Tug CMS Boxer was damaged in a minor collision with Norwegian Frigate HNoMS Roald Amundsen last week as the warship left the River Clyde.

The tug, belonging to Clyde Marine Services, is seen colliding with the bow of the vessel resulting in the tug’s mast becoming damaged as it strikes the Norwegian frigate.

You can watch the video from Chris Bagnall here, the crash happens at 1:25.

Spokesman for the Norwegian Navy, Michel Hayes, blamed the tug:

“The frigate sailed out the River Clyde, and had arrived at the estuary when the accident occurred. The tugboat moved from port to starboard, and sailed into the bow of Roald Amundsen. The cause of the accident was an incorrect manoeuvre from the towboat, says Hayes.”

Why was the frigate in Glasgow?

Warships from Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway were captured by a drone as they arrived in Glasgow for a routine stop after a major NATO exercise. The vessels were in Glasgow following the completion of this year’s Joint Warrior exercise, which ran from the 1st to 12th of October. It is understood the crews got a night off whilst the ships were refuelled and reloaded with perishables.

“Joint Warrior is a UK-led biannual multinational joint and combined exercise that includes 45 ships, 30 aircraft, submarines, land forces, and more than 11,000 troops from the UK, NATO, and Allies. It runs from Oct. 1-12 off the coast of the British Isles.”

Below is a video, hosted on Twitter, that I recorded of the arrival of Norwegian frigate HNoMS Roald Amundsen, Danish ocean patrol vessel Vaederren and Dutch frigate HNLMS Tromp.

The exercise involved 45 ships, 30 aircraft, as well as submarines, sailors, soldiers and aircrew from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

18 COMMENTS

  3. Seems as if the Tug was having major issues with its propulsion units. It appears to drift in front of the frigate, then when it does get power back, it seems as only the “starboard” unit is working, and that then sends it into a a spin, hitting the Frigate.

    • It looks like the tug was still connected to the frigate which was going too fast for her to get out of the way. Once the line was slipped they were able to sort it out. It’ll be interesting to see if an official report is ever published.

      • Is an accident investigation board convened for incidents such as this? USAF Class A accident investigations are painful. Then, presume the civil suit(s) for damages begin for an interminable period.

  4. The video is very clear, the tug was being clumsily steered and handled. Reversing right onto the frigate’s bow … 🙄

    • Thats assuming the tug was fully under control with working steering, engines, etc throughout the incident. That’s just the obvious explanation, I’m sure there are plenty others. Most accidents are usually a combination of various events that ordinarily have no impact, but together…

      • Delivered to Clyde Marine Services in 2019, a very new tug, fitted with state-of-the-art propulsion.
        This has the makings of human error and possibly worse.

        • HMS Prince of Wales was commissioned in the exact same year and she’s currently being repaired due to a propulsion issue. So your theory, “it’s new so it must be human error” is clearly flawed.

          • It is quite possible that PoW propulsion breakdown was caused by faulty operating procedures. It even left Portsmouth when all the world could see that the starboard shaft was not turning over. Yet they persisted in sailing with a glaring problem. Why this reckless human decision?

          • If the operating procedures were faulty we’d have probably seen the issue earlier with HMS QE. Now operating procedures might not have been followed, but my current u understanding is that the part that failed could not be affected by what they did or did not do.

            HMS Prince of Wales couldn’t be repaired in Portsmouth so she was going to have to sail out of harbour anyway 🤦🏻‍♂️
            The only question was after leaving harbour whether to head to the USA on mission or head to Scotland for repair. From the navigation track she clearly did some trials run, possibly at different speeds before the decision was made.
            So obvious the captain of HMS Prince of Wales is not “reckless” – pretty damn sure he knows more in this area than the both of us combined.

            Why have you so little faith in people that you default conclusion is that the person handling the tug is “clumsy” and the captain of PoW is “reckless”?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here