Norwegian frigate - whoops!

[photodog]

What on earth has that got to do with it? The ships are staggeringly expensive. I'd have thought it worth a few kroner, and a little care, to teach the crew how they work.

The Norwegian ships were built in Spain by Navantia and cost about 1/2 billion usd each.

Talk of “stealth mode” is really a misnomer... in reality these ships have a lower RCS but are not actively stealthy... so they are still visible on radar they just look a bit smaller...

What these guys don’t do, is emit ANY radio signals... and this is more commmonly known as “Full EMCON”... and navies have been operating under those conditions since radios were invented...

And whilst this may mean that a ship can’t see anything over the horizon, it’s not the case that pilotage should be effected by this in good visibility, or even at night... they should have good visual watchkeeping via the mark 1, and also have excellent IRST systems which are actually their primary eyes most of the time..

These are very manoeuvrable ships, and have well manned bridges, and visual pilotage is hardly a new thing... so this accident really has very little to do with the ship operating under EMCON, and more with just normal stupidity by the watch team... and that’s hardly a new thing, Having been the cause of numerous accidents in particular by the US navy, the Canadians had a collision with HMCS Kootenay in 89 off the west coast in thick fog, and in the case of the RN, HMS Nottingham’s grounding as well...

And they really need to operate in these conditions... if they operate/ train whilst emitting, then they tell the Russians about their training, and that is the last thing we want them to know... the Norwegian navy is on the front line with the Russians, and revealing operational practices to them would be the height of stupidity.

It’s a shame, this frigate has had an interesting career since commissioning, and her loss diminishes the Norwegians naval combat capacity by 20%...

 

[Seajet]

I'd say they are ' stealth as far as ships go at the moment ' - and the Norwegians have a lot more ships than that, this is just 20% of, unfortunately, their best ones.

Another much more simlar prang than HMS Nottingham was another T 42 ( Glasgow ? ) in the Straits of Hormuz, as I heard the story an inexperienced midshipman was left OOW at night and got T-Boned by a big tanker - very severe damage but the Navy had a budget for repairs, not new ships so she was repaired.

 

[A1Sailor]

Another much more simlar prang than HMS Nottingham was another T 42 ( Glasgow ? ) in the Straits of Hormuz, as I heard the story an inexperienced midshipman was left OOW at night and got T-Boned by a big tanker - very severe damage but the Navy had a budget for repairs, not new ships so she was repaired.

I think it may have been HMS Southampton, but oops indeed:

Unfortunately there were 2 significant mishaps involving Type 42s. In 1988 HMS Southampton collided at night with the merchant vessel she was escorting in the Gulf. This was the result of a junior officer making a ship-handling error and she was lucky that the collision did not set off an explosion in her Sea Dart magazine or cut her completely in half. Southampton was transported back to the UK and fully repaired. In 2002 HMS Nottingham grounded on a well-charted submerged rock off Australia. Good damage control ensured she survived but had to be transported back to the UK for major repairs on a specialist heavy lift vessel. She had recently had a refit and upgrade and it was decided to repair her at a cost of £39M but she only remained in service for a further 4 years, making her repair a questionable decision.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/reflecting-on-the-life-and-times-of-the-type-42-destroyers/

Apart from colliding with some 1,000lb bombs in 1982, I think the only thing HMS Glasgow collided with was a Soviet Cruiser in the Barents Sea in 1981.

HMS "GLASGOW": COLLISION WITH SOVIET CRUISER
HL Deb 14 October 1981 vol 424 c430WA
Lord Kennet
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have received from the Soviet Government to their representations concerning the collision of a Soviet missile cruiser with HMS "Glasgow".

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington)
The incident has been brought to the attention of the competent Soviet authorities and we have been informed that due notice has been taken of the contents of our representations.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-.../14/hms-glasgow-collision-with-soviet-cruiser

Edit:
btw I thought it very unlikely that an "inexperienced midshipman" would:
a. Have a Bridge Watchkeeping Ticket
b. Act as OOW on a Type 42 destroyer, or indeed any Royal Navy Warship, without the required qualification.
I've sourced the HMS Southampton Board of Inquiry for you, which confirms the OOW was a Sub-Lieutenant. Hope the facts don't spoil the story too much.
https://www.3peaks.org.uk/Downloads/HMSSOUTHAMPTONMVTORBAY3Sept1998BOIReport.pdf

There was a 2nd OOW, also a Sub-Lt. Presumably an even more junior one...

 

[Frank Holden]

As I recall Nottingham hit a submerged rock.... which on the paper chart some bright spark using a blunt 2B had covered with the day's tide details ... or so I heard....

A much more similar prang was when HMS Brazen hit a substantial bit of terra in Paso Shoal - which is just a little bit skinny and tidal - at the change of watch ( about 0000 dark..) . The Norwegian incident occured at 0403 ...

Paso Shoal lies in Canal Smyth just north of Estrecho de Magallanes... they weren't the first.... nor the last to come to grief there.....

 

[A1Sailor]

HMS Southampton suffered some damage...

https://www.3peaks.org.uk/Nautical/HMS Southampton/HMSSouthamptonpage.htm

 

[Seajet]

I don't see ' the story ' bothered at all; I was told Midshipman, report says ' ship handling mistake by a junior officer' - if sub lt they must have been pretty inexperienced ones.

 

[A1Sailor]

I don't see ' the story ' bothered at all; I was told Midshipman, report says ' ship handling mistake by a junior officer' - if sub lt they must have been pretty inexperienced ones.

It's a good story. It wasn't HMS Glasgow, it wasn't a Midshipman it wasn't a tanker and they didn't get T boned - more of a Y bone or a V bone! Everything else you posted was correct.:encouragement:
Here's a pic of the bow of the container ship, although I wonder if the website I found it on has it reversed left/right or port/starboard.

https://www.3peaks.org.uk/Nautical/HMS Southampton/HMSSouthamptonpage.htm

 

[prv]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

You can only be RAM due to "the nature of [your] work".

Mechanical issues?

Obviously not, since own-ship mechanical issues are not the nature of any vessel's work.

You may be thinking of NUC.

Pete

 

[Poignard]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

Perhaps navies should revive the fine old tradition of having "Sailing Masters". An experienced officer whose sole concern is navigation and handling the ship, leaving the other officers to play with the toys, run the departments, manage the men, do the paperwork etc.

It should be a career in its own right, not merely a temporary assignment for a naval officer. They could be seconded from RFAs or the Merchant Navy and if the ship carried three of them there would always be one on the bridge.

 

[capnsensible]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

Yeah, you could call them The 1st Lieutenant, or Executive Officer.......Oh wait a minute......

 

[A1Sailor]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

Perhaps navies should revive the fine old tradition of having "Sailing Masters". An experienced officer whose sole concern is navigation and handling the ship, leaving the other officers to play with the toys, run the departments, manage the men, do the paperwork etc.

It should be a career in its own right, not merely a temporary assignment for a naval officer. They could be seconded from RFAs or the Merchant Navy and if the ship carried three of them there would always be one on the bridge.

The BoI from the HMS Southampton collision is a catalogue of errors - Navigating Officer available but not called, Jimmy discussing the evening's plan with the Captain, PWO in the Ops Room distracted by the MEO. They got to within 5 cables then 2 cables then bang .
Captain, I think it was he, thought they must have hit a mine! The unfortunate OOW ended up in "shock", in his cabin.
https://www.3peaks.org.uk/Downloads/HMSSOUTHAMPTONMVTORBAY3Sept1998BOIReport.pdf

 

[Seajet]

It's a good story. It wasn't HMS Glasgow, it wasn't a Midshipman it wasn't a tanker and they didn't get T boned - more of a Y bone or a V bone! Everything else you posted was correct.:encouragement:
Here's a pic of the bow of the container ship, although I wonder if the website I found it on has it reversed left/right or port/starboard.

https://www.3peaks.org.uk/Nautical/HMS Southampton/HMSSouthamptonpage.htm

Here's a Sea Eagle amidships of your strange efforts to have a go at me;

I began with ' the story as I was told ' - I did NOT say ' it happened like this '.

Must try harder A1 - why I neither know nor care, but if that's your thing feel free

 

[A1Sailor]

Re: Whoops!

Not one of ours this time.

https://defence-blog.com/news/norway-frigate-collides-with-oil-tanker-in-fjord.html

Why "this time"?
When was the last major collision between a UK surface warship and another ship?

Thanks to Seajet's earlier helpful post it might have been 3rd September 1988.

 

[Poignard]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

Yeah, you could call them The 1st Lieutenant, or Executive Officer.......Oh wait a minute......

No, I mean someone whose whole career is as a ship-handler, not someone who does it for a while.

" Master

This was the senior warrant rank and can be equated to a “professional” seaman and specialist in navigation, rather than as a military commander. Their rank approximated to that of Lieutenant and were well educated. They were professionally examined by Trinity House and re-qualified if appointed to a larger rated ship. Masters were able to stand watches and command ships in non-combatant duties. In the mid-nineteenth century Masters attained full commissioned rank and titles were changed to assimilate them into the main commissioned structure. The specialised Navigating branch was no longer required and phased out. As part of his duties on board ship, the Master’s main duty was navigation, taking ship’s position daily and setting the sails as appropriate for the required course. He supervised Midshipmen and Mates in taking observations of the sun and maintained the ship’s compass. He was also responsible for ensuring the maintenance of the rope rigging and sails. Other duties included the stowing of the hold, inspecting provisions, taking stores so that the ship was not too weighted down to sail effectively and reporting defects to the Captain. Security and the issue of drink on board and supervised entry of parts of the official log such as weather, position and expenditure."

( https://web.archive.org/web/2014101...lnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_nav_rankings.htm )

 

[Seajet]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

Which of course is why in the old days people like Nelson concentrated on tactics and all that, while actually handling the ship as in seamanship was left to a super - experienced ' Sailing Master '

A term used lately for people performing a similar role for wealthy but maybe not that experienced owners of racing yachts, ie Owen Parker was Sailing Master of Ted Heaths'' Morning Cloud '.

I've sometimes wondered if todays' navies with so much sophisticated kit and tactics to learn and concern oneself with, someone like a ' Sailing Master ' might be an idea again.

 

[capnsensible]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

You are both describing, pretty much, the role of the Ist Lieutenant. And the only way to get them highly experienced (as opposed to very experienced) is to send warships to sea more often and place less reliance on simulators.

 

[Poignard]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

You are both describing, pretty much, the role of the Ist Lieutenant. And the only way to get them highly experienced (as opposed to very experienced) is to send warships to sea more often and place less reliance on simulators.

But that is only his role for a certain number of years. If his career is a success, he will soon be promoted out of that job and be on his way to a desk in Whitehall. He will also probably spend long periods ashore in training establishments, or at the MoD, he may become a naval attache or whatever, he may, like one officer I knew, be put in charge of a sort of outward bound school. All worthy and doubtless necessary occupations but not ship-handling and navigation.

You can answer this better than I but in a typical RN deck officer's career, how many years would he spend actually handling a ship on his own? The Captain of the last merchant ship I was on had been a deck officer for more than 40 years. He was concerned only with looking after his ship, her cargo and her small crew. The Mates were primarily watch-keepers, 8 hours a day on the bridge in deep-sea vessels with 3 mates, 12 hours a day in the coasting trade where there were only 2 Mates. In addition to long hours on the bridge, the 1st Mate was responsible for cargo work and maintenance , the 2nd for navigation and the 3rd for safety equipment and anything else that could be offloaded onto him. These duties were carried out in port or when they could be fitted in.

The Sailing Masters I referred to earlier were a class of specialist warrant officers who did nothing else except carry out the duties described in Post #54. They might spend up to 30-40 years doing that and nothing else. They did not have to hande weaponry, manage a division, organise ceremonial events, take charge of landing-parties, and all the other myriad things that demanded an officer's attention. The Master's primary purpose was to handle the ship, put her where her Commander wanted her, keep her off the rocks, undertake pilotage, etc.

Of course it won't happen, for the same reason as Masters were done away with in the 19th century - cost.

 

[capnsensible]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

That nails the problem, basic sea time. No RN Officer will get that as you point out, so no one will ever have a 'Sailing Master' kind of experience anyway. The burden falls to the Jimmy.

 

[Poignard]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

That nails the problem, basic sea time. No RN Officer will get that as you point out, so no one will ever have a 'Sailing Master' kind of experience anyway. The burden falls to the Jimmy.

Just so, unless you have a 21st century "sailing master".

I'll bet there were some interesting confrontations in the days of sail between Commanders of ships and their Sailing Masters.

"Master, lay the ship alongside the French first-rate."

"She's dead to windward Sir."

"Damn it man, do as I say or I'll have you flogged!"

 

[knuterikt]

Re: Norwegian Colregs

I wonder how they knew it was the Helge Ingstad - head on the name wouldn't be visible, so either had made radio contact by then, or maybe recognised the distinctive shape and as there are / were only 6 inc one in dock maybe just recognised her ?

I'd be surprised if the tanker didn't have night vision, my little boat does.

The tanker did see the frigate 3 minutes out and asked VTS who it could be and tried to contact the oncoming ship on VHF. VTS “suddenly” realized that it could be the frigate around one minute before impact.
The frigate reported entry into VTS area as they should, but looks as it was invisible on radar for a while, when it first showed up on radar there was no speed or name (no AIS), could explain why VTS operator was confused...