What I learnt from this article: the Combat Management System of these Norwegian frigates must be hot garbage.

A modern CMS will automaticaly plot anything moving in the range of the ship sensors and warn of an approaching vessel. That doesn't excuse the human error obviously but you have to wonder how outdated the Norwegian navy equipment must be if that kind of thing can happen.

▲

closewith 5 days ago | parent [-]

The Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) on HING was state-of-the-art at the time, having been upgraded prior to the collision. The report found that the system operated as expected, but that the OOW had not been trained on its proper use and was not able to recognise the alarms.

Just like USS John S. McCain and USS Fitzgerald, until fully autonomous, the ships are only as good as their command and crews.

▲

StopDisinfo910 4 days ago | parent [-]

I mean they were hit by a bloody tanker. If they managed to miss their CMS alert for that, I stand by my point that it must be hot garbage.

Your other exemple is interesting because American CMS have notoriously bad UX by the way.

	▲	closewith 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A tanker that was talking to them on VHF, telling them to manoeuvre. If you can ignore lights increasing in intensity on a constant bearing and verbal commands via VHF, then you can ignore the radar and AIS proximity alarms (which both operated as expected). Unless the computer is running the show, there's no way to overcome confirmation bias with beeps and flashes. I've seen it first-hand many times in training helmsmen. Sometimes in-person verbal commands are not enough, and physical control must be obtained. It's simply a training and experience deficit. There's no substitute for time at sea or time under instruction.
	▲	varjag 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No this was absolutely not an UX issue.