# Engine Room Fire in HMCS Protecteur



## Edward Campbell

The media (Mercedes Stephenson. CTV News, on _Twitter_) reports that HMCS Protecteur has had an engine room fire. No fatalities; minor injuries only. She's enroute to Hawaii.


Edit to add: Here is the DND News Release


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Happy to see minor injuries only. Sounds like the Engine Room crew deserve a BZ.

Also, giving credit where due, the clear DND release alluding right away to presence of family onboard and to the commonality of that practice will go a long way to prevent a "shocking development just learned" type of piece in the media. So well done on the PA office that drafted this one.


----------



## Occam

CTV is reporting sources as saying 20 injured, and that the left coast commander Commodore Bob Auchterlonie said it took some time to get the fire out.  Might have been more than just lagging, by the sounds of it.  The USN is sending a destroyer to assist; I would say a tow isn't out of the question, as I'm reading other sources saying she's operating on her emergency generator.


----------



## NavyShooter

No deaths.  Good.

Still on top of the waves.  Good.

Fires happen on ships at sea.  I've been in the navy for over 2 decades, and I think 4 of the ships I've sailed on have had fires.

Hard to dial 911 from the middle of the ocean, which is why we spend so much time training for this stuff.  I was actually just out at the DC Trainer for a DCOTT with almost our whole crew on Monday and Tuesday of this week.  We train, and we respond.  Same as a soldier responding to a jam on his C-7 (or more likely his Browning...tee hee) we get our bunker gear on, close up our section base teams and DC organization and go get the wet stuff on the hot stuff.  

NS


----------



## brihard

I'm glad injuries sound minor and the troops are alright.

Now, someone educate me please. What is the "so what?" of this if she's out of commission for a considerable time? I understand we have three coasts and two AORs. I don't know what our tempo is like and if the other AOR has been busy. OPSEC in mind, what is the potential/realistic impact of this?


----------



## AirDet

Well, we operated on the West Coast without tankers before. It just means we need to rely more on our allies... USN.

I've been stranded in foreign ports before. There are far worse paces to be stuck than Pearl. I wonder how long it'll take and cost to repair her.


----------



## suffolkowner

Time to approach the US about the USS(USNS?) Rainier and Bridge AOR's which are due to be decommissioned this year?


----------



## AirDet

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Time to approach the US about the USS(USNS?) Rainier and Bridge AOR's which are due to be decommissioned this year?



If Canada could afford them, they'd be a great stop-gap solution.


----------



## dapaterson

AirDet said:
			
		

> There are far worse paces to be stuck than Pearl. I wonder how long it'll take and cost to repair her.



Funny, but from what I've seen the more appealing the port the longer repairs seem to take


----------



## ModlrMike

AirDet said:
			
		

> If Canada could afford them, they'd be a great stop-gap solution.



Perhaps lease rather than buy?


----------



## suffolkowner

What would be a realistic cost to acquire them? I mean the US  is planning on shutting them down.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here's hoping for a full & speedy recovery to all concerned.



			
				AirDet said:
			
		

> suffolkowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time to approach the US about the USS(USNS?) Rainier and Bridge AOR's which are due to be decommissioned this year?
> 
> 
> 
> If Canada could afford them, they'd be a great stop-gap solution.
Click to expand...

Methinks the "naval buy/lease used" option might not be, well, as optically sound at it might be, given Canada's history with the approach.


----------



## jollyjacktar

As a long time former Tanker Wanker I'm really happy to hear that all in all everything worked out.  We had a small insignificant fire (by comparison)  in our engine room on PRE when I was there and it was no fun to deal with.  This, was much more of an event from what I read/hear.  It's sometimes bloody dangerous going to sea and as NS say's that's why we train the way we do.  No 911 or roadside assistance out there and you can't damn well walk home either.

Another nail in the coffins for the old girls though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> What would be a realistic cost to acquire them? I mean the US  is planning on shutting them down.




The dollar cost _might_ be important but the political price would be HUGE. Leasing or buying an interim ship would look like the government is considering abandoning the Canadian shipbuilding industry.

It is important to understand that almost no one cares if we spend the defence budget wisely, what's important is that we _appear_ to spend it on Canadian jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!


----------



## AirDet

I haven't a clue what would be a reasonable cost. Leasing them sounds like something we could justify to the Canadian people so long as it won't cost us a fortune to upgrade (if required).


----------



## suffolkowner

Fair enough ERC, but I think the Queenstown's are probably still a long way off. 7 years maybe?


----------



## AirDet

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is important to understand that almost no one cares if we spend the defence budget wisely, what's important is that we _appear_ to spend it on Canadian jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!



That's true. I hate seeing our budgets spent unwisely but as in ethics, we need to always appear to be doing the right thing. It all has to pass the Globe & Mail test.


----------



## AirDet

I think it's fair to say, if the repair cost of the Oiler is too high she'll be paid-off. If I were paying the bill I wouldn't put any more money into her than absolutely necessary.


----------



## Privateer

For those with access to Facebook, MARPAC just posted a 15 minute audio file update on the situation, given by Commodore Bob Auchterlonie.

Some points:
 - approx. 20 minor injuries:  eg. dehydration, exhaustion, smoke inhalation
 - a "major" fire in the engineering space, fought throughout much of the night.  Damage is extensive.
 - she will require a tow to return to Pearl


----------



## Rifleman62

Does Canadian jobs mean a tow back to Canada for repair to extensive damage?


----------



## Occam

They're not looking at particularly nice weather to be towing a tanker in, either.  Yes, I know it's a surfing site, but it gives the best zoom in on the wave heights expected around Hawaii in the next seven days.  They're looking forward to a 630 km tow.

http://www.surfertoday.com/wave-height-forecast/hawaii


----------



## FSTO

Glad everyone is okay and she is still floating.

On the other hand, the chickens are coming home to roost. 10 lost years screwing around with the ALCS and the "Big Honking Ship" ideas when all we needed was a bloody AOR!


----------



## Good2Golf

Glad all aboard are doing okay, but hope that those badly injured will have a quick and complete recovery.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's hoping for a full & speedy recovery to all concerned.
> If Canada could afford them, they'd be a great stop-gap solution.
> Methinks the "naval buy/lease used" option might not be, well, as optically sound at it might be, given Canada's history with the approach.



Done right, it could work if PRO was damaged beyond economical repair...using Chinooks as a model, interim purchase of used 6 x CH-147D (and lease of a 7th, with the shoot down/destruction of one of the first six) while still moving forward with the major capital purchase of 15 x CH-147F new aircraft could be used as a workable (and having been done once by the current government, a politically acceptable) model.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

Training the crews for a chinook is a lot easier then retraining a ships company (as they also do maintenance to keep it operating 24/7 for months at a time).  Leasing has been looked at before and not really feasible (time wise) unless it includes a crew.  Basically you rent an oiler to keep time on station to give you gas as required.  As you can imagine, they charge a fortune for the convenience.

Everytime one of the AORs goes in for a refit the ship is effectively out of commission for two years, and the fleets don't shut down.  

I think the big thing here is that despite having a major space fire on a 50+ year old commercially designed ship, the crew kept it confined to the engine room and no one was killed, so BZ to them.


----------



## AirDet

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Training the crews for a chinook is a lot easier then retraining a ships company (as they also do maintenance to keep it operating 24/7 for months at a time).  Leasing has been looked at before and not really feasible (time wise) unless it includes a crew.  Basically you rent an oiler to keep time on station to give you gas as required.  As you can imagine, they charge a fortune for the convenience.
> 
> Everytime one of the AORs goes in for a refit the ship is effectively out of commission for two years, and the fleets don't shut down.
> 
> I think the big thing here is that despite having a major space fire on a 50+ year old commercially designed ship, the crew kept it confined to the engine room and no one was killed, so BZ to them.


I couldn't agree with you more. However, with an election approaching the whole National Shipbuilding concept may suffer the same fate as the original SeaKing replacement contract "with a stroke of my pen". There needs to be focus kept on this issue to keep it from fading away along wit our Blue Water capabilities.


----------



## chrisf

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Training the crews for a chinook is a lot easier then retraining a ships company (as they also do maintenance to keep it operating 24/7 for months at a time).  Leasing has been looked at before and not really feasible (time wise) unless it includes a crew.  Basically you rent an oiler to keep time on station to give you gas as required.  As you can imagine, they charge a fortune for the convenience.



Leasing a ship that's at the end of it's service life to replace another ship that's been dragged long beyond the end of it's service life isn't a great option, but...

Civi side it's regularly expected that you can move from one ship to another ship with little difficulty. The basic systems are all generally the same. Bit of time to learn where valves are, and where bits and pieces are poked away to, and there's always the "it's always been like that" factor, but reasonably, if you leased a few experienced American crew along with it, a few months and you should be fine.

Given that they were built in the early-90s, they probably still have most of the original drawings on board, and the ship probably still comes close to the as-builts... so much less of a big deal than you'd think to have a crew that could run it.

Is it normal for navy folks to spend the majority of their career on a single ship? It's been my experience in the civilian world that this sort of sailor (in the maintenance department anyway) knows that single ship very well, but picks up a lot of bad habits, and a great many repairs are work-arounds rather than done right.


----------



## jollyjacktar

To a certain extent, yes, some trades gravitate back to the same class ship again and again.  Stokers on the Tankers have all been there for years as they have class specific tickets and experience as they are steam ships and that you cannot just pick up.  All three classes have their own little strange ways and needs.  Some things are easily adapted to, but others no so much.


----------



## chrisf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Stokers on the Tankers have all been there for years as they have class specific tickets and experience as they are steam ships and that you cannot just pick up.



Or in other words, they're going to have to be retrained regardless once the tankers go?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I think its time to seriously look at the option of purchasing immediately the Dutch JSS that is almost completed (another 6 months at most) and they are trying to get rid of. She becomes the stopgap ship until the QUEENSTOWN's come on line, at which point she goes in semi-retirement as back-up when needed.

From a political point of view, it is unfortunate that all this is happening when one of the more powerful member of the Joint (Senate/Commons) Defence Committee, Senator Colin, is under a heavy cloud. He is the type of member who would have had the clout to push for something like that.


----------



## suffolkowner

I think the Dutch decided to keep their JSS(?)

What would the amount of a repair have to be to pay off the ship in everyone's opinion.

The Aussies paid 100/150 million for the Bay Class LPD(?). I really think a purchase of the US fast supply ships would make sense, however DND does not like having to think on their feet


----------



## Journeyman

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think the Dutch decided to keep their JSS(?)


Yes, they're getting out of the Main Battle Tank business instead, selling those to Finland. Link  
The JSS is on-schedule and within budget.  The ongoing story is here.

At the end of the JSS feed, there's this:


> Similar & Related Vessels
> ◾ DID – *Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project Sinks*. Canada decided to go its own way, and the program eventually broke their budgets.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> From a political point of view, it is unfortunate that all this is happening when one of the more powerful member of the Joint (Senate/Commons) Defence Committee, Senator Colin, is under a heavy cloud. He is the type of member who would have had the clout to push for something like that.



He's been under a cloud for years - but since he's a useful source of leaks, the Hill scribes never reported on him or his activities (other than Frank).  Par for the cosy incestuous media/government course on the Hill...


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Training the crews for a chinook is a lot easier then retraining a ships company (as they also do maintenance to keep it operating 24/7 for months at a time).  Leasing has been looked at before and not really feasible (time wise) unless it includes a crew.  Basically you rent an oiler to keep time on station to give you gas as required.  As you can imagine, they charge a fortune for the convenience.
> 
> Everytime one of the AORs goes in for a refit the ship is effectively out of commission for two years, and the fleets don't shut down.
> 
> I think the big thing here is that despite having a major space fire on a 50+ year old commercially designed ship, the crew kept it confined to the engine room and no one was killed, so BZ to them.



Knowing a family friend's experience (a stoker on HMCS Saguenay) he related about late October 1969 and his Ship's involvement with HMCS Kootenay, I am very much mindful of the discipline and excellent performance of PRO's crew in containing the fire, as you and others have said, BZ to the Ship's crew!

So if PRO is beyond economical repair will the RCN not pursue any capability in advance of the new ships?  I'm not fully up to speed on the complexities of a ship, but one should not mistakenly underestimate the challenges of training, operational and airworthiness maintenance aspects of putting an airborne system into a combat theatre.  Perhaps DMR folks could chat with the DAR folks on the issue to see if the interim capability is entirely unfeasible before ruling it out of hand.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

This is absolutely true.  Hopefully though this highlights the requirement for the new supply ships, as I don't think a lot of Canadians are aware of A) the age of the AORs and B) the fact that they are steam ships!


----------



## chrisf

As far as the tankers go, the average canadian isn't aware of c) they exist

It's not exactly a problem on the forefront of the Canadian mind.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Knowing a family friend's experience (a stoker on HMCS Saguenay) he related about late October 1969 and his Ship's involvement with HMCS Kootenay, I am very much mindful of the discipline and excellent performance of PRO's crew in containing the fire, as you and others have said, BZ to the Ship's crew!
> 
> So if PRO is beyond economical repair will the RCN not pursue any capability in advance of the new ships?  I'm not fully up to speed on the complexities of a ship, but one should not mistakenly underestimate the challenges of training, operational and airworthiness maintenance aspects of putting an airborne system into a combat theatre.  Perhaps DMR folks could chat with the DAR folks on the issue to see if the interim capability is entirely unfeasible before ruling it out of hand.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



In addition to the training, you'd have to figure out sparing for a whole new one off ship, as well as figure out 2nd line repair and training for the FMF... all of that would cost a whack of money, and we don't have any.

Airworthiness adds a lot of paperwork requirements, but a helicopter is a lot easier to maintain while deployed simply due to it's relative size, but there are also a lot less systems that aren't required when you don't live onboard.  There's just a lot more stuff that you need to learn how to run and maintain.

It'd be doable, but it's just not affordable.  I think if PRO is not repairable, we're probably SOL until a new ship comes along.  It really doesn't make sense long term to bring in another ship short term to fill the gap when by the time we get it up and running the new ships will be cutting steel.  We'd also most likely be stuck having to get rid of any ship we picked up, and that can cost millions with all the environmental issues.


----------



## suffolkowner

How long is an acceptable time to go without RAS? Our present plan calls for 18-24 mths between paying off Protecteur and commissioning of the Queenstowns. Supposedly at a cost of $55 million. I'm not sure what's involved in that amount though. I would think it is costing more than that to run our two AOR's right now.
I am curious what happens to all the seamen during that up to 2 yr period or more?


----------



## jollyjacktar

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Or in other words, they're going to have to be retrained regardless once the tankers go?


To be Frank, yes.  I was posted to a CPF 2 months after she went into HCM.  I am leaving her soon after taking her our of the refit January of last year.  It was a whole new world for me in many respects.  A steep learning curve, however, it was tempered by my not having to brain dump the equipment that was replaced and brought into the digital age.  I also spent some time on ATH before coming to my present ship.  Each ship was like going from a new generation of technology to the next or better.  Each type is it's own world, all unique in their own way.


----------



## AirDet

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think the Dutch decided to keep their JSS(?)
> 
> What would the amount of a repair have to be to pay off the ship in everyone's opinion.
> 
> The Aussies paid 100/150 million for the Bay Class LPD(?). I really think a purchase of the US fast supply ships would make sense, however DND does not like having to think on their feet



To pay off a ship means to retire it.


----------



## suffolkowner

AirDet said:
			
		

> To pay off a ship means to retire it.



I know

I meant how much money would be too much to return to service and thus necessitate her being paid off


----------



## AirDet

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Funny, but from what I've seen the more appealing the port the longer repairs seem to take



Ain't that the truth. Over a month in Singapore... if we stayed any longer they would've had to give us green cards. Nice place to be stranded though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It is being reported that high winds have delayed an attempt to tow _Protecteur_ back to Hawaii?

Does anyone have any accurate information re: her status?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Saw this piece of good news this am;

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/family-members-from-hmcs-protecteur-transferred-usn-warship-will-be-taken-pearl-harbour-1884309.htm



> Family Members From HMCS Protecteur Transferred to USN Warship - Will Be taken to Pearl Harbour, Hawaii
> 
> ESQUIMALT, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - March 1, 2014) - Department of National Defence / Royal Canadian Navy
> 
> This is the latest information regarding Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS) Protecteur. The ship remains stopped 340 nautical miles North East of Hawaii. During the morning of March 1, United States Ship (USS) Chosin reached HMCS Protecteur and commenced transferring additional relief supplies to HMCS Protecteur using USS Chosin's helicopter. A helicopter then began transferring family members who were on HMCS Protecteur to USS Michael Murphy, where they will sail safely to Pearl Harbour.
> 
> Over the next 24 hours it is anticipated that HMCS Protecteur will be taken under tow by the USS Chosin and start her transit back to Pearl Harbour. Once in Hawaii, efforts will commence to prepare Protecteur for her return to Esquimalt. We remain in very close contact with the Protecteur family members.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy is very appreciative of the tremendous support that has been provided by the USN and United Stated Coast Guard throughout this very difficult situation. It is yet another example of the strong relationship and interoperability that exists between our navies.
> 
> Quick Facts
> 
> The fire in HMCS Protecteur is completely extinguished.
> 
> The 20 personnel on board HMCS Protecteur who received minor injuries have been treated and most have returned to regular duties. The state of their health continues to be monitored by the ship's medical staff.
> 
> Yesterday at 3 p.m. PST, USS Michael Murphy arrived at HMCS Protecteur's location and provided relief supplies including water. The USN warship attempted to take Protecteur under tow but weather conditions, specifically high winds, hampered those efforts. The Michael Murphy remained on scene with HMCS Protecteur overnight.
> 
> The weather conditions in the area are predicted to deteriorate further over the next 24 hours but should improve overnight on Sunday.
> 
> Fleet Ocean tug USNS Sioux is also heading towards Protecteur to assist in the towing operations if necessary.
> 
> HMCS Protecteur has limited electrical power and onboard systems are being reactivated in a controlled manner. The ships company is well and focused on recovery operations in the ship and rest. Ongoing medical and support services are being provided to all onboard.
> 
> There are reports of significant fire and heat damage to the ship's engine room and considerable heat and smoke damage in surrounding compartments. An extensive and detailed damage assessment will be commenced once the ship arrives in Hawaii. An investigation into the cause of the fire is also being initiated.



Once again, USN coming to our rescue.  For all the occasional teasing, they are a great friend to have in your corner.


----------



## mad dog 2020

Thank God for their assistance! 
It is kinda embarassing we are always the poor cousin relying on Big Brother. 
Maybe time to be realistic on our capabilities. We are a great military just crap equipment. 
God bless the people who make it work and prayers for this dangerous situation to end.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, the USN is a great friend and ally.  I've always liked and admired them.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Good set of pics here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/compacflt/12872991415/in/set-72157641763126695/


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Good set of pics here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/compacflt/12872991415/in/set-72157641763126695/



Man, she looks tired and old.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, the USN is a great friend and ally.  I've always liked and admired them.



+1 From me buddy!  Never had a bad experience with the USN.


----------



## PuckChaser

Glad all the sailors are back to full duties, and that no serious injuries happened. New JSS can't come soon enough.


----------



## McG

Sounds like the crew just can’t catch a break.


> * Line towing fire-damaged HMCS Protecteur to Hawaii breaks
> Canadian supply ship based in Esquimalt, B.C. hopes to dock at Pearl Harbor mid-week*
> Updated: 02 March 2014
> CBC News
> 
> The line towing HMCS Protecteur en route to Hawaii broke Sunday after the ship was taken under tow in "challenging weather conditions" by the U.S. navy cruiser USS Chosin. An engine fire left it stranded Thursday in heavy seas.
> 
> Lieutenant Commander Desmond James said the navy is working to get Protecteur back under tow, but does not know yet when that will happen.
> 
> Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, the commander of Canada's Pacific naval fleet, said the destroyer, the USS Michael Murphy, was accompanying Protecteur as the ships tried to make their way at five knots or less [9 km/h] toward Pearl Harbor, 630 km away.
> 
> The family of crew members, who were on board Protecteur when the fire broke out, were transferred to the USS Murphy on Saturday.
> 
> Auchterlonie says the fleet ocean tug USNS Sioux is also on station near Protecteur should problems arise.
> 
> …


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/line-towing-fire-damaged-hmcs-protecteur-to-hawaii-breaks-1.2555354


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> *The family of crew members, who were on board Protecteur when the fire broke out*, were transferred to the USS Murphy on Saturday.



OK. WTF is this shit?


----------



## Pat in Halifax

recceguy said:
			
		

> OK. WTF is this shit?


You need to read the original article. This is not uncommon when a ship is returning home-The USN uses the term 'Tiger cruise'. There are very specific criteria family members must meet.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CBC Radio News is reporting that the recovery is not going well. The towline appears to have broken due to heavy seas.


----------



## Occam

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> CBC Radio News is reporting that the recovery is not going well. The towline appears to have broken due to heavy seas.



That's an old report, fortunately.  PRO is now under tow by USNS Sioux, and it's apparently going very well.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Occam said:
			
		

> That's an old report, fortunately.  PRO is now under tow by USNS Sioux, and it's apparently going very well.




Thanks for the update.  

I see she (Sioux) is a proper ocean going tug. All should be well, I assume.






USNS Sioux

ff topic:

I am old  enough to remember when the RCN had a _Sioux_, too.





HMCS Sioux ~ in RCN service from 1944 to 1963


----------



## jollyjacktar

The way things are going I wonder if we'll wish we still had her.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If I recall correctly the plan was to retire her in 2017 with a 2 year gap before the new ships come on line? If she is not repairable, then that means a gap of 5 years with no support ship.


----------



## Half Full

Here is a link to some pics from the USN while the USS Choisin was attempting to tow PROTECTEUR.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HMCS+Protecteur&d=posted-20140227-&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1


----------



## AirDet

Half Full said:
			
		

> Here is a link to some pics from the USN while the USS Choisin was attempting to tow PROTECTEUR.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HMCS+Protecteur&d=posted-20140227-&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1



Look how high she's riding in the water. Her Screw is almost showing. That'll make her corkscrew thru the water as they tow her. That isn't going to be a pleasant ride but at least they'll be in Pearl in a couple of days.

Thank-you to our good friends in the USN.


----------



## Half Full

The tow in progress.


----------



## Navy_Pete

AirDet said:
			
		

> Look how high she's riding in the water. Her Screw is almost showing. That'll make her corkscrew thru the water as they tow her. That isn't going to be a pleasant ride but at least they'll be in Pearl in a couple of days.
> 
> Thank-you to our good friends in the USN.



She's actually riding reasonably low following a 7 week trip; the bottom of the boot top is still below water.  You can see blue through the waves and through the water itself in the up close pictures, but that's pretty normal (in clear water vice dirty harbour water).  When they are empty there is a good ring of blue (that's the anti fouling coating) showing under the boot top above the waterline(the black strip around waterline level for non-navy types).

Still going to suck, but in the grand scheme of things, better then the alternatives.

Thanks for the flickr link to the USN photos; their photo techs obviously know their stuff.  I noticed in this one you can clearly see the dent off the ALG on the tip of the forepeak;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/compacflt/12872991415/sizes/l/


----------



## McG

The seventeen family members (including retired vice-admiral Larry Murray) have arrived in Pearl Harbor:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/family-of-crew-aboard-crippled-hmcs-protecteur-arrive-in-hawaii-1.1713727
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/17-hmcs-protecteur-evacuees-arrive-at-pearl-harbor-1.2559842
By the accounts given, the the sailors did very well during the fire ... as one would expect.


Article deleted by mod


----------



## jollyjacktar

She's screwed... 

Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> *Fire-damaged HMCS Protecteur could be headed for the scrap heap.
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE REMOVED AS PER SITE GUIDELINES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> She's screwed...
> 
> Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



Glass Half Full? 

Potentially, another cool artificial reef to explore here on the West Coast!

http://www.artificialreef.bc.ca/


----------



## jollyjacktar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Glass Half Full?
> 
> Potentially, another cool artificial reef to explore here on the West Coast!
> 
> http://www.artificialreef.bc.ca/


I agree from the standpoint of my imagination (I'm not a diver).  I always said that the Tankers would be excellent to dive on as there's so many large open areas to explore.  # 6 Centerline for example is big enough to put a PMQ into.  The Jungle Deck is a couple of hundred feet long and would give access into all the cargo tanks aside from the #'s 1 Pt, Stbd and Centerline, which are in the Open Jungle Deck.  The Engine Room and Boiler Rooms are huge as is the Hangar, and Dispersal Area.

But.  The cost to prepare the ship for that would probably be prohibitive to say the least they are environmental nightmares with all the pipes full of fuels and other nasty stuff here and there.  Who would really want to pay for that kind of thing?


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I agree from the standpoint of my imagination (I'm not a diver).  I always said that the Tankers would be excellent to dive on as there's so many large open areas to explore.  # 6 Centerline for example is big enough to put a PMQ into.  The Jungle Deck is a couple of hundred feet long and would give access into all the cargo tanks aside from the #'s 1 Pt, Stbd and Centerline, which are in the Open Jungle Deck.  The Engine Room and Boiler Rooms are huge as is the Hangar, and Dispersal Area.
> 
> But.  The cost to prepare the ship for that would probably be prohibitive to say the least they are environmental nightmares with all the pipes full of fuels and other nasty stuff here and there.  Who would really want to pay for that kind of thing?



The artificial reef geeks love to do that stuff... for free. Gawd Bless 'Em All!


----------



## jollyjacktar

The Tankers would be really amazing to dive through.  Lots of large compartments like 6 Stores, Main Magazines, the Fwd and Aft House, Bridge, Ras Deck and Uppers.  Better than a warship as the size of things are I would think more dive friendly and safe.  

Who knows where PRO will end up, but I fear from what I'm reading it will be sooner than was planned in the grand scheme of things.  IMHO, if they have any dollar and cents sense, that is.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile RN is getting four 37,000 tonne AORs, buiilt in South Korea, fpr spme US$700M:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/royal-navys-mars-ships-will-be-built-in-south-korea/
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsroyal-navys-mars-tankers-design-plan-completes



> ....
> The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) awarded a contract to DSME in 2012 for the construction of four MARS tankers to replace the existing RFA's single hulled tankers, with the first ship of the class due to be delivered in October 2015, with the final vessel due in April 2017...



First ship in three/three years.  Whilst we pay some C$2.6B  (exchange rates vary) for two built-in-Canada JSS, operational never never land:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/

Go figure.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hmcs-protecteur-towed-into-pearl-harbor-1.2562634

PRO alongside PRO

Not sure who the PO1 is but he's remarkably well composed all things considered.  Good job on the crew!

(the other video of the reporter almost eating the monkey's fist is pretty funny..... probably bad idea to stand on the jetty while they are trying to tie up)

Anyway, glad the crew is safe.  Ship is probably beyond economical repair but she's years past the end of her service life.

(Warning  ff topic: )
To sink the tankers, they would have to have all PCBs, POL residues etc stripped (steam clean all piping etc), and gut all the insulation etc.  Would be an awesome wreck but would cost tens of millions to prep.  Darn environmental legislation!

Also, so far artificial reef societies have had no luck getting rid of our old ships in modern times due to the regulations they have to comply to.  (See the former HMCS Fraser and the former HMCS Annapolis)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I'm quite aware of the HMCS Annapolis situation. Environment Canada changed the rules at the last minute (in response to pressure from a group opposed to the sinking) the association was going to have to walk, the government did not want it back, so they are paying for the removal of the insulation so the ship can be sunk were it is planned for. The government already paid millions to remove all the wiring from the ship, because it might contain PCB's. These new rules are going to drive up the cost of disposing of the old vessels as it's likely the insulation issue will apply to the next set of ship tagged for disposal.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> These new rules are going to drive up the cost of disposing of the old vessels as it's likely the insulation issue will apply to the next set of ship tagged for disposal.



Feel bad for the Annapolis reef society; they seem to have gotten screwed by EC on this one as far as I can tell as well.

In general though, with all the environmental and controlled goods issues that would have to be dealt with prior to turning any ship into a reef, it's no longer feasible or cost effective.

Back on topic though, this situation is an excellent example of training paying off.  The ship is really just a floating collection of parts moving in (generally) the same direction; it's the crew that makes it something more, and they all made it back safely.

Fingers crossed this also helps some decisions get made on PRE, as she's equally as tired.


----------



## chrisf

Fires at sea are a terrifying prospect, good job to all involved, glad to hear you're in a safe harbour.


----------



## ringo

I think the Dutch support ship Amsterdam is to decommission this year perhaps Canada could buy or lease this vessel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Commissioned in 1995, not sure if we are used to something that new.  ;D


----------



## d_edwards

Colin P said:
			
		

> Commissioned in 1995, not sure if we are used to something that new
> 
> I wonder if the government would be willing to go down the used vessel path again.  Any problems encountered would be media fodder, especially given the outcome of the sub purchase.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> (Warning  ff topic: )
> To sink the tankers, they would have to have all PCBs, POL residues etc stripped (steam clean all piping etc), and gut all the insulation etc.  Would be an awesome wreck but would cost tens of millions to prep.  Darn environmental legislation!



Why not just put a submariner at the helm and let the artificial reef occur as part of the drill?  ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete

Or hire 'Bubba's Tug and grill Co.' to get her back and let nature run it's course!

Our luck it would go flawlessly!  Highly reputable tow company = CBC leading story; sketchy fly by night tugs = success?

As long as it happened in deep enough water, and the fuels etc were off beforehand, it'd be the cheapest disposal option!


----------



## suffolkowner

*Link removed in accordance with site policy*

This is sort of what I had in mind, although I don't know why we wouldn't crew them ourselves.

I don't see the new AOR's coming online before 2020, and that might be optimistic.

Would the 230m length pose an issue?


----------



## chrisf

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Or hire 'Bubba's Tug and grill Co.' to get her back and let nature run it's course!



I have a joke about this that would be very funny to anyone involved in towing on the eastern end of the country, but it may construed as libel.

Rest assured it's very funny though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the old ships sinks in deep water by accident, EC will not do anything or require that anyone does anything.


----------



## Robert0288

Only if its outside of Canadian Waters, and the pollution more or less stays out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

EC is quite odd, if purposely sunk, then they expect you to spend millions and millions prepping it, if it sinks by accident, then it's generally a shrug. Emergency Response (CG & TC) might have concerns about the fuel tanks. Look at the Queen of the North, zero interest in dealing with her, the General Zakinasi thing is more politically motivated.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

HMCS Protecteur too badly damaged to sail home on her own
Canadian navy ship, damaged by engine fire, may never sail again
CBC News Posted: Mar 14, 2014 2:55 PM PT Last Updated: Mar 14, 2014 4:35 PM PT






HMCS Protecteur, seen here entering Pearl Harbor following an engine fire, was so badly damaged it will have to be towed to its home port of Esquimault, B.C. (CBC)

A little more than a week after it was towed into Pearl Harbor, CBC News has learned HMCS Protecteur is so badly damaged following a fire in the mid-Pacific it will have to be towed home.

It is unclear whether the Canadian navy vessel will ever sail again.

A fire aboard the Esquimalt, B.C.-based ship two weeks ago disabled it so badly it was dead in the water, and had to be towed by a U.S. navy ocean tug into Pearl Harbor, a week-long trip that was hampered by rough seas and broken tow lines.





HMCS Protecteur
Sailors aboard the guided-missile cruiser USS Chosin observe HMCS Protecteur during the towing operation. The Protecteur arrived in Pearl Harbor March 6. (United States Navy and Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Johans Chavarro/Facebook)

The crew on the ship relied on generators to supply power to the galley and living areas after the fire knocked out power to the vessel.

About 20 crew members suffered minor injuries in the fire — including dehydration, exhaustion and smoke inhalation.

Now, CBC News has learned the fire caused so much damage Protecteur is unable to sail under her own power and it is questionable whether she will ever sail again.

The navy plans to undertake a marathon four-week tow to return the vessel to Esquimault sometime in April. Crew members will unload the ship of all weapons and ammunition before that happens.

Canadian navy Lieut. Greg Menzies said a skeleton crew will likely be kept aboard during the tow.

Protecteur, launched in 1969, is one of two auxiliary oil replenishment ships in the Canadian navy.

The military announced in October that Protecteur and its sister supply ship on the East Coast, HMCS Preserver, will be retired in 2015. Construction of new supply ships is expected to begin in late 2016, with a target of having them in service by 2019-20.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Has anyone seen a press release about the damage?  I haven't seen anything official out yet, or about the tow.  

Just curious if its actually been released, or if the reporter got it from the grapevine.  Assuming the quote from Lt(N) Mendies was from some kind of press conference.

Mostly wondering what's out in public domain, never sure why this kind of thing isn't better communicated and explained.


----------



## Franko

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen a press release about the damage?  I haven't seen anything official out yet, or about the tow.
> 
> Just curious if its actually been released, or if the reporter got it from the grapevine.  Assuming the quote from Lt(N) Mendies was from some kind of press conference.
> 
> Mostly wondering what's out in public domain, never sure why this kind of thing isn't better communicated and explained.



More than likely an investigation is now ongoing. I would think that disclosure of the damage may go into OPSEC areas or, more likely, the RCN wants to find out exactly what happened before making an official statement.

Regards


----------



## Nfld Sapper

It appears the fire was worst than previously reported.....

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2586636/

HMCS Protecteur crew fought engine fire for 11 hours
Commander Julian Elbourne, captain of Protecteur, speaks exclusively with CBC News


----------



## Jarnhamar

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> It appears the fire was worst than previously reported.....
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2586636/
> 
> HMCS Protecteur crew fought engine fire for 11 hours
> Commander Julian Elbourne, captain of Protecteur, speaks exclusively with CBC News



Holy shit I guess so.  Fighting a fire in the dark in choppy seas with no power and issues with O2 tanks.  I wonder why the CF tried to downplay this.


----------



## McG

I have seen media reports (which have not been confirmed by DND/CAF) indicating significant heat damage of the hull to the point of permanent deformation.

Any heating cycles sufficient to do this would likely have also permanently changed the strength properties of the metal.

If the reports are correct, that would not be a good sign for the ship returning to service.  I'd also wonder how close the ship came to a far more catastrophic failure.


----------



## Stoker

Well from I have been able learn from media reports, the fire started in a port TA (turbo alternator), when a LO hose ruptured. The fire fed from a storage tank roared out of control for several hours until they were able to put it out, it was up to 11 hours to have the area overhauled(quite a large space). There were reports of melting boots through heat transfer to the decks. The space above is the MCR (machinery control room) and in that area a lot of very important wires that were damaged. I expect that there is deck and frame damage. With parts no longer being made and the cost to repair, I doubt the ship will sail again.
How close they were to a disaster, don't know but any sustained machinery space fire at sea is catastrophic. Their training kicked in and they never gave up.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not only that, but the locker in the messes above melted as well.  She's toast, there's no way she's economically repairable.


----------



## AirDet

Protecteur was my home in 1999 and 2000. I enjoyed sailing her; large, steady, and a hard working friendly crew. The hangar was massive. I feel sad knowing she may never sail under her own power again.

I feel a full page of RCN history is about to turn as we loose another West Coast ship is paid-off.

B-Z to the crew that fought to keep her afloat. You earned those extra days in Pearl.


----------



## cupper

I'd be interested to know the lessons learned that develop from this, and what changes may result in the design aspects of the new vessels coming down the line.

I know there were significant changes in ship design made after the Kootenay fire in '69 as a result of the investigation and after action reports.

Unfortunately the engineering world learns more from it's failures than it's successes. Fortunately in this case there was no loss of life.

Bravo Zulu to the Captain and Crew. I know from my father's experience on the Kootenay that they were fighting for their lives, and were more than ready to meet the challenge.


----------



## dapaterson

More important will be the lessons learned for damage control & what gets trained.  That will benefit the entire fleet.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Both fleets, west and east coast.  I imagine allies will also be interested too.  We learn from other's experiences as well.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

cupper said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to know the lessons learned that develop from this, and what changes may result in the design aspects of the new vessels coming down the line.
> 
> I know there were significant changes in ship design made after the Kootenay fire in '69 as a result of the investigation and after action reports.
> 
> *Unfortunately the engineering world learns more from it's failures than it's successes. Fortunately in this case there was no loss of life.
> 
> *Bravo Zulu to the Captain and Crew. I know from my father's experience on the Kootenay that they were fighting for their lives, and were more than ready to meet the challenge.



Unfortunately, the engineering world is ignored as our equipment and what happens in the hidden confines of machinery spaces is not sexy. I would love to say more about what was known about engineering problems on this class but can't. A fresh coat of paint and some new toys up top constitute a refit these days and I am sure any of the engineering trades from any of our classes of ships will tell you this. Not counting IPMS (which is nothing more than an updated operation system like WINDOWS), absolutely nothing was done to any main, auxiliary, ancillary or power generation equipment for the Halifax class MLR-It is all still 1970s technology/equipment. 
I hate hearing things like "the engineering world learns more from it's failures..." We are screaming at times and no one wants to listen. It is not the engineering world who learns from failures like this; we saw it coming. It is the rest of the Navy who finally picks up on it!


----------



## chrisf

Theres been a number of other similar incidents (though not of the same scale) on other federally owned ships recently for the same reason... they've gone beyond the end of their engineered life span, including one incident that nearly saw a ship sink, and another that's rendered close to useless until 2016 or so.

All the nostalgia in the world doesn't change the fact an old boat is an old boat... every refit, over haul, mpi, sonic inspection, etc, doesn't change that. 

Time to build new boats.


----------



## dapaterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Both fleets, west and east coast.  I imagine allies will also be interested too.  We learn from other's experiences as well.



I thbought it was one fleet, two coasts; I stand corrected.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More important will be the lessons learned for damage control & what gets trained.  That will benefit the entire fleet.



Cynical Jim says that NDHQ will learn how to better spin this to the media.....


----------



## suffolkowner

I wonder what will become of the crew.  Will they be spread out through the fleet? Released? They should be rewarded.


----------



## OldSolduer

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I wonder what will become of the crew.  Will they be spread out through the fleet? Released? They should be rewarded.



Cynical Jim says several will be rewarded with C & P for such flagrant violations of regulations for failing to salute officers when fighting said fire.

The uninvolved will receive much praise, and the Public Affairs lot will have dislocated shoulder due to excessive self back patting......


Yes it's one of those days. Deal with it.


----------



## Journeyman

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I wonder what will become of the crew.....Released?


    :


----------



## Jarnhamar

If the CF chooses to retire the ship would it be a dumb idea to suggest turning the ship into some kind of training vessel?  It can't sail but considering what happened it could be turned into a good simulator to train crews how to fight an epic fire in the dark, no electricity etc..

They could also section off an area of the ship put up some rubber walls and make a live fire kill house type range on board for boarding party training.


----------



## Danjanou

> The military announced in October that Protecteur and its sister supply ship on the East Coast, HMCS Preserver, *will be retired in 2015*. Construction of new supply ships is expected to begin in late 2016, with a target of *having them in service by 2019-20.*



Oh yeah that works .

"You have reached the RCN, please be advised that we will be unable to assist you and/or conduct major naval operations for the next 4 years. If you would like to speak to one of our allies please use your touch tone key pad.

For the USN prsss 1
For the RN press 2
For the RAN press 3"

 :


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I wonder what will become of the crew.  Will they be spread out through the fleet? Released? They should be rewarded.


'
I would imagine some crew will stay with the ship until its final disposition, some will augment the KIN class out west and the rest will be absorbed into fleet shortages which are many.


----------



## Stoker

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> If the CF chooses to retire the ship would it be a dumb idea to suggest turning the ship into some kind of training vessel?  It can't sail but considering what happened it could be turned into a good simulator to train crews how to fight an epic fire in the dark, no electricity etc..
> 
> They could also section off an area of the ship put up some rubber walls and make a live fire kill house type range on board for boarding party training.



At one point in time the RCN actually had old ships that they did controlled burns for shipboard fire fighting. We now have environmentally friendly ship simulators on each coast to conduct DC/FF training.  HMCS Protecteur is so full of hazardous materials that turning it into a training simulator wouldn't work, she'll end up at the breakers at some point.


----------



## suffolkowner

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> '
> I would imagine some crew will stay with the ship until its final disposition, some will augment the KIN class out west and the rest will be absorbed into fleet shortages which are many.



Thanks Chief
It seemed a reasonable question to me


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Further to this, I am now being told that junior PRO personnel are already being picked up for support to this summer's MARS training in the ORCAs. This is fine but remember that there is more to FG than MARS training. As was mentioned, the west coast ships are at a manning level that is  unprecedented. The problem is, if PRO actually gets decommissioned; that would send all those positions back to VCDS. We learned that the hard way with HURON's decommissioning. Figure out who is close to finishing their training, get them sailing with PRE to finish and move the remainder to HAL and KIN class to begin the transition. Some would say that it is not that simple but you know what?...It actually is...The archaic policies in place and mixed priorities which will actually hamper this are what is not simple.


----------



## Good2Golf

The difference being that HUR was being struck from the fleet as part of directed structural drawdowns, thus an establishment reduction vice REMAR redistribution, whereas PRO is the current embodiment (REMAR, if you will) of an ongoing AOR capability (justified establishment).

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It seemed a reasonable question to me


Yes, because our initial reaction to CAF personnel exposed to a catastrophic incident is to release them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, because our initial reaction to CAF personnel exposed to a catastrophic incident is to release them.



 :rofl:

We actually treat it like a baseball team, the members get placed on waivers!


----------



## jollyjacktar

I can't speak for the west coast as I don't know where they bunker PRO, but if this was to happen to PRE it could be possible to use her as an alongside fuel depot.  They have electric pumps which are supplied from shore power that are used to fuel other ships in harbor.  Imperial Oil is just across the harbour at Dartmouth for top ups etc.

In addition, if they do decide that PRO is beyond economical repair then she will become a source of parts for PRE until she is retired as well.  For many of the engineering systems the companies that made the original parts are no longer in business or OEM parts are not available.  We once had to find a head for the joy air compressor in a scrap yard in northern Texas.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I can't speak for the west coast as I don't know where they bunker PRO, but if this was to happen to PRE it could be possible to use her as an alongside fuel depot.  They have electric pumps which are supplied from shore power that are used to fuel other ships in harbour.  Imperial Oil is just across the harbour at Dartmouth for top ups etc.
> 
> In addition, if they do decide that PRO is beyond economical repair then she will become a source of parts for PRE until she is retired as well.  For many of the engineering systems the companies that made the original parts are no longer in business or OEM parts are not available.  We once had to find a head for the joy air compressor in a scrap yard in northern Texas.



Our fuelling facility is across the harbour in Colwood.

Since it will be an unmanned tow from Pearl to Esquimalt, all our disposal issues and an honourable end to a great lady would be solved about midway between Hawaii and BC.


----------



## Stoker

I'll throw this idea out , what coast has the greater need for a tanker? Why not send the PRE hull out west. PRE crews fill the shortages within the fleet and supplement shortages in the KIN class.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Oh I see PRE guys punching their screens right now for you even suggesting such a thing!!

I am sure that is one of the COAs being discussed though.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I'll throw this idea out , what coast has the greater need for a tanker? Why not send the PRE hull out west. PRE crews fill the shortages within the fleet and supplement shortages in the KIN class.



Aside from the fact then we would have three ships stuck alongside out west, with the disposal yards out east?


----------



## dapaterson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I'll throw this idea out , what coast has the greater need for a tanker? Why not send the PRE hull out west. PRE crews fill the shortages within the fleet and supplement shortages in the KIN class.



Or do hot crewing - Halifax crew six months, take the canal, change to Esquimalt crew, six months, take the canal, back to Halifax... lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Navy_Pete

There is a big cost to transit the canal, plus it takes a fair bit of time.  They'd leave one coast, get stuck on breakdowns along the way, maybe get through the line eventually (assuming they get a waiver for single hull tankers to go through the canal), break down and travel up along the west coast, then do a crew swap, a work period (with no available parts), then turn around and try and get her back....

Plus the PRO would still need some min crew/maintenance if they shelve her to keep her safe alongside while they are working out the disposal contract (requires extensive environmental and controlled goods surveys) so not something that gets done overnight.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There is a big cost to transit the canal, plus it takes a fair bit of time.



Not really, a fully loaded container ship can expect to pay around 500,000; which isn't much in the big picture.   As for it taking a fair bit of time, the tanker should be able to do it in a month or less (considering a fully loaded container ship can get to NY from China in 26 days).

Disposal yards out east?  The west coast is more than capable to handle disposing of vessels.


----------



## Stoker

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Not really, a fully loaded container ship can expect to pay around 500,000; which isn't much in the big picture.   As for it taking a fair bit of time, the tanker should be able to do it in a month or less (considering a fully loaded container ship can get to NY from China in 26 days).
> 
> Disposal yards out east?  The west coast is more than capable to handle disposing of vessels.



I believe naval vessels get a break on the transit costs or they used to. Lots of places on the west coast to scrap a vessel, including the US.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I believe naval vessels get a break on the transit costs or they used to. Lots of places on the west coast to scrap a vessel, including the US.



Single hull tankers older then 25 years old no longer allowed to transit the Panama Canal (PTR class is cat 2 oiler);
https://www.pancanal.com/common/maritime/advisories/2011/a-17-2011.pdf
If they get a waiver, guessing there will be a big cost (escort tugs, etc).  Also, last time one of our tankers went through it got no special treatment and wasn't considered a warship.


Also, there aren't many disposal yards at that size/draft.  Disposal isn't worth enough money for anyone with that kind of facility in BC to care, as they make far more money building/repairing ships.  You need to find a marine scrap yard, and there are only a few in Canada (Sault St Marie, Port Colburne and on in NS).  Environmental disposal is also a big deal, so also need to be able to handle PCBs and a few other legacy hazmat items.

Few in the US (few in Maine/Oregon, one in California), but the US has some interesting rules wrt taking any other countries HazMat, or even going through their territorial waters, so they are cost prohibitive (may need to remove all hazmat, which includes some of the primers in the old coatings, gaskets, etc).  There is a spot in Mexico, but then there is the CG aspect, plus politics of doing it outside of Canada.

Ship disposal is a lot more complicated then you may think, if you do it IAW our laws.  We could always tow the ship the other way (ie further west), assuming we are okay with ignoring our own laws and a number of international treaties.


----------



## Sub_Guy

HMCS Provider was towed to Turkey, I don't see why this would be an issue with the remaining tankers.

http://www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/provider/provider.htm


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Single hull tankers older then 25 years old no longer allowed to transit the Panama Canal (PTR class is cat 2 oiler);
> https://www.pancanal.com/common/maritime/advisories/2011/a-17-2011.pdf
> If they get a waiver, guessing there will be a big cost (escort tugs, etc).  Also, last time one of our tankers went through it got no special treatment and wasn't considered a warship.
> 
> 
> Also, there aren't many disposal yards at that size/draft.  Disposal isn't worth enough money for anyone with that kind of facility in BC to care, as they make far more money building/repairing ships.  You need to find a marine scrap yard, and there are only a few in Canada (Sault St Marie, Port Colburne and on in NS).  Environmental disposal is also a big deal, so also need to be able to handle PCBs and a few other legacy hazmat items.
> 
> Few in the US (few in Maine/Oregon, one in California), but the US has some interesting rules wrt taking any other countries HazMat, or even going through their territorial waters, so they are cost prohibitive (may need to remove all hazmat, which includes some of the primers in the old coatings, gaskets, etc).  There is a spot in Mexico, but then there is the CG aspect, plus politics of doing it outside of Canada.
> 
> Ship disposal is a lot more complicated then you may think, if you do it IAW our laws.  We could always tow the ship the other way (ie further west), assuming we are okay with ignoring our own laws and a number of international treaties.



Interesting on the warship aspect of the transit, I believe back in the day a 3" 50 Cal was mounted on the front of the tanker to take advantage of the warship aspect. Certainly makes sense to restrict access of single hulled vessels. I suspect PRO and PRE will sit along side for a number of years until they decide what to do with them after they are paid off.
I think its a good bet that any newly built tankers are at least 5 yrs away, unless they buy offshore or lease something.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> HMCS Provider was towed to Turkey, I don't see why this would be an issue with the remaining tankers.
> 
> http://www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/provider/provider.htm



Aside from the fact that after pictures popped up of the Provider beached somewhere with guys using their hands as welding shields cutting it up?  Hence Canadian govt policy that all ships will be disposed in Canada?

Also, that was in 2002; there has since been big changes in environmental regulations and Controlled Goods.

There are issues with ships with certain Hazmats even transiting US waters under tow under some of their newer laws (active warships are exempt from it).  The whole thing is kind of complicated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is no one here on the West Coast with the facilities and experience to scrap a vessel of that size. We worked with a guy to get several derelict vessels towed out of Canadian waters to Mexico. He seems to have disappeared and we are wondering if he ran afoul of the gangs down there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> .....
> I hate hearing things like "the engineering world learns more from it's failures..." ....



Pat, I wouldn't get bent about that statement.  It is a truism and it doesn't apply just to the RCN but to any endeavour.

I used to say of the mob that I used to work for that the key to its commercial success was record of its failures held in the project library in Lund.

I am constantly arguing that too little time is spent on history (researching those failures) and too much time is spent pondering (Oo! I wonder what will happen if I do this?)  I find that that "pondering" bit ultimately is what slows down projects.   You can never get a 100% solution.  History studies might get you into the 85 to 95%  bracket.  All the pondering in the world won't improve on that.

All you can ever do is prepare yourself to manage the failures.

And on which note .... God be thanked everyone came home safe and well done to those involved.


----------



## Navy_Pete

The Kootenay fire is a good example; there were some major lessons learned implemented on DC procedures after that.

And generally in R&D and testing, you run things to breaking point to find the weaknesses.  I'm sure businesses do the same with products that don't work to get better the next time.


----------



## OldSolduer

So if I am correct that if a fire is large enough and hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel in the hull, the ship is no longer seaworthy?

Infantard here so small sentences, short words please.......


----------



## Stoker

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So if I am correct that if a fire is large enough and hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel in the hull, the ship is no longer seaworthy?
> 
> Infantard here so small sentences, short words please.......



If the fire was hot enough, it'll melt steel decks. Any structural damage of that sort if extensive enough, ie affecting frames, watertight bulkheads or ship's side will certainly affect structural integrity. I would imagine the ship has already been surveyed to ensure seaworthiness for the trip back.


----------



## cupper

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So if I am correct that if a fire is large enough and hot enough to destroy the integrity of the steel in the hull, the ship is no longer seaworthy?
> 
> Infantard here so small sentences, short words please.......



Jim:

Speaking as a structural engineer who's field of study is designing buildings and other structures, and not ships, There are a couple of different considerations that can come into play here.

First and most simple is that the heat  of the fire itself can cause distortion to the framing and plates, and I believe a couple of mentions have been made about a bulge in the side around the location of the engine room. The integrity of the structure would be suspect at best. Members and connections would be over stressed, and would not stand up to the dynamic forces that come into play from normal operations, like waves pounding the side, bending of the hull from manouvering, etc.

But you can also get changes to the steel itself if the heat generated by the fire is hot enough. Like tempering a knife blade, you can make the steel more or less brittle depending on how you treat it. The steel in the hull could have gone through a change in temper, and become brittle, and would easily crack under normal loads, when it should be ductile to allow it to bend and deform under loads.


Pat:

I hope that you didn't take offense to my comment about the Engineering World learning more from Failure. If you did, it was not my intent.

I did not mean to single out the MarEng world, but it was a comment about the history of Engineering in general. My father as a MarEng Tech for 22 years, and I have the greatest respect for him and all those in the trade. Growing up I wanted to follow in his footsteps, and due to the ever changing fortunes of life, ended up graduating with an Engineering degree in Civil / Structural. I joined the reserves as a Vehicle Tech while going through school, but there is still a small part of me that regrets not following my father's footsteps, either asan NCM or an Officer.


----------



## cupper

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The Kootenay fire is a good example; there were some major lessons learned implemented on DC procedures after that.
> 
> And generally in R&D and testing, you run things to breaking point to find the weaknesses.  I'm sure businesses do the same with products that don't work to get better the next time.



One of the biggest design changes was the replacement of the aluminum ladders with steel ladders. One of the most vivid images I saw from the display that was put together commemorating the 30th anniversary was of a ladder that had softened to the point that one of the engine room crew had tried to climb. The rungs deformed like stiff toffee under his feet.

And you have the Kootenay Hatch that was added to all ships as an alternate means of escape.


----------



## Navy_Pete

There is a pretty interesting demonstration of that where someone took a sheet of aluminum, put it over a fire and let it heat up until it melted through.  Unlike steel, which glows, aluminum gives no visual indications that it has no structural strength left and simply melts.  There is some pretty vivid testimony (Falklands war?) where guys trying to climb up an aluminum ladder stepped right through it.

Jim, just to add a few more details, you have to bear in mind that the engine room is roughly the size of a school gymnasium with several decks, and the ship itself has numerous parts to its structure.  You can have localized damage and warping from fires, but the overall structure is still sound.  In layman's terms, if you think of a box cabinet, with a bunch of shelves, and dividers between them, you can have brackets break, or individual shelves fail, but the box itself is still good enough.  Maybe a better analogy is a kitchen fire, where you can have a lot of localized damage to the range hood, cupboards etc plus smoke damage elsewhere, but the house itself isn't in danger of falling over.

Part of the tow preps would be a very thorough structural inspection, as watertight integrity is their main concern.  The tow masters won't do it unless they feel its safe, so if repairs are needed, they'll get done.  No indication any are required though, and the things like that also tend to get mangled when filtered through PAs as well.  So some minor warping to local structure could easily change to more ominous sounding 'strucutral issues' by the time it gets to the MRLs.

Tow masters won't hook on until its safe anyway, and they'll require repairs to be done if needed.  They'll also do their best to find a window of good weather, and also have speed restrictions, so the PRO won't have a lot of loading on it.  That part should be good; but very unlikely the ship isn't beyond economical repair.


----------



## OldSolduer

Thanks very much!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If she was newer she would be repaired, but given the her planned decommissioned date, the time and cost of repairs and the benefits of doing so will have to be weighed.


----------



## Navy_Pete

The crack reporters at CBC noticed the 25000 tonne ship being towed out of a major port by a 3000 tonne ship! 

*HMCS Protecteur heading home under tow from U.S. navy tug*
Canadian supply ship damaged by 2 fires in February departed Hawaii's Pearl Harbor on Thursday

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hmcs-protecteur-heading-home-under-tow-from-u-s-navy-tug-1.2645465



> A Canadian navy warship that was badly damaged in U.S. waters by a massive fire at sea in February is on its way back to Canadian waters, under tow by a U.S. tug, CBC News has learned.
> 
> HMCS Protecteur departed Pearl Harbor on Thursday morning under tow from USNS Salvor, beginning a slow voyage across the North Pacific back to its home port of CFB Esquimalt near Victoria, B.C.
> 
> There are four Royal Canadian Navy sailors aboard Salvor for the sail home.
> 
> "She's making six knots right now, which is good," said navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr LCdr Des James. "From our perspective, everything looks promising."
> 
> The trip under tow is expected to take as long as three weeks, depending on the weather, but it could be Protecteur's last trip.
> 
> Commissioned in 1969, the ship was due to be retired in 2017, but the damage aboard following two fires at sea over three days was so severe that it's likely repairs will be too expensive for the navy to consider for just a couple years of service.
> 
> "It's still too early to make those calls," said James.
> 
> "We have to wait 'til we get her alongside and then get on board and get a detailed damage assessment. That work will happen in the next weeks or months. There's still a long journey ahead."
> 
> About 20 crew suffered minor injuries — including dehydration, exhaustion and smoke inhalation — fighting the first of the two fires, an effort that lasted more than 11 hours.
> 
> The vessel was more than a day — and 600 kilometres — out of Pearl Harbor in the north Pacific in rough seas at the time the fire broke out.
> 
> Sailors were able to save the ship from sinking, but it nevertheless lost all power, including the ability to generate electricity to run communications gear and pumps to fight the blaze.
> 
> It took a week for the U.S. navy to tow the ship into Pearl Harbor after the incident.


----------



## NavyShooter

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-158.1181/centery:21.20271/zoom:8/oldmmsi:316146000/olddate:lastknown#


----------



## Occam

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-158.1181/centery:21.20271/zoom:8/oldmmsi:316146000/olddate:lastknown#



HMCS PROTECTEUR
Position Recorded on:
*2014-02-26* 20:36:00 (UTC)

I don't think her position is being updated...   ;D


----------



## NavyShooter

Nope.....I saw that, but figured they might have flashed up their AIS while under tow on the way back home.....guess not!


----------



## Occam

It's an unmanned tow; there's no power aboard PRO for AIS to operate.  Unless the tug can update PRO's data, that is...I don't know enough about the setup of AIS to know if that's possible.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Occam said:
			
		

> It's an unmanned tow; there's no power aboard PRO for AIS to operate.  Unless the tug can update PRO's data, that is...I don't know enough about the setup of AIS to know if that's possible.




Am I reading too much into "unmanned tow" or has the RCN already decided that PRO is beyond economical repair? I have some trouble imagining that one would not want to keep a small maintenance team on board even for a very long, very slow tow, if the ships is to be repaired and return to service.


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Am I reading too much into "unmanned tow" or has the RCN already decided that PRO is beyond economical repair? I have some trouble imagining that one would not want to keep a small maintenance team on board even for a very long, very slow tow, if the ships is to be repaired and return to service.



Unmanned tows are pretty standard from a safety standpoint, the RCN does them all the time. No need to run a generator and there is only four RCN personnel on the US Navy tug. I would imagine the Protecteur had everything shutdown, UPS's disconnected, no fuel or ammo on board etc, the fire risk on that ship is very low.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks, Chief.


----------



## Good2Golf

Info from USNS Salvor's (T-ARS 52) AIS: HMCS Protecteur's position while under tow.


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Info from USNS Salvor's (T-ARS 52) AIS: HMCS Protecteur's position while under tow.



That's from 4 days ago, looks like they turned off their AIS as well.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> That's from 4 days ago, looks like they turned off their AIS as well.



True, although I didn't know if that was for operational reasons or just because it may have been irregularly updated.  Interestingly, many of MSC's support vessels seem to run AIS when alongside or administratively underway, but then don't transmit at other times.


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> True, although I didn't know if that was for operational reasons or just because it may have been irregularly updated.  Interestingly, many of MSC's support vessels seem to run AIS when alongside or administratively underway, but then don't transmit at other times.



The AIS is based on VHF and antenna height so you should not see them 20 or 30 miles away from land. I don't think there is a satellite based AIS.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Unmanned tows are pretty standard from a safety standpoint, the RCN does them all the time. No need to run a generator and there is only four RCN personnel on the US Navy tug. I would imagine the Protecteur had everything shutdown, UPS's disconnected, no fuel or ammo on board etc, the fire risk on that ship is very low.



There was also a lot of work done on the flood side; all the hull valves (inlets for pumps etc) were locked shut and all the watertight doors etc are dogged shut, with a remote flood detection system installed with an strobe attached on the mast for a visual indication.

There were some other preps but those were the big ones.  If you are curious the USN salvage manuals are avail on their site; http://www.supsalv.org/00c2_publications.asp?destPage=00c2

I think we may just adopt their manual as our standard, it's pretty excellent.

For tows, you either go with everything but engines flashed up or dead ship.  Unless you are just going across the harbour or some other short distance, doesn't really make a lot of sense to tow with people onboard otherwise, as it's easier to sail.

As an aside, our ships don't normally transmit on AIS; we generally go on 'receive only'.  The signal can also get piggybacked on the standard nav radar, so you can easily pick ships up 60-100 miles away from their broadcast (twice the detection range, as it doesn't have to go and come back to the antennae)

edit: here's some info on the 'USNS ship, can't really call it a 'tug boat', it's pretty bad a$$;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Salvor_%28T-ARS-52%29


----------



## Good2Golf

Salvor is certainly a very capable vessel. I found it interesting, though, that she was running 4 x Cat D399s for prime power...the Cat 3600s were well into production when Salvor was first commissioned.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

CAT classifies the 3600 as Auxiliary Engines vice the D399 as a Propulsion Engine...maybe that was the reason?


----------



## Baz

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The AIS is based on VHF and antenna height so you should not see them 20 or 30 miles away from land. I don't think there is a satellite based AIS.



There is, a few of them; one of the best is ExactEarth, a Canadian company:
http://www.exactearth.com/
MarineTraffic is quite spotty as its users who provide the data (hey don't buy it, so they certainly couldn't afford sat coverage):
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/p/expand-coverage

There is also Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT, google it) which is merchant vessel sat comms to home flag, then shared government to government as agreed.

By the way, since AIS is supposed to be for safety primarily (not to help the Navy track stuff) the IMO doesn't like sites like MarineTraffic:


> Maritime security - AIS ship data
> 
> At its79th session in December 2004, the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) agreed that, in relation to the issue of freely available automatic information system (AIS)-generated ship data on the world-wide web, the publication on the world-wide web or elsewhere of AIS data transmitted by ships could be detrimental to the safety and security of ships and port facilities and was undermining the efforts of the Organization and its Member States to enhance the safety of navigation and security in the international maritime transport sector.
> 
> The Committee condemned the regrettable publication on the world-wide web, or elsewhere, of AIS data transmitted by ships and urged Member Governments, subject to the provisions of their national laws, to discourage those who make available AIS data to others for publication on the world-wide web, or elsewhere from doing so.
> 
> In addition, the Committee condemned those who irresponsibly publish AIS data transmitted by ships on the world-wide web, or elsewhere, particularly if they offer services to the shipping and port industries.


http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/AIS.aspx

AIS isn't piggybacked on radar, its VHF-FM (around 162MHz) and radar is much higher; good bridge systems will display them together but they are separate signals.  Although both are line of site, AIS, being lower freq, sometimes ducts (I've seen 300nm+ on a good airborne receiver at 400ft), but the range over some radars is due to reflectivity primarily.

Since its a self synching network, with no control stations, some interesting tricks are required for sat AIS due to collisions; all the ships the sat can see can't see each other, which creates collisions.

Since a lot of ships have integrated AIS and radar displays, and some aircraft, not having your AIS on can be a dead giveaway to who you are, especially if your wasting fuel going in circles like the Navy tends to do; "when in danger, when in doubt, steam in circles, scream and shout."  AIS won't identify people who have it off or are spoofing it, but it makes them stand out on your plot!


----------



## Good2Golf

[slight OT]


			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> CAT classifies the 3600 as Auxiliary Engines vice the D399 as a Propulsion Engine...maybe that was the reason?



Strange, Cat shows 3612s and 3616 as (legacy) propulsion engines here.  

I got my scales off a bit, though...the 3600 is significantly larger than a D399...a 3500 was more a replacement for the D399.

[/OT]

So at 6.5 its, there's another two weeks or so to get to Naden?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> [slight OT]
> Strange, Cat shows 3612s and 3616 as (legacy) propulsion engines here.
> 
> I got my scales off a bit, though...the 3600 is significantly larger than a D399...a 3500 was more a replacement for the D399.
> 
> [/OT]
> 
> So at 6.5 its, there's another two weeks or so to get to Naden?



Seen, I just looked for the 3600 which is an Aux Engine, didn't look at any of the others in the series


----------



## Navy_Pete

Baz said:
			
		

> AIS isn't piggybacked on radar, its VHF-FM (around 162MHz) and radar is much higher; good bridge systems will display them together but they are separate signals.  Although both are line of site, AIS, being lower freq, sometimes ducts (I've seen 300nm+ on a good airborne receiver at 400ft), but the range over some radars is due to reflectivity primarily.



Thanks, I stand corrected.  I guess that's what I get for not verifying how it works when it was explained to me like that!


----------



## Occam

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The signal can also get piggybacked on the standard nav radar, so you can easily pick ships up 60-100 miles away from their broadcast (twice the detection range, as it doesn't have to go and come back to the antennae)



You're actually thinking of IFF (or SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar) for the Air Force types).  Unlike radar, which has to be sent out and reflected back, IFF/SSR on one platform interrogates the aircraft/ship and a transponder in the aircraft/ship replies.  The RF energy only has to go one way, so detection ranges with IFF/SSR can be longer than primary radar.  Assuming it's a good guy squawking, of course.


----------



## OldSolduer

Infantry here - small words and short sentences please.

How difficult is it to tow a ship in the ocean?


----------



## jollyjacktar

It depends upon many factors.  As you can imagine, Jim, the size of each ship in respect to the other, their general condition, the distance to be covered and the sea state to name a few.  if the seas are calm, it's pretty good, but...  Tow exercises are something that's practiced during work ups etc.  I've been on several and they went as smooth as silk.

But it can be dicey to maneuver in close proximity to each other.  You remember the Protecteur taking a bite out of the hangar of the Algonquin when they were attempting to set up a tow.  Or the Athabaskan having her tow cable part when she was being returned to Halifax from refit.  She was in risk of foundering and was beaten up pretty badly when they tried to catch her again.  

I have no doubt that the tug and crew from Pearl are top notch and things will work out just fine.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There are reports in the media that HMCS Protecteur will be back home, in Esquimalt, today.


----------



## mikeninercharlie

Salvor and Protecteur are visible from the Victoria waterfront...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

HMCS Protecteur towed into home port in Esquimalt, B.C.


----------



## MilEME09

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> HMCS Protecteur towed into home port in Esquimalt, B.C.



I guess on the bright side she made it back without incident


----------



## Navy_Pete

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hmcs-protecteur-s-electrical-system-flagged-as-dangerous-and-unsafe-1.2724443



> National Defence was warned a year before the devastating fire aboard HMCS Protecteur that the electrical system, main engine controls and navigation system aboard both of the navy's supply ships were on their last legs — and prone to catastrophic failure.
> 
> The unusually blunt assessment was contained in a four-page confidential briefing note prepared by the former head of the navy as he was about to retire last year.
> 
> The document, from former vice-admiral Paul Maddison, was prepared as the Harper government debated whether long-promised replacement vessels would take priority at the assigned shipyard in Vancouver — or a new coast guard heavy icebreaker.
> 
> Maddison noted that the power generators were showing their age and that replacement parts were no longer available for both Protecteur and her sister ship HMCS Preserver, which were ordered replaced by the former Liberal government a decade ago.
> 
> There had been failures of the turbo generators that caused ship-wide blackouts and loss of propulsion, creating "dangerous" conditions for a ship at sea.
> 
> The navy said Thursday it was still investigating the cause of the Feb. 27 engine-room fire aboard Protecteur, which left the ship burning, powerless and adrift off Hawaii for 11 hours.
> 
> But "first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses and first responders indicate that the fire may have originated from one of the generators inside the engine room."
> 
> The military wouldn't say when the investigation would be completed. The blaze saw 20 crew members suffer minor injuries.
> 
> Briefing warned ships were 'showing their ... age'
> 
> Protecteur, commissioned in 1969, was towed first to Pearl Harbor, then towed back to its home port of Esquimalt, B.C.
> 
> "They are the oldest ships in the (Royal Canadian Navy) and are well past their original design life of 25 years," Maddison said in the briefing, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information legislation.
> 
> "Numerous systems, that are as old as the ships, are no longer supported by an Original Equipment Manufacturer. All systems are showing their 40 plus years of age with increased failure rates."
> 
> "For example, recent failures of the 1000 (kilowatt) Turbo Alternators have resulted in total ship blackouts and loss of propulsion, creating a potentially dangerous and unsafe situation for the ship and crew."
> 
> In a written statement Thursday, the navy would not be specific about how many times the generators have failed but noted that the last incident involving Protecteur occurred at the harbour entrance to San Diego in 2011.
> 
> Navy Lt. Kelly Boyden described that incident as minor.
> 
> "It did not represent a fire hazard," he said in an email.
> 
> "The ship was being assisted by tugs at the time and back-up generators were quickly back on line, causing no danger to the ship or ship's company."
> 
> Replacement contract cancelled in 2008
> 
> The ships had for years been on track for replacement when, just before the 2008 federal election, the Harper government cancelled the procurement because shipyard bids had come in higher than the project's budget envelope.
> 
> A report by the parliamentary budget office last year said that had the government stuck with the original program, instead of restarting it, the navy would already have its supply ships, likely at a cheaper cost than the new program, and they would be more capable than the ones now being planned.
> 
> Last year, there was vigorous debate within government about whether the navy could get more life out of the existing boats until their replacements arrived in 2019-20.
> 
> But Maddison's note laid out in painstaking detail how worn out the vessels had become despite the best efforts of the fleet maintainers.
> 
> "Frequent mechanical breakdowns are beginning to affect the operational availability of the two ships and efforts to ensure their reliability are putting increasing pressure on an already strained engineering work force and budget," said the documents.
> 
> "Even if increased funding is directed towards the (Protecteur) Class ships, there is a limit as to how long the onboard systems can be supported and certified given their age and operational effectiveness."
> 
> Maddison cited not only the electrical system, but the main engine controls where the failure of obsolete parts would "render the propulsion system inoperable" and the outdated navigation system panel that "distributes critical" data.
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris said the memo raises important questions about whether both ships should be decommissioned now.
> 
> "I would be concerned about the safety of naval personnel aboard these ships," he said.
> 
> "In 2008, the government cancelled the (replacement) contract. We would have new ships now. This represents a political failure on the part of this government."
> 
> © The Canadian Press, 2014


----------



## McG

Suggestions now that this fire was anticipated.


> *DND warned of dangerous and unsafe electrical on HMCS Protecteur*
> CTV News
> 31 Jul 2014
> 
> OTTAWA - National Defence was warned a year before the devastating fire aboard HMCS Protecteur that the electrical system, main engine controls and navigation system aboard both of the navy's supply ships were on their last legs and prone to catastrophic failure.
> 
> The unusually blunt assessment was contained in a four-page confidential briefing note prepared by the former head of the navy as he was about to retire last year.
> 
> The briefing note, penned by former vice-admiral Paul Maddison, was prepared as the Harper government debated whether long-promised replacement vessels would take priority at the assigned shipyard in Vancouver -- or a new coast guard heavy icebreaker.
> 
> Maddison noted that the power generators were showing their age and that replacement parts were no longer available for both Protecteur and her sister ship HMCS Preserver.
> 
> There had been failures of the turbo generators that caused ship-wide blackouts and loss of propulsion, creating "a potentially dangerous and unsafe situation for the ship and crew."
> 
> The navy has refused to say what caused the Feb. 27 fire aboard Protecteur, which left the ship powerless and adrift off Hawaii.


----------



## MSEng314

MCG said:
			
		

> Suggestions now that this fire was anticipated.



Warships are dangerous, old warships especially so. Fires happen on ships at sea, that is why we spend so much time and effort to train the crew in firefighting and damage control.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who has ever been onboard the tanker before...


----------



## jollyjacktar

MSEng314 said:
			
		

> Warships are dangerous, old warships especially so. Fires happen on ships at sea, that is why we spend so much time and effort to train the crew in firefighting and damage control.
> 
> None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who has ever been onboard the tanker before...


I was surprised we got away with it for so long  and that when it came, no one was seriously injured or killed.


----------



## MSEng314

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was surprised we got away with it for so long  and that when it came, no one was seriously injured or killed.



Excellent point, perhaps it is proof that there is a reason why we train: so that when it's real, we can deal with it safely and effectively.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Welcome to the world of the slow motion crisis:

The Canadian Navy’s slow-motion crisis


How aging ships, budget cuts and outdated military priorities are crippling the Canadian Navy

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-canadian-navys-slow-motion-crisis/


----------



## Tibbson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Welcome to the world of the slow motion crisis:
> 
> The Canadian Navy’s slow-motion crisis
> 
> 
> How aging ships, budget cuts and outdated military priorities are crippling the Canadian Navy
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-canadian-navys-slow-motion-crisis/



Sadly you could swap out army or air force for navy and still have an accurate article.


----------



## jollyjacktar

more like a slow motion  :trainwreck:


----------



## MilEME09

this sounds so familiar, hmm i wonder where, I have no idea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XYb3AWK58


----------



## 211RadOp

The USS Chosin received the CF Unit Commendation on Saturday.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=2&nid=985339&crtr.tp1D=1

Chief of the Defence Staff recognizes USS Chosin with Unit Commendation

June 7, 2015 - Ottawa - The Canadian Forces Unit Commendation was presented yesterday to USS Chosin for exceptional support of the crew of HMCS Protecteur when it suffered a fire at sea last year.

Rear Admiral Bill Truelove, Commander of Maritime Forces Pacific and Joint Task Force Pacific, presented the award on behalf of General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, at a reception onboard Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Calgary while the ship was participating in Fleet Week at the Portland Rose Festival in Portland, Oregon.

Quick Facts
 •On February 27, 2014, HMCS Protecteur experienced a major engine room fire at sea while returning to its home port of Esquimalt, British Columbia, after a two-month deployment in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
 •The courage and professionalism of the entire crew saved the ship, but the damage resulted in a loss of power and propulsion. HMCS Protecteur was stopped in the water in challenging weather conditions 340 nautical miles northeast of Pearl Harbor and in need of assistance. 
•USS Chosin rendered invaluable assistance by engaging in casualty evacuations, and providing continuous transfer of essential equipment and supplies in hazardous conditions which ensured the safety of HMCS Protecteur and her crew.
 •On May 26, 2015, USS Michael Murphy and Navy Region Hawaii were also awarded with the Canadian Forces Unit Commendation for their exceptional support to HMCS Protecteur during their time of need.
 •The Canadian Forces Unit Commendation is a group award created to recognize distinguished service by personnel within a military unit.

Created by the Chief of the Defence Staff in 1980, the commendation is awarded to any formation, unit or sub-unit of the Canadian Armed Forces, or to any similar organization of a foreign armed force working with or in conjunction with the Canadian Armed Forces, that has performed a deed or activity considered beyond the demand of normal duty.


----------



## cupper

Bravo Zulu to our US Navy Brethren for a job well done in a time of need.


----------



## Navy_Pete

The USN Salvage branch also did the tow and were really fantastic to work with, and extremely professional.

Not sure if it'll be done officially, but the USN salvage manual may be adopted directly as the standard we use for future tows.

All in all, big thanks to the USN on this one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I love the USN.  They have always been friendly, helpful, dependable. Everything you want in an friend and neighbour.  They are my favorite foreign peers overall.


----------



## 211RadOp

Exerpt from CANFORGEN 163/15 261306Z AUG 15

CF UNIT COMMENDATION 

(1) USS CHOSIN - FOR RENDERING INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO HMCS PROTECTEUR AFTER A CATASTROPHIC ENGINE ROOM FIRE WHILE AT SEA, 1 TO 6 MAR 14 

(2) USS MICHAEL MURPHY - FOR OUTSTANDING ACTIONS, COMMENDABLE SEAMANSHIP AND TECHNICAL ACUMEN WHILE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE HMCS PROTECTEUR UNDER TOW FOLLOWING AN ENGINE ROOM FIRE, 28 FEB TO 1 MAR 14 

(3) USNS SIOUX - FOR EXCEPTIONAL TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND INCREDIBLE SEAMANSHIP WHEN SUCCESSFULLY TAKING THE CRIPPLED HMCS PROTECTEUR UNDER TOW TO PEARL HARBOR, FOLLOWING AN ENGINE ROOM FIRE, 1 TO 6 MAR 14 

(4) USN REGION HAWAII - FOR EXEMPLARY COMMITMENT IN ENSURING THE SAFE RETURN OF HMCS PROTECTEUR TO PEARL HARBOR AND THEN TO CANADA, FOLLOWING AN ENGINE ROOM FIR 28 FEB TO MAY 14


----------



## Lumber

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Exerpt from CANFORGEN 163/15 261306Z AUG 15
> .
> .
> .
> (4) USN REGION HAWAII - FOR EXEMPLARY COMMITMENT IN ENSURING THE SAFE RETURN OF HMCS PROTECTEUR TO PEARL HARBOR AND THEN TO CANADA, FOLLOWING AN ENGINE ROOM FIR 28 FEB TO MAY 14



I hope they didn't actually mispell fire in an official CANFORGEN CF UNIT COMMENDATION


----------



## 211RadOp

They did for an MSM announcement on the same message.  Evidently the two soldiers perfomed "A DARING PARACHUTE JUM".


----------



## dapaterson

01  11  171231Z AUG  16  RR      UUUU                 CANFORGEN

            NDHQ CMPC OTTAWA
            CANFORGEN
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 146/16 CMP 066/16
SIC WAK
SUBJECT: HONOURS AND DEPARTMENTAL AWARDS ANNOUNCEMENT
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
1. ON 27 FEB 14 WHILE OPERATING 300 NAUTICAL MILES NORTH THE 
HAWAIIAN ISLAND, A MAJOR FIRE BROKE OUT IN THE MAIN ENGINE ROOM OF 
HER MAJESTY S CANADIAN SHIP (HMCS) PROTECTEUR. THE MAGNITUDE AND THE 
INTENSITY OF THIS EVENT RANKS ONLY SECOND TO THE HMCS KOOTENAY FIRE 
OF 23 OCT 69, (WHERE 9 SAILORS PERISHED AND 50 WERE INJURED), THE 
SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT TO THE RCN WERE CRITICAL, BUT LUCKILY, DUE 
IN PART TO THE CREW S TRAINING COMBINED WITH THEIR COURAGEOUS 
ACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT AND FOLLOWING DAY, THEY WERE ABLE TO 
SAVE THEIR SHIP WITH NO LOSS OF LIFE - A SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENT 
AT THE TIME WHEN CONSIDERING PROTECTEUR HAD CLOSE TO 300 CREW 
MEMBERS ONBOARD, INCLUDING 17 PASSENGERS AND 2 CONTRACTORS. THE CREW 
REACTED BRILLIANTLY AND WITH STEADFAST COURAGE IN THE FACE OF THE 
WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR A SHIP, A FIRE FAR AT SEA, IN A MAIN 
ENGINEERING SPACE
2. AS A RESULT OF THIS EVENT, ON BEHALF OF THE QUEEN, HIS EXCELLENCY 
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL HAS APPROVED NATIONAL HONOURS FOR THE FOLLOWING 
DESERVING INDIVIDUALS
A. MERITORIOUS SERVICE CROSS
(1) CDR J.A. ELBOURNE - FOR INSPIRATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND OUTSTANDING 
ACTIONS AS CO. HIS CRITICAL DECISION MAKING KEPT HIS CREW FOCUSED 
AND STEADFAST IN THEIR DETERMINED FIGHT TO SAVE THE SHIP
(2) LCDR J. MURRAY - FOR EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND REMARKABLE 
PROFESSIONALISM AS XO. HIS OUTSTANDING ACTIONS AND FORCEFUL 
DETERMINATION WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN SAVING THE LIVES OF THE CREW AND 
THE SHIP
(3) CPO 1 I.M. KELLY - FOR REMARKABLE LEADERSHIP AND SELFLESS 
DEDICATION AS COXN. HIS BOUNDLESS DRIVE AND PERSONAL KINDNESS WERE 
ESSENTIAL IN ENABLING THE CREW TO FIGHT THE FIRE
(4) PO 1 M.A. PENNER - FOR EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND UNMATCHED 
TECHNICAL ACUMEN AS CERA. HIS TIRELESS ACTIONS IN A SMOKE FILLED 
COMPARTMENT PREVENTED CATASTROPHIC EXPLOSIONS AND SERIOUS INJURY OR 
DEATH
B. MEDAL OF BRAVERY
(1) PO 2 A.L. AUBRY - FOR GREAT COURAGE AND SELFLESS DETERMINATION 
IN IMMEDIATELY ATTACKING THE FIRE IN EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS
C. MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL
(1) CAPT M. GIBBONS - FOR LEADERSHIP AND OUTSTANDING PASTORAL 
SUPPORT AS THE SHIP S PADRE
(2) PO 1 P.R.J. STORIE - FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP IN RESTORING 
POWER TO THE SHIP UNDER DANGEROUS CONDITIONS
(3) LS A.C. ASTLES - FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND LEADERSHIP 
AS ATTACK TEAM LEADER AND FIRE BOUNDARY DUTIES. HE PLAYED A CRITICAL 
ROLE IN SAVING LIVES AND EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE
(4) LS C.L. KOROLYK - FOR SELFLESS DEDICATION AND LEADERSHIP AS A 
MEMBER OF THE ATTACK TEAM. HE ENTERED THE FIRE ZONES SEVERAL TIMES 
AND VOLUNTEERED FOR HAZARDOUS DUTIES. HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE 
FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS HELPED SAVE THE SHIP AND SHIPMATES
3. IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED, THE CDS HAS APPROVED 
DEPARTMENTAL AWARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING DESERVING INDIVIDUALS AND 
UNITS
A.  CDS COMMENDATION
(1) LCDR J. LAFONTAINE - FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND SELFLESS 
DEDICATION REGARDLESS OF SUFFERING FROM FIRST DEGREE BURNS TO HIS 
LOWER LEGS
(2) PO 2 I.B. CAMERON - FOR SELFLESS ACTIONS AND LEADERSHIP AS ONE 
OF THE FIRST RESPONDERS AND ATTACK TEAM LEADER
(3) MS A. BROWN - FOR DEMONSTRATING GREAT DETERMINATION AND SELFLESS 
DEDICATION BY PUSHING HIMSELF TO THE POINT OF EXHAUSTION TO PROTECT 
THE SHIP AND SHIPMATES
(4) LS S.B. MACDOUGALL - FOR EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND DEVOTION TO 
DUTY AS A MEMBER OF TWO ATTACK TEAMS. HIS MENTAL AND PHYSICAL 
FORTITUDE TO ENDURE EXTREME CONDITIONS ENABLED THE TEAM TO CONTAIN 
AND EXTINGUISH THE FIRE
(5) AB D.J.T. GREEN - FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND 
PERSEVERANCE AS A MEMBER OF THREE SEPARATE ATTACK TEAMS
(6) AB M. CHARLESWORTH - FOR EXCEPTIONAL DETERMINATION AS A MEMBER 
OF THE FIRST ATTACK TEAM. HE LED A SHIPMATE IN DISTRESS TO SAFETY 
BEFORE RETURNING TO HIS DUTIES
B. CF UNIT COMMENDATION
(1) HMCS PROTECTEUR - FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND REMARKABLE DEDICATION. 
THE TEAMWORK OF THE ENTIRE CREW, WHILE LIVING IN EXTREME AND ARDUOUS 
CONDITIONS, HELPED SAVE THE SHIP
(2) USS CHOSIN - FOR RENDERING INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO HMCS 
PROTECTEUR AFTER A CATASTROPHIC ENGINE ROOM FIRE WHILE AT SEA, 1 TO 
6 MAR 14
(3) USS MICHAEL MURPHY - FOR OUTSTANDING ACTIONS, COMMENDABLE 
SEAMANSHIP AND TECHNICAL ACUMEN WHILE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE HMCS 
PROTECTEUR UNDER TOW FOLLOWING AN ENGINE ROOM FIRE, 28 FEB TO 1 MAR 
14
(4) USNS SIOUX - FOR EXCEPTIONAL TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND INCREDIBLE 
SEAMANSHIP WHEN SUCCESSFULLY TAKING THE CRIPPLED HMCS PROTECTEUR 
UNDER TOW TO PEARL HARBOR, FOLLOWING AN ENGINE ROOM FIRE, 1 TO 6 MAR 
14
(5) USN REGION HAWAII - FOR EXEMPLARY COMMITMENT IN ENSURING THE 
SAFE RETURN OF HMCS PROTECTEUR TO PEARL HARBOR AND THEN TO CANADA, 
FOLLOWING AN ENGINE ROOM FIRE, 28 FEB TO MAY 14
4. THE INFORMATION ABOVE REFLECTS THE SUBSTANTIVE RANK HELD BY THE 
MEMBERS AT THE DATE OF INCIDENT. MPRRS WILL BE UPDATED BY DH R UPON 
RELEASE OF THIS CANFORGEN
5. I EXTEND MY SINCERE CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL RECIPIENTS. THE 
LEADERSHIP, PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION YOU HAVE DISPLAYED 
REFLECT WELL ON OUR DEFENCE TEAM
END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

BRAVO ZULU to all duly honoured members and units.

Best tradition of the service, for sure!


----------



## Good2Golf

BZ indeed!  Well done, the Ship's crew!


----------



## donaldk

BZ to all indeed, thanks for sharing the CANFORGEN (DVPNI is slow).  As I type this I am looking directly at the Stbd side of ExPROTECTEUR as the backdrop (currently on site this week).


----------



## cupper

As the son of a survivor of the Kooteney explosion and fire I have an appreciation of what these fine sailors went though.

Bravo Zulu to all on board.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

A richly deserved series of honours and awards. I am reliably informed that this was probably the finest piece of seamanship displayed within the RCN since World War 2.


----------



## Halifax Tar

BZ 

Upstanding seamanship and courage.


----------



## Lumber

BZ to all aboard. 

I can't wait to read the stories and lessons learned.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I am disappointed to see some left off the recognition lists.  The EO, CMO and CHT for starters.  They would have had a major role in the actual DC fight for PROs life...


----------



## Furniture

As with any situation that arises, not all that deserve offical recognition get it. 

In my opinion the HTs that made the crappers on the jungle deck are the real heroes. Had some of the most plesant movements of my life in the gentle NELY trade winds off the north coast of Oahu.


----------

