Warship collides with oil tanker in Norway

[Eldorado]

Norway has evacuated all 137 crew from one of its warships after it collided in a fjord with a Maltese oil tanker.

Eight people were lightly injured in the collision in the Hjeltefjord near Bergen. The KNM Helge Ingstad frigate has been listing dangerously.

The warship had been returning from Nato military exercises. The tanker, the Sola TS, was slightly damaged and it appears that it did not spill oil.

The incident led to the shutdown of a major oil terminal and a gas plant.

Full report plus video: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46136564

tsk tsk

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

tsk tsk

Yeah, no kidding. The usual stupid human error no doubt.

[spud the mackem]

Interesting the Warship heading south was hit on the aft starboard  side therefor it was crossing the bow of the tanker heading north, which should not have happened  but the tanker should have gone to starboard (right) to avoid the collision. The rules state that ships approaching each other should keep on the right side of each other and pass port to port (left to left), and in narrow waters slow down as they are passing to avoid being drawn into each other.

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, spud the mackem said:

Interesting the Warship heading south was hit on the aft starboard  side therefor it was crossing the bow of the tanker heading north, which should not have happened  but the tanker should have gone to starboard (right) to avoid the collision. The rules state that ships approaching each other should keep on the right side of each other and pass port to port (left to left), and in narrow waters slow down as they are passing to avoid being drawn into each other.

Well done the crew, who wouldn't have been at stations when the collision happened so hatches wouldn't be locked, the fast actions certainly saved lives, and the decision to runaground to try and save the ship itself. But the latest images would suggest the ship is lost. 

The reports via twitter suggest the ship was moored. 

 

 

 

[Eldorado]

[stevewinn]

I'd say she's lost, the sheer size of the damage by the tanker and the unseen damage as result of grounding, the fact she's on her side she'll be twisted internally. Maybe even a twisted keel. 

 

[stevewinn]

She's been lost to the deeps, (well shallows in this case) 

 

 

[RoofGardener]

Wow. 

That's just set the Norwegians back by £500 million pounds  

I'll be interested to see the final report on the event; it seems odd that such a modern warship could have such a catastrophic collision in good weather, with perfect visibility, and all sorts of radar etc. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by RoofGardener

[stevewinn]

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Wow. 

That's just set the Norwegians back by £500 million pounds  

I'll be interested to see the final report on the event; it seems odd that such a modern warship could have such a catastrophic collision in good weather, with perfect visibility, and all sorts of radar etc. 

With these modern Warships radar limiting designs ie; 5,000 tonne war ship with a radar signature of a small fishing boat. Plus it seems their AIS was turned off. 

That's three NATO Warships taken out of action in 14 months by tankers. #russia

Evidence is growing. As a eye witness took this picture moments after the incident. 

 

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

She's been lost to the deeps, (well shallows in this case) 

With military ships they are usually re-floated unless their backs are broken. 

At a cost of £500 million each the cost of making a new one is a lot higher than the recovery and refit costs.

[stevewinn]

23 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

With military ships they are usually re-floated unless their backs are broken. 

At a cost of £500 million each the cost of making a new one is a lot higher than the recovery and refit costs.

I'm not sure they'll bother, it looks beyond economic repair, have a closer look at the picture of the damage, just in the right corner you can see her torpedo tubes. Pretty lucky. 

Also the stresses on the hull/keel. Like a beached whale they aren't designed to have all their weight lying on her side, a lot of twisting will have happened. 

I believe Norway run a 5 frigate programme, with two permantly laid up without crew. I guess they'll transfer the crew to one of these and continue to run a 3 frigate rotation. Which might see them not replacing the ship until they purchase new frigates in 2025 - 2035.

[Jon the frog]

With the amount of electronics and high technology in these ship a re-float would mean total stripping and refurbishing if it's salvageable... outch

[aztek]

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

 

Also the stresses on the hull/keel. Like a beached whale they aren't designed to have all their weight lying on her side, a lot of twisting will have happened. 

 

i'm pretty sure military ships are made to handle it,  they are made to handle underwater explosions, and emergency anchor drop on the go. those put much higher stresses on haul,  the worst damage for the ship is water damage, not minor haul damage. electronic is most expensive part of the ship, if it is not damaged too much ship is salvageable,

we salvaged uss cole, and it had much more haul damage

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by aztek

[stevewinn]

18 hours ago, aztek said:

i'm pretty sure military ships are made to handle it,  they are made to handle underwater explosions, and emergency anchor drop on the go. those put much higher stresses on haul,  the worst damage for the ship is water damage, not minor haul damage. electronic is most expensive part of the ship, if it is not damaged too much ship is salvageable,

we salvaged uss cole, and it had much more haul damage

 

Was the USS cole run aground to prevent sinking?

If the Norwegian frigate would've been in deeper water it would be sitting on the bottom and beyond salavage. 

Also their are differing military standards between navies. Although all are designed to take punishment, ie 1000lb war head Not all navies are equal, the USS and Royal Navy build ships of highend war fighting. They go the extra few yards in survivability, which is built into their design. Hence the difference in cost. 

It's rather telling the US navy in recent times have had collisions at greater speed with two tankers and both ships never sank, the USS cole took a hit at the water line from high a explosive and survived. 

A modern circa 2000 built frigate collides with a tanker and to prevent its sinking had to run aground. To avoid total loss, I guess they could go back to Navantia (Spain) to build them another one for $600million. While the Royal Navies of Australia, New Zealand and the UK are purchasing frigates at $1.2Billion each. There are canoes of war and there are war canoes. 

 

 

 

 

 

[aztek]

Just now, stevewinn said:

Was the USS cole run aground to prevent sinking?

 

no, it was not needed, it was not sinking, despite huge hole in the haul, it stayed afloat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/USS_Cole_(DDG-67)_Departs.jpg/1024px-USS_Cole_(DDG-67)_Departs.jpg

as far as cost alone, it wont show you much, things are more expensive to build in USA, especially at union factories, working on gvmnt contract.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by aztek

[stevewinn]

17 minutes ago, aztek said:

no, it was not needed, it was not sinking, despite huge hole in the haul, it stayed afloat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/USS_Cole_(DDG-67)_Departs.jpg/1024px-USS_Cole_(DDG-67)_Departs.jpg

as far as cost alone, it wont show you much, things are more expensive to build in USA, especially at union factories, working on gvmnt contract.

 

Though unions and ship building can be more expensive due to domestic policy of building complex Warships and keeping that national capability. There equally exists a cost associated with high end war fighting and survivability built into the design. When things start to go from flash to bang, there are very few ships outside of those of the US / UK you'd want to be on.