Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cabin-boy

Tanker - warship collision

Recommended Posts

Waiting to hear who hit who? Prompt decision to drive her ashore almost certainly saved many lives. Saw a documentary about a ship that capsized up there in 4 minutes....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One for sure is the frigate has the ability to change position a lot quicker than the tanker, will they keep the blame quiet as it’s a military vessel involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth making clear that the word “rammed” is quoted straight out of the report and that the context in which it is used does not suggest that the “ramming” was deliberate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there's one telling photo out there showing that the warship took a sideswipe on its starboard rear quarter alongside the helicopter hangar, with the rip very much looking bulbous-bow shaped. Seems to suggest that the warship was cutting across the bow of the tanker from left to right and someone misjudged, resulting in an oblique collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the beast that was the other ship involved:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/pl/photos/of/ships/shipid:4889976/#forward

Not something I would like to get in the way of!

Difficult to see this monster (a) being in the wrong place (in relation to the deep water channel), (b) doing anything sudden or unexpected, or (c) being able to do much to avoid a fast-developing collision situation.  I can imagine that a small, fast, deft warship trying to sneak around her might not have even been visible from the bridge.

If she was fully laden, after leaving the oil terminal, then I can imagine those huge anchors could well have been down at the level of the gash in the warship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting article, one quote is:-

– The Frigates are built according to the Stealth principle, a construction form that makes them very difficult to detect by radar. In addition, these Frigates, unlike any other vessel of over 300 metric ton, are not required to use a satellite-based system. If this system was turned off, the combination could lead to that Frigate was invisible to the tanker, he explains.

http://norwaytoday.info/news/difficult-inside-knm-helge-ingstad/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'd think that the tanker would have been visible, by eye, by AIS, and by radar, from the frigate.

From a technical colregs point of view, if they were on crossing paths (difficult to know at the moment whether the paths were crossing or reciprocal, but if it was a crossing situation) and the tanker was not claiming Constrained by Draught or RAM then the warship would have been the stand-on vessel (showing starboard side to the tanker).  But, as any yachtsman will know, that technicality is of only theoretical relevance if you are in a small vessel and he cannot see you (and cannot do anything about it even if he could).  If you can stay out of the way, you make sure you do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the frigate's Aegis radar system can detect, follow and intercept a fast moving, high-altitude missile then you'd think a slow, bulky and noisy tanker on the surface would not be too difficult to spot and avoid. Ed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cabin-boy said:

If the frigate's Aegis radar system can detect, follow and intercept a fast moving, high-altitude missile then you'd think a slow, bulky and noisy tanker on the surface would not be too difficult to spot and avoid. Ed. 

The American Navy have had similar problems seeing big ships before collision. Gives you confidence in Nato's capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably someone didn't get that memo.

Unless, of course, the frigate was shadowing, or trying to evade, a Russian submarine which would put the accident in a whole new light. Ed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Submarine! Pah! Old hat in modern warfare!  I hear Russia has just placed an order for a couple of dozen oil tankers.....! :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of those `Norway Today` articles states that the investigation, into the collison,is being conducted by none other than the Norwegian Police...odd.Norway is a mature maritime nation so you would assume that they had an equivalent to our MAIB.Equally their Navy must have an investigation branch.Can`t see Plod having the expertise to advise on cause, let alone steps to prevent it happening again. Unless I`ve missed summat😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting observation Paully.  I can think of two possible explanations.  Either:  Norway Today is being loose with the name of the institution investigating (either due to ignorance of the distinctions, or just sloppy journalism).  Or:  The authorities believe that there may be a criminal element to what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some nations have a 'civil' investigation alongside a criminal one. I've just looked and found this on a government website.

 

Quote

There are now three agents with different roles in the aftermath of a marine casualty:
The Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN), the police and the Norwegian Maritime Authority.

Perhaps the paper mentioned the Police as it's a bit flashier?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read reports suggesting the warship was at fault. Repeatedly contacted by the tanker asking for clarification of intentions, told all under control.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/11/2018 at 10:06, Gareth said:

And you'd think that the tanker would have been visible, by eye, by AIS, and by radar, from the frigate.

From a technical colregs point of view, if they were on crossing paths (difficult to know at the moment whether the paths were crossing or reciprocal, but if it was a crossing situation) and the tanker was not claiming Constrained by Draught or RAM then the warship would have been the stand-on vessel (showing starboard side to the tanker).  But, as any yachtsman will know, that technicality is of only theoretical relevance if you are in a small vessel and he cannot see you (and cannot do anything about it even if he could).  If you can stay out of the way, you make sure you do!

The stand on vessel in a crossing situation is the vessel with the other one on it's port side. The warship, if this was a crossing situation, was the give way vessel.

The VLCC was loaded, doing 8 knots with an escort tug alongside, the Tenax used to be a Fawley tug, looking out of the windows should have been sufficient. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×