Tanker Sola and Norwegian navy frigate Helga Ingstad collide off Norway

Or an active transponder for S and X bands.

1 Like

I favor the active anti-stealth signals approach. We need lots of warning when the Navy is near.

From a security perspective, variable active signals would also mask the effectiveness of the stealth capability. It makes no sense for the Navy to be steaming around and letting the enemy develop the “stealth fingerprint” of each ship.

1 Like

A good idea! A RACON that when triggered by a Radar would transmit the Morse Code letter U meaning; «You are running into danger» :smirk:

1 Like

As far as I am aware, Norway has never been at war with Russia and I see no reason at all why Norway has a Royal Navy to defend itself 2018. Against who? Russia? Germany? Sweden? So the Norwegian Royal Navy is a joke and it is the proximate cause of the incident we discuss. The sailors on HI were just a bunch of idiots employed to keep the Norwegian flag flying and they didn’t even know how to navigate in night darkness. Nobody on the bridge incl. the OOW was capable of anything. Of course Norway has a land border against Russia up north but it is not backed up by barbed wires, land mines and automatic guns like at North Korea. So let’s face it. To avoid Royal Norwegian warships being sunk by merchant ships, just close down the Royal Norwegian Navy completely and save plenty money. Concentrate on fishing and merchant shipping. It is more fun.

You make less sense than even normally.
Maybe Sweden should shut down their army, navy and air force as well.
As far as I know Sweden hasn’t been in a war with Russia or anybody since the Napoleonic war.
And their navy is still trying to find the submarine that alleged entered their waters several years ago. Could it be because they no longer have steady geniuses like you in their midst??

I can agree that Norway doesn’t have any enemies and that it is very unlikely that Russia should attack anytime soon.

The frigates were intended for NATO service, not for coastal defence, which is done by the smaller and faster Corvettes that is able to operate much more efficiently and stealthily in coastal waters.


9 posts were split to a new topic: Frigate Helga Ingstad Design - Damage Survivability

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Why did my post get deleted?

I said that Mk 82 dish forward is fire control radar – more properly, it sends out a beam that illuminates the target with coded pulses that the missile can recognize and home on.

The salvage operation explained in this VG.no article:

As usual it is written by someone with limited knowledge of the subject but, with a little good will, it is understandable and the sketches help.

PS> Google translate doesn’t help the clarity either.

1 Like

An article in Defence News doesn’t bring up anything new:

There are some factual mistake thought. Here is a couple in one sentence:

No she had not just entered waters bustling with commercial shipping, she had been sailing for several hours along the inshore fairway, where there are a lot of commercial shipping, ferries, fishing boats and maybe even some pleasure crafts. It is also more confined waters than Hjeltefjorden.

The visibility was good, with clear, dry weather.

1 Like

I think the COLREGs are clear, i.e, every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision . And every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. Furthermore vessels must use all available means to determine the risk of a collision , including the use of radar (if available) to get early warning of the risk of collision by radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects. (e.g. ARPA, AIS). If the distance of any vessel is reducing and [her compass bearing is not changing much or it is a large vessel or towing vessel at close distance, or if there is any doubt, then a risk of collision shall be deemed to exist. And of course - when two power-driven vessels are meeting head-on both must alter course to starboard so that they pass on the port side of the other.
It seems M/T Sola TS noticed the other ship and turned starboard to avoid KNM Helge Ingstad (HI) which turned port in the last moment. HI was then structurally damaged in the collision that followed and sank after a while. I wonder why you need 14 Norwegian marine incident investigators to conclude that HI was 100% at fault. I also wonder why nobody has been arrested and jailed for this serious incident that could have caused a big oil spill, fire and loss of lives, if HI had ripped open MT Sola TS.

Maybe because they didn’t think of the obvious; call on you to supply your superior expertise on all things nautical. (A one-man circus)

Maybe because there were no big spill ,no fire and no loss of life?
Besides, Norway is a Maritime nation of Law and doesn’t arrest people for things that didn’t happen.


For me the time from departure terminal to collision of 15 min is significant particularly as they also had to swing the vessel 180 deg. Did the pilot look for southbound traffic prior to departure or was it a case of same old routine, differnent day? In addition, why did not VYS warn Sola that there were vessels in the area (northbound and southbound) and advise him to delay departure?

So you think the HI port turn in front of Sola TS was correct as per COLREG?
Imagine if Sola TS had really turned more starboard a little earlier and HI had hit the Sola TS port side instead of the Sola TS bow!
It could have developed in a real disaster! HI ripping open Sola TS side, cargo oil flowing out, cargo oil catching fire, both ships catching fire and plenty seamen and sailors dying. Most oil tanker collisions/spills/fires/people dying are just stupid incidents. I investigated 100’s of them 1990/3 at IMO.
Anyway, we agree there was a collision, nobody died and nobody so far is arrested for anything. Why not? But a friend of mine, a Captain of a ship that just contacted a rock, while passing an island was later arrested and sentenced to jail and now serves 16 years in jail for it !!! Of course his ship was never seaworthy but who cares today about safety at sea?

Looking at this though the lens of COLREGs is not going to shed much light on this incident.

In effect they bridge team “saw” the tanker but because of the deck lights and terminal lights did not comprehend that it was a tanker underway.

The bridge team is not going to apply COLREGs to what they believe is a tanker terminal.

The late turn to port would have been seen at the time as in extremis.

So the HI bridge team thought that HI was running straight up and into the fixed terminal on shore with a tanker at rest alongside and turned port to avoid a collision??? Please, give me a break. Haven’t you understood that the collision took place in the fairway almost half a mile outside the terminal?

It’s in the report:

It was a clear night when ‘KNM Helge Ingstad’ sailed southwards along Hjeltefjorden, and the lights
from the Sture terminal must have been visible from afar. When the terminal first became visible
from ‘KNM Helge Ingstad’, ‘Sola TS’ was alongside at the terminal. Because the crew on ‘Sola TS’
were preparing for departure, the deck of the tanker was well-lit. At a distance it would be difficult
to separate the lights on the tanker from the lights at the terminal. Also, the lights did not move as
the tanker was still alongside quay. It is highly probable that both these factors gave the crew on
> ‘KNM Helge Ingstad’ the impression early on that the lights belonged to a stationary object.
After the watch change at around 03:40–03:45, this was the basis for the bridge crew’s
understanding of the situation. Even though ‘Sola TS’ left the quay at around that time, there
continued to be little relative movement of the lights as the tanker turned from a southerly to a
northerly course. The tanker’s use of deck lights after departure also meant that the crew on 'KNM
> Helge Ingstad’ were unable to spot the navigation lights on ‘Sola TS’.
When ‘KNM Helge Ingstad’ at approximately 04:00 stated that they could not turn to starboard**, it**
> was based on a continued perception of the lights as being stationary and that a turn to starboard
would send them straight into the lit object. They also believed that they were communicating with
one of the three northbound vessels that they were monitoring on the radar. It was not until just after
this that the crew on ‘KNM Helge Ingstad’ became aware that they were on collision course, at
which time it was impossible to avoid a collision.

On a radar land is steady with no trails, moving objects have trails. If they had plotted the position at 3:55 (strange time) 5-6 minutes before the collision, they must have seen that there was no stationary object ahead of them on the present course. If HI had the radar on and AIS on receiving, they would have seen the movement of Sola TS that lasted for 15 minutes before the collision.

Yes, I have read the report. HI bridge crew thought that they were heading into a stationary object on shore at the Sture terminal and turned port at the last moment to avoid running up on land. 14 Norwegian marine incident investigators have interviewed the bridge crew and think it sounds good. And then the frigate sank due to a design fault. Case closed!

17 knots in a frigate is not the same as 17 knots in a merchant ship. Unless the performance of a modern frigate has changed drastically since I served in one a frigate should be able to take all way off from 17 knots in not much more than a couple of ship’s lengths.