# ORCA Class training vessel



## Torlyn (2 May 2006)

Just an FYI, looks like the Orca - Class training vessels will be arriving on time.  (There were rumours that they were going to be late...)  By the looks of it, October 2006 we'll begin to train on them.  I'm not sure of the phase out plan for the YAGs, but I believe that they'll be going out as we receive the Orcas.  On another note, we'll be increasing the number from 6 to 8, which sort of ties in with the increase in training that would be required for filling the new positions the government wishes to create.  

T


----------



## Phrontis (4 May 2006)

Six ORCAs wouldn't suffice.  There are currently seven YAGs (actually six YAGs and YDT 10), and even so there are times when all hulls are being used in the peak summer training period.

But I don't believe the additional two are a sure thing yet.


----------



## newfin (7 Jul 2006)

On the Cadet World site there is a picture of an Orca sitting outdoors just afterit has been painted.  www.cadet-world.com

I will try to attach the photo

Sorry can't figure out how to do it.  If anyone wants to give me any tips then I can try again.


----------



## navymich (7 Jul 2006)

Torlyn, where are you getting your information from?  Is it based on what the school is telling you about your training for the year?  As well as the info about the additional two.  Just wondering if any of that is in print and formal yet, or just stronger RUMINT.

Newfin, where in your link is the picture at?  Although, anyone from CFB Esquimalt will already have seen one....she's looking really sharp.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Jul 2006)

http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/articles/orcaTrainingVessel.htm


There is a pic of it in the middle of the article


----------



## Torlyn (7 Jul 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Torlyn, where are you getting your information from?  Is it based on what the school is telling you about your training for the year?  As well as the info about the additional two.  Just wondering if any of that is in print and formal yet, or just stronger RUMINT.
> 
> Newfin, where in your link is the picture at?  Although, anyone from CFB Esquimalt will already have seen one....she's looking really sharp.



The delivery date came from a message given on parade by our CO.  After that, I haven't heard much about it since.  If I hear more, I'll post.  And yeah, I've seen them out of the water at Vic Ships (over by the CFSA) and they do look quite sharp.  Mind you, given that I'm on SLT, spending time on a YAG would be sharp right now...  

T


----------



## newfin (13 Jul 2006)

Does anyone have any other photos or know of where I can view some.  These are the first new vessels for the Navy in a long time and they are important ones.  I can't wait to see them in the water!  One of the posters on the Cadet World forum mentioned that she had taken pictures of the interior.  Also, does anyone know how many are being constructed right now?  What about naming them?  Will they be given numbers or have a "class" name associated with them?


----------



## Navy_Blue (13 Jul 2006)

They are going to look like baby MCDV's in the water really with no guns and alittle faster.  I'm more curious as to who will man these things.  They are going to be a little more of a handful machinery wise than the old YAGs from the looks of it.  Do we think any of them will make it out east??


----------



## navymich (13 Jul 2006)

newfin, google is your friend.  Here are just a few links that came up when I entered "Orca Class": 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca_class_training_vessel
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1509
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20041108/navy_newvessels_20041108?s_name=&no_ads=

I also know that there is more about them on these boards too.


----------



## newfin (13 Jul 2006)

Navymich - those sites you show do not offer much in terms of new info.  I have visited them all a hundred times.  For real up-to-the-minute kind of info I am looking for army.ca is the only place.  Re-reading the press release from DND from Nove 2004 is of little value now.  I was hoping that some of the Navy service people had taken more photos of the vessel as it sits outdoors at Vicships.


----------



## navymich (13 Jul 2006)

newfin said:
			
		

> Navymich - those sites you show do not offer much in terms of new info.  I have visited them all a hundred times.  For real up-to-the-minute kind of info I am looking for army.ca is the only place.  Re-reading the press release from DND from Nove 2004 is of little value now.  I was hoping that some of the Navy service people had taken more photos of the vessel as it sits outdoors at Vicships.



Newfin, those are only a selection of sites out there.  Have you searched for more?  I know I have seen more around, with greater detail including naming and such, so I'm sure they are out there.  I'm not going to do your legwork for you, as I don't know anymore then what I have seen or heard...RUMINT 1st class on most of it.  On that note, I am sure there are others around the board here to help out with more information as well, but if it isn't on the web or DIN, then it is all going to be heresay too.  

As for pictures, you will have to go with what is on the net for now.  I can see the new ship from where I work, but I'm certainly not going to be taking any pictures of her, and especially not going to be posting them. That, to me, is a security violation.  You said you had heard of someone taking pictures of her, by all means then, track that person down and ask them.


----------



## Gino (14 Jul 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> As for pictures, you will have to go with what is on the net for now.  I can see the new ship from where I work, but I'm certainly not going to be taking any pictures of her, and especially not going to be posting them. That, to me, is a security violation.  You said you had heard of someone taking pictures of her, by all means then, track that person down and ask them.


Security violation?  Aren't you going a bit overboard.  They don't even belong to the Navy yet, and what could they possibly have on them that could be considered classified?


----------



## navymich (14 Jul 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> Security violation?  Aren't you going a bit overboard.  They don't even belong to the Navy yet, and what could they possibly have on them that could be considered classified?



Actually I'd prefer NOT to go overboard.  I said that to me it was a violation.  I'm not taking the chance thank you very much.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jul 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> Security violation?  Aren't you going a bit overboard.  They don't even belong to the Navy yet, and what could they possibly have on them that could be considered classified?



Geez do you post anything that isn't confrontational with everything else people post???


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Geez do you post anything that isn't confrontational with everything else people post???



The difference is he's generally right!


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jul 2006)

Whats the photo policy on the base in Esquimalt ?

Here , photography on base is prohibited unless specificaly authorized by the Wing Commander.  If its the same in Esquimalt ( i have no idea if it is), then taking pictures of the Orca from the military docks would be prohibited.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jul 2006)

I would think that there would be Security issues.  What is the floor plan of the decks?  What equipment is being installed and where?  How thick is the hull?  Is it a double hull?  What type of welding is being done?  Is the superstructure of the same metals as the hull?  Any unusual features?  Numerous questions about the construction of a Naval vessel can be asked.  Pictures of its' construction are even better intelligence.

You ask yourself these questions and tell me if there is or is not a Security Concern?

So is he always right or just thinks he is?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jul 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The difference is he's generally right!


 Ah yes I figured you would rush in to support :


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jul 2006)

Its a training vessel, I highly doubt the employees at the shipyard building this thing are cleared to anything beyond enhanced.  The comm fellas may have some sort of clearance, that being said I have no idea what kind of comms will be installed on these vessels.

If they are go out for any length of time they would need something.  Perhaps I could get a posting to one as a NAVCOMM if my AESOP OT gets denied.............  (j/k I am aware that there are no 00299's on the yags)


----------



## newfin (15 Jul 2006)

I can see that taking a picture of a Navy vessel could be seen a risk to the security of the vessel and crew  but I think in this case (and in all other cases, I can't think of any exceptions) there really is no greater risk to the future security of this class of vessels as there is to any other current class in the fleet.  I have pictures that I have taken personally of HMCS Terra Nova (after duty in Gulf War I, on Georgian Bay doing a post War tour of the Great Lakes) and of HMCS Toronto several years ago as she was in St. Catharines about to enter the Welland Canal on the way to ports in Lake Erie).  There are also very detailed pictures on the DND site.  There is nothing wrong with members of the public taking pictures of ships in the Navy.  The Navy needs to be out in the public (I wish there was another ship nearby this summer so I could take my kids) being seen by the public.  I wish we could see more of all branches of the military out in front of the public more often.  I was in Gander last year and saw the Cormorant flying for the first time.  Took pictures.

I just wanted to be able to see more pictures of the Orca's since they are the first new ships to come along in a long time.  I can't wait to see video of them in the water.  It's hard to believe that in a country as rich as ours that we can keep training ships for 50 years.  Look at how little it has cost to buy these new ships.  Approximately $11 million each.  
If anyone does not feel comfortable posting photos then they shouldn't.  Not worth having to explain yourself to your commanding officer. The less time spent in the bosses office having to justify ones actions the better.

...and as many say on this forum....my 2 cents worth


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2006)

Pictures of a Naval craft passing through the Welland Canal are not the same as pictures of the vessel under construction.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jul 2006)

The navy released many pictures of the MCDV's and CPF's under construction, because the navy was proud that their 1970's designed CPFs were finally started production in the late 80's.   They wanted to show off the modular construction.

Knowing how a ship is laid out provides no advantage to the enemy....... unless they were to board her, but if you are dead in the water and about to be boarded by an opposing force.....when it gets to that point the white flag will have already been flown or the ship scuttled.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2006)

Nonetheless taking pictures on a military installation is not a smart practice.


----------



## navymich (15 Jul 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> *The navy released many pictures * of the MCDV's and CPF's under construction, because the navy was proud that their 1970's designed CPFs were finally started production in the late 80's.   They wanted to show off the modular construction.



You said it right there Sub_Guy....THE NAVY released them.  Not the sailors, THE NAVY.  If the public wants to see pictures of the ORCAs, let them ask through Public Affairs.  I think it would be great if they showed her off too.  I keep looking and seeing what a great ship she will be, but I'd love to see inside too.  But I also know, that I'm not going to risk my job or my clearance just because Joe Public has asked to see what is happening.  Would you??


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2006)

Any word on the naming conventions the ORCA class will follow?


----------



## navymich (15 Jul 2006)

I remembering reading about it somewhere Ex-D, but can't think where now.  I'll keep looking.


----------



## Gino (16 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Geez do you post anything that isn't confrontational with everything else people post???


I asked a fair question, IMHO.  Gearing up for another round, are we?  Things been too quiet?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Jul 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> I asked a fair question, IMHO.  Gearing up for another round, are we?  Things been too quiet?



oh yes.... my day is not complete, whenever you take a hiatus from the site :


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nonetheless taking pictures on a military installation is not a smart practice.



True enough, but I would think that anything going on in a shipyard visible from any public right-of-way would be fair game.  Saint John Shipbuilding went as far as to build an observation deck just off the sidewalk during the CFP programme.  Presumably anything they didn't want the world to know about was done in the assembly building before each module was hoisted into the drydock.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

How many times must you be told?  Are you sure that you want to be in the Military?  Use your head, and some common sense.


----------



## Gino (17 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> oh yes.... my day is not complete, whenever you take a hiatus from the site :


I am afraid that my hiatus will now be permanent.  If this is the calibre of debate and DS that this forum has to offer, I can well do without it.  Save your scathing rejoinder, for I won't be seeing it.


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How many times must you be told?  Are you sure that you want to be in the Military?  Use your head, and some common sense.



I don't think that's called for.


----------



## navymich (17 Jul 2006)

Okay then, bringing this thread back on track.  For those that have access to the DIN, there is a great link that has been very recently updated, on the  ORCAs.


----------



## Torlyn (17 Jul 2006)

Cheers, Mich.  Good find.  

T


----------



## paracowboy (17 Jul 2006)

Gino said:
			
		

> I am afraid that my hiatus will now be permanent.  If this is the calibre of debate and DS that this forum has to offer, I can well do without it.  Save your scathing rejoinder, for I won't be seeing it.


buh-byeee!





			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I don't think that's called for.


nobody cares.

You two have super day!


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Jul 2006)

All right, fellas, somebody help me out here.  I've posted three times in this thread, and attracted snarky comments from the DS each time.  What exactly have I said that's got people pissed off?


----------



## old medic (17 Jul 2006)

I just spent 30 minutes with a couple of search engines and was able to find everything 
from builders photos to the radar specs to the size of the fresh water tanks out in the public
domain.  To rehash an old line here.... Google is your friend.


----------



## Monsoon (17 Jul 2006)

> All right, fellas, somebody help me out here.  I've posted three times in this thread, and attracted snarky comments from the DS each time.  What exactly have I said that's got people pissed off?



Nothing.  You're an officer (strike one) and a reservist (strike two).  Doesn't take that much to vex people around here.  Glad to see nothing's changed over the past few months I've been away.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Nothing.  You're an officer (strike one) and a reservist (strike two).  Doesn't take that much to vex people around here.  Glad to see nothing's changed over the past few months I've been away.



If you say so.

Most of us just question their naivete of Security Measures.


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Most of us just question their naivete of Security Measures.



You may question mine if you like, but again I've said relatively little on the subject here -- only, in effect, that what goes on in a commercial facility in full view of the public is more or less public information.  At any rate, I think I've been civil about it.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> You may question mine if you like, but again I've said relatively little on the subject here -- only, in effect, that what goes on in a commercial facility in full view of the public is more or less public information.  At any rate, I think I've been civil about it.



Just a point....from your post:  Since when did the Military manufacture any of its weapons systems or equipment?  

They, as far as I have been exposed to in my brief time on this earth, have all been manufactured by commerical facilities. 

Are you catching my drift yet?


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a point....from your post:  Since when did the Military manufacture any of its weapons systems or equipment?
> 
> They, as far as I have been exposed to in my brief time on this earth, have all been manufactured by commerical facilities.
> 
> Are you catching my drift yet?



Sure, but I think it's significant that most weapons systems are made in enclosed factories.  And so could be these vessels if it were thought worthwhile to do.  The CPFs were built in large modules in an assembly building (closed to all who didn't need to be there), then dropped into the drydock and welded together.  The individual modules were done inside, right down to the lights working if power were hooked up.  All one could see from outside was -- well -- the outside of a ship.  That's the same thing tourists and others will photograph and gawk at for years to come, aerials and weapons and all.

What we're talking about here is a YAG: a vessel whose main purpose is to be navigation and seamanship training, and one that already exists in civilian service elsewhere.  Twelve-year-old sea cadets will sail in them, and be allowed to tell their friends and families all about them.  I appreciate the need for security around military equipment, but in this particular case I don't see very much to worry about.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

Ah! Heck!  I tried.

OK.  Do you have an Security Alarm in your home?  Is your home similar to your neighbour's or another one on your street?  Now, why don't you be so kind as to post some photos and the floor plans for your home for all of us here on the internet?  Come on now, it isn't like there isn't others that are the same as yours out there......Nothing to worry about.......security.......don't worry about it......I am sure there is nothing attractive there that anyone else would want......



[Edit:  I forgot to ask you to post your complete address and directions to your home......would you do that too?]


----------



## navymich (17 Jul 2006)

From my link above:


> ORCA’s primary mission is to “conduct basic and advanced at-sea training to Regular and Reserve Force Naval personnel”.



Yes, I know it says "primary", and anything else could come out of that, but I still see no reference to sea cadets.  And when the time comes for whoever to sail in them, there will most likely be lots of pictures, and drawings and facts and figures about them available to everyone.  But until then, it is only what is being given out.

As well, even though they are being built in a civilian facility, the ship is not very visible from civilian land, and as I can only see it from DND property, I take that to being "not available to the public."  Obviously information is out there though, as previously stated by OM, he found lots of information on the net.  Easy for anyone to find, or I'm sure he might be so kind as to post a couple of the links if anyone is having trouble on their own.  But to state what I, and others, have said before....WE will not put forward that information.


----------



## newfin (18 Jul 2006)

I think we are getting too off topic here and the tone is getting un-friendly.  While I do not think that anyone who wears a uniform should be taking photos of a vessel under construction if they are worried about their security clearance I do not think there is any risk to "security" by doing so.  These are 100' training vessels - not spy satellites.  They are classrooms that float.  A person or organisation could make an argument that "no photogrsaphs" are allowed of any military building, equipment or personnel for security reasons.  Didn't Zarah Kazemi the Iranian-Canadian photographer initially become detained in Iran because she was taking photos of an Iranian jail?  Want to live in a country like that?  A place where the government has taken their paranoia about security to an extreme and arrests and kills people because they have taken pictures of a prison from the outside?

The new training ships should be photographed, videoed and splashed all over the news.  The day the first one is christened it should be the lead story for Peter Mansbridge that night.  Canadians should see the Canadian Armed Forces a lot more than they do. And Canadians should be concerned about security but not so much so that they are prevented from taking pictures of the next HMCS  Whatever that they visit over the summer.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jul 2006)

So newfin; using your logic, are you ready to post your full name, address, and directions to your home, along with photos, and floor plans?  No need for Security there either.  (We could even ask why it isn't all in your profile?)

You may notice signs around many Military establishments, including facilities that are manufacturing military weapons and equipment, that warn not to take photos.   Those are there for reasons that you don't seem to fathom.


----------



## newfin (18 Jul 2006)

George,
  I will if you will.  You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

  I don't want to get in an argument with you over this.  We can agree to disagree.  All of my wife's family vote Liberal.  I am usually the only Conservative in the group (12 adults) at family gatherings.  I still love them all.  We just agree to disagree.

Regards,

George


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Jul 2006)

Yes taking photographs at any military establishment is a bad idea..  We can all agree on that.  That being said, if anyone has been to Halifax during the peek of tourist season there is nothing but tourists taking pictures of the fleet sitting there, heck you can get a great view of dockyard from the bridge.  It has been a while since I have been a brow watchkeeper, so I can't say if they still do it in esquimalt, but there were harbour tours at one point in time.

The Orca is out in the open for all to see, I have only seen one picture of it online, and that picture looks like it was taken with a telescopic lens.  There really isn't much from stopping anyone who owns a boat to rip out of the Sailing association to take pictures of any of the vessels in MARPAC.  If we were so concerned about security this vessel would be built in a building and not released for anyone to see until the last minute.  

This isn't the Sea Shadow, or the next big thing.  Just wait until the JSS's are laid down, there will be pictures of them all over the place.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2006)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Nothing.  You're an officer (strike one) and a reservist (strike two).  Doesn't take that much to vex people around here.  Glad to see nothing's changed over the past few months I've been away.



Get bent, putz.  You were an overbearing stuffed shirt before and I see you haven't changed since you've been gone. 

I guess it took you that long to think we forgot about the election kife you spewed to us lowly auto-bots?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36968/post-305021.html#msg305021
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36968/post-305134.html#msg305134

and of course..._
Actually, whether you like it or not, the Liberals have just won the election (albeit with a minority).  See you in 2007, lads._


OOPS, kinda like "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2006)

..and this one is locked untill one of our more "Navyish" people can sort through the rubble that is this thread.


----------

