# Two Canadian warships collide during exercise manoeuvres en route to Hawaii



## GAP

Two Canadian warships collide during exercise manoeuvres en route to Hawaii
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/two-canadian-warships-collide-during-exercise-manoeuvres-en-route-to-hawaii-221905591.html
By: The Canadian Press 



ESQUIMALT, B.C. - Two Canadian warships are returning to port in Esquimalt, B.C. after colliding during manoeuvres while en route to Hawaii.

No one was hurt, but a Defence Department statement says HMCS Algonquin sustained significant damage to her port side hangar while HMCS Protecteur sustained damage of a lesser degree to her bow.

The statement says the ships were conducting towing exercises, which require close-quarters manoeuvring, when the collision occurred late Friday morning.

The ships are expected to return to Esquimalt harbour this afternoon.

Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, Commander of Canadian Fleet Pacific, said a Royal Canadian Navy Board of Inquiry would be convened to fully investigate the incident.

The Navy says that while the full impact on the ships' future sailing schedules has yet to be determined, HMCS Algonquin will no longer deploy to Asia Pacific region as planned.
end


----------



## Grunt_031

This is why we can"t have nice things!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Hopefully no one was hurt, but I guess that means the RCN antique traveling road show tour is over.  Will be interesting to see the damage; the PRO bow is pretty heavily reinforced, and the ALG hangar is aluminum for weight reduction.  Imagine some will start popping up as they get into Esq.


----------



## vonGarvin

Significant damage, I'd say.


----------



## hugh19

Pro's bow


----------



## Navy_Pete

Only in 2013 would the first pictures come out on MARPAC's facebook page.

On the plus side they had no reported injuries.  

The metalwork will be relatively easy; the wiring reruns are probably going to take longer as there are restrictions on splicing cables.  Still, wow. 

Ironically everyone was joking that one of the ships wouldn't make it back on their own steam, but didn't think it would end while they were practicing a tow approach. :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar

That, is going to be expensive to fix.  PRO tis but a scratch, ALG will take some time.  Glad no one was hurt.  When things go wrong like this it is usually spectacular.  I imagine the Zoomies will be shaking in their boots for some time to come at the memory.


----------



## Good2Golf

Glad everyone is alright.  Some interesting geometry on the damage path on ALQ...almost sinusoidal.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Glad everyone is alright.  Some interesting geometry on the damage path on ALQ...almost sinusoidal.



Looks like about... A 2 metre sea....


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Looks like about... A 2 metre sea....



Sea State 4, then (-ish, thereabouts)?  I always thought the Pacific had longer periodicity than what it looks like from ALQ's hangar...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Depends on the fetch...


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...almost sinusoidal.





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... longer periodicity ...


Is that Big Bang Theory marathon _this_ weekend?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Is that Big Bang Theory marathon _this_ weekend?



Are you referencing the sinusoidal periodicity of Penny's prow.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

If I can add my little bit of geekishness to the discussion, is there any way of determining the effective difference in speed between the ships and the angle of contact from the damage, or is that constructed from examination of recorded data? Am I correct in assuming there are three sets of data to be correlated - the sea state and direction of the wave movement and wind and the heading and speed of both ships?

I'll bet a whole bunch of big navy words will get trotted out in the next few days.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Question: Will the drivers (helmspersons???) have their 404's taken away and have to give a 5 minute safety talk before driving the boat again?


----------



## Good2Golf

Perhaps some of our colleagues from the Senior Service could give some general (not looking for judgements as to what may have happened between PRO and ALQ) information on how large warships go about towing each other?  Thanks in advance.

Yours, aye.
G2G

p.s. AIS shows PRO making a good 12 knots back home, about 6 hrs from dockyards, so mechanically she seems to be okay.


----------



## George Wallace

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Question: Will the drivers (helmspersons???) have their 404's taken away and have to give a 5 minute safety talk before driving the boat again?



Would a SBC be necessary as well?






Safe Backing Course


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps some of our colleagues from the Senior Service could give some general (not looking for judgements as to what may have happened between PRO and ALQ) information on how large warships go about towing each other?  Thanks in advance.
> 
> Yours, aye.
> G2G
> 
> p.s. AIS shows PRO making a good 12 knots back home, about 6 hrs from dockyards, so mechanically she seems to be okay.



From recollection, a tow approach is conducted with one ship dead in the water, simulating an engineering casualty.  The other ship makes a very shallow, very close approach to the bow of the first ship, with the aim of ending up stopping just in front of the first vessel so that towing gear can be hooked up.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

From cbc.ca

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/08/31/canada-warship-collision-hmcs-algonquin.html

"Two Canadian warships are returning to port in Esquimalt, B.C. after colliding during manoeuvres while en route to Hawaii."


----------



## Old Sweat

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> From recollection, a tow approach is conducted with one ship dead in the water, simulating an engineering casualty.  The other ship makes a very shallow, very close approach to the bow of the first ship, with the aim of ending up stopping just in front of the first vessel so that towing gear can be hooked up.



Is not that supported by the relatively minor damage from the collision to the hanger on ALQ as if PRO had been moving at any sort of speed, she could/would have caused more damage and might even have sunk ALQ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Is not that supported by the relatively minor damage from the collision to the hanger on ALQ as if PRO had been moving at any sort of speed, she could/would have caused more damage and might even have sunk ALQ?



Not to speak of this incident, but in the late 80s, HMCS PRESERVER was conducting a RAS with HMS Penelope.  When Penelope broke away on completion of the RAS, she suffered an engineering casualty and ended up in front of PRE.  PRE had nowhere to go.  She broke Penelope's back and opened her hull.  Penelope was not worth repairing.  PRE was barely scratched.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not to speak of this incident, but in the late 80s, HMCS PRESERVER was conducting a RAS with HMS Penelope.  When Penelope broke away on completion of the RAS, she suffered an engineering casualty and ended up in front of PRE.  PRE had nowhere to go.  She broke Penelope's back and opened her hull.  Penelope was not worth repairing.  PRE was barely scratched.



Actually, Penelope was sold the the Ecuadorian Navy, where she remained in service until 2008 as _Presidente Eloy Alfaro_.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

she was not worth repairing by the RN.

Whether another navy found the price right....


----------



## Cronicbny

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Is not that supported by the relatively minor damage from the collision to the hanger on ALQ as if PRO had been moving at any sort of speed, she could/would have caused more damage and might even have sunk ALQ?



I think, looking at the damage to both ships, that ALG was making an approach on PRO and got too close and got the port fwd portion of her hangar hung up on PRO's bow in the final stages of the approach. She may well have suffered an engineering difficulty or simply "flared" too early. I am sure the BOI will clear it all up


----------



## Old Sweat

Thank you.


----------



## jim7966

Here's the youtube video of the Preserver and Penelope colliding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2vW7B5JLmY


----------



## Good2Golf

As a generic question regarding helm and vessel behaviour, from a keel reference, at a low speed, how much would the stern push out opposite to helm direction?  I.e. a helm command of "STARBOARD 30 (45, etc...)" would kick the stern how much to port of centerline as a vessel began to yaw to starboard? 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think by the time the realized they were going to hit, it was probably too late to do anything.  The 280s are also prone to being pushed around by beam winds due to the hangar & forward house acting as a large sail, so they tend to have a sort of 'rear drift' at lower speeds.

Will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation, but at the end of the day it's just aluminum and some paint, so could have been worse.  Embarrassing though.

When you do tow approaches though, if you're on the quarterdeck you can actually almost hand the tow line over to the bow of the 'dead' ship when its done properly.  Not quite actually that close, but when you're doing it looks like you can high five the other crew.  Good pucker factor, but pretty fun.


----------



## chrisf

Nothing a few cans of devcon and some paint can't fix....

In all seriousness though, I'm not wrapping my brain around this... is this some sort of tactical towing thing? Every time I've ever seen a ship towed, it's either involved a line throwing gun or a RHIB, and the ships were a good distance apart.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The money to fix this would buy a lot of pips and crowns, I bet.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Potential answers to two previous generic questions:

First of all, how to carry out the approach. One method (shallow angle) has been described and it is the usual method, especially for two ships of the same class. There is a second method, however, used when dealing with two ships that are affected differently by the winds - and you are manoeuvering on a windy day. It's called "crossing the T". Basically, you use it when towing a ship that goes beam-to the wind when stopped - which is the case of PROTECTEUR - by coming with the towing ship steaming slowly up-wind at 90 degrees to the stopped ship going just off her bow. Lines are passed from amidship, so that hopefully you are already heaving in the heavy messenger by the time the stern of the towing ship lines up with the stopped ship. In the present case if there was non-negligible wind, since the IROs have a lot of sail area, that would have been my choice. In such cases, however - you must make absolutely certain that the stopped ship has NO FORWARD MOMENTUM at all. I think this is what happened here. PRO still had some way on - maybe 1/4 or 1/2 knot and everybody noticed too late to do something about it. Not necessarily a big mistake as it is extremely difficult to note such movement in any kind of sea.

Second one, generic question concerning "stern push": As a generic, it is hard to answer this question because it depends on many factor. When a ship puts its helm over, it pivots around its pivot point. portions of the ship forward of this point cut into the turn, while the portions aft skid out of it. Going forward, the pivot point is roughly 1/3 of the way from the stem. So for example a 300 ft ship that would have a 30 degrees change of direction in a few seconds after putting the helm over would see its stern skid out by sin 30 degrees X 200 feet = 100 feet minus the amount that the pivot point itself has come in to the turn in relation to the original course, say 40 feet, would give you  a "skid" of 60 feet. All ships keep tables of their turning data for navigation purposes so these type of things can be calculated if need be.

All this however for very slow speeds, works out for a single screw-single rudder ship or a standard twin screw-twin rudder ship. The IRO's aren't such ship. They have twin variable pitch screws and single central rudder. At very low speeds, such as must have been the case here, their screws are feathered but still turning. As a result they act like parachutes and drag down on  the ship. Also as a result, there is little flow over the rudder at these speeds and they provide little help in steering. All this, plus the constantly  varying drag of the port and starboard screws when the ships are rolling in any kind of seas, make slow ship handling an IRO at sea a very difficult and demanding task for the handler.


----------



## The Bread Guy

For the record, here's what the RCN has to say....


> Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS) Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur are expected to return to Esquimalt harbour at 4:00 p.m. Saturday following a collision with one another yesterday at approximately 11 a.m. PST while conducting exercise manoeuvres en route to Hawaii. There were no reported injuries.
> 
> "The Royal Canadian Navy will be conducting an investigation into this unfortunate incident in order to determine exactly what happened," said Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, Commander of Canadian Fleet Pacific.
> 
> The two warships were conducting towing exercises, which require close-quarters manoeuvring, when the incident occurred.
> 
> HMCS Algonquin sustained significant damage to her hangar on her port side while HMCS Protecteur sustained damage of a lesser degree to her bow. While the full impact on the ships' future sailing schedules has yet to be determined, HMCS Algonquin will no longer deploy to Asia Pacific region as planned.
> 
> A Board of Inquiry will be convened to further investigate the incident and circumstances surrounding it, and will make recommendations as to how to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future. More information about the incident itself will be released when available.


----------



## tomahawk6

Glad to see that the Canadian Navy hasn't fired the skipper of the destroyer.On the other hand had it been a USN skipper would be typing out his resume.Accidents happen and should be a learning experience.


----------



## Navy_Pete

It'll depend on the investigation.  The CO on PRE was relieved of command a few years ago after that ship ran into a drydock in Halifax harbour after they looked into it, but it wasn't automatic.

This is kind of a higher risk maneuver on an old ship, so it could have been a mechanical issue as well.


----------



## AirDet

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> This is why we can"t have nice things!



I fracking near choked on my B'fast wen I read that reply. Well done, Grunt.


----------



## AirDet

Look at FlyCo. You can see the chair. Imagine what was going thru the fire fighter's mind when it struck. I think we're lucky nobody was hurt.

Seeing the wave action on the bulkhead is pretty unexpected. I thought it would be a straight line. I don't want to use the word cool, but that aspect kind of is.

Good thing we don't keep the helo in the port side anymore. It would suck for the gym flys though.


----------



## AirDet

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That, is going to be expensive to fix.  PRO tis but a scratch, ALG will take some time.  Glad no one was hurt.  When things go wrong like this it is usually spectacular.  I imagine the Zoomies will be shaking in their boots for some time to come at the memory.



It's not the first time for the zoomies. Don't forget the Iroquois crash on the way to the gulf. We've also had guys on other navy ships when this has happened, Chilean was the last one I remember. No, I imagine the boys went straight to the cave and started plugging loonies. I know I would've.

I'd be more worried about the fire fighters. Look at how it opened-up FlyCo.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The unfortunate collision is getting some media attention to the important issues of "how much is enough?" in terms of both equipment and budgets from the _Globe and Mail_ and _National Post_.

Those articles and my coments are in the Defence Budget thread.


----------



## Ping Monkey

Time to update NOTC's library perhaps?

http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336


----------



## PuckChaser

duffman said:
			
		

> Time to update NOTC's library perhaps?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336



The reviews are absolutely priceless....


----------



## cupper

I thought this one was the best.



> 2,493 of 2,560 people found the following review helpful
> TOO Informative.
> By Dan on December 25, 2010
> Format: Paperback
> Read this book before going on vacation and I couldn't find my cruise liner in the port. Vacation ruined.


----------



## NavyShooter

"Good Advice For Most Readers, But Doesn't Cover All The Bases."

"There is one major oversight in this generally well-written book, and that is that it addresses animate readers exclusively. As a large rock in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the coast of Giglio Island, I have recently been confronted with instances in which avoiding huge ships was of fundamental interest to my personal well being. However, the methods presented in Capt. Trimmer's book were none too useful in my efforts to avoid huge ships, as I was recently struck by a very large ship indeed, a cruise vessel called the 'Costa Concordia'. I think the ship came off slightly worse in the exchange, but the experience was disruptive to my afternoon and rather jarring. In a situation such as this, Capt. Trimmer's advice would have been immensely beneficial to humans, fish, seabirds, and other animals, but I am none of those things. I'm a big rock. I can't zig-zag or duck and cover. Rocks don't do that. I've tried. I tried some time ago to scoot over to the left a bit to get some better sunlight, and it took me three thousand years! That's not fast enough to avoid even the slowest huge ships. It is for precisely this reason that I would advise Capt. Trimmer to augment his original volume with a section intended for readers like me; perhaps "How To Avoid Huge Ships If You Are A Rock, Iceberg, Or Coral Reef". There is a market out there for this, Capt. Trimmer, and I assure you it would be well worth the time and effort. "


----------



## Jacky Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The unfortunate collision is getting some media attention to the important issues of "how much is enough?" in terms of both equipment and budgets from the _Globe and Mail_ and _National Post_.
> 
> Those articles and my coments are in the Defence Budget thread.



Some of the comments are priceless, too. The number of self-appointed experts is truly impressive.


----------



## mad dog 2020

OTTAWA - A weekend collision with naval supply ship could hasten the demise of the Canadian navy's only command-and-control destroyer in the Pacific, a naval expert warns.

The accident involving HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur will "quite seriously compromise" the country's naval readiness on the West Coast, especially in light of continuing repairs to the frigate HMCS Winnipeg, rammed by an American fishing trawler in a separate accident last spring.

"This is a politically awkward time to be absent from the Pacific," said Dan Middlemiss, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, who has written extensively about the navy.

Naval engineers are conducting damage assessments on both the destroyer and supply ship, which have returned to their home port of Esquimalt, B.C., and have not said how long each vessel will be laid up.

Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, commander of the Pacific fleet, said the damage to Protecteur is "cosmetic" and the ship hopefully will be back at sea next week.

A more extensive damage survey will be carried out on Algonquin over the next few weeks.

Middlemiss says both the Harper government and the navy must decide whether the benefits of returning the 40-year-old destroyer to service outweigh the cost of retiring the ship, which has the capacity co-ordinate other Canadian warships when they operate as a task force.

Retirement would be a serious consideration, especially if repairs stretch out more than a year, Middlemiss said.

Auchterlonie wouldn't speculate on what might happen.

"We're only at the beginning of this extensive and thorough damage assessment," he said in an interview from Esquimalt.

"It's going to take some time. Once we have that information, based on that assessment, we'll consider the repair paths and the timeline to get her back to sea."

Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information legislation show the navy anticipates Algonquin and her sister ships HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Athabaskan will retire over the next few years, possibly without replacements in the water.

A series of slides, prepared in 2011 for the now-retired commander of the navy, admiral Paul Maddison, show the navy has been anticipating a "capability gap" with its command destroyers, but was doing everything to move replacements forward.

That replacement program — known as the Canadian Single Class Surface Combatant — is part of the Harper government's $33-billion national shipbuilding strategy. The program remains in the concept stage and is not expected to begin delivering ships until the mid-2020s.

Middlemiss says the navy may consider moving one of the two Halifax-based destroyers to the West Coast.

Damage to the Protecteur, the navy's only West Coast-based supply ship, appears limited to the bow. Middlemiss said having it out of commission underlines the government's inability to deliver replacements ordered by the previous government — and the wisdom of having three replenishment vessels.

When the Liberals first proposed new joint support ships, the program was set to deliver three all-purpose vessels. But when shipyard proposals came in higher than the budget, the Harper government put the program on ice in 2008.

The program is now expected to deliver only two ships, perhaps in 2018.

"The navy is in a tough spot on the West Coast," said Middlemiss.

But Auchterlonie says once Protecteur is back in operation, the navy's ability to operate task forces, as opposed to single ships, will be enhanced, and newly refurbished Halifax-class frigates have command capabilities that can substitute for Algonquin.

Courtesy Leader post


----------



## Navy_Pete

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> OTTAWA - A weekend collision with naval supply ship could hasten the demise of the Canadian navy's only command-and-control destroyer in the Pacific, a naval expert warns.
> ...
> 
> Retirement would be a serious consideration, especially if repairs stretch out more than a year, Middlemiss said.



A YEAR?!?  Wow, guess his expertise isn't in ship repair.  You could dock a ship and replace most of the hull in a year.

Assuming the damage is limited to the hangar, this is a relatively easy repair.  There is almost nothing in the way, you have full access from the jetty.  It might take longer to get that much  of the required grade of sheet aluminum then to actually complete the welding, non destructive testing and painting, plus reinstalling the trunking, wiring etc.  Even if they do no overtime and take their time, really no reason it won't be done before people start making their xmas preps.

Is it news though that all the destroyers are all retiring soon?  The ships were all commisioned in 1972 with plenty of original parts still in use (fun trivia a lot of the loudspeakers have a 'Royal Canadian Navy' tally plate because they date back to before unification).  Maybe ALG decided she didn't want to wait another 6 years or so and is trying to decomission herself!

Or so the underground fascist alien bunkers would have us believe... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> A YEAR?!?  Wow, guess his expertise isn't in ship repair.  You could dock a ship and replace most of the hull in a year ....


I guess folks lost faith in the RCN Info-machine's assessments when they use terms in other incidents like "fender bender"  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

The CAF general purpose fixit solution.


----------



## Gorgo

I'll bet the Navy's kinda regretting having sunk _Huron_ back in 2007.

Just cut the hangar off and replace it; they did it with ship's bows before.


----------



## Jacky Tar

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> I'll bet the Navy's kinda regretting having sunk _Huron_ back in 2007.
> 
> Just cut the hangar off and replace it; they did it with ship's bows before.



Very true - "Now wherever KOOTENAY goes, CHAUDIERE leads her by a nose"


----------



## Pat in Halifax

And another was when GATINEAU's funnel almost got tore off during a RAS in the early 90s so we ended up with ST CROIX's.
Methinx though that a hangar is a slightly different 'cat' here. I keep nagging my west coast counterpart for an ETR but he isn't answering my queries...now that's just plain rude.

BTW, that same NATO that saw the PRESERVER PENELOPE collision, there was also one between a German tanker and USN destroyer (can't recall the names) which cut off the destroyers stern...and a Belgium frigate ran aground and when ATHABASKAN went in to tow her, she ran aground...and the brand spanking new Spanish OHP (I think her name was VICTORIA) lost all propulsion and electrical power and had to be towed home from somewhere south of Italy. I think there was us and a little Portuguese corvette who were the only ones left unscathed through that NATO!

Pat


----------



## jollyjacktar

I did a half NATO in 2000 with the VICTORIA.   They and the TORTUGA were our port partners.  The Yanks hated us and were dicks and the Spaniards couldn't speak English and thus avoided us all.  Quiet ports, they were.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They should have done damage control and run the ship as if it had suffered battle damage while continuing the exercise. As mentioned this is not hull or machinery damage and in a real fight the ship would be expect to continue, it would prove to be educational and allow the crew to come up with some innovative solutions.

As for why so close, you need to be close enough to pass a heaving line, either tossed by hand or gun. Sometimes a commercial salvage vessel will float a line across and I have done that myself.


----------



## Gorgo

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> Very true - "Now wherever KOOTENAY goes, CHAUDIERE leads her by a nose"



LOL!  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike

As someone said in the Wardroom yesterday:

When maneuvering for a tow you don't have to be able to shake hands with the fellow passing you the rope.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> They should have done damage control and run the ship as if it had suffered battle damage while continuing the exercise. As mentioned this is not hull or machinery damage and in a real fight the ship would be expect to continue, it would prove to be educational and allow the crew to come up with some innovative solutions.
> 
> As for why so close, you need to be close enough to pass a heaving line, either tossed by hand or gun. Sometimes a commercial salvage vessel will float a line across and I have done that myself.



I'm reasonably confident they did do damage control and came up with innovative solutions, but an entire wall off the hangar was gone, and they weren't sure what kind of damage was done to the other two or the post between the doors, or other structure from the shock.  A lot of the metal is 40 years old and already fatigued, so they will also need to inspect all the nearby structure for cracking.

Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm reasonably confident they did do damage control and came up with innovative solutions, but an entire wall off the hangar was gone, and they weren't sure what kind of damage was done to the other two or the post between the doors, or other structure from the shock.  A lot of the metal is 40 years old and already fatigued, so they will also need to inspect all the nearby structure for cracking.
> 
> Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.



Do they still teach sail-making to you matelots?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> Very true - "Now wherever KOOTENAY goes, CHAUDIERE leads her by a nose"



I've dived on the Chaud  a few times, out of Sechelt. IMHO it is a fine way to extend the useful life of our Navy resources ;D. Bring on the Kootenay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Chaudiere_(DDE_235)


----------



## Jacky Tar

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.



Not really - #2 Solar intake plenum and exhaust trunking,  yes. #3 is on the stbd side of the hanger. None of the main prop GTs have air intake through there. Not an insurmountable problem. Besides, according to a winger, #2 was on load at the time and held it just fine, though they did xfer to #3 ASAP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm reasonably confident they did do damage control and came up with innovative solutions, but an entire wall off the hangar was gone, and they weren't sure what kind of damage was done to the other two or the post between the doors, or other structure from the shock.  A lot of the metal is 40 years old and already fatigued, so they will also need to inspect all the nearby structure for cracking.
> 
> Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.



Not by any means a slag on the crew and I know they would do immediate damage control, but this is an opportunity to carry out repairs and temporary fixes under a simulated combat situation, it would require some fairly out of the box solutions and that would well worth the extra costs later. In WWII and Falklands, ships had to make do with onboard damage repairs till they made it to dockyard. That's a skill set that you don't often get a chance to practice for real.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> Not really - #2 Solar intake plenum and exhaust trunking,  yes. #3 is on the stbd side of the hanger. None of the main prop GTs have air intake through there. Not an insurmountable problem. Besides, according to a winger, #2 was on load at the time and held it just fine, though they did xfer to #3 ASAP.


Everything would have been done that could be done in the first four hours or so anyway DC wise, so after that it's just monitoring and hoping for the best.  I doubt there is much if anything that would have been gained from staying out, and then there would have been a ridiculously expensive repair to do somewhere foreign, which we can't afford.

The entire hangar structure is suspect, and if it partially/fully collapsed it could collapse the uptakes that contain almost all the exhausts.  No exhaust= no generators or engines = dead ship.  Also, the impact could have cracked the 40+ year old fatigued weather deck steel, which is one of those things that starts small and can rapidly propagate into a big problem.

So yes, they could have stayed out, and sailed the rest of the way to Pearl Harbour (4000 kms?) with the hangar open to sea.  And yes, they maybe would have made it.  Or maybe they would have been lost at sea, or somewhere in between.  Also guessing that after a collision like that the ship was most likely ordered to return to base.  Taking that kind of unplanned risk with a crew during peacetime on an antique seems kind of negligent, and a bit more extreme then what is normally accepted during training.  Just my  :2c: but that seems like a huge risk for very little/no reward.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You be surprised then what goes on in the commercial world, I have seen some ingenious field repairs to ships, tugs, barges as old or older than these.


----------



## Privateer

MARPAC reports (on Facebook) that HMCS Protecteur is repaired and back at sea:



> A recently repaired HMCS Protecteur and her crew leave Esquimalt Harbour to continue planned training in preparation for a Task Group Exercise off the coast of Southern California in October.


----------



## Jacky Tar

Not surprising; PRO didn't have much that a bit of Bondo and paint couldn't fix


----------



## STJ_Kierstead

What a beaut!


----------



## Furniture

Or just some paint, the minor dents make her look more menacing.


----------



## chrisf

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> Not surprising; PRO didn't have much that a bit of Bondo and paint couldn't fix



Our senior engineer said it best one day... "DevCon? Oh that's great stuff. I don't know why they don't make the whole boat out of it."


----------



## Snakedoc

So HMCS ALGONQUIN is obviously out of commission but is PRO the only Canadian ship representing the RCN at the Sydney IFR then I'm assuming?


----------



## Half Full

We won't have any ships at the RAN IFR.


----------



## Privateer

But China will.  Interesting.

Participating warships:  http://www.navy.gov.au/ifr/participants/warships


----------



## dimsum

The only Canadian contribution to the IFR is an Aurora from Greenwood.


----------



## my72jeep

Privateer said:
			
		

> But China will.  Interesting.
> 
> Participating warships:  http://www.navy.gov.au/ifr/participants/warships


I checked your link and was surprised Nigeria has a navy, with all most as many ships as Canada.


----------

