Author Topic: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)  (Read 49852 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 554
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #75 on: November 30, 2014, 08:05:01 »
I was thinking more along the lines of the engineering side of the house not the combat, which isn't my part ship, at any rate.

There's a surprising number of ITAR parts in the MSE side as well; some of it was cutting edge in the 1960s I guess!  Plus a lot of common fasterners, valves, pumps etc that happen to be used on fancy whizbangs as well that got caught under the 'ITAR the whole system' CYA approach.

The big issue the americans have with ITAR is that there is no 'expiry date' so it's a huge amount of workload to handle, hence why they are reducing what they actually consider ITAR down to something probably close to the original intent, but still have to go and get individual items taken off the list, which will probably take decades.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,351
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #76 on: November 30, 2014, 08:58:53 »
Actually, all four IRO are from before ITAR came into effect and, even originally, had very little in terms of US content.

Other than the missiles and their fire control or the Phalanx, they have very limited use of US technology for which we are covered by ITAR. That is actually the very reason Canada tends to use European electronics when we can nowadays.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 554
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #77 on: November 30, 2014, 09:57:16 »
I've worked on developing the list of all CG onboard the IRO class; there are many line items where they are Controlled goods - ITAR.  Some of them are original to build (ie pre trump).  You'd be surprised how pervasive it is. A lot of it for us we don't notice because of the Canadian exclusions.

EU stuff comes with it's own restrictions as well; it's not necessarily any better then US origin.  ITAR is less onerous then people think once you understand the system, but it is painful to try and have something that obviously shouldn't have been cataloged as ITAR (like common fasterners) changed.

The plus side is US defence contractors noticed a big hit, as people try and avoid it.  It's been working through the US DoS for a couple of years, but they are limiting it back to a more sane level of just the equipment specific to weapons, ammunition, etc.

The other wrinkle for becoming a museum is the PCB regulations changed a few years ago, so we aren't allowed to transfer anything with PCBs outside of their cables and control cabinets.  So remediation would be required, although not to the same extent as for an artificial reef or a target.  It gets pretty complicated pretty quickly.

Offline Occam

    Go RRRRRRRREDBLACKS!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 92,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,004
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #78 on: November 30, 2014, 10:10:50 »
ITAR deals with the import/export of items from the USA.  The problems more likely to be encountered with turning one of these ships into museums deals more with Controlled Goods (as defined under Canadian legislation) aboard them, and the requirement to prevent access to Controlled Goods to unauthorized persons.

I've worked on developing the list of all CG onboard the IRO class; there are many line items where they are Controlled goods - ITAR.  Some of them are original to build (ie pre trump).  You'd be surprised how pervasive it is. A lot of it for us we don't notice because of the Canadian exclusions.

When items were reviewed in anticipation of Canada's required compliance date with US regulations for Controlled Goods, if they hadn't previously been challenged, they were assigned a Demilitarization Code (DMC) of D or F, indicating they were Controlled Goods.  That was to ensure that CG weren't inadvertently disposed of as regular scrap.  The only way to have the DMC changed to A or Q (not CG) was to challenge the DMC of that item.  Many of my NSNs remain unjustified (not challenged)...we simply don't have the time to devote to doing them all at the same time.  As items come up for disposal, we challenge the DMC then.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,470
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #79 on: July 12, 2016, 07:06:11 »
Bumped with the latest -- wanted:  someone to take 'er apart:
Quote
... The Department of National Defence has a requirement for the safe disposal of an Iroquois-class guided missile destroyer (DDG) that has reached the end of its operational life, the former Her Majestys Canadian Ships (HMCS) Iroquois. The contractor will be required to prepare the ship for transfer, transfer it to the Approved Site, demilitarize the Controlled Goods, return the museum material, and subsequently dismantle (dispose/recycle) the vessels in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner that is conforming to Canadian Laws and the terms of the contract ...
Dismantling specs (65 pg PDF with lotsa drawings/diagrams) here (via dropbox.com).
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,437
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #80 on: July 12, 2016, 11:04:27 »
I've worked on developing the list of all CG onboard the IRO class; there are many line items where they are Controlled goods - ITAR.  Some of them are original to build (ie pre trump).  You'd be surprised how pervasive it is. A lot of it for us we don't notice because of the Canadian exclusions.

EU stuff comes with it's own restrictions as well; it's not necessarily any better then US origin.  ITAR is less onerous then people think once you understand the system, but it is painful to try and have something that obviously shouldn't have been cataloged as ITAR (like common fasterners) changed.

The plus side is US defence contractors noticed a big hit, as people try and avoid it.  It's been working through the US DoS for a couple of years, but they are limiting it back to a more sane level of just the equipment specific to weapons, ammunition, etc.

The other wrinkle for becoming a museum is the PCB regulations changed a few years ago, so we aren't allowed to transfer anything with PCBs outside of their cables and control cabinets.  So remediation would be required, although not to the same extent as for an artificial reef or a target.  It gets pretty complicated pretty quickly.

Talking to State Department people at SHOT I said 'ITAR" is the best thing the US could have done for China, you develop it and then China copies it and sells it to the world while you are filling out forms for a bolt and nut. For awhile the grip screws for a sig were controlled items.....

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,470
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2016, 07:12:38 »
This, from the Shipfax blog ...
Quote
There will be many sad faces on the waterfront at 5 pm Thursday November 24 when the decommisioned HMCS Iroquois is towed away from HMC Dockyard to the scrappers in Liverpool ...


“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,351
Re: HMCS Iroquois' woes (merged)
« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2016, 13:52:24 »
Weren't the Sisters (of the space age, for those who remember) beautiful with their five inch guns and bunny ears  :nod: (bottom picture only).

 IRO: :cdn: :salute: