# Next Iteration of the Naval Warfare Officer Rebranding



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Apr 2021)

So the RCN just announced the next phase of it's rebranding of the ol' MARS officer. To go along with the "Naval Warfare Officer", they are also redesigning the position of Combat Officer onboard ship. From now on they will be called "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare".

The RCN figures everybody will want that job with such title.

Go figure - I stopped trying a long time ago.


----------



## kratz (1 Apr 2021)

A gaggle of these new RCN officers, wearing their peak caps will earn the nickname SNOWflakes?    🍿


----------



## Cronicbny (2 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> So the RCN just announced the next phase of it's rebranding of the ol' MARS officer. To go along with the "Naval Warfare Officer", they are also redesigning the position of Combat Officer onboard ship. From now on they will be called "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare".
> 
> The RCN figures everybody will want that job with such title.
> 
> Go figure - I stopped trying a long time ago.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> So the RCN just announced the next phase of it's rebranding of the ol' MARS officer. To go along with the "Naval Warfare Officer", they are also redesigning the position of Combat Officer onboard ship. From now on they will be called "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare".
> 
> The RCN figures everybody will want that job with such title.
> 
> Go figure - I stopped trying a long time ago.


And subordinate responsible for coordinating air effects will no doubt be the "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare - Flights, Landings, Attacks, Combat Knowledge".


----------



## FSTO (2 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> So the RCN just announced the next phase of it's rebranding of the ol' MARS officer. To go along with the "Naval Warfare Officer", they are also redesigning the position of Combat Officer onboard ship. From now on they will be called "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare".
> 
> The RCN figures everybody will want that job with such title.
> 
> Go figure - I stopped trying a long time ago.


Please let this be a late April Fools joke?


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> So the RCN just announced the next phase of it's rebranding of the ol' MARS officer. To go along with the "Naval Warfare Officer", they are also redesigning the position of Combat Officer onboard ship. From now on they will be called "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare".
> 
> The RCN figures everybody will want that job with such title.
> 
> Go figure - I stopped trying a long time ago.



Why not? The RN had a SNOB.

In more ways than one, of course


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Apr 2021)

FSTO said:


> Please let this be a late April Fools joke?



Of course, FSTO. It was a S.N.O.W. job. !!!

It's April fool's all day.


----------



## FSTO (2 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Of course, FSTO. It was a S.N.O.W. job. !!!
> 
> It's April fool's all day.


Thank fuck! Nothing and I mean nothing these days are beyond the realm of possibility!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Apr 2021)

It's probably a way to try and entice people to want to become OROs seeing as how the job is super thankless and almost nobody wants to do it.


----------



## dimsum (2 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's probably a way to try and entice people to want to become OROs seeing as how the job is super thankless and almost nobody wants to do it.


It's probably an April Fool's joke, but if not...

How well (or not) are our allies retaining NWO-equivalent officers?  Is not wanting to stay in the trade just an RCN thing, or is it prevalent throughout allied nations?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> It's probably an April Fool's joke, but if not...
> 
> How well (or not) are our allies retaining NWO-equivalent officers?  Is not wanting to stay in the trade just an RCN thing, or is it prevalent throughout allied nations?


I think it's a symptom of a larger problem in the Navy.  The simple fact is, the job is very hard at times.  It demands long hours, can be highly stressful and many people just don't have the resilience to cope with how demanding it can be.  Expectations are high and many people just don't feel the juice is worth the squeeze.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think it's a symptom of a larger problem in the Navy.  The simple fact is, the job is very hard at times.  It demands long hours, can be highly stressful and many people just don't have the resilience to cope with how demanding it can be.  Expectations are high and many people just don't feel the juice is worth the squeeze.



I think you hit the nail on the head, for the RCN in general.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think it's a symptom of a larger problem in the Navy.  The simple fact is, the job is very hard at times.  It demands long hours, can be highly stressful and many people just don't have the resilience to cope with how demanding it can be.  Expectations are high and many people just don't feel the juice is worth the squeeze.


The job is hard because the stakes are incredibly high running the Operations Room of a modern warship (I know that you know this).

Dumbing down the ORO course by removing the Mega phase to make course more attractive (to increase the pool of OROs) did nothing to increase my confidence in the RCN.

I would rather see fewer, highly capable OROs than a larger pool of mediocre ones....


----------



## dimsum (2 Apr 2021)

Leather jackets will certainly solve that problem!   









						Navy Authorizes New Black Leather Jacket for Surface Warfare Officers
					

Navy surface warfare officers can now stand watch in a new leather jackets approved specifically for their community.




					www.military.com


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's probably a way to try and entice people to want to become OROs seeing as how the job is super thankless and almost nobody wants to do it.



Because bribing them with a bigger paycheque, kind of like 'PARA pay' or 'flight pay' for in role OROs,  would be impossible I guess?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The job is hard because the stakes are incredibly high running the Operations Room of a modern warship (I know that you know this).
> 
> Dumbing down the ORO course by removing the Mega phase to make course more attractive (to increase the pool of OROs) did nothing to increase my confidence in the RCN.
> 
> I would rather see fewer, highly capable OROs than a larger pool of mediocre ones....


Couldn't agree more, that being said, I think OROs also need to be paid more and should probably be bumped up a rank as the complexity of the job really isn't reflected in their compensation rate.


----------



## dimsum (2 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Couldn't agree more, that being said, I think OROs also need to be paid more and should probably be bumped up a rank as the complexity of the job really isn't reflected in their compensation rate.


Are OROs not LCdrs?


----------



## Pelorus (2 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Dumbing down the ORO course by removing the Mega phase to make course more attractive (to increase the pool of OROs) did nothing to increase my confidence in the RCN.



The removal of the Mega was one of the changes that the Naval Personnel Training Group made as part of their "modernization" of naval training. It was not about dumbing down the course, but that they decided that it was difficult to objectively assess a student when the majority of the Ops team for their watch were also students with varying performance levels.

Do you fail an ORO student who had a rough run, but a couple of their key support personnel torpedoed them through poor performance and/or not providing critical information? The answer to that question was essentially up the whims of the assessor, but was often yes.

The rumour mill tells me that the Mega is returning, but understandably it will take some time to re-sync 5+ individual training courses that are currently running independently.

In the interim though, a Mega-style assessment of similar duration and intensity still exists for the ORO course. The remainder of the other Ops Rm positions are just filled by qualified members within the Fleet. This is a double-edged sword, as certain specific positions are hard to find these days, and a random CFTPO who's not being assessed may not have as much skin in the game.

As an aside, I do think there are circumstances where more objectivity in assessments is certainly a good thing. Take for example the NOPQ Board. Every candidate going to one of those boards has already been deemed competent by their CO and is running the Bridge at sea. I know of a few cases where a strong candidate failed the board simply because the Board Chair decided that they didn't meet a subjective standard of boardsmanship or "Command Presence", and the candidate is thus delayed promotion to Lt(N) and career progression for 6 months.



SeaKingTacco said:


> I would rather see fewer, highly capable OROs than a larger pool of mediocre ones....



The bigger issue here in my mind is that the RCN considers the ORO course and tour to be a prerequisite for promotion to LCdr and most staff billets held by NWOs. While selection for the course is merit-based, time in rank is a contributing factor and quite frequently NWOs across the Navy who do not have the specific competencies or desire to do the job or to assume Command in the future are selected for the course. They then often go to a low-tempo ship and count their days until they can get promoted and go ashore forever. This also clogs up the pipeline for competent personnel behind them who want to do the job, but need to wait their turn for the machine to turn up their number.

IMO, the NWO community needs to publicly admit to itself that a) the ORO/XO/CO job sucks a lot of the time, and b) that there are lots of NWOs out there who are net contributors to the organization but who may not have either the very specific competencies to succeed as OROs/XOs/COs or for a variety of personal or family reasons may not want to go down that road.

I suspect that one of the reasons we may not have gotten there yet is that if promotion criteria to LCdr was independent of an ORO tour, and the community was able to be upfront with the Career Managers about their career aspirations, it may bring up some unfortunate truths about how few actually want to go down that road. This is just my suspicion though, with no data to support it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> Are OROs not LCdrs?


Lt(N) almost exclusively


----------



## Pelorus (2 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> Are OROs not LCdrs?



Nope, it's a Lt(N) billet. I believe that the CbtO billet only on the 280s was designated for a LCdr (i.e., not the other 2 OROs), but that died with the class.

You'll often see LCdrs on the ships, but they're at the end of their tours. AFAIK a LCdr in the billet needs to be posted off within 6 months IAW CMP policies about being over ranked for your current billet. Not unlike other HODs who you often see get made at the end of their tours or shortly thereafter.

The earliest you'll see someone hit the Fleet as an ORO is probably Lt(N) IPC 6 I would say, and much more commonly it will be IPC 7+.


----------



## Mick (2 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Lt(N) almost exclusively


Limited navy knowledge here - on a typical CPF, how many LCdrs positions are there ?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Apr 2021)

boot12 said:


> The removal of the Mega was one of the changes that the Naval Personnel Training Group made as part of their "modernization" of naval training. It was not about dumbing down the course, but that they decided that it was difficult to objectively assess a student when the majority of the Ops team for their watch were also students with varying performance levels.
> 
> Do you fail an ORO student who had a rough run, but a couple of their key support personnel torpedoed them through poor performance and/or not providing critical information? The answer to that question was essentially up the whims of the assessor, but was often yes.
> 
> ...


TBH, I think NOPQ as it is presently executed is a deeply flawed evaluation system. Especially when the vast majority of students that graduate from Venture get posted to non-deploying units or Ships not in high-readiness.  

They then fill out all their reqs, do alongside "discussions" about how they would theoretically do something, get the checks in the box and sit a board that only confirms their ability to memorize something as opposed to actually execute on operations.  

The Navy then considers both these Watchkeepers equals for all intents and purpose when everyone knows it's not the case. It's one thing to do a few TGEX's off the coast of Vancouver Island and say you're G2G, it's quite another to do it in a place like the SCS with 100s of fishing vessels, deep seas, etc around you.


----------



## Pelorus (2 Apr 2021)

mick said:


> Limited navy knowledge here - on a typical CPF, how many LCdrs positions are there ?



Core crew - 1 (the XO)

The HELAIRDET AirO is a Maj billet if so embarked.


----------



## Mick (2 Apr 2021)

boot12 said:


> Core crew - 1 (the XO)
> 
> The HELAIRDET AirO is a Maj billet if so embarked.


I had always assumed the various departments were headed by LCdrs.  Thanks!


----------



## Lumber (2 Apr 2021)

boot12 said:


> You'll often see LCdrs on the ships, but they're at the end of their tours.


At the rate we are trying to produce LCdrs, just about all the OROs are leaving the ship as LCdrs. Some are being asked to stay and strentch that CMP 6-month limit to the extreme because they still need OROs but they "had" to promote them to LCdr.


----------



## Lumber (2 Apr 2021)

boot12 said:


> The rumour mill tells me that the Mega is returning, but understandably it will take some time to re-sync 5+ individual training courses that are currently running independently.
> 
> In the interim though, a Mega-style assessment of similar duration and intensity still exists for the ORO course. The remainder of the other Ops Rm positions are just filled by qualified members within the Fleet. This is a double-edged sword, as certain specific positions are hard to find these days, and a random CFTPO who's not being assessed may not have as much skin in the game.


There are pros, and there are cons, but the truth of the matter is this: there simply is not enough trainer time or support personnel available to fully support all courses independently. Is there a risk in having unqualified students be part of your team? Yes. But guess what? That's happening anyway when the school can't find enough available SWCs/ARROs/etc. to support 4 concurrent courses. 



boot12 said:


> The bigger issue here in my mind is that the RCN considers the ORO course and tour to be a prerequisite for promotion to LCdr and most staff billets held by NWOs. While selection for the course is merit-based, time in rank is a contributing factor and quite frequently NWOs across the Navy who do not have the specific competencies or desire to do the job or to assume Command in the future are selected for the course. They then often go to a low-tempo ship and count their days until they can get promoted and go ashore forever. This also clogs up the pipeline for competent personnel behind them who want to do the job, but need to wait their turn for the machine to turn up their number.
> 
> IMO, the NWO community needs to publicly admit to itself that a) the ORO/XO/CO job sucks a lot of the time, and b) that there are lots of NWOs out there who are net contributors to the organization but who may not have either the very specific competencies to succeed as OROs/XOs/COs or for a variety of personal or family reasons may not want to go down that road.
> 
> I suspect that one of the reasons we may not have gotten there yet is that if promotion criteria to LCdr was independent of an ORO tour, and the community was able to be upfront with the Career Managers about their career aspirations, it may bring up some unfortunate truths about how few actually want to go down that road. This is just my suspicion though, with no data to support it.



I know many an NWO who are either post-ORO, currently ORO, or about to be ORO, who have/had no interest in being an ORO, nor command. But after being a Lt(N) for 8 years and seeing that the LCdr staff jobs are really not all that much different or harder than the Lt(N) staff jobs (plus a good chunk of Lt(N)s are actually filling LCdr jobs right now due to our lack of LCdrs), plus seeing a bunch of your wingers get it over with and become LCdrs, it makes it seem just worthwhile enough to make going through with the pain of being an ORO so you can be a LCdr for life. 

And then you become an ORO, and you wonder, was it really worth the pain? They never tell you about then pain... oh the pain...


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> At the rate we are trying to produce LCdrs, just about all the OROs are leaving the ship as LCdrs. Some are being asked to stay and strentch that CMP 6-month limit to the extreme because they still need OROs but they "had" to promote them to LCdr.


Similarly usually both engineer Heads of Departments leave as LCdrs. The promotion merit list is basically the same as the HOD selection, so they had to slam the brakes on a few times because people were set to be promoted before getting on the ships.

Someone got a mastered on leading change years ago by changing those two HOD billets from Lt(N)/LCdr to SLt/Lt(N) positions and saved some imaginary SWE cap so getting promoted pushes you out of consideration for the job. Pretty awkward to turn down a promotion though because you want to go back to the ship as a HOD. At least the CMs were asking unofficially first to avoid any awkward promotion ceremonies.


----------



## Lumber (3 Apr 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Similarly usually both engineer Heads of Departments leave as LCdrs. The promotion merit list is basically the same as the HOD selection, so they had to slam the brakes on a few times because people were set to be promoted before getting on the ships.
> 
> Someone got a mastered on leading change years ago by changing those two HOD billets from Lt(N)/LCdr to SLt/Lt(N) positions and saved some imaginary SWE cap so getting promoted pushes you out of consideration for the job. Pretty awkward to turn down a promotion though because you want to go back to the ship as a HOD. At least the CMs were asking unofficially first to avoid any awkward promotion ceremonies.


It's confusing and even a little frustrating because we're told/led to believe that the HOD tour is a pre-requisite/absolute requirement for promotion, but I guess the CMs don't know that, or else the presumption is wrong. From what I can see, the only requirement is to be merit listed for promotion. Coursing, sea time, a concurrence from your CO, none of it matters.


----------



## brihard (3 Apr 2021)

Infantry dummy here. I know the navy has something to do with boats.

ORO = Ops Room Officer? Why does it suck so much?


----------



## FSTO (3 Apr 2021)

Another issue with the ORO course is the mind numbingly useless classroom phase. Where "instructors" (using the term loosely) read off the wall of text. 
That was my experience a few lifetimes ago.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2021)

FSTO said:


> Another issue with the ORO course is the mind numbingly useless classroom phase. Where "instructors" (using the term loosely) read off the wall of text.
> That was my experience a few lifetimes ago.


That part could actually be excellent, if done correctly. For example, all of the candidates are actual, qualified and experienced directors. They could teach alot of the lessons to each other (This was the case on at least one of the career that I have been on).

Also, some of the classroom portion could be run as seminars, with pre-reading and directed discussion.

Let me at NPTG and I will fix the ORO course for the RCN!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Apr 2021)

Well, what an interesting little discussion my April fool's joke has created.



brihard said:


> Infantry dummy here. I know the navy has something to do with boats.
> 
> ORO = Ops Room Officer? Why does it suck so much?



Let me see if I can put this in perspective for you, Brihard.

I've been out quite a while, but: What's the ORO course at these days? Four to six months? And your Cbt O tour after?  Eighteen months?

So imagine that for about two years in a row, you get as little -or even less - sleep time than the CO and for the whole duration, you are under the same type of stress (by weak analogy) as a NHL coach of a team that finds itself, at two thirds of the season, just out of the playoffs - battling to be in - in a market where being out of the playoffs is just unacceptable to ownership. Every game you loose is your fault for bad coaching, while any game you win is because the GM "got you the right players". 

That's the ORO's position every day with regards to everything related to combat operations. Any mistake -even by the lowliest of Ordinary Sailor sonar operator or signalman - is your mistake, while anything that goes right in a fight or simulated combat exercise (on *your* advice to the CO) is considered the CO's doing.

To get there, imagine the course material you would have to go through (hinted at by FSTO) if it was infantry: You would be a "senior" infantry captain having to suddenly learn everything about the whole NATO structure of operations for Europe, including all the overall plans, then learning all the latest developments in tactics for infantry, armour, field engineering and artillery, together with all concepts of combined arms operations and joint operations with the RCAF, while at the same time learning all about your most likely enemies battle order, capabilities and tactics and the likely countermeasure. The whole in an environment where any of these facts you just learned could come up without notice and you must be able to recall them instantly and correctly. That's the ORO course.

I tend to agree with SKT on what he proposes. I believe that the ORO course has not really evolved from the days when the MARS officers could come in directly after high school, and thus needed to be "taught" every thing they needed to know, to today's situation where they are university trained and therefore, are be able to read and study on their own before getting to class where they expand on their readings rather than have it read again to them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2021)

To add: what could be more interesting of a subject than becoming an expert in modern naval warfare? Only the RCN, in it’s infinite stupidity, could make that area of study boring.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> It's confusing and even a little frustrating because we're told/led to believe that the HOD tour is a pre-requisite/absolute requirement for promotion, but I guess the CMs don't know that, or else the presumption is wrong. From what I can see, the only requirement is to be merit listed for promotion. Coursing, sea time, a concurrence from your CO, none of it matters.


I vaguely remember looking the the then MARs promotion requirements and believe the ORO tour gave a lot of points so it was hard not to get promoted once you had it under your belt. Now that they have effectively gone with wet/dry lists, think it's a lot more feasible to get merit listed without it with high enough performance at the various shore jobs. Not really clear if that off ramps someone from any future attempt at getting the command qual and going back as XO/CO, but I guess if that's not someone's jam there are still a lot of billets that need filled, and lots of times you need a paperwork wizard that can make a decision more than you need someone that can run an OPs room in those shore jobs.

On the NTO side it's similar; we get extra promotion points for HOD tours but generally it's competitive enough that getting a ship billet means you are pretty close to the top of the merit list. That's changed a bit with the addition of the deputy position adding an additional Lt(N) spot to the ships, but generally the promotion is a given once you've got a HOD PER.  The sad part there is that it starts a timer on the beginning of the end, and even if your promotion is delayed and you get six months being over ranked, so marks the end of our last possible ship posting. Usually people are leaving burnt out anyway, so probably a good thing it's not longer.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> To add: what could be more interesting of a subject than becoming an expert in modern naval warfare? Only the RCN, in it’s infinite stupidity, could make that area of study boring.


Hey, this missile is cool, lets explain it with a 120 slide ppt presentation that we read verbatim! Don't use pictures or video either, that makes the file too big!

(as an aside, working up to a full ESSM shoot was the most underwhelming thing I've ever done. Months worth of work for a fraction of a second of action, and not even an explosion because it was a telemetry head with an offset to save the target drone. At least with the SM2 shoots we actually blew things up, and got to see video afterwards of the whole thing.)


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Hey, this missile is cool, lets explain it with a 120 slide ppt presentation that we read verbatim! Don't use pictures or video either, that makes the file too big!
> 
> (as an aside, working up to a full ESSM shoot was the most underwhelming thing I've ever done. Months worth of work for a fraction of a second of action, and not even an explosion because it was a telemetry head with an offset to save the target drone. At least with the SM2 shoots we actually blew things up, and got to see video afterwards of the whole thing.)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Apr 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Hey, this missile is cool, lets explain it with a 120 slide ppt presentation that we read verbatim! Don't use pictures or video either, that makes the file too big!
> 
> (as an aside, working up to a full ESSM shoot was the most underwhelming thing I've ever done. Months worth of work for a fraction of a second of action, and not even an explosion because it was a telemetry head with an offset to save the target drone. At least with the SM2 shoots we actually blew things up, and got to see video afterwards of the whole thing.)


The funniest thing I've seen was watching the AWWO fail to get good tracking on a hammerhead for an entire gunnery serial and basically not connect with any rounds from the 57mm only to have an ex-infanteer Bos'n sink the thing with a couple of bursts of .50cal with a massive fireball to boot.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2021)

I have to say that watching the RCN attempt live fire serials is the most under-whelming experience of my career.

I have both Air Force and Army experience putting very expensive and quite deadly explosive devices down-range and have done so safely with only a fraction of the painful, self-imposed restrictions and pre-firing preps that the RCN loves...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (3 Apr 2021)

brihard said:


> Infantry dummy here. I know the navy has something to do with boats.
> 
> ORO = Ops Room Officer? Why does it suck so much?


Not a Navy guy (sailed in two CPFs as a senior Army Officer FWIW), but ORO is indeed Operations Room Officer. The ORO "fights" the ship from the Ops Room. I think the ships I was on had three Lt(N) qualified ORO (?), along with two Lt(N) on the fleet staff qualified ORO but those two were "fighting" the Task Group. Its a very high pressure position. Naval warfare happens very fast and the ship (and crew) can die quite quickly to a missile or heavy torpedo (or Godzilla going by the latest movie). An Armoured Battlegroup Operations Officer would be hard-pressed to have the entire BG wiped out by his moment of indecision or making a wrong decision with minutes/seconds to spare (of course a tank crew commander can lose their tank in an instant). An ORO can indeed have the ship sunk/knocked out in an incredibly short time. There is a lot going on in the Ops Room, and it can happen quite quickly. 

The ORO course is _roughly_ analogous to the Army Operations Course (AOC). My impression from watching OROs up close for two months and being Directing Staff on AOC for three years is that the ORO course is a bit more of a pressure-cooker than AOC. That is not to say that AOC is not stressful - it is! Its just that the ORO course, at least my impression from colleagues, is more _ruthless_. If AOC was all Combat Arms it might be a little more stressful. 

Anyhoo. Funny to see an April Fools thread spark real discussion. Perhaps the joke was too credible?


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have to say that watching the RCN attempt live fire serials is the most under-whelming experience of my career.
> 
> I have both Air Force and Army experience putting very expensive and quite deadly explosive devices down-range and have done so safely with only a fraction of the painful, self-imposed restrictions and pre-firing preps that the RCN loves...


I see that and raise you an ammunitioning ship evolution; the shells come in hardened cases that we lovingly pass along the chain like it's a premie baby. Our ex-arty guy the remustered to NWO just shook his head, as he was used to 105 shells being kicked off the back of a truck. If something gets bumped the whole evolution stops while they do an inspection. It's pretty stupid that we still form a line and manually pass the ammunition along as well, especially as it has to go down multiple vertical ladders to get to the deep magazine.

After seeing how much precaution we take doing it alongside with a jetty crane, kind of chuckle at the concept of doing it from a tanker with the same restrictions in place. Even doing it parked at a jetty would be not fun.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> I see that and raise you an ammunitioning ship evolution; the shells come in hardened cases that we lovingly pass along the chain like it's a premie baby. Our ex-arty guy the remustered to NWO just shook his head, as he was used to 105 shells being kicked off the back of a truck. If something gets bumped the whole evolution stops while they do an inspection. It's pretty stupid that we still form a line and manually pass the ammunition along as well, especially as it has to go down multiple vertical ladders to get to the deep magazine.
> 
> After seeing how much precaution we take doing it alongside with a jetty crane, kind of chuckle at the concept of doing it from a tanker with the same restrictions in place. Even doing it parked at a jetty would be not fun.


And then I come along and sling ammo at sea with a helicopter, where we “firmly” place the load on deck and hustle back for the next load. The disconnect between what are, essentially, the same two acts (ammunitioning ship) are striking.

I get that both the Halifax explosion of 1917 and the Bedford Magazine explosion of 1945 are deeply ingrained into the RCN DNA, but seriously, all of the packed ammo is designed, by STANAG, to be safely dropped from 1 m and is HERO safe. I love how one cannot even carry a can of small arms ammo thru dockyard and across the brow of ship, for fear that the whole dockyard will suddenly explode into a firey ball of death. Ammunitioning is another soul sucking evolution that is ripe for a real world review of what actual risks are...


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> And then I come along and sling ammo at sea with a helicopter, where we “firmly” place the load on deck and hustle back for the next load. The disconnect between what are, essentially, the same two acts (ammunitioning ship) are striking.
> 
> I get that both the Halifax explosion of 1917 and the Bedford Magazine explosion of 1945 are deeply ingrained into the RCN DNA, but seriously, all of the packed ammo is designed, by STANAG, to be safely dropped from 1 m and is HERO safe. I love how one cannot even carry a can of small arms ammo thru dockyard and across the brow of ship, for fear that the whole dockyard will suddenly explode into a firey ball of death. Ammunitioning is another soul sucking evolution that is ripe for a real world review of what actual risks are...


For sure; that's one I never get, especially as the explosion wasn't caused by unsafe handling of the ammunition itself, and knowing that when it actually gets loaded it's getting tossed around a bit and then rattling up the ammo lift, or like the CIWS which is a stupid manual load from a really bad spot high up fully exposed to the weather with any ship movement really amplified because of where it is. Meanwhile no one really cares about the various fueling operations and is pretty nonchalant around helo ops that are significantly riskier.

Non sequitor, but I lived in the North end of Halifax and still regularly picked out bits of shrapnel from my garden the whole time I was there. In the 7 years or whatever only had success with lupins and shrapnel.


----------



## Pelorus (3 Apr 2021)

Good old CFAD Bedford, where you can't have your remote car starter in your pocket while humping 5.56. Or wear your ballcap, because what if it blows off your head and you decide to slam the cased ammo you're holding onto the deck to grab it?

Always said that CFAD were the best kingdom makers in the CAF.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Apr 2021)

I hate to say this, but when the Bedford depot "incident" happened in 1945, both the village of Bedford and the town (then) of Burnside were a lot further away from the depot than they are now. I don't think another incident in the depot would look good today in view of the current situation. 

Just saying!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I hate to say this, but when the Bedford depot "incident" happened in 1945, both the village of Bedford and the town (then) of Burnside were a lot further away from the depot than they are now. I don't think another incident in the depot would look good today in view of the current situation.
> 
> Just saying!


I get that, but if you have been anywhere near an ammunitioning in the past few years, it is a soul-sucking evolution that, in no way, takes into account real world risks. I say this as someone with more than a passing familiarity with ammunition and how it is to be stored and handled.

small arms ammunition is handled as if it was nitroglycerin, wrapped in gun cotton. Ditto main gun ammo.

I get that you want to be careful craning a missile into a launcher- they are expensive!


----------



## Lumber (4 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I get that, but if you have been anywhere near an ammunitioning in the past few years, it is a soul-sucking evolution that, in no way, takes into account real world risks. I say this as someone with more than a passing familiarity with ammunition and how it is to be stored and handled.
> 
> small arms ammunition is handled as if it was nitroglycerin, wrapped in gun cotton. Ditto main gun ammo.
> 
> I get that you want to be careful craning a missile into a launcher- they are expensive!


I see your ammunitioning and raise you RADHAZ. Oh, the nav radar with a 1m MEL is radiating on the bridge top, a full 75m from where the fmf workers want to go aloft on the hangar? Sorry, works not happening. At least ammunition is technically something that CAN hurt you.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> I see your ammunitioning and raise you RADHAZ. Oh, the nav radar with a 1m MEL is radiating on the bridge top, a full 75m from where the fmf workers want to go aloft on the hangar? Sorry, works not happening. At least ammunition is technically something that CAN hurt you.


Again, another place where the true risks get confused and by treating all emitters the same, we dilute the risk. I have been closely scanned by the old SPS-49 on landing on the flight deck, so I get the risk. That was not cool.

Clearly divide the high risk emitters (HF, fire control and air/surface search, satcom) from the low risk (UHF, VHF-FM, nav radars) which makes it easier for the OOW/OOD to control.


----------



## Weinie (4 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> TBH, I think NOPQ as it is presently executed is a deeply flawed evaluation system. Especially when the vast majority of students that graduate from Venture get posted to non-deploying units or Ships not in high-readiness.
> 
> They then fill out all their reqs, do alongside "discussions" about how they would theoretically do something, get the checks in the box and sit a board that only confirms their ability to memorize something as opposed to actually execute on operations.
> 
> *The Navy then considers both these Watchkeepers equals for all intents and purpose when everyone knows it's not the case. It's one thing to do a few TGEX's off the coast of Vancouver Island and say you're G2G, it's quite another to do it in a place like the SCS with 100s of fishing vessels, deep seas, etc around you.*


Well, at least you have friends in high (seas) places.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> To add: what could be more interesting of a subject than becoming an expert in modern naval warfare? Only the RCN, in it’s infinite stupidity, could make that area of study boring.


Sort of like how only the Army could make late teen / early 20s men not enjoy running around the woods with automatic weapons.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Sort of like how only the Army could make late teen / early 20s men not enjoy running around the woods with automatic weapons.


----------



## Weinie (4 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> dapaterson said:
> 
> 
> > Sort of like how only the Army could make late teen / early 20s men not enjoy running around the woods with automatic weapons.
> ...


----------



## Underway (5 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> So the RCN just announced the next phase of it's rebranding of the ol' MARS officer. To go along with the "Naval Warfare Officer", they are also redesigning the position of Combat Officer onboard ship. From now on they will be called "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare".


There hasn't been a Combat Officer on RCN ships for about 2-3 years


----------



## Underway (5 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Clearly divide the high risk emitters (HF, fire control and air/surface search, satcom) from the low risk (UHF, VHF-FM, nav radars) which makes it easier for the OOW/OOD to control.


That already happens on the RADHAZ board.  Major, minor and greater than 75m emmiters are in different boxes and labeled as such. Of course that might have changed in the last few years but that was where East Coast Dockyard was headed.  3 categories.  This means you can go aloft aft if a minor emitter is operating forward.  Of course in Dockyard the workers can always say no if they feel "unsafe" even if they are safe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Apr 2021)

Or crates of 105mm floating around the back of gun tractors going cross country. Properly stored rifle and pistol ammunition is remarkable safe, considering ammunition that is still good is routinely dug from WWII aircraft that thundered in. 

SAAMI fire test of ammunition


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> And then I come along and sling ammo at sea with a helicopter, where we “firmly” place the load on deck and hustle back for the next load. The disconnect between what are, essentially, the same two acts (ammunitioning ship) are striking.
> 
> I get that both the Halifax explosion of 1917 and the Bedford Magazine explosion of 1945 are deeply ingrained into the RCN DNA, but seriously, all of the packed ammo is designed, by STANAG, to be safely dropped from 1 m and is HERO safe. I love how one cannot even carry a can of small arms ammo thru dockyard and across the brow of ship, for fear that the whole dockyard will suddenly explode into a firey ball of death. Ammunitioning is another soul sucking evolution that is ripe for a real world review of what actual risks are...


The Navy does all sorts of ridiculous things which don't make any sense.  A real good example is Harbour Evolutions where the Ship isn't operating under power.  Everyone I've talked to will always say "You need a BWK on the Bridge if you are doing a Cold Move" and they will force a BWK off leave to come in and do a Cold Move even though they don't hold Charge (that is retained by the OOD) and the Queen's Harbour Master is entirely responsible for the Safety of the Vessel once the lines are let go.  In fact, if something does get screwed up while they are doing the move, it's entirely on the Pilot, yet we still have an OOW standing there on the Bridge, for no other reason other than someone somewhere said we had to, in contradiction of HCI's.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Navy does all sorts of ridiculous things which don't make any sense.  A real good example is Harbour Evolutions where the Ship isn't operating under power.  Everyone I've talked to will always say "You need a BWK on the Bridge if you are doing a Cold Move" and they will force a BWK off leave to come in and do a Cold Move even though they don't hold Charge (that is retained by the OOD) and the Queen's Harbour Master is entirely responsible for the Safety of the Vessel once the lines are let go.  In fact, if something does get screwed up while they are doing the move, it's entirely on the Pilot, yet we still have an OOW standing their on the Bridge, for no other reason other than someone somewhere said we had to, in contradiction of HCI's.


Fortunately the RCAF doesn’t require a pilot to be sitting in the cockpit to tow an aircraft from/to the hangar.  They actually trust the least, but fully qualified individual to oversee the move.


----------



## NavyShooter (6 Apr 2021)

Ah, the joys of ammunition transfers.  In Dockyard.  

From my original ammunition plan when we re-took our ship from ISI in 2013:

Plan 1 : The Force Protection ammo will be moved by ship's vehicle from D-40 to the ship, and will be escorted by a fire-truck to ensure that the 600 rounds of 5.56 and 80 rounds of 9mm do not spontaneously combust.

Plan 2 : The FP ammo will be walked from D-40 to the ship, (because the vehicle didn't have placards or a static strap) and will be escorted by the fire-fighters in a pickup truck.

Plan 3 : The FP ammo will be walked from D-40 to the ship, escorted by myself and a firefighter carrying a portable extinguisher.

Yes, I presented these three COAs.

Option 1 was seriously considered.  (They didn't realize I put it in as a method of poking fun at the system...they took it seriously....)

We used option 3.

_sigh_


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Apr 2021)

NavyShooter said:


> Ah, the joys of ammunition transfers.  In Dockyard.
> 
> From my original ammunition plan when we re-took our ship from ISI in 2013:
> 
> ...



As long as you're both smoking while performing this task, that would square nicely with my memory of how to properly handle SAA natures 

Now that I think of it, although I have been required to complete several online training modules for items like GBA+ and CTAT policy, I have never been required to complete any training regarding ammunition safety while serving apart from things like 'keep the caps separate from the C4' type stuff (as a kid, of course, I learned about what can happen when you throw a handful of .22s into a camp fire .

All that to say, alot of the fear surrounding ammunition movement and storage might be best managed through some sort of more formalized training/ awareness building.


----------



## Underway (6 Apr 2021)

NavyShooter said:


> Ah, the joys of ammunition transfers.  In Dockyard.



They are way too restrictive frankly.  However, as I stated earlier there are many things that we did while transferring ammo that don't need to be done.  For example no smoking throughout ship.  That's not a rule.  It's only a rule while actually on the ammunition jetty and the gate is open.  Because that's a rule for the ammunition storage facility and when the gate is open you're "on the base".  You can smoke on a ship as long as the transfer of ammo doesn't go through the smoking area.  We've been doing it wrong for decades and no one cared to look at the actual documents apparently.  (Looks at the army guys putting out their butts on the full ammo cases...  )


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Apr 2021)

NS, a go with COA 1 would have been a classic! You could have told your grandchildren of ‘The Great Ammo Trek.’


----------



## dangerboy (6 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> All that to say, alot of the fear surrounding ammunition movement and storage might be best managed through some sort of more formalized training/ awareness building.


There is the exciting Unit Ammo Rep and Unit Explosive Safety Officers Course


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Apr 2021)

Underway said:


> (Looks at the army guys putting out their butts on the full ammo cases...  )



While the army may not be as anal as the navy (a service with an historic predilection for "rum, bum and the lash") they do have certain standards.  One of the things taught (at least back in the dark ages) during the first drill period (first smoke break) was to field strip cigarette butts.  It's even included in (some? all?) range standing orders.  Of course, the army's policy may be equally focused on avoiding burning down tents, setting grasslands on fire or keeping the RSM's grass neat and clean.

Petawawa's


> c. smoking and all stoves and heat sources for food or drink preparation shall only take place in designated areas that are free from combustion sources;
> 
> d. *all smoking materials shall be field stripped* to ensure they are completely extinguished;


----------



## dapaterson (6 Apr 2021)

COA 1 was clearly flawed.  You'd need two different vehicles, appropriately spaced, so as not to mix natures.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Apr 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Navy does all sorts of ridiculous things which don't make any sense.  A real good example is Harbour Evolutions where the Ship isn't operating under power.  Everyone I've talked to will always say "You need a BWK on the Bridge if you are doing a Cold Move" and they will force a BWK off leave to come in and do a Cold Move even though they don't hold Charge (that is retained by the OOD) and the Queen's Harbour Master is entirely responsible for the Safety of the Vessel once the lines are let go.  In fact, if something does get screwed up while they are doing the move, it's entirely on the Pilot, yet we still have an OOW standing there on the Bridge, for no other reason other than someone somewhere said we had to, in contradiction of HCI's.


That's always a fun discussion; had a BWK tell me he had to have charge, knowing full well it was with the pilot in charge.

Had to once do that nightmare scenario of cold move after hours with the duty watch (got lucky and the buffer on a sister ship heard about it and helped out), so laughed at them and rattled off the refs, but the whole thing is silly.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Apr 2021)

This, of course, is the proper way to distribute ammo


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Apr 2021)

All hail the 1911!  The economical choice, too!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> All hail the 1911!  The economical choice, too!



Depends on the metrics.


CaliberWgt per round (oz)Rounds per lbPrice per round9 mm0.44436$0.21.45 ACP0.73721$0.36


----------



## Weinie (6 Apr 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Depends on the metrics.
> 
> 
> CaliberWgt per round (oz)Rounds per lbPrice per round9 mm0.44436$0.21.45 ACP0.73721$0.36


I will engage any of you opting for the .45 or 9mm with my own .223. Contest starts at 500 yards.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Apr 2021)

That would be danger close for my trebuchet with flaming pitch.

Don't worry, I'll have a firefighter from dockyard standing by with a portable fire extinguisher.


----------



## Weinie (6 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> That would be danger close for my trebuchet with flaming pitch.
> 
> Don't worry, I'll have a firefighter from dockyard standing by with a portable fire extinguisher.


And if you or any of your crew is still alive to wind up the counterweight, load the flaming pitch, and then release it in my direction, I guess I will burn.


----------



## dimsum (6 Apr 2021)

dangerboy said:


> There is the exciting Unit Ammo Rep and Unit Explosive Safety Officers Course


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Apr 2021)

The whole ship ammunitioning process has been openly mocked and joked about for my entire 21 years, by all ranks, and I expect going back long before that. At what point does this not leech up to the powers that be and the process is either investigated, validated and communicated or investigated and changed ?


----------



## Underway (7 Apr 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> While the army may not be as anal as the navy (a service with an historic predilection for "rum, bum and the lash") they do have certain standards.  One of the things taught (at least back in the dark ages) during the first drill period (first smoke break) was to field strip cigarette butts.  It's even included in (some? all?) range standing orders.  Of course, the army's policy may be equally focused on avoiding burning down tents, setting grasslands on fire or keeping the RSM's grass neat and clean.


I was more referring to the differences in paranoia between the army and navy regarding ammunition safety than a criticism of the army. I've actually seen a WO put out a cigarette on an ammo case and then field strip it. 

I worked with the army for a few years.  Sitting in a LAV bombed up with extra 7.62, 5.56, grenades, 40mm grenades, M72's and the MCpl with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth.  Didn't even think twice about it.   Nor should he have.  It takes a hell of a lot more than a lit cig to set that stuff off.  More likely the halon would go off... lol


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Apr 2021)

Underway said:


> I was more referring to the differences in paranoia between the army and navy regarding ammunition safety than a criticism of the army. I've actually seen a WO put out a cigarette on an ammo case and then field strip it.
> 
> I worked with the army for a few years.  Sitting in a LAV bombed up with extra 7.62, 5.56, grenades, 40mm grenades, M72's and the MCpl with a lit cigarette hanging out of his mouth.  Didn't even think twice about it.   Nor should he have.  It takes a hell of a lot more than a lit cig to set that stuff off.  More likely the halon would go off... lol



I share your experiences and your head scratching. But I ask again, at what point is open stupidity addressed and challenged ?


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2021)

During the PER season when it's assessed as loyalty and leading change.


----------



## Underway (8 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I share your experiences and your head scratching. But I ask again, at what point is open stupidity addressed and challenged ?


The National Explosives Management Authority (I might have missed an "A" for ammo in there, still on first coffee... ) has much more control over ammunition management on the ship than some might realize.  And of course, the Ammo Tech Authority does as well, who certify our magazines and ammunition safety standards.  Neither of these organizations is RCN controlled.  

There is also a new NATO rule where a ship that carries ammunition that isn't a warship can not go into port unless it's to load or unload that ammo.  This means if JSS is classified as a non-warship could not go alongside Halifax unless it unloaded all its ammo every single time!

And the last reason is that an ammo accident on a warship is far far worse than one in a LAV.  Not only in potential lives lost but in strategic impact to Canadian security. Historically the Halifax disaster likely adds some trepidation.

Despite all this, there is definitively some pushback.  Ship internal ammo transfer rules were imaginary, and Sea Training 2 years ago clarified them.  They are far more permissive than they used to be.  1. Clear the route. 2. No smoking or cell phones within 2m of the route.  3. Use two hands for each "unit" of ammo.  That's basically it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2021)

From a April Fool’s joke, this thread has turned into one of the most useful and informative on Army.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> From a April Fool’s joke, this thread has turned into one of the most useful and informative on Army.ca



Dude, this all started as an April Fool's joke?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, this all started as an April Fool's joke?


Truth.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Apr 2021)

Nice article, for a PAO 

A Naval Warfare Officer’s last step before the fleet​By Lookout on Apr 12, 2021 with Comments 0





Orca-Class patrol vessel Moose comes alongside after pilotage training for Naval Warfare Officers on ETTRICK NWO IV course. Pilotage training involves the careful navigation of a ship through hazardous areas. Photo by S3 Ioannis Giannisis

*A/SLt Ty Pellerin*
Base PA Office
––
Being on the bridge of a warship as a Naval Warfare Officer (NWO) can, at times, be the most stressful job in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Situations a NWO could find themselves in range from emergency actions for a person overboard, to receiving a helicopter resupply, to piloting a ship through narrow waters around dangerous hazards.

“My memorable moment [in training] was conducting pilotage through Sansum Narrows in a snowstorm and having to stop the ship because a pod of transient orcas was approaching us from the other direction,” said SLt Bryan Cole, a member of the ETTRICK NWO IV course that graduated on April 8.

The NWO IV course takes roughly 96 training days to complete, and when combined with the other two phases, amounts to 219 days to become a NWO.

Training is run by Naval Fleet School (Pacific), and each course is overseen by a Course Training Officer. Students cover foundational aspects of the Royal Canadian Navy, giving them the tools to lead and work on ships.

The NWO course is one of the toughest courses an officer can take, and the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges for students and staff this time around.









						A Naval Warfare Officer's last step before the fleet
					

Being on the bridge of a warship as a Naval Warfare Officer (NWO) can, at times, be the most stressful job in the Royal Canadian Navy.




					www.lookoutnewspaper.com


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I share your experiences and your head scratching. But I ask again, at what point is open stupidity addressed and challenged ?


It's really, really hard to get rid of safety/environmental rules once they are in place, even if they are demonstrably stupid and unnecessary. No one wants to be the one to make something 'less safe', even if it's not actually less safe.

Even the 2m meter standoff for cell phones and no smoking along the route for ammo doesn't really make much actual sense.

I think it took something like 20 years to get rid of the 'no smoking throughout ship, transferring fuel' pipe on the CPFs, even though they are almost continually transferring fuel in practice. Seriously, it's marine diesel; you can put out a cigarette in it.


----------



## FSTO (13 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Nice article, for a PAO
> 
> A Naval Warfare Officer’s last step before the fleet​By Lookout on Apr 12, 2021 with Comments 0


Poets Cove in Bedwell Hbr. Loved going to that place. PCT Moose is actually coming alongside another Orca class vessel for a nested anchorage.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2021)

FSTO said:


> Poets Cove in Bedwell Hbr. Loved going to that place. PCT Moose is actually coming alongside another Orca class vessel for a nested anchorage.



I've kayaked around there alot, nice place. We were thinking about buying a timeshare there once. Best thing I never did!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> A Naval Warfare Officer’s last step . . .​



I only glanced at the headline . . .  are they making NWOs walk the plank?  Tough course.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> I only glanced at the headline . . .  are they making NWOs walk the plank?  Tough course.



If they're at Poet's Cove, for their sakes, I hope so. They have a really nice swimming pool there, and a bar of course


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Apr 2021)

I read the title of the thread and thought "man that's gotta hurt being branded twice". 

I are infuntree - red crayons are tasty


----------



## FSTO (14 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> If they're at Poet's Cove, for their sakes, I hope so. They have a really nice swimming pool there, and a bar of course


I've enjoyed that pool and bar several times. Getting into the Customs Jetty was a little tight but I never had a problem. Then the fun police got involved and AKAIK you can only go to anchor in Bedwell.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Apr 2021)

Are you sure it's just the fun police? Even when we were going there with four or five YAG's in the old days the wharf custodian was telling us that we were pretty close to the wharf's limit. The gate vessels were not allowed, even only one at a time, nor the PB's, again even only one at a time.  Any two Orcas bring as much weight/displacement as a single gate vessel and more than a single PB. That may have something to do with it.


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Are you sure it's just the fun police? Even when we were going there with four or five YAG's in the old days the wharf custodian was telling us that we were pretty close to the wharf's limit. The gate vessels were not allowed, even only one at a time, nor the PB's, again even only one at a time.  Any two Orcas bring as much weight/displacement as a single gate vessel and more than a single PB. That may have something to do with it.


I have no context to deal with your conversation other than having been shown a JOUT locker on a YAG in the late 1980's. As an Army guy, I was laughing, at least there was some room to stretch out in a hootch.


----------



## Pelorus (22 Apr 2021)

Slight tangent, but in hindsight I think we made a mistake with the Orca-class. They're sufficiently large and complex (and create enough wake) that the RCN essentially treats them like mini-MCDVs, when for what we truly need out of a training vessel we really should have been looking at something that was closer to a "super-YAG".

I.e., Slightly better QOL, more range/endurance, more ability to operate in foul weather, etc., but with the overall expectation that the class is designed to train junior shiphandlers, and therefore should have a simple and cheap frame that would be easy to maintain (and knock dents out of) following extended periods at sea and minor berthing incidents that are inevitably going to occur.


----------



## FSTO (22 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Are you sure it's just the fun police? Even when we were going there with four or five YAG's in the old days the wharf custodian was telling us that we were pretty close to the wharf's limit. The gate vessels were not allowed, even only one at a time, nor the PB's, again even only one at a time.  Any two Orcas bring as much weight/displacement as a single gate vessel and more than a single PB. That may have something to do with it.


More than likely your assessment is correct. I'm at an age where every decision made by my superiors seems to be more about curtailing activities than enhancing capabilities.


----------



## dimsum (22 Apr 2021)

boot12 said:


> Slight tangent, but in hindsight I think we made a mistake with the Orca-class. They're sufficiently large and complex (and create enough wake) that the RCN essentially treats them like mini-MCDVs, when for what we truly need out of a training vessel we really should have been looking at something that was closer to a "super-YAG".
> 
> I.e., Slightly better QOL, more range/endurance, more ability to operate in foul weather, etc., but with the overall expectation that the class is designed to train junior shiphandlers, and therefore should have a simple and cheap frame that would be easy to maintain (and knock dents out of) following extended periods at sea and minor berthing incidents that are inevitably going to occur.


Perhaps it got "scope creeped" and some folks thought that they could take some of the MCDV jobs like patrol, etc. rather than "just" a trg vessel.  

But yeah, having a "super-YAG" would be great.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2021)

FSTO said:


> More than likely your assessment is correct. I'm at an age where every decision made by my superiors seems to be more about curtailing activities than enhancing capabilities.



That's only becasue they know you have them figured out by now and, therefore, can't be trusted


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Apr 2021)

boot12 said:


> Slight tangent, but in hindsight I think we made a mistake with the Orca-class. They're sufficiently large and complex (and create enough wake) that the RCN essentially treats them like mini-MCDVs, when for what we truly need out of a training vessel we really should have been looking at something that was closer to a "super-YAG".
> 
> I.e., Slightly better QOL, more range/endurance, more ability to operate in foul weather, etc., but with the overall expectation that the class is designed to train junior shiphandlers, and therefore should have a simple and cheap frame that would be easy to maintain (and knock dents out of) following extended periods at sea and minor berthing incidents that are inevitably going to occur.


As I recall they took a existing design and put a extra houseworks on it, which limits where it can go for weather reasons?


----------



## MARS (22 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> Perhaps it got "scope creeped" and some folks thought that they could take some of the MCDV jobs like patrol, etc. rather than "just" a trg vessel.
> 
> But yeah, having a "super-YAG" would be great.


Definitely possible. IIRC we did employ them as part of Op PODIUM which you certainly could not have done with YDT-10 or the other YAGs. 

However the ORCAs are not nearly as versatile for "jetty bashing" which you literally need to do - physically (and hopefully gently) bash a jetty - to fully train NWOs in precise ship handling. We still do approach/departure training in the sims and at sea, but of course the CO is going to pull out of the maneuver earlier in real life than you would like to when  doing it in a MM/FFG.  When it was light airs, I would get pretty close, but with any wind and/or swell, particularly being set onto the jetty, unless line handlers are deployed to the jetty, and at least a couple of folks on roving fenders, I would generally pull away about earlier than I would have liked. 

It has been a while since I was in the simulator, but I always found the THX-level sound effect it generated whenever you collided with something to be well over the top and unnecessary.  Didn't matter if you rubbed gently or T-boned something at 30kts - the sound effect was the same...and pretty intense. Screeching of twisted metal and all that.  I could see that it bothered the students greatly sometimes and they needed to be calmed down and reassured that they hadn't just (virtually) killed their shipmates.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2021)

MARS said:


> Definitely possible. IIRC we did employ them as part of Op PODIUM which you certainly could not have done with YDT-10 or the other YAGs.
> 
> However the ORCAs are not nearly as versatile for "jetty bashing" which you literally need to do - physically (and hopefully gently) bash a jetty - to fully train NWOs in precise ship handling. We still do approach/departure training in the sims and at sea, but of course the CO is going to pull out of the maneuver earlier in real life than you would like to when  doing it in a MM/FFG.  When it was light airs, I would get pretty close, but with any wind and/or swell, particularly being set onto the jetty, unless line handlers are deployed to the jetty, and at least a couple of folks on roving fenders, I would generally pull away about earlier than I would have liked.
> 
> It has been a while since I was in the simulator, but I always found the THX-level sound effect it generated whenever you collided with something to be well over the top and unnecessary.  Didn't matter if you rubbed gently or T-boned something at 30kts - the sound effect was the same...and pretty intense. Screeching of twisted metal and all that.  I could see that it bothered the students greatly sometimes and they needed to be calmed down and reassured that they hadn't just (virtually) killed their shipmates.


----------



## dimsum (22 Apr 2021)

MARS said:


> It has been a while since I was in the simulator, but I always found the THX-level sound effect it generated whenever you collided with something to be well over the top and unnecessary.


Wait what?  It wasn't a not-so-subtle "if you screw up, this happens" nudge?


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Apr 2021)

MARS said:


> Definitely possible. IIRC we did employ them as part of Op PODIUM which you certainly could not have done with YDT-10 or the other YAGs.
> 
> However the ORCAs are not nearly as versatile for "jetty bashing" which you literally need to do - physically (and hopefully gently) bash a jetty - to fully train NWOs in precise ship handling. We still do approach/departure training in the sims and at sea, but of course the CO is going to pull out of the maneuver earlier in real life than you would like to when  doing it in a MM/FFG.  When it was light airs, I would get pretty close, but with any wind and/or swell, particularly being set onto the jetty, unless line handlers are deployed to the jetty, and at least a couple of folks on roving fenders, I would generally pull away about earlier than I would have liked.
> 
> It has been a while since I was in the simulator, but I always found the THX-level sound effect it generated whenever you collided with something to be well over the top and unnecessary.  Didn't matter if you rubbed gently or T-boned something at 30kts - the sound effect was the same...and pretty intense. Screeching of twisted metal and all that.  I could see that it bothered the students greatly sometimes and they needed to be calmed down and reassured that they hadn't just (virtually) killed their shipmates.


Ah, that explains why they were so horrifed when years ago during recruitment they put a bunch of engineers in the simulators (along with an Army guy from a recruiting center and some others) and we drove through other ships (having literally no idea what we were doing).

The YAGs were pretty fun; remember one of the other boats 'finding' some deadheaded logs by running over them and other shenanigans. They weren't allowed to be out after dark so we were alongside somewhere fun every evening, and passing orders via a brass tube, navigating on a open bridge and all the other really analogue type features was a great way to learn things.

Get the feeling that they wouldn't have been allowed off the wall if they weren't an RCN flagged ship, but fortunately nothing significant happened.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Apr 2021)

There is a YAG for sale currently. You would not likely be able to overnight charter as the vessel won't meet the TC Marine safety regs which actively discouraged wooden charter boats for fire reasons. That being said for a wooden boat of that size they be a good buy as they were well cared for for most of their lives.   Douglas Ludwig Photography,  Weddings, Tofino, Ucluelet, Parksville, Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Black Rock, Wickaninnish Inn, Long Beach Lodge, by Douglas Ludwig .  Contact Douglas by phone: 604-970-6856

But if I win the lottery I am buying this as training vessels for the Navy League Shore Built Expedition, Charter Yacht For Sale - Western Shore -...


----------



## Underway (28 Apr 2021)

boot12 said:


> Slight tangent, but in hindsight I think we made a mistake with the Orca-class. They're sufficiently large and complex (and create enough wake) that the RCN essentially treats them like mini-MCDVs, when for what we truly need out of a training vessel we really should have been looking at something that was closer to a "super-YAG".
> 
> I.e., Slightly better QOL, more range/endurance, more ability to operate in foul weather, etc., but with the overall expectation that the class is designed to train junior shiphandlers, and therefore should have a simple and cheap frame that would be easy to maintain (and knock dents out of) following extended periods at sea and minor berthing incidents that are inevitably going to occur.


Looking at their sailing schedule, nope.  They are entirely booked out to support training months in advance.  Reserve units on long weekends, NWO 3 and 4 courses.  Nav course. Command development course.  Bosn training. Dive training.  MCDV's on both coasts have been freed to do missions instead of courses (Carib, Africa, Arctic, Hawaii, Mexico, Norway).

Sometimes they support work ups as OPFOR but the YAG's did that as well.  What the problem was the MCDVs were treated as training vessels not the other way around.

Honestly the Orca's are perfect.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2021)

Underway said:


> Looking at their sailing schedule, nope.  They are entirely booked out to support training months in advance.  Reserve units on long weekends, NWO 3 and 4 courses.  Nav course. Command development course.  Bosn training. Dive training.  MCDV's on both coasts have been freed to do missions instead of courses (Carib, Africa, Arctic, Hawaii, Mexico, Norway).
> 
> Sometimes they support work ups as OPFOR but the YAG's did that as well.  What the problem was the MCDVs were treated as training vessels not the other way around.
> 
> Honestly the Orca's are perfect.



I see them beavering about around Victoria and Haro Strait occasionally during various kayak trips.

They look pretty sturdy, even in marginal conditions, and aren't hard to pick out from a distance.  This is comforting 'just in case someone' needs assistance


----------



## dimsum (28 Apr 2021)

Underway said:


> What the problem was the MCDVs were treated as training vessels not the other way around.


That's a good point.


----------



## Lumber (28 Apr 2021)

Next to the new rain coats, the Orcas have to have been the biggest "win" in naval procurement in the last two decades. They get so much bang for their buck. When I was working for NAVRES, we kept telling Comd NAVRES that we needed to put two ORCAs on the great lakes and that they would get used constantly!


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> *Next to the new rain coats*, the Orcas have to have been the biggest "win" in naval procurement in the last two decades. They get so much bang for their buck. When I was working for NAVRES, we kept telling Comd NAVRES that we needed to put two ORCAs on the great lakes and that they would get used constantly!



Tell me more


----------



## Lumber (28 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Tell me more


They aren't exactly "new" as they came in around 2013/2014. But, they are both functional AND they look good. Plus even though they aren't supposed to be "winter weather gear" I don't know a single person who prefers the navy Gortex parka over the "black rain coat" in the winter. Plus! You can wear them with both NCDs AND DEUs. So, add versatile.  Oh and they come with matching and equally as good pants.


----------



## dimsum (28 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> They aren't exactly "new" as they came in around 2013/2014. But, they are both functional AND they look good. Plus even though they aren't supposed to be "winter weather gear" I don't know a single person who prefers the navy Gortex parka over the "black rain coat" in the winter. Plus! You can wear them with both NCDs AND DEUs. So, add versatile.  Oh and they come with matching and equally as good pants.


Aren't they just the Army raincoats, but in black?


----------



## Underway (28 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> Aren't they just the Army raincoats, but in black?


Nope.  They are the airforce raincoats with some different pockets.  In black.

Not to be confused with the "refueling gear" which is the thin blue raincoats/pants normally used for deck work or refueling as they are designed to not care too much about getting dirty or spilling things on them.



> even though they aren't supposed to be "winter weather gear" I don't know a single person who prefers the navy Gortex parka over the "black rain coat" in the winter.



Even better with the new floater jacket flannel lining you can wear that inside the raincoat and it's almost as good as the parka when it really gets cold. Raincoat takes the wind, flannel keeps the heat.


----------



## Lumber (28 Apr 2021)

Underway said:


> Nope.  They are the airforce raincoats with some different pockets.  In black.
> 
> Not to be confused with the "refueling gear" which is the thin blue raincoats/pants normally used for deck work or refueling as they are designed to not care too much about getting dirty or spilling things on them.
> 
> ...


And it's waterproof! The parka is neither wind nor rain proof, which means whoever designed it had never spent any time in Halifax during the winter.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Apr 2021)

Of course not: The parka was designed for Ottawa sailors. Heck! When I was in Halifax , I wore the Canex windbreaker over the black sweater all winter long and it was more than enough.



Underway said:


> What the problem was the MCDVs were treated as training vessels not the other way around.



Well, that's unbelievable considering the 12 MCDV's were acquired to replace the exact same number of training vessels* - *as training vessels replacements *- operational capability was a second order task. Go figure?

*: HMCS's CHALEUR, CHIGNECTO, MIRAMICHI, THUNDER, COWICHAN, FUNDY, PORTE DAUPHINE, PORTE ST JEAN, PORTE ST LOUIS, PORTE QUEBEC, PORTE DE LA REINE,  and, FORT STEELE.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2021)

I remember being utterly shocked and pleased as they were armed, I saw that as a shift in thinking from the Gates vessels.


----------



## Underway (28 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Well, that's unbelievable considering the 12 MCDV's were acquired to replace the exact same number of training vessels* - *as training vessels replacements *- operational capability was a second order task. Go figure?
> 
> *: HMCS's CHALEUR, CHIGNECTO, MIRAMICHI, THUNDER, COWICHAN, FUNDY, PORTE DAUPHINE, PORTE ST JEAN, PORTE ST LOUIS, PORTE QUEBEC, PORTE DE LA REINE,  and, FORT STEELE.



I said it was a problem.  Not that it wasn't the plan!


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> They aren't exactly "new" as they came in around 2013/2014. But, they are both functional AND they look good. Plus even though they aren't supposed to be "winter weather gear" I don't know a single person who prefers the navy Gortex parka over the "black rain coat" in the winter. Plus! You can wear them with both NCDs AND DEUs. So, add versatile.  Oh and they come with matching and equally as good pants.


lol I actually like and frequently use my "Goretex" parka, and Im in Halifax. I find the black rain coat stiff and uncomfortable.  But Ive had the same parka since 2001 lol so its well worked in.


----------



## dimsum (29 Apr 2021)

Underway said:


> Nope. They are the airforce raincoats with some different pockets. In black.


Ok.  I think there's a bit of misunderstanding - the Army ones I'm referring to are very similar to the RCAF ones but with sleeve pockets and velcro, a velcro strip for your nametag, and a velcro strip for the Canadian flag.  Both Army and RCAF rain jackets have reflective strips.  

You're talking about the ones described above, right?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I see them beavering about around Victoria and Haro Strait occasionally during various kayak trips.
> 
> They look pretty sturdy, even in marginal conditions, and aren't hard to pick out from a distance.  This is comforting 'just in case someone' needs assistance


From what I have seen they are ok. They have a wet bow in heavy weather and are not super stable in any kind of sea or high wind. They have a large superstructure, which makes them top heavy and prone to effect from wind- doing hoisting even with a Sea King, we were able to stop one dead in the water with our rotor down wash and spin it through 180 degrees. They seem to be going through a bad run of serviceability, lately. Since they are maintained by contractors, it could just be a COVID related thing.


----------



## Underway (29 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> Ok.  I think there's a bit of misunderstanding - the Army ones I'm referring to are very similar to the RCAF ones but with sleeve pockets and velcro, a velcro strip for your nametag, and a velcro strip for the Canadian flag.  Both Army and RCAF rain jackets have reflective strips.
> 
> You're talking about the ones described above, right?


I was being a bit tongue in cheek.  The army and airforce both got CAPAT jackets around the same time with the cut you described.  The Airforce ones had better material and were more "dressy" as they were not required to be worn in the field.  

The RCN copied the airforce ones with a slight cut modification and thicker rainproofing material.

But yah, basically the same thing as the army ones.  And they are amazing.  Toque, gloves, sea combat jacket underneath, long johns and that jacket/rainpants combo easily take me down to -20 with windchill in relative comfort.  And I'm a wuss when it comes to cold.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2021)

Raincoats as winter dress with a toque for the win!


----------



## Underway (29 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Raincoats as winter dress with a toque for the win!


Don't forget the gloves.  I returned a salute as I was heading out of the CANEX and hadn't put my gloves on yet.  The PO1 gleefully pointed out I was out of dress (it was obvious I was about to put them on, hence the mirth at my situation).


----------



## dimsum (29 Apr 2021)

Underway said:


> Don't forget the gloves. I returned a salute as I was heading out of the CANEX and hadn't put my gloves on yet. The PO1 gleefully pointed out I was out of dress (it was obvious I was about to put them on, hence the mirth at my situation).


Do we need to put this up again?

Great Toque and Gloves Chart


----------

