# The fleet ships out!



## Spencer100 (14 Nov 2007)

This must have been great to see. That is a good percentage of the fleet.   Good Luck

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/978412.html

Shipping out — times eight
Biggest military flotilla since 2002 sails off to training exercises
By DAVENE JEFFREY Staff Reporter
Wed. Nov 14 - 5:34 AM



Led by the destroyer HMCS Iroquois, left, eight Canadian navy ships round George’s Island on their sailpast in Halifax Harbour onTuesday. (TIM KROCHAK / Staff)





Eight navy ships, including a destroyer, pulled out of Halifax in style Tuesday morning.

The largest military flotilla to leave Halifax Harbour since 2002 performed a sailpast, with Rear Admiral Dean McFadden receiving the salute from the ships’ captains.

"It’s a bit of a spectacle," Commodore Bob Davidson said Tuesday during a ship-to-shore telephone interview from HMCS Iroquois.

"When you’ve got 1,200 sailors sailing out of Halifax, it’s a huge impact on 1,200 families, more than 1,200 families. I thought it would be a nice way to make a significant departure and perhaps a show for the town, as well as for the admiral." A ninth vessel is scheduled to leave port today, he said.

As well as an operational exercise, the Tuesday morning sailpast was also a public relations exercise, the commodore said. "We want Canadians to know the navy is busy."

Five of the ships — the Iroquois, HMCS Preserver and three frigates — will head for Virginia, where they will be conducting several training exercises. Two Sea Kings and their flight crews will travel with the ships, and two Auroras out of Greenwood will also participate, the commodore said.

The Canadians will be joined by two American warships — a destroyer and a cruiser — and two auxiliary vessels. Exercises will include individual and ship-wide training as well as task force operations, and some of the ships will practise coming to the aid of a vessel involved in a disaster.

The Commodore is responsible for co-ordinating ships’ activities to prepare the fleet to respond to a range of operational missions that the government could ask their crews to perform.

Last year, the navy was on standby in case it was called in to help in the Lebanon crisis, Commodore Davidson said.

"The purpose of us doing this kind of training is to always have forces that are ready to deploy to meet government needs at short notice," he said. "We’ve done this before. The navy was the first out the door with Operation Apollo (the American-led war on terrorism) in 2002," he said. 

Halifax’s grey skies began to pour down cold rain as the sailpast headed out of the harbour and Commodore Davidson wasn’t hoping for significantly better weather when he hits Virginian waters.

"The weather there is not that great this time of year," he said. 

The ships are scheduled to return to Nova Scotia waters early next month. They will be at sea for most of the month, except for a weekend at the base in Norfolk, Va.

"We might get to do a little shopping," he said, but added that the crews will be very busy carrying out the exercises.


----------



## TN2IC (14 Nov 2007)

I watched it... didn't really float my boat.




> Led by the destroyer HMCS Iroquois, left, eight Canadian navy ships round George’s Island on their sailpast in Halifax Harbour on Tuesday.



I thought it was Theodore tugboat leading the way?


----------



## tabernac (14 Nov 2007)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Five of the ships — the Iroquois, HMCS Preserver and three frigates — will head for Virginia, where they will be conducting several training exercises. Two Sea Kings and their flight crews will travel with the ships, and two Auroras out of Greenwood will also participate, the commodore said.
> 
> The Canadians will be joined by two American warships — a destroyer and a cruiser — and two auxiliary vessels. Exercises will include individual and ship-wide training as well as task force operations, and some of the ships will practise coming to the aid of a vessel involved in a disaster.



So we have a destroyer, an AOR, 3 CPFs, but what were the other 3? I was going to say YAGs but those are only on the West coast.  ;D


----------



## navymich (14 Nov 2007)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> but what were the other 3?



I would hazard a strong guess and say MCDVs.  A similar picture was posted in my local paper today and showed the end of the trail of ships and had the Goose Bay in view.  Tried to find that pic to post but no luck yet.


----------



## TN2IC (14 Nov 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> I would hazard a strong guess and say MCDVs.  A similar picture was posted in my local paper today and showed the end of the trail of ships and had the Goose Bay in view.  Tried to find that pic to post but no luck yet.




MCVDs.... The jetty is all cleared up now.  ;D


----------



## navymich (14 Nov 2007)

Interesting... this article states:



> The fleet included one destroyer, three frigates and four Maritime coastal defence vessels.



Doesn't match with the list from the original article posted.  But if you look at the caption under the picture from the  morning article vice the  afternoon.  Seems someone made a mistake somewhere!


----------



## dapaterson (14 Nov 2007)

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> MCVDs.... The jetty is all cleared up now.  ;D



Maritime Coastal Venereal Diseases?


----------



## Hawk (14 Nov 2007)

Fair winds and calm seas to the East Coast Fleet


Hawk


----------



## time expired (14 Nov 2007)

How many mile of coastline do we have to defend?.
                                       Regards


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Nov 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> How many mile of coastline do we have to defend?.
> Regards



One of the longest in the world....


----------



## aesop081 (15 Nov 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> How many mile of coastline do we have to defend?.
> Regards



243 042 kilometres

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/facts/coastline.html


----------



## PO2FinClk (15 Nov 2007)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> but what were the other 3?



MCDV's, look in the backround of the picture:


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2007)

For all the ships to make it out in a single sortie must make those sailors a bunch of happy people.

Have a good Ex boys & girls.  See ya dockside when you get back

Chimo!


----------



## Pud (15 Nov 2007)

I was watching them all leave from the port breezeway of the Freddy.  The other 3 were MCDVs.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> For all the ships to make it out in a single sortie must make those sailors a bunch of happy people.
> 
> Have a good Ex boys & girls.  See ya dockside when you get back
> 
> Chimo!



In Halifax, we have another 280 (in refit) 4 more Frigates, 3 more MCDVs and 3 more submarines in port so it's hardly "all" of them but it's nice to get a bunch of them out on exercise. When I joined in the late 70s we sailed as squadrons all the time with a tanker on exercise.


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2007)

Ummm... let me put it this way, after all the cutbacks and force reductions, when was the last time so many canadian ships sailed out at any one time?

BTW, we know about the Subs  but, WRT those 4 Frigates and 3 MCDVs - are they fully crewed or is crew shortages the reason why they stayed dockside?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Nov 2007)

1 destroyer and 3 frigates actually...

Besides a multiship exercise costs a _lot_, takes months if not years to plan, not to mention all the other arrangements you have to make such as exercise support aircraft.

You also have to factor in the navy is mainly trying to support two of the frigates one that is on an SNMG deployment the other in the Gulf. Ships are sailing all the time out of Halifax, just because its not announced in the media does not mean there is nothing going on....


----------



## kincanucks (16 Nov 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> In Halifax, we have another 280 (in refit) 4 more Frigates, 3 more MCDVs and 3 more submarines in port so it's hardly "all" of them but it's nice to get a bunch of them out on exercise. When I joined in the late 70s we sailed as squadrons all the time with a tanker on exercise.



Yes but we had to row in those days. ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... let me put it this way, after all the cutbacks and force reductions, when was the last time so many canadian ships sailed out at any one time?
> 
> BTW, we know about the Subs  but, WRT those 4 Frigates and 3 MCDVs - are they fully crewed or is crew shortages the reason why they stayed dockside?



Yes my bad.....there are two ships across the pond right now.....one with the US carrier group en route to our favorite spot and one with the Standing Nato Force. I'm not sure what the operational sub is doing right now. The ships that sailed are mostly fully manned and there is a helo det with a few of them as well...the ones on ops for sure and a few with the ex that just sailed.


----------



## Baz (16 Nov 2007)

Actually, there are only three helo dets on each coast right now.  So, one of the two decks on ops has one, and two of the five decks on the exercise has one.

Interestingly, one of the ships that can't sail right now, Montreal, is getting ready for the CH148 trials det.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Nov 2007)

Baz said:
			
		

> Actually, there are only three helo dets on each coast right now.  So, one of the two decks on ops has one, and two of the five decks on the exercise has one.
> 
> Interestingly, one of the ships that can't sail right now, Montreal, is getting ready for the CH148 trials det.



Yes she is to be the first one being refitted to take the cyclone 
Funny too cause they are going to have to sail in some bad weather in order to test her stability with the new hangar I understand.


----------



## navymich (16 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> BTW, we know about the Subs  but, WRT those 4 Frigates and 3 MCDVs - are they fully crewed or is crew shortages the reason why they stayed dockside?



Typically only 5 out of 6 MCDVs are completely crewed on each coast.  The 6th is known as the Extended Readiness one.  They rotate through with having one ship as the "down boat" for anywhere from 4-12 months for repairs/overhauls etc.  As for crew shortages on the MCDVs, I can't speak for the East Coast, but I know that things are still tight on the West and many crews are junior and/or short handed.


----------



## Cronicbny (19 Nov 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Typically only 5 out of 6 MCDVs are completely crewed on each coast.  The 6th is known as the Extended Readiness one.  They rotate through with having one ship as the "down boat" for anywhere from 4-12 months for repairs/overhauls etc.  As for crew shortages on the MCDVs, I can't speak for the East Coast, but I know that things are still tight on the West and many crews are junior and/or short handed.



Last West Coast numbers I had, and these are a week old, was that the 5 operational ships were short 30 personnel, or about 1/5 of each ship's company. 

The good news? Besides saving 15% on my car insurance, is that the YELLOWKNIFE is coming back online next week!


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Nov 2007)

A couple of nice pic's.


----------



## Springroll (21 Nov 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Last West Coast numbers I had, and these are a week old, was that the 5 operational ships were short 30 personnel, or about 1/5 of each ship's company.



According to the MARPAC Admiral today, we are short one full ships crew. 
That concerns me!


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2007)

:

Someone is not too good a their math:    1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 = 1


----------



## TN2IC (21 Nov 2007)

tomahawk6 do you have anymore photos? I want to see myself.  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2007)

If I run across other pic's I will post them.


----------



## Springroll (26 Nov 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Someone is not too good a their math:    1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 = 1



LOL...I am just fine with math, thank you!
If we use the 1/5th example (which is based on a crew size of 150):
Our frigates can carry 225 pers, short 45 pers 
Our Destroyers can carry 295 pers, short 59 pers
Our AOR's can carry 365 pers, short 73 pers

Not sure where the 30 pers short per boat came from. I heard a number considerably higher then that, and considering the manning capacities of the ships, I would say it was more then that too!


----------



## navymich (26 Nov 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Last West Coast numbers I had, and these are a week old, was that the 5 operational ships were short 30 personnel, or about 1/5 of each ship's company.



Springroll, the quote above is the one that you quoted.  If you go back to the original post that Cronicbny made, you will see that he quoted me in it when he answered with the above post.  If you read it, you will see that it is in regards to MCDVs, so therefore it is based on a core crew size of 30ish.  Which would then mean that they are short 1 full core crew.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2007)

Ahhh, an argument and Springroll is involved.......

The world hasnt changed after all


----------



## Springroll (27 Nov 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> If you read it, you will see that it is in regards to MCDVs, so therefore it is based on a core crew size of 30ish.



I see that now. Thanks for pointing that out, Airmich!
My post was in regards to the rest of the fleet, so my bad. 
I should have read the quote he was quoting before posting.
Thanks again for pointing that out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Nov 2007)

This is like déjà vu all over again!! ;D

_(My credit to Yogi Berra)_


----------



## Inch (19 Dec 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> A couple of nice pic's.



Hey! You can see me! I'm sitting right seat of the helo hovering by Iroquois.


----------



## TN2IC (20 Dec 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> Hey! You can see me! I'm sitting right seat of the helo hovering by Iroquois.




They missed me... I was parked on NC Jetty.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2007)

Knecht Ruprecht said:
			
		

> They missed me... I was parked on NC Jetty.



No they didn't, they thought taking a picture of you would be too disturbing for younger children.


----------



## TN2IC (21 Dec 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> No they didn't, they thought taking a picture of you would be too disturbing for younger children.



Ouch.. that is all I can say... Ouch...


Bravo Zulu to you too....


----------

