lessons – the loss the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Some more on the report, sinking and aftermath
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning the lessons – the loss the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad | Navy Lookout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navylookout.com



There's a good warning for any Navy:

"The Norwegian Navy (Sjøforsvaret) was short of qualified navigation officers and the officer of the watch (OOW) in charge of navigating the ship was young and relatively inexperienced. The frigate had a crew of 137 on board, the majority were asleep at the time of the incident. 7 personnel were standing on watch on the bridge, including the OOW, an officer and a rating under training and 4 other ratings."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure why the tanker is paying 27 million for what appears to be almost all the fault of the navy, perhaps politically it was the best route forward? 










						Tanker Owner Settles With Norway Over Collision With Frigate
					

The owner of the tanker that collided with the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad in 2018 has agreed to...




					www.maritime-executive.com
				




_The owner of the tanker that collided with the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad in 2018 has agreed to pay about $27 million in compensation to the Norwegian government for the loss of the warship.
_
Also in the article_,_ their problems are not just with the training.

_The Norwegian Navy has also had difficulty with its new fleet replenishment oiler, KNM Maud, which was delivered by DSME in 2018. One year after her delivery, classification society DNV banned her from sailing after finding several safety hazards on board. These were repaired, but Maud has had persistent problems with an integrated electronic control system for her pumps and valves, among other shipboard systems. She was forced to depart a major NATO exercise for repairs in late 2021. 

"KNM Maud has experienced that the [Integrated Platform Management System] freezes or stops working. The risk of continuing to operate is that if the system goes down, you can lose track of key components in the vessel and these must then be followed up manually. So because of the safety of the crew and the ship, the captain chose not to leave the quay," said Flag Commander Trond Gimmingsrud, speaking to Soldatnytt._


----------



## Good2Golf

Is there a case to be made that because the tanker had numerous high-intensity deck lights illuminated that it’s navigation lights were potentially obscured?  It looked like a massive terminal in the video I saw.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A valid point, however crews need working lights to stow the mooring gear, were they on for an excessive time?


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> A valid point, however crews need working lights to stow the mooring gear, were they on for an excessive time?


How many lights do they need, and are there rules for lighting once you’re in a sea lane?


----------



## FSTO

IIRC, after a night RAS, we'd stowe the gear under red light conditions and the lights are shaded to point directly down so that there is no leaking of the light abeam of the ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Workers safety rules likley apply and likely conflict with the Collision Regs. Keep in mind the tanker crew is doing something routine and it's a long way from the bow to the accommodations. So likley they took their time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> Not sure why the tanker is paying 27 million for what appears to be almost all the fault of the navy, perhaps politically it was the best route forward?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tanker Owner Settles With Norway Over Collision With Frigate
> 
> 
> The owner of the tanker that collided with the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad in 2018 has agreed to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.maritime-executive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The owner of the tanker that collided with the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad in 2018 has agreed to pay about $27 million in compensation to the Norwegian government for the loss of the warship._
> 
> Also in the article_,_ their problems are not just with the training.
> 
> _The Norwegian Navy has also had difficulty with its new fleet replenishment oiler, KNM Maud, which was delivered by DSME in 2018. One year after her delivery, classification society DNV banned her from sailing after finding several safety hazards on board. These were repaired, but Maud has had persistent problems with an integrated electronic control system for her pumps and valves, among other shipboard systems. She was forced to depart a major NATO exercise for repairs in late 2021.
> 
> "KNM Maud has experienced that the [Integrated Platform Management System] freezes or stops working. The risk of continuing to operate is that if the system goes down, you can lose track of key components in the vessel and these must then be followed up manually. So because of the safety of the crew and the ship, the captain chose not to leave the quay," said Flag Commander Trond Gimmingsrud, speaking to Soldatnytt._


Admiralty Courts are weird places. When WIN got hit (while minding it’s own business while tied up alongside) in Esquimalt harbour by an American fishing trawler that lost control on it’s way to the Graving Dock, the Admiralty Court still assessed a small part of the blame to her.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> Admiralty Courts are weird places. When WIN got hit (while minding it’s own business while tied up alongside) in Esquimalt harbour by an American fishing trawler that lost control on it’s way to the Graving Dock, the Admiralty Court still assessed a small part of the blame to her.



Seriously?  I am unable to wrap my head around that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:


> Seriously?  I am unable to wrap my head around that.


I wasn’t able to wrap my head around it either, but that is apparently the way Admiralty Courts roll….


----------



## Good2Golf

With what justification, SKT? 🤨


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> With what justification, SKT? 🤨


If it hadn't been tied up there, it wouldn't have been hit clearly


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> I wasn’t able to wrap my head around it either, but that is apparently the way Admiralty Courts roll….



So basically, they are similar to our House of Commons in some ways…


----------



## Blackadder1916

SeaKingTacco said:


> Admiralty Courts are weird places. When WIN got hit (while minding it’s own business while tied up alongside) in Esquimalt harbour by an American fishing trawler that lost control on it’s way to the Graving Dock, the Admiralty Court still assessed a small part of the blame to her.



Not disputing that Admiralty Courts may be weird places, however the "Admiralty Court" in HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. THE SHIP "AMERICAN DYNASTY" AND OTHERS did not render any decision as the suit was withdrawn when the owners of American Dynasty settled with Canada for a reported sum of $3.1 million.  

The TSB report on the collision.  Marine Investigation Report M13W0057 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

A search of court files for the Federal Court of Canada (which performs the function of Admiralty Courts in Canada) using the court number T-2482-14, ship name "American Dynasty" or party name "American Seafoods" provides a list of documents and actions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Clearly the Naval Technology writers didn't get the memo on the loss of the KNM Helge Ingstad.









						Kongsberg partners with Navantia to support Norwegian F-310 frigates
					

Kongsberg has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Navantia to support the Norwegian Navy’s Fridjof Nansen-class F-310 frigates.




					www.naval-technology.com


----------

