# O'Connors 15B wishlist.....



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Jun 2006)

Ok I was looking at Gord's request and I noticed the sole naval entry on it and I noticed its for 2 naval supply vessels. My question is has the JSS requirement been downgraded from 3 to 2? My next question is how much will this cut into the future sealift ability that the JSS was touted for. Thoughts?l


----------



## Chubbard (16 Jun 2006)

I saw that on the CBC as well.
My thought is the CBC isnt composed of the sharpest knives in the drawer.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Jun 2006)

Chubbard said:
			
		

> I saw that on the CBC as well.
> My thought is the CBC isnt composed of the sharpest knives in the drawer.



The papers here are still saying that Irving is hoping to get the contract and it's for 3.
I'd concur with the "not so sharp" comment.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jun 2006)

On CTV they were reporting 2x Oilers.  Not 2 or 3 x JSS.

Craig Oliver did say there was more to follow after these, the C17s, Hercs and Chinooks.  Its starting to sound like the 12 days of Christmas.  I wonder when you get the partridge in a pear tree.


----------



## Franko (16 Jun 2006)

Seems that they are wanting to replace the supply ships....at least that's what they are saying in the reports.

Regards


----------



## Mortar guy (16 Jun 2006)

Don't forget that the ALSC project (pre-JSS) called for four ships.

Maybe they're right and we're only getting 2 ships so that money can be made available for the BHS.

MG


----------



## -dikweed- (16 Jun 2006)

I was under the impression that the Tories have never really like the JSS concept?  Is it possible that they've withdrawn the sealift requirement from the project?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jun 2006)

Jihad_Joe said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the Tories have never really like the JSS concept?  Is it possible that they've withdrawn the sealift requirement from the project?



As a personal opinion, I can only hope.


----------



## karl28 (16 Jun 2006)

Just a curious not wasn't the original bill like  8billion ? that was for the 4  c-17 , I think it was like 12 c-130j plus a number of SAR fixed wings and chinooks helicopter plus 3JSS  and new trucks for the army ?  Whats the extra  7 billion for ? are they getting more planes ? would be nice or  is the extra cash for service contracts to help the  maintenance cost  for  the new equipment ? I first noticed the change in cash last night on sympatico.ca web site  sorry for not having more accurate sources


----------



## Sub_Guy (16 Jun 2006)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp

Have a read, it will clear things up on the JSS, this project is going strong, and we can expect to hear an announcement soon... If you have a read through the various documents it states that we Need 3  but want 4.

In the who knows..........we are making it work right now with 2, but the new ones will have smaller crews so we should be able to man all 3


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy

Might it not all have to do with scheduling as well? It's going to take a few years to get the first one built I'm guessing. Commit to the second and take an option on the third?  Manage the cash flow/political damage that way?


----------



## karl28 (17 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy  thanks allot for the link I will most defiantly read it


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy:

Nevermind.  I found the answer.  As you suggested.  Read. :-[


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Jun 2006)

The flight deck requirements set at 1 spot [essential] and 2 spots [desirable] suggest to me there is another class of vessel in the offing if there is to be any thought going over the shore.


----------



## FSTO (17 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
> 
> Have a read, it will clear things up on the JSS, this project is going strong, and we can expect to hear an announcement soon... If you have a read through the various documents it states that we Need 3  but want 4.
> 
> In the who knows..........we are making it work right now with 2, but the new ones will have smaller crews so we should be able to man all 3



Smaller Crews :
Lets go dept by dept:

Combat; with the MOSART (you are a NESOP, NACOP and NCIOP combined until QL5) the manning requirements are reduced. NAVCOMMS, maybe reduced with elimination of the bridge signalman. (only up there for RAS or OOW Maneuvers)

CSE: Lack of wpns means less NWT's, although more electronics (CCT for space monitoring) may increase the need.

MSE: Big savings here if the Navy embraces remote sensing of spaces and equipment monitoring

Air: The Air Force is always overmanned for everything  ;D

Deck: With RAS and other seamanship duties I doubt if there will be much savings there.

Logistics: No Stewards?
The biggest hurdle is ships husbandry. I know that everyone hates cleaning stations but wait until you are living in a dirty ship. You'll change your tune very quick.

I think that there will be a small reduction in crew sizes but not enough to allow us to man a third ship with the manning savings of two.


----------



## navymich (17 Jun 2006)

FSTO, I like how your crews don't include officers.  ;D


----------



## Navalsnpr (17 Jun 2006)

Everyone also has to realize that all trades also have to perform specific jobs during action/emergency stations.

I'll be the first to agree that there are too many stewards onboard, however they are also our causality clearing team. If you drastically reduce the size of your MSE department, who will be available for FSB, ASB & SB3?? In the CSE trade we are part of the ERT organization as well as HAZMAT cleanup team.

To Float, To Move, To Fight... you must have a ship's company large enough in order to accomplish these three tasks, if you can not, then you are certainly undermanned.

As for the Officer Corps onboard, it really depends on their job. MARS officers do complete a lot of time at sea, however SeaLog, CS & MS officers could use some more time at sea prior to their HOD tour.  Additionally, I still have the Army mentality that if you eat it, you hump it & therefore more hands make less work. Officers should be in the line humping groceries onboard and gash ashore, therefore permitting the lower decker's more time to accomplish their trade specific tasks.


----------



## navymich (17 Jun 2006)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Additionally, I still have the Army mentality that if you eat it, you hump it & therefore more hands make less work. Officers should be in the line humping groceries onboard and gash ashore, therefore permitting the lower decker's more time to accomplish their trade specific tasks.



+100!

Nothing irks me more then seeing the upper echelons sitting around drinking coffee and shooting the breeze, while the hands are busy with flash-up and storing ship, and then are complaining because the ship isn't ready to sail on time, or when they are sitting on their kit bags waiting to go home, while the hands are busy with post-sail and final cleaning stations and...and...and


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2006)

> To Float, To Move, To Fight... you must have a ship's company large enough in order to accomplish these three tasks, if you can not, then you are certainly undermanned.



Sniper, I think you are making a really good case for creating a Naval Boarding Party trade.  There has been a bit of discussion about letting sailors sail and having soldiers come on board to conduct boarding parties etc.

If Boarding Parties (manpower intensive) are going to be part of the life of the Navy for the foreseeable future,
and if the ships themselves are going to need less "technical" manpower
but at the same time the ships need personnel for "general duties" (truer on a large ship it would seem - more deck, bulkheads, deckheads, hulls companionways to clean and paint)
and also needs personnel for keeping the ship afloat in emergencies

Then why not bring OS/ABs on board with a Bos'ns course behind them and CQB training and bring them on board as a Boarding Division?

Sailors first with soldiering skills seems to be the order of the day for Boarding Parties is what I take from previous discussions on the subject.  Heck, in their spare time they could even carry the junior snotty's duffel.  ;D


----------



## navymich (17 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Then why not bring OS/ABs on board with a Bos'ns course behind them and CQB training and bring them on board as a Boarding Division?



First, it's more then just bosns that can be members of the boarding party.  And second, I think that OS/ABs should be concentrating on learning their way around a ship, working on OJT packages and such before they become a part of the NBP.

Other than that, I think it would work great to have it as a separate trade/entity.  And if you set up the teams similar to air crews where they belong to a specific ship, but are only on the ship when it deploys, they could maintain their skills, or be available to backfill on other teams as required.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Sailors first with soldiering skills seems to be the order of the day for Boarding Parties is what I take from previous discussions on the subject.



Like some type of "light" Navy SEAL-type unit?



> Heck, in their spare time they could even carry the junior snotty's duffel.  ;D



Now THAT is an idea that I approve of!


----------



## navymich (17 Jun 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Now THAT is an idea that I approve of!



You would Fred...LOL.  But the previous posts are talking about cutting down on crew as applicable, so here,let me help you carry that duffel back ashore now..... ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jun 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Navalsnipr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of the valuable lessons I as a tac aviator leanered from my Army brethren was the phrase, "one man, one kit".  If you can't at least make your self neutral to the organization, rather than a constant drain...don't be part of the team.  Heaving in to collective  benefit is something everyone should consider as a bit of professional duty...if I happen to carry a ruck, two duffles and a barrack box (and my Kerosun heater in the winter) to the field, I better have enough karibiners to snap that stuff to my person going from A to B!

Cheers
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> First, it's more then just bosns that can be members of the boarding party.  And second, I think that OS/ABs should be concentrating on learning their way around a ship, working on OJT packages and such before they become a part of the NBP.



navymich - another example of trying to be too clever by half.  I'll remember to stay away from the trades/quals/tech/ jargon in the future.  It just demonstrates that in truth I really do know nuffink. 

Fred - I would rather not have the association with SEALs.  They have specific roles at the shoreline, and have expanded from there.  Blacksuited commando SF types etc donchano.  I am just thinking about armed sailors - if you want a role model think Errol Flynn and Captain Blood, or perhaps, if you must Johnny Depp in the Caribbean  ;D


----------



## navymich (17 Jun 2006)

It's all good Kirkhill, you know lots, and you bring up valid points and good topic for discussion as well.  Hey, we're all here to learn.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Jun 2006)

One of the key elements in the Canadian Navy's Boarding Party setup is that they're capable of being a prize crew.

Meaning that the NBP has members of all elements required in order to sail a ship, from a BWK to electricians, to stokers, CSE types, Bosun's, etc.  

If we were to replace that with a seperate boarding party element, we'd lose that capability.

Yes, that capability has been used.

If we put a bunch of untrained OD/AB's on the boarding party, and use them exclusively for that, well, they're not experienced sailors, they're only door-kickers.  What good are they on the ship except for boardings?  They're just riders, and would barely know how to help with DC stuff, let alone sailing the ship!  

Bunks on CPF's are too limited for that kind of organizational shift.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2006)

Well said Shooter, agree 100%


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2006)

> One of the key elements in the Canadian Navy's Boarding Party setup is that they're capable of being a prize crew.
> 
> Meaning that the NBP has members of all elements required in order to sail a ship, from a BWK to electricians, to stokers, CSE types, Bosun's, etc.
> 
> If we were to replace that with a seperate boarding party element, we'd lose that capability.



Doesn't it take a lot of time, and a lot of money to train 





> a BWK to electricians, to stokers, CSE types, Bosun's, etc.


?  Aren't these the same trades you are having trouble recruiting and retaining?  
Why would you choose to fill rubber boats in rough seas with these people so that other people can use them for target practice?

Cavalier as this may seem it would seem wise to me to fill those boats with folks that are more readily available and limit the number of SMEs that you have to expose until the vessel is secured.  Once the vessel is secured then you can put your prize crew on board in relative security.

Why can't folks that are still new to the service and finding their way around be assigned husbandry and logistics tasks, and also receive damage control and hazmat training, as well as some CQB training? I have to believe that all sailors are trained to handle deck duties before they go to sea.   

From what you, and Ex-Dragoon and others have said there is still a lot of brawn necessary in the modern navy.  

As to bunks on the CPFs: I take your point.  They weren't designed to accomodate an independent boarding party.  For that matter they seem to be doing lots of things they weren't "designed" explicitly for.  However much of the discussion about new vessels like the JSS and even the Ice-Breaker/Patrol Vessels seems to indicate a tendency to larger vessels with smaller "technical" crews.  (59 ship handlers on the 6000 tonne Svalbard).  Most of the modern OPVs are being built big enough to land a Merlin but only have crews of 30 to 50.  Space on them doesn't seem to be a problem, in fact many of them include provision for "passengers".

Perhaps a larger complement of OS/Door Kickers should be considered in planning for the CPF/DDH replacements.  

Note one thing.  I am at least not arguing for a reduction in crew size.    I am arguing whether or not there is a case for a separate NBP entity or whether there is a case for additional bodies with specialized NBP training.

Cheers, all.

And Ex-Dragoon - I've "taken on board"  ('pologies for the pun)  what you have said previously about the need for extra SMEs to handle prize crews and to supply technical assistance to the NBPs.  But the army doesn't tend to send Svc Bn WOs, Eng Sgts and Sigs Ops to assault enemy positions on their own.


----------



## FSTO (18 Jun 2006)

As a veteran of over 50 boardings in the Gulf I have some thoughts on your post kirkhill.

Of all the boardings that we have done in the Canadian Navy since Gulf War II, only 2 (GTS Katie and Blue Star) involved any sort of "Door Kicking" aspects to it. The rest of them have been consensual and therefore we have not needed a bunch of "expendable" OS to be used as cannon fodder to seize a ship. When we board a ship we are looking for people, contraband or gathering intelligence. We need experienced Officers and NCM's who know what to look for and how to get to the spaces quickly and safely. We also need an officer who can interact with the ships master so as to make him comfortable that his ship, crew and cargo are safe. Can you really expect a group of QL3 sailors would be able to do that? I would think we would have more casualties getting them into the RHIB. 

To the Army, the way that the Navy does its business may seem very odd and you guys have alot of opinions on how we could do things better. But the Sea is a very unforgiving b***** and the people who ply their business upon the high seas keep a very wary eye on her and her many moods. This is something for the Army to remember when they get involved with the our Navy and the USN this fall.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2006)

I stand corrected FSTO.


----------



## Navalsnpr (18 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Heck, in their spare time they could even carry the junior snotty's duffel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One Person.... One Kit.  If you can't hump it, don't take it....... 



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why can't folks that are still new to the service and finding their way around be assigned husbandry and logistics tasks, and also receive damage control and hazmat training, as well as some CQB training?



All personnel posted to a ship regardless of what element they come from are responsible to perform ships husbandry and logistical tasks, and these skill-sets are normally learned through OJT. As for DC & Hazmat training, this is formal training. 100% of the personnel posted to a ship must complete DC training, whereas the CSE department, Supply Techs and Fire Fighters receive formal training as part of their trades training.

I, as well as many others would say that Canada's Naval Boarding Parties are one of the best, if not the best "Non-Special Forces" boarding party in the world. If you have a chance to watch the Discovery Channel's "Anatomy of a Warship", you should. When the US Navy calls upon the Canadians to conduct a hostile boarding cause one of their warships can not, that speaks volumes of the ability and professionalism of our teams.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2006)

Accepted Navalsniper.  Thanks for the education.


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Smaller Crews :
> Lets go dept by dept:
> 
> Combat; with the MOSART (you are a NESOP, NACOP and NCIOP combined until QL5) the manning requirements are reduced. NAVCOMMS, maybe reduced with elimination of the bridge signalman. (only up there for RAS or OOW Maneuvers)



NAVCOMMS can be cut back quite a bit with the elimination of the bridge signalman, our trade has changed so much over the past 10 years it isn't funny.  With HSDC access one man can run a CPF easily, you can throw a second dude to hang around and play with CCMS, but that's it!  I look at what our CPFs have for capabilities, and I look at similar navies who man ships with the same capabilities but they do it with a much smaller crew.   They can cut back on crew size for the JSS if they do it right, but there is no way it can be done to the point where we have a crew for a 3rd ship.  That (IMHO) would only work if there was always one ship minimum manned (very low readiness) but activated when one of the other ships when in for maintenance.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (19 Jun 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> +100!
> 
> Nothing irks me more then seeing the upper echelons sitting around drinking coffee and shooting the breeze, while the hands are busy with flash-up and storing ship, and then are complaining because the ship isn't ready to sail on time, or when they are sitting on their kit bags waiting to go home, while the hands are busy with post-sail and final cleaning stations and...and...and



The last time I sailed....98....Storing ship, am munitioning, and humping gash were an all hands evolution...no exceptions including officers. The brow was never opened to anyone until all the cleaning and other chores were complete...have things changed? If this is so then that is very bad leadership. ???


----------



## FSTO (19 Jun 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> The last time I sailed....98....Storing ship, am munitioning, and humping gash were an all hands evolution...no exceptions including officers. The brow was never opened to anyone until all the cleaning and other chores were complete...have things changed? If this is so then that is very bad leadership. ???



Things have not changed, but there are times that the Deck Officer has to get the young'uns out of their racks and gameboys to do some real work.  ;D (because today's education system certainly doesn't instill a work ethic on anyone! :rage


----------



## Navalsnpr (19 Jun 2006)

I have to disagree with you FSTO. On a CPF on this coast, the pipe "Storing party to muster, Port-Breezeway" causes 99.9% of the wardroom to disappear to sudden meetings etc.  From '96 - '04 on this CPF, only the CFR Officers would ever help.

Now, 280's require the additional manpower as the groceries have to be humped a long way. The last 280 I was on, the CO & Coxn were always first in line.... That is the best example of leadership......


----------



## NavyShooter (19 Jun 2006)

My experience on 3 CPF's between 1996 and now bears out NavalSnipr's comments above.

The only ship I recall being different was the Gatineau.  

Occasionally, you'll see some of the wardroom helping out, and the occasional C&PO, but mostly, it's the Juniors doing the humping.

NS


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 Jun 2006)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> My experience on 3 CPF's between 1996 and now bears out NavalSnipr's comments above.
> 
> The only ship I recall being different was the Gatineau.
> 
> ...



Well as I said earlier this is an example of bad leadership.
When I was a MARS officer (77-81) My XO was Ernie MOrgan...an ex Master Killick...my CO was Brian Beckett...a CFR ex P1...and I can assure you that everyone humped gash, stored ship and humped ammo...with them leading the pack.
The brow was never opened until the ship was clean and secure....maybe we need someone to take leadership seriously.
Having said that the Dept Heads do have a lot of meetings and responsibilities to attend to....junior officers...not so much.
as a Padre I have always done that stuff...just basic good manners if you ask me.


----------



## FSTO (20 Jun 2006)

I don't know about you folks but on every ship I have been on we all humped gash and groceries. The only ship that I didn't do it on was PROTECTEUR. She was a little different, all store are craned on and stored via fork-lift (there would be a little humping  ;D from the fork-lift to the end of the freezers which are just off the disperal area).

HODS and CHODS would be exused if they had a meeting, and other departmental personnel if there was high priority work to do. Other than that an all hands evolution means ALL HANDS.


----------



## BEEFY06 (21 Jun 2006)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> My experience on 3 CPF's between 1996 and now bears out NavalSnipr's comments above.
> 
> The only ship I recall being different was the Gatineau.
> 
> ...



I think that we have all experience different situations depending on the "CO, XO,and COXN". I have sailled on all classes of ships on the west coast except for the Tanker and i have seen many different things happen. From only the MS and below humping stores and cleanning stations right to the point of the XO "loosing his mind" because there wherent any "snotters" helping out or not in the line!!!!

Plus im a firm beliver that we should bring back the "DECK FORCE" use the personal that are ashore waitting for trainning, from all trades. (The reason why i say that is cause there is allot of people wasting breath at various school's awaitting trainning) When the ship comes in have some of the BOSN'S that would be in charge and to train the DF and they would take care of "Ships Husbandry. Depending on who was my buffer, meant different amount of Man hours spent on "scrubbed ship". 
Im definately intersted in seeing what is going to happen and im hopping that the Navy doesnt F@CK this up!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Jun 2006)

Clear lower decks of all ms and below to the quarter deck storing ship


is always followed by

all navcomms ccr!    :

Seriously though folks, there were a few times that I have witnessed all hands storing ship, I recall Capt(N) King having all ranks ammo the ship (IRO), which was good for morale.   But usually it is MS and Below storing, I enjoy storing ship, it eats time and you get a bit of a workout doing it, plus you get to hang with your wingers and shoot the sh*t.

But this "DECK FORCE" sounds cool, I mean who wouldn't want to be a part of that, the name alone sounds cool!  Too bad I know better, and those with little to no time don't.  I say bring back the DECK FORCE!


----------



## BEEFY06 (21 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Clear lower decks of all ms and below to the quarter deck storing ship
> 
> 
> is always followed by
> ...



SubGuy either u are supporting me or maybe some sarcasm hard to tell with compt these days, but i will go for the support...


----------



## who980 (22 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> NAVCOMMS can be cut back quite a bit with the elimination of the bridge signalman, our trade has changed so much over the past 10 years it isn't funny.  With HSDC access one man can run a CPF easily, you can throw a second dude to hang around and play with CCMS, but that's it!  I look at what our CPFs have for capabilities, and I look at similar navies who man ships with the same capabilities but they do it with a much smaller crew.   They can cut back on crew size for the JSS if they do it right, but there is no way it can be done to the point where we have a crew for a 3rd ship.  That (IMHO) would only work if there was always one ship minimum manned (very low readiness) but activated when one of the other ships when in for maintenance.



You could even give ops control of CCMS - software could be developed that would allow them to select what circuits they want up and what freq's they want.  Just have
the NET(C)'s around to trouble shoot when something goes bad.


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Jun 2006)

Wow sarcasm  who980!  Beefy06, I was agreeing with you 100%

who980, seeing as we both work in the same place I am sure we will run into each other.  That being said I am sure you are well aware that with MOSART going on you can see that the future of the Navcomm and NET(c) has NOT been clearly defined yet..... But nearly all the other trades have a set plan.  That is not a coincidence.

There are things we do in our trade that are completely redundant....

TG Tac on the bridge?  Come on here, the only reason why we are up there is to record entries in the log.   It is an unsecure circut, time is wasted flipping around in a bulky book to encode and decode something that was passed through ops 10 minutes ago.
OOW maneuvers, sure they are fun, but everyone knows the MARS officers could run that show.  Hey they already run VHF, why stand beside me telling me what to say to another ship on VHF, when you can pick it up and do it your self
Flag hoist/semaphore/flashing light all look cool, the old signalman argument is that if we are ever radio silent those skills will save our butts.   They may, but I highly doubt it.  But I guess someone has to clean the bridge of Bosuns fingernails and Boogers, so lets keep the navcomm up there.


As for CCR work, when was the last time a ship strictly worked HF, they complain our skills are degrading, they may be degrading because 10 years ago there were two ways to send traffic ashore HF, SATCOM.  Now you have those plus PC to MSAX and MSGVN.  MSGVN requires no skill at all, and that is what the ships use the most.

All I am saying is that they are always screaming for navcomms on the ships, then the ships sail and half the department does nothing.   We can definitely cut back.


----------



## who980 (23 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Wow sarcasm  who980!  Beefy06, I was agreeing with you 100%
> 
> who980, seeing as we both work in the same place I am sure we will run into each other.  That being said I am sure you are well aware that with MOSART going on you can see that the future of the Navcomm and NET(c) has NOT been clearly defined yet..... But nearly all the other trades have a set plan.  That is not a coincidence.



Im sure we will!  I am on Orange watch.  Yourself?

There is always talk of this -- around the ships and what not, and I agree with the fact that our trade is highly technical and going to get more so as the months
pass.  However, I am often wondering about what the result of such an amalgamation would entail.  I wont have to explain to you the troubles that some old 
signalmen have aquainting themselves to the radio world and vice versa after the first amalgamation.  Though for the radio guys I beleive that a Navcomm/NET(C) amalgamation would be an easy transition and especially easy for most personnel who joined as strictly 277 NavComms.  We have some exceptionally smart people
in our trade. 



> There are things we do in our trade that are completely redundant....
> 
> TG Tac on the bridge?  Come on here, the only reason why we are up there is to record entries in the log.   It is an unsecure circut, time is wasted flipping around in a bulky book to encode and decode something that was passed through ops 10 minutes ago.
> OOW maneuvers, sure they are fun, but everyone knows the MARS officers could run that show.  Hey they already run VHF, why stand beside me telling me what to say to another ship on VHF, when you can pick it up and do it your self
> Flag hoist/semaphore/flashing light all look cool, the old signalman argument is that if we are ever radio silent those skills will save our butts.   They may, but I highly doubt it.  But I guess someone has to clean the bridge of Bosuns fingernails and Boogers, so lets keep the navcomm up there.



With the state of sea warfare these days, I fully agree with that as well.  With the advent of GCCS, Link11, HSDC Based Information (Sametime Chat, Email, Web Documents), 
the battle these days focuses on information.  With all the tools the ops room has to build its RMP and conduct warfare, passing a tactical signal almost seems laughable.  

Here is a real world example of Nav Comm redundancy on the bridge.  I am not sure if you know of a system called AIS (Automatic Indentification System), but during my last 6 month deployment which was the last one the Winnipeg did - we had this system on the bridge.  Its a civillian system meant as a tool for navigation - basically most if not every large sea-going vessel has this onboard and it sends out a signal so all the vessels within a certain range can get that vessels details (name, course, speed, last port, next port, mmo number etc). Basically, with all this information now it has rendered hailing a ship pretty much useless.  Needless to say I spent a 23 day patrol on the bridge, on the mids sitting on my *** with my junior hand - you probably know what 23 days of pure boredom can do for morale.
[/quote]



> As for CCR work, when was the last time a ship strictly worked HF, they complain our skills are degrading, they may be degrading because 10 years ago there were two ways to send traffic ashore HF, SATCOM.  Now you have those plus PC to MSAX and MSGVN.  MSGVN requires no skill at all, and that is what the ships use the most.
> 
> All I am saying is that they are always screaming for navcomms on the ships, then the ships sail and half the department does nothing.   We can definitely cut back.



MSGVN is a great tool for the Nav Comm trade - however - the way they've implemented it I agree has caused operator skills to slide a bit.  

Just my .2

Ryan


----------



## navymich (23 Jun 2006)

Interesting stuff here, regarding NavComms, but getting a bit off topic.  Mods, suggest we move some of the recent stuff here somewhere else...maybe the "naval communicator jobs" thread?


----------



## who980 (23 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The biggest hurdle is ships husbandry. I know that everyone hates cleaning stations but wait until you are living in a dirty ship. You'll change your tune very quick.



Have the junior officers pitch in.

Ryan


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Jun 2006)

Cleaning stations isn't even mentioned when they are looking at crewing requirements, it isn't mentioned in the JSS docs located on the PMO website.   I agree have the junior officers pitch in, nothing against officers but I find Naval officers to be somewhat out of touch with the lower deckers.  At least Army officers are with their men, Army officers look out for their men, and the men take care of their officers.  I wish I could say the same about our non-dolphin wearing officers.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jun 2006)

who980 said:
			
		

> Have the junior officers pitch in.
> 
> Ryan



Since a junior officer is Lt(N) and below I take that you expect everybody in the wardroom except the XO to do cleaning stations. Do you expect that all MS and above save the Coxn do cleaning stations? I'm just asking.

Quote from Sub_Guy
Cleaning stations isn't even mentioned when they are looking at crewing requirements, it isn't mentioned in the JSS docs located on the PMO website.   I agree have the junior officers pitch in, nothing against officers but I find Naval officers to be somewhat out of touch with the lower deckers.  At least Army officers are with their men, Army officers look out for their men, and the men take care of their officers.  I wish I could say the same about our non-dolphin wearing officers.

I am a product of 4 Sq MARS II where we were under the thumb of the CBM for what it seemed to be an eternity  :crybaby:. So I have an inkling of what cleaning stations is all about. Also when I am onboard I clean up after myself and do my part to ensure that my personal space is clean. 
As for the comment of not looking out for our men, what do you exactly mean by this? I wish I had a dollar for each time that I was called to the XO's cabin to explain why one of my guys screwed up, or the amount of times that I deflected crap away from my department or the more desirable punishment given by the CHOD instead of the OS/AB/LS going in-front of the XO without his cap.
Unlike the Army we do not live in the same spaces as the hands and you know as well as me that we have a different culture than the army. But to say that we as Naval officers do not look out for our men is wrong-headed and mis-informed.


----------



## navymich (24 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I am a product of 4 Sq MARS II where we were under the thumb of the CBM for what it seemed to be an eternity


One of the (few) things I looked forward to, and I know my department does now too, is the arrival of the Mars IV students onboard.  It is actually in their joining instructions if they come to our ship that they SHALL conduct cleaning stations in the wardroom and on the bridge.  Smiles all around in giving up polishing brass for 10 weeks, that's for sure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jun 2006)

> Have the junior officers pitch in.



Just as soon as you take a share of my PERs, PDRs, SOCDs, UCRs, Tacnote revisions,... are you getting the point?  No one is standing around doing nothing on a warship.  Just because I'm not pushing a broom, does not mean I'm not busy.  And for the record, me and rest of the aircrew have done cleaning stations on occasion, particularily when COs rounds are coming, or when all of the techs are on the helo changing an engine.

As for the Air Department being "over-manned" (FSTO take note),  We are a "one-in-one" watch rotation.  Our watch typically lasts 12 hours, but can be as long as 14 hours.  If you think that we are over-manned, pop up to the hangar (it's the square thing at the back of the ship  ) during an engine change, or a rotor change, or when the helo is being washed.  See just how "over-manned" we are.


----------



## Inch (24 Jun 2006)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Additionally, I still have the Army mentality that if you eat it, you hump it & therefore more hands make less work. Officers should be in the line humping groceries onboard and gash ashore, therefore permitting the lower decker's more time to accomplish their trade specific tasks.





			
				navymich said:
			
		

> +100!
> 
> Nothing irks me more then seeing the upper echelons sitting around drinking coffee and shooting the breeze, while the hands are busy with flash-up and storing ship, and then are complaining because the ship isn't ready to sail on time, or when they are sitting on their kit bags waiting to go home, while the hands are busy with post-sail and final cleaning stations and...and...and



I'm not sure what ships you're sailing on but I have yet to sail and not land gash or store ship.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Jun 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Just as soon as you take a share of my PERs, PDRs, SOCDs, UCRs, Tacnote revisions,... are you getting the point?  No one is standing around doing nothing on a warship.  Just because I'm not pushing a broom, does not mean I'm not busy.  And for the record, me and rest of the aircrew have done cleaning stations on occasion, particularily when COs rounds are coming, or when all of the techs are on the helo changing an engine.
> 
> As for the Air Department being "over-manned" (FSTO take note),  We are a "one-in-one" watch rotation.  Our watch typically lasts 12 hours, but can be as long as 14 hours.  If you think that we are over-manned, pop up to the hangar (it's the square thing at the back of the ship  ) during an engine change, or a rotor change, or when the helo is being washed.  See just how "over-manned" we are.



I wondered when someone was going to bring this up. there is sometimes an assumption that officers and senior NCOs don't do any real work because they don't get their hands dirty.
My observations over the last 29 years is there is a lot of work that officers and Sr NCOs do that is almost invisible to the lower deck but without it there would be chaos onboard. I once had to bunk in with the Supply Officer due to shortage of bunks (Padre bunks in where he can-when I stayed in a Mess Deck I did cleaning stations with my mess mates). SO used to get up at 0300 every day to get a handle on his paperwork. the demands of the Captain on his time were unbelievable. He had responsibility for one of the largest divisions on ship and was the one most likely to get court martialed if things went wrong in the finance world. He was rarely in his rack much before midnight. Do you suggest that he should be doing cleaning stations too? He was a Lt(N). What about the engineer? Wpns O...well you get my point...they have different responsibilities than junior ratings...but they have a lot of work to do.
A civilian company does not pay the CEO or the executives to scrub the deck.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jun 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Just as soon as you take a share of my PERs, PDRs, SOCDs, UCRs, Tacnote revisions,... are you getting the point?  No one is standing around doing nothing on a warship.  Just because I'm not pushing a broom, does not mean I'm not busy.  And for the record, me and rest of the aircrew have done cleaning stations on occasion, particularily when COs rounds are coming, or when all of the techs are on the helo changing an engine.
> 
> As for the Air Department being "over-manned" (FSTO take note),  We are a "one-in-one" watch rotation.  Our watch typically lasts 12 hours, but can be as long as 14 hours.  If you think that we are over-manned, pop up to the hangar (it's the square thing at the back of the ship  ) during an engine change, or a rotor change, or when the helo is being washed.  See just how "over-manned" we are.


Seaking Tacco, take note of the grin! 
Air: The Air Force is always overmanned for everything  Grin


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Jun 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what ships you're sailing on but I have yet to sail and not land gash or store ship.



Air Force right? (that's a good thing)  Forgive me but I find (minority) some (not all) naval officers to be a tad snotty, like they are better than the rest of us. IMHO I find that it is somewhat isolated to the Navy.  For instance look at accommodations both in ESQ and HAL, it is pretty easy to spot where the Officers live, now I lived in Petawawa for years and it is pretty difficult to spot which building houses the officers.  The new wardroom in Esq is an amazing building with a beautiful view, as well as the one in Halifax (both needed new wardrooms, Halifax really needed a new CPO's mess).  Nelles block/A block aren't in the best of shape and sure there are talks of building new accommodations, but when is that going to happen?  I also know that your average officer has nothing to do with this, but it can create some sort of I am better than you attitude.  One can afford to have that attitude in the navy, in the army I don't think that would go over so well.  The air force I have no idea what you guys have going on, but it works, you have respect going both ways up and down the ladder  (your depend on each other to come home safely).  Somewhat like the submarine.

I never want to see an officer doing cleaning stations, that is not their job, that is time for the junior ncms to clean and bitch/talk amongst each other, and the last thing we would want is an officer right beside them.  IMHO cleaning stations would run smoother, if for once there isn't Sh*t caked on the toilets in the CPO's heads, officer heads aren't that bad, but come on man use that brush.  Everyone who has cleaned the heads will know what I am talking about.  Hopefully new toilet brushes are a part of the 15B wishlist

Ok in my original post I chose my words poorly.  What I meant to say is that the navy could use some of the Army attitude when it comes to ship evolutions (storing, landing gash).  I agree with navalsniper you eat it, you hump it.  I know that there isn't enough room for the entire ship to store, but those who have free time should be doing just that.  I know that everyone has a job to do, but if all available hands pitched in it would go much faster.  Before the Alg departed for RIMPAC they piped storing ship (MS and Below) 11 people showed up...Unsat.   If there is a storing line going on and you have to walk through it to go somewhere carry something with you.


----------



## FSTO (25 Jun 2006)

Juno Block in Halifax is a combined C&PO's Mess and Wardroom.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (25 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Juno Block in Halifax is a combined C&PO's Mess and Wardroom.



Yes and a little background is in order too. In Victoria the Wardroom was a an old hospital ward with an Annex, nicknamed the barn. they built a beautiful Jr Ranks club in the mid 70s that was the envy of the system...right on the water with a gorgeous view etc. The officers lanquished in the barn for another 25 years because it was thought to be "bad optics" to build a new officers mess.
The Wardroom in Halifax was a disgrace. I stayed in there in 99 for a week....besides the paint peeling off the walls and mould all over the place there was no heat.....next door my winger had too much heat...so he slept on top of the bed in his skivies with the windows open (Feb) and I slept under all of his blankets and mine in my room.
The only way they could get over the "bad optics" there was to build it as a combined mess with the C & POs.
I agree that the snotty thing can become a problem. There is a division on ships between the officers and lower deck that is hung over from the old RN trained Navy. I'm not sure how you get over it though because I've found that the attitude is entrenched not just in the Wardroom but in the Main Cave too. I can remember as a Padre relaxing in the cave and chatting with some ABs and a Master Seaman telling me I wasn't welcome cause I was an officer....the PMC sorted him out as to the fact that the Padre is "usually" welcome in all messes....but the attitude against officers and NCMs mingling there was just as strong as it was in the Wardroom.


----------



## FSTO (25 Jun 2006)

In my time the Wardroom Annex in Esquimalt was called the "Crack House".


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Jun 2006)

I couldn't agree more with that attitude going both ways.  In the main cave you are correct, there are guys who even get bent out of shape when they see a PO in there (for whatever reason).  The toolbox that told the padre he wasn't welcome should have been squared off right away, its a good thing he was.  
I also agree with the building of the two wardrooms, they were needed on both coasts for sure.  IHMO I think they did it the right way in Halifax building a combined building, they probably saved some money, and pick up a 2 for 1 in the process.  I have no idea what the CPO's mess is like here in ESQ, but the exterior of the building (and location) look decent.  The CPO's mess in Halifax was in a bad location and that building was run down.

You know there are guys who think that when we have a mess meeting on ship, that when the supply officer is present that he/she is there as some sort of spy for the old man!  I mean really folks lets get real here.  (She was there for a few meetings discussing financial stuff and all that jazz) I thought the world was going to come to an end.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (25 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more with that attitude going both ways.  In the main cave you are correct, there are guys who even get bent out of shape when they see a PO in there (for whatever reason).  The toolbox that told the padre he wasn't welcome should have been squared off right away, its a good thing he was.
> I also agree with the building of the two wardrooms, they were needed on both coasts for sure.  IHMO I think they did it the right way in Halifax building a combined building, they probably saved some money, and pick up a 2 for 1 in the process.  I have no idea what the CPO's mess is like here in ESQ, but the exterior of the building (and location) look decent.  The CPO's mess in Halifax was in a bad location and that building was run down.
> 
> You know there are guys who think that when we have a mess meeting on ship, that when the supply officer is present that he/she is there as some sort of spy for the old man!  I mean really folks lets get real here.  (She was there for a few meetings discussing financial stuff and all that jazz) I thought the world was going to come to an end.



Hee Hee...yup I hear you. the C & POs Mess in Esq is absolutely gorgeous! They have all the facilities including conference rooms. When they built the new Officers Mess they didn't include conference rooms which seemed silly to me. The first conference I ran out there we had to go to the Chiefs Mess for our meetings and then back up the hill for growlies and wets.

Now with all this work done it is time to look at the Fleet Clubs again. I think the one in Halifax is overdue for a facelift or a new facility. The one in Esq probably needs renovating too. If all of this fosters more mess life and therefore Esprit de Corps it can't be a bad thing. Thus tieing it back to the thread...more money for the military and our QOL ;D


----------



## yoman (26 Jun 2006)

More details on the JSS. It says they will have a standard crew of up to 165.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1958


According to http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet/aor_specs_tac_e.asp the current ships have a crew of 365 including air detachment.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jun 2006)

I'm just glad to see they're paying the 2-finalist companies to provide the more in-depth proposals.  That's good business practice.


Matthew.


----------



## GAP (26 Jun 2006)

Here is CNN's take via Associated Press...

two paragraphs kinda caught my eye....


> Last week a senate committee on defense commended the new Conservative government for addressing years of military neglect, but said in a report that Canada was far from spending enough on defense and unprepared for acts of terrorism or natural disasters.
> 
> In one of its annual reports that reviews Canadian security and defense, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defense noted Ottawa spends C$343 per capita on its armed forces, compared with C$1,733 in the United States and C$903 in Britain.


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/26/canada.military.ap/index.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jun 2006)

"I'm just glad to see they're paying the 2-finalist companies to provide the more in-depth proposals.  That's good business practice."

Could you explain this.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> "I'm just glad to see they're paying the 2-finalist companies to provide the more in-depth proposals.  That's good business practice."
> 
> Could you explain this.



Excerpts from the DND update....


Matthew.   



> *A fair, open and transparent process*
> 
> The four consortia bidding on the project definition phase are led by:
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jun 2006)

Ok but how is paying those that want your contract good practise.  I really have no idea and I'm not being sarcastic.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Ok but how is paying those that want your contract good practise.  I really have no idea and I'm not being sarcastic.



In order to adequatedly provide an accurate proposal to build anything that's complex (as opposed to act as a broker for a commodity such as an auto dealer or a retailer), whether that "custom build" be software, a house or a ship, if you're going to do it right you literally need to put hundreds-to-thousands-to tens of thousands of hours into the proposal and basically design not only all your key components, but also the production/assembly/manufactureing system you'll eventually use, negotiate contracts with all your suppliers in order to guarantee your internal costs prior to bidding and in particular map your production schedule which determines how all these pieces fit together (I should add if you're ever sourcing components from offshore,  you're also best to secure your currency valuations using futures contracts so you don't take a bath should one of your supplier's currencies suddenly spike against your own when you're collecting all your funds in the domestic currency).  In short, because the proposal requires such a tremendous expenditure on the part of the bidding parties, it is only ethical to respect their investment and compensate them accordingly, otherwise you are guaranteed to leave a particularly bad taste in the losing bidder's mouth which could result in them refusing to bid on future projects which in the long run really only hurts you.


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jun 2006)

Matthew, could you consider buying a period or two from time to time? 

Also, if you are buying the time of the contractors, normally you own the information.  Consequently if contractor A has a good idea about widgets and B has good idea about grommets then you as owner of that information can better see if the two contracts can be combined in some way to achieve a third outcome.  Sometimes that can be good.  Sometimes not so good.  But it does leave the door open.  Big questions about liability then show up is something goes wrong and not everybody is on the same page.


----------



## GAP (26 Jun 2006)

This ultimately being a political decision, is there a possibility of the two capable contractors each building a ship??


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jun 2006)

Is this how Boeing and Lockheed would compete ie for the JSF?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Matthew, could you consider buying a period or two from time to time?
> 
> Also, if you are buying the time of the contractors, normally you own the information.  Consequently if contractor A has a good idea about widgets and B has good idea about grommets then you as owner of that information can better see if the two contracts can be combined in some way to achieve a third outcome.  Sometimes that can be good.  Sometimes not so good.  But it does leave the door open.  Big questions about liability then show up is something goes wrong and not everybody is on the same page.



Periods?  I'm against them....  ;D

RE:  Ownership of content of proposals? - In most cases companies will not bid in such circumstances as their intellectual property is seen as their biggest asset.  That being said, you specificy items like that in your Request for Proposal terms....


Matthew.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jun 2006)

GAP ANYTHING is possible.


----------



## GAP (26 Jun 2006)

Well, I'm thinking, that what with an upcoming election, the Conservatives, using a Liberal tactic, are going to want to spread good cheer hither and yon...especially Quebec and the Maritimes. They go through the design phase, decide on one model, then farm it out to two shipyards all in the name of being fair.


----------



## mjohnston39 (27 Jun 2006)

IIRC Irving is partnered with Davie, conveniently both are located in provinces that the conservatives need to pick up votes in...

http://www.jsscanada.com/team.html


Mike.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jun 2006)

"conveniently"

Convenient or strategic?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (27 Jun 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well, I'm thinking, that what with an upcoming election, the Conservatives, using a Liberal tactic, are going to want to spread good cheer hither and yon...especially Quebec and the Maritimes. They go through the design phase, decide on one model, then farm it out to two shipyards all in the name of being fair.



Actually, I believe the Liberal Tactic is to screw the military over by reallocating (read as "pissing away") previous promised programs into social services.  

See 30+ year old Protecteur-class, Hercs and Trucks.

And re:  farming the JSS out to more than one shipyard?  Just my humble opinion, but getting two shipyards back up to speed after decades of neglect doesn't seem like that bad an idea to me since after JSS and BHS (which could potentially share a lot of components with JSS if it is domesitcally-produced as well), we should be immediately starting construction on the Single Ship Transition Project (or whatever the hell it's called) anyway which will require more than one shipyard.


Matthew.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jun 2006)

I was under the impression that Irving Shipbuilding was a thing of the past.  Seeing as they have completely dismantled and sold off their shipbuilding facilities in St John, New Brunswick.  If they would be awarded the contract, where and what would they build these ships with?  They would have to Sub-contract out the whole production and assembly.  That they even put in a bid, now that they are out of the shipbuilding business, puzzles me.


----------



## GAP (27 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> "conveniently"
> 
> Convenient or strategic?



Whichever one fits the moment....They could claim that it would speed up the construction of both ships by having them both built at the same time in  two different shipyards....Don't think that the Conservatives won't play politics with this or anything else. At least we get a couple of new bathtub toys.


----------



## Neill McKay (27 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that Irving Shipbuilding was a thing of the past.  Seeing as they have completely dismantled and sold off their shipbuilding facilities in St John, New Brunswick.  If they would be awarded the contract, where and what would they build these ships with?



Irving Shipbuilding owns other facilities in Halifax and PEI.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jun 2006)

Perhaps we are seeing too much in the Irving/Davie consortium just now. They are just one of four interested groups.

Irving/Davie is fronting General Dynamics with some Lockheed-Martin involvement.  GD owns NASSCO which supplies the US with its T-AKRs and T-AOEs - logisitic support ships like the Bob Hope.  The T-AOEs are broadly similar to the AORs currently in service but about twice the size.  Previously there was speculation that the Davie yard in Quebec was the only one big enough to handle the job in Canada.  There may be good physical reasons for this alliance.

I would guess that the next most likely consortium to succeed is the SNC-Lavalin group that has paired with Washington Marine group that owns Vancouver and Victoria shipyards.  They too are capable of handling large vessels.  Interestingly their team includes Aker Marine (Svalbard ice-breaker) Royal Schelde (Rotterdam LPD and Amsterdam AOR) and Merwede (New Zealand Multi-Role Vessel) as well as Fincantieri which has built just about everything under the sun.

So do they want to give the contract to a Maritime company with Quebec operations or a Quebec company with West Coast operations.

The other two groups are:

BAE could come forward with something similar to what they are working on for the Royal Navy's MARS programme to replace its RFA fleet of oilers and logistics vessels.  BAE built the RNs Wave class of Oilers. They also built the LPDs Bulwark and Albion.  They would be built in Newfoundland at existing yards.

And the German Thyssen-Krupp Marine which could offer up Flensburger designs  and have them supported by Maersk.  Flensburger has built mini-AORs for the German navy and RoRos for the Royal Navy.  They have a design for an AOR of 20,000 tonnes for the German Navy that hasn't been built.  They are being fronted by a Newfoundland company in Marystown but a yard would have to be built first.

So there is something for everyone here.

http://www.nassco.com/

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html
http://www.merwede.com/findex.asp?div=shipyard&ct=homepage%2fcontent.htm
http://www.masamarine.com/ship_types.html
http://www.masamarine.com/ship_gov.html
http://www.fincantieri.com/

http://www.baesystems.com/

http://www.fsg-ship.de/

Interestingly enough the British MOD forced two competing bidders for their future Aircraft Carriers to merge their proposals.


----------



## Jantor (30 Jun 2006)

Hello everyone 

It's Canada Day at DID! (yeah I know, so what )

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

Can be a long read especially when chasing all the links 

I posted this here because of what was said about the JSS proposal in their article. I feel it has some merit considering the troubles Northrop-Grumman had with the first ship in the San Antonio class LPD-17. Cost overruns doubled the price and a preliminary inspection discovered something like 15,000 deficiencies that needed to be addressed before acceptance by the U.S. Navy.


Edited to expand on topic


----------

