Page 62 - Australian Defence Magazine March 2019

A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT | CANBERRA
Early on November 8 last year (European time), the Norwegian navy frigate KNM Helge Ingstad collided with an oil tanker.
RAN lessons
vantia to identify any potential design or equipment issues arising from the Norwe- gian accident investigation which may ap- ply to Australian DDGs.
from Norwegian ship loss
Australia and Norway enjoy a modest but enduring defence relationship, mostly based around some common equipment. DDG cooperation is facilitated through the Common Frigate User Group of which Norway, Spain and Australia are members.
The Navy is already drawing the Norwe- gian mishap into training of bridge watch keepers, as it has already done with recent US Navy collisions.
“Lessons learnt from recent case stud- ies such as Helge Ingstad, USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain are used to shape regular training and assessments. When the full ac- cident report is released, applicable formal findings will be incorporated into future training packages,” Defence said.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Sam Bateman said the incident raised ques- tions about survivability of modern warships with their lightweight construction and a de- sign emphasis on weapons and sensors rather than on ship integrity and damage control.
It also raised questions about basic train- ing and seamanship skills of bridge watch- keepers, he said. So it’s encouraging to see the Navy is using the Norwegians’ misfor- tune as a learning experience.
Your correspondent is saddened by the saga of KNM Helge Ingstad as he has actually been aboard this very vessel, toured the engi- neering spaces and the combat centre, stood on the bridge chatting with the captain and enjoyed the hospitality of the wardroom.
This occurred in 2017 when Navantia was pitching the anti-submarine warfare credentials of its Sea 5000 contender.
ASW was one of the principal tasks of the Norwegian vessels but curiously they were very coy about saying just whose subma- rines. Surely not the Russians?
IN a contest between a 5,300-tonne destroy- er and the 100,000-tonne Maltese flagged Sola TS, you know who’s going to win and it wasn’t Ingstad which now rests mostly sub- merged in the Hjeltefjorden, the waterway leading to her home port of Bergen.
Fortunately there was no loss of life but eight sailors were injured. This was a very expensive bingle, for KNM Helge Ingstad was one of the Norwegian Navy’s five Fridt- jof Nansen-class frigates, multi-role vessels equipped with the Aegis combat system.
These are Norway’s principal surface combatants and this loss would be roughly equivalent to us losing one of the Navy’s three Hobart-class DDGs.
The comparisons go further, for Helge In- gstad was built in Spain by Navantia, a de- rivative of the Spanish Navy’s F-100 Alvaro de Bazan class frigate, which makes them smaller than, but not too dissimilar to, Aus- tralia’s three Hobart-class vessels, also based on the F-100 design.
The loss of this vessel on the other side of the world would appear to have significant implications for Australian DDGs.
The primary responsibility for this col- lision has been attributed to those bridge of Ingstad. The vessel was returning from an exercise to her homeport of Bergen and travelling at 17 knots, too fast in the narrow Hjeltefjorden near the Sture oil terminal.
The watch had just changed and watch of- ficers apparently confused the tanker’s lights with those of the brightly lit oil terminal.
Damage to Sola TS was negligible. Ings- tad was left with a big gash along the star- board side which flooded a number of com- partments.
Although without propulsion and steer- ing, crew believed the ship could be saved but flooding continued through the ship’s hollow propeller shafts, through suppos- edly watertight bulkheads and what are called stuffing boxes, which are designed to prevent precisely that occurring.
The Accident Investigation Board Nor- way (AIBN) preliminary report released at the end of November warned that that the issues that sank Ingstad could apply to other Navantia ships.
“It cannot be excluded that the same applies to vessels of a similar design delivered by Na- vantia, or that the design concept continues to be used for similar vessel models,” it said. A dire warning given the number and type of Navantia ships in service with the RAN.
On the plus side, the vessel sank in rela- tively shallow waters and was to be salvaged, though that had been delayed because of water conditions in the northern winter.
KNM Helge Ingstad will sail again but it will be years and there’s probably not a single piece of electronic equipment which won’t have to be replaced.
So where’s this leave Australia’s three DDGs? Defence said the safety alert wasn’t applicable to our vessels because of differ- ences in propulsion plant configuration.
However Defence is working with Na-
62 | March 2019 | www.australiandefence.com.au
DEFENCE BUSINESS
The wardroom of the Helge Ingstad.
VIEW FROM CANBERRA