Military Review

Norwegian military sues compensation for sunken frigate

19

In November 2018, the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad collided with the Sola TS tanker while returning from a NATO exercise; he received a 45-meter hole and soon sank. This incident was one of the most painful peacetime losses in stories armed forces of the country.


The Ministry of Defense considered that the classification society DNV GL, which is responsible for registering ships and assessing their quality (Russian analogues - maritime and river shipping registers), is responsible for the incident. In this regard, the military department is demanding compensation in the amount of $ 1,6 billion. It is reported by the local resource NRK.

We have carefully studied the case and consider the claim unfounded. There is no basis for liability, and there is no causal link between the recognition of DNV GL as responsible for the shipwreck and the subsequent loss of [frigate] Helge Ingstad

- stated in the register.

In addition, another lawsuit was filed against the owner of the Maltese-flagged tanker Sola TS, which, after the collision, was able to leave the scene of the incident, underwent repairs and returned to service.

It is not yet clear how promising are attempts to sue funds for the lost frigate. Last year, the Norwegian Accident Investigation Board concluded, among other things, that the training of the frigate's personnel on the bridge was insufficient.

However, it was concluded that water from the generator compartment entered the gear compartment through hollow propeller shafts. The military believes that DNV GL should have foreseen the possible consequences of this technical flaw. However, society allowed the corvette to be exploited. As a result, due to the already existing leak, water quickly filled the ship and led to its imminent sinking.

In 2019, the sunken frigate was lifted out of the water and taken to a naval base. A decision was made to dispose of it: it was calculated that its repair would cost 12-14 billion kroons, while the cost of building a new ship was 11-13 billion kroons. The amount of the above claim in Norwegian currency is 15 billion kroons.

19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 6 November 2020 01: 24 New
    28
    The collision was due to the fault of the frigate commander.
    The computer program told him clearly that he had no time to slip through
    in front of the bow of the tanker. But the gallant sailor decided that his eye was more accurate,
    than a radar and computer calculations. negative
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 6 November 2020 01: 33 New
      10
      The right hand (warriors) beats the left (register), as a result - both are fools.
    2. APASUS
      APASUS 6 November 2020 22: 05 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The computer program told him clearly that he had no time to slip through
      in front of the bow of the tanker. But the gallant sailor decided that his eye was more accurate,
      than a radar and computer calculations.

      Like the preliminary results of the Commission for Investigation of Emergencies of the Ministry of Defense of Norway were different? Defense Accident Investigation Board Norway
      “It was a clear night when the Helge Ingstad was following Kjeltefjord in a southerly direction, so the lights of the Stura terminal had to be visible from afar. When Helge Ingstad first noticed the terminal, Sola TS was next to the terminal. As the Soly TS crew prepared to sail, the tanker's deck was well lit. From a distance it was difficult to determine where the tanker lights were (visible) and where the terminal lights were. In addition, the tanker's lights did not change position as the tanker was still at the dock. It is highly probable that both of these factors led to the Helge Ingstad crew believing that the visible lights belonged to a stationary object, according to a preliminary report from AIBN. - After the shift in watch around 03: 40–03: 45 this circumstance (that the lights belong to a stationary object - V.Sch.) became the basis for the understanding of the situation by the personnel of the navigational watch. And although at about the same time, the Sola TS departed from the berth, the movement of its lights was insignificant, as the tanker turned around, changing its direction of movement from south to north. At the same time, the use of deck lighting by the crew of the tanker and after its departure (from the terminal) led to the fact that the Helge Ingstad could not see the navigation lights of the Soly TS.
      When at about 04:00 Helge Ingstad reported that they could not change course to starboard, this was done for the reason that they were still sure that the lights belonged to a stationary object. As a result, turning to the right, they would (in their opinion) go directly to the illuminated object. They (the personnel of the frigate's navigational watch - V.Sch.) also believed that they were negotiating with one of those three ships heading north, which they followed on their radar screen. Only after that the crew of Helge Ingstad realized that a collision was about to occur, but there was no way to prevent it. "
      The accident did not happen for any one reason, the AIBN experts conclude as a result, but was the result of a whole set of interrelated factors and events. "The investigation team is making every effort to establish and understand these factors," the AIBN report says, and emphasizes that so far its experts "have not found any evidence that up to the moment of the collision, the technical systems did not work as they should was to be. " But even if this is so, then after the collision, the frigate's crew still let down.

      And when they tried to throw everything on Navantia, they were very quickly cooled there:
      it is very interesting to find out why on the frigate URO "Helge Ingstad", when entering a navigationally difficult area, they switched their automatic identification system (AIS) equipment only to receive, becoming virtually "invisible" to other traffic participants at sea. What military necessity this was dictated, taking into account the fact that the ship, apparently, was not in combat service, the exercise for it seemed to have ended, and the navigation area was controlled by Norway. In addition, it is not entirely clear why it was necessary to keep the speed of 17-18 knots in an area with intensive shipping, if this was not due to any military necessity.
  2. Avior
    Avior 6 November 2020 01: 28 New
    +7
    Unusual lawsuit.
    Even its subject is not entirely clear.
    ... DNV GL is the largest classification society with 13175 vessels and offshore mobile units in its register with a total displacement of 265.4 million tons, which represents 21% of the world market.

    Develops, among other things, rules and standards in shipbuilding.
    But what exactly is the claim is difficult to understand from the article.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 6 November 2020 01: 46 New
      13
      Even its subject is not entirely clear.
      Given this presentation, this is not surprising.
      In fact, the Norwegian Ministry of Defense is making claims against DNV GL (formerly Veritas) for recognizing KMN Helge Ingstad as serviceable and giving it a technical class.
      While investigating the accident, the Accident Investigation Board Norway determined that the ship sank so quickly because the water spread along the hollow propeller shafts.
      Based on this, the Ministry of Defense believes that DNV GL should have foreseen such a possibility and not accept the ship until this deficiency was eliminated. Therefore, they demand compensation for losses.
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 6 November 2020 03: 19 New
        +8
        An independent investigation, in fact, exists in order to identify all, without exception, causal relationships that led to the infliction of damage, and not hide them out of fear in the process of identifying the perpetrators to find themselves.
      2. Pereira
        Pereira 6 November 2020 08: 31 New
        +3
        Risk guys Norwegians.
        Well, how will DNV GL be offended and send the entire Norwegian fleet for melting down?
        And the Norwegians from now on science - they need to hire qualified admirals who are ready to successfully fight with Russia. And I even know where you can get them. There is one great ancient power.
      3. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 7 November 2020 19: 43 New
        +2
        Quote: Undecim
        the ship sank so quickly because the water spread over the hollow rowing shafts.
        Based on this, the Ministry of Defense believes that DNV GL should have foreseen such a possibility and not accept the ship until this deficiency was eliminated.

        It's strange. The Ministry of Defense ordered a frigate, approved the project, accepted the built ship, which had problems with survivability, but, in his opinion, is an outside uncle to blame?
  3. Grif
    Grif 6 November 2020 03: 25 New
    +3
    They are looking for the guilty, shameful.
  4. Andrea
    Andrea 6 November 2020 04: 54 New
    +8
    That's for sure! If not for the hollow shafts ... and the 45 meter hole is seeds. laughing By the way, why hasn't a claim been brought against the manufacturer? The hole, after all, was formed!laughing
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 6 November 2020 08: 32 New
      +1
      I guess the manufacturer has no money. So it doesn't make sense.
  5. Coward
    Coward 6 November 2020 05: 02 New
    +6
    "He got a 45-meter slit"
    I suppose that the concept of "hole" is now banned? Like not an explosion, but a pop.
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 6 November 2020 08: 33 New
      +6
      Feminists can misinterpret the term and sue for verbal abuse.
  6. Coward
    Coward 6 November 2020 05: 09 New
    +8
    Hollow propeller shafts are shafts in a variable pitch propeller. Operated by a huge number of ships and ships around the world for the devil knows how many years. The system has been worked out almost to perfection. In order for water to start flowing through the shaft in quantities sufficient for flooding, it is necessary to "break off" the screw hub on one side and the shaft plug on the other. I really can't imagine how this could happen.
  7. Thrifty
    Thrifty 6 November 2020 05: 24 New
    0
    I tried to imagine a gap over 5 meters long - I almost dislocated my brain am fool And 45 meters is exactly a gap, not a crack? ?? belay wassat
  8. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 6 November 2020 06: 49 New
    +4
    the military department seeks compensation in the amount of $ 1,6 billion
    Can you do a debriefing with the frigate commander first? Still, the tanker is not a boat that can be overlooked. And so it turns out, in order to cover the guilt of the commander and the crew, they decided to cut money from the civilians. You must be able to navigate the seas and observe the rules of navigation.
  9. Rzzz
    Rzzz 6 November 2020 12: 12 New
    +4
    The Register does not supervise the state of military courts. They have their own inspectors.
    And the investigation of the causes of accidents is also not their concern, they are only engaged in technical supervision.
  10. Growlers
    Growlers 6 November 2020 20: 24 New
    0
    Some strange military ...
  11. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 7 November 2020 04: 08 New
    -1
    Who else to blame? They forgot something about us - "Russian saboteurs drilled a hole in the propeller shaft." Shame, everyone knows perfectly well the qualifications of the navigators of the Navy - those clowns !.