Accounting for the KMN Hinnøy during BALTOPS22
Accounting for the KMN Hinnøy during BALTOPS22
The only "Alta-class" equivalent vessel present in the Baltic Sea during BALTOPS22 was the KMN Hinnøy, which can now be accounted for using AIS data and satellite imagery.
If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting my work here and on Twitter with a premium Substack subscription. The following information has also been added as an update to my original post on Seymour Hersh’s article.
As Seymour Hersh insists an “Alta-class” was used, it was necessary to fully explore the possibility of the Oksøy-class KMN Hinnøy being responsible. This vessel can now be accounted for during its time at BALTOPS22 using a combination of AIS data and satellite imagery.
The KNM Hinnøy took part in BALTOPS22. Its AIS tracks for the period of the exercise though show that the KNM Hinnøy was never in immediate vicinity of the sites of the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. The long track without course changes next to the two NS1 leaks is consistent with the ships reported speed. There are 62 minutes and 8.6 nautical miles between the two course changes. The tracks are also very consistent with no periods where the ship is “out of contact”. No evidence of any abnormal AIS activity or “spoofing”.
Available satellite imagery has been able to corroborate parts of the KNM Hinnøys AIS track, which further reduces the chance that there has been any “spoofing”. At 6 locations during the BALTOPS22 exercise, a ship matching the dimensions of the KNM Hinnøy was pictured by satellite imagery in the exact location where AIS data showed the KNM Hinnøy was. There is no evidence that “spoofing” of the AIS data was used at any time during BALTOPS22.
The distance between the two KNM Hinnøy AIS course changes by the Nord Stream 1 leaks is 8.6 nautical miles, the time between the points is 62 minutes. A trip out over the two leak locations would and down to the next AIS course change would be 17.1 nautical miles, which would need to be covered in 62 minutes, including the dive times.
At this time the KNM Hinnøy was traveling in formation with 3 other NATO warships and 1 non-NATO warship, the Estonian EML Sakala (M314), the Finnish MHC Purunpää, the Swedish HSwMS Vinga (M75) and the Dutch HNMLS Willemstad. These ships likely would have noticed if the KMN Hinnøy had shut off AIS and then left the formation at full speed towards the location the Nord Stream 1 leaks.
The KMN Hinnøy remained in the same formation with the other NATO ships as it passed the location of the Nord Stream 2 leak. Here the Hinnøy would have only had 29 minutes to sail 20 nautical miles, including dive times, in order to return to the location of the next AIS course changes.
On 14th June the KMN Hinnøy spent some time approximately 9 nautical miles north of the Nord Stream 2 leak as part of the exercise. Again the KMN Hinnøy spent the entire time in close proximity to the other vessels that were part of the exercise.
Not really a debunking. A fair description is that you've failed to confirm some elements of Hersh's story using open sources.
The times at which public satellites pass over an area are known. If you were trying to spoof AIS covertly, it would be pretty dumb to be in a location discordant with AIS at one of the 6 times in 7 days it would be captured on public satellite images.
Maybe you'll be able to dig up a few more images, but given that you write that the distance between the island and the pipeline location could be covered in approx. 62 minutes (and presumably a trip to NS1 would be even shorter), you'd need a lot more (5x? 10x?) timepoints to convincingly disprove the possibility of spoofing. I think it's pretty dishonest to claim that six instances of concordance in a time period of 168 hours proves 100% concordance, but you write the rest of your articles assuming 100% concordance.
You also don't show us the AIS data for the Hinnoy before June 8th and after June 15th, unlike the other ships where you supposedly show their entire paths for the month, would love to see that data too.
Do you have AIS tracking data for the Karmoy? You mention it's with the Alta by June 29th, but what about earlier in the month?
It's also not clearly stated in your articles whether the non-Hinnoy vessels had AIS switched on at all times during the exercises, would love for that to be cleared up. If they did and were verified by satellite ~daily, we could probably rule out the non-Hinnoy/Karmoy vessels as Bergen is too far away. All bets are off if there are periods of >2 days without satellite confirmation, though.
I've seen your response that "the entire story Hersh is trying to build is that BALTOPS22 was a cover for the divers[, which] would be pointless if they [switched off/spoofed AIS]":
Hersh claims that most of the nations nearby were in on the plan in one form or another (Sweden, Denmark, Norway), and we don't know how others (Germany, Poland, NATO exercise participants) would react to some ship involved in exercises having discrepancies between radar and AIS. You don't establish in any of your articles thus far whether a discrepancy between radar and AIS for some ship would be detected/noticed by nearby ships or nations, let alone that it would set off alarms, let alone alarms to the extent that the ship would be investigated, let alone that Norway/USA/Sweden/Denmark couldn't come up with some satisfying-enough justification.
Same goes for the idea that the NATO ships in formation "would have noticed if the KMN Hinnøy had shut off AIS and then left the formation at full speed towards the location [of] the Nord Stream 1 leaks". Would they? What if it was said to be part of the exercise? You can't just assert things.
By the time you are done, the only thing in the Hersh article that may survive is the mention of undersea explosions.