- Reaction score
- 2,032
- Points
- 1,160
I don't like sounding like a Irving shill but some things are blown out of proportion. I'm sure everyone in the Canadian marine industry has an Irving story they like to tell. Spend enough time around shipyards, the Navy, the Coast Guard, or the offshore sector and you'll hear no shortage of tales about mistakes, delays, welds, inspections, and things that supposedly went wrong. The problem is that many of these stories get repeated so often that they eventually become accepted as fact, even when the details have been exaggerated, taken out of context, or were never accurate to begin with.
Irving has had its share of screwups, but so has every major shipyard in the world. Building modern warships is one of the most complex manufacturing activities undertaken anywhere, and every yard has dealt with construction defects, rework, design issues, schedule delays, and cost growth at some point. The difference is that with Irving, every issue seems to become part of a larger narrative that the yard is somehow uniquely incapable, while similar problems elsewhere are viewed as normal shipbuilding challenges.
I sail on the Harry DeWolf class regularly. The ships have had issues, just like any new class. Some were self imposed, some resulted from systems that met the original specification but perhaps should have been more robust, and some were simply lessons learned through operational experience. Even some of the issues commonly blamed on Irving were not actually Irving's fault. The potable water valve issue is a good example. Irving supplied valves that met the approved specification and standards at the time. The problem arose when Health Canada changed the allowable lead content requirements for drinking water systems, making the alloy used in those valves slightly above the new standard. One day the valves were compliant and accepted, and the next they were not. That was a regulatory change, not evidence of poor workmanship or defective construction. People drink the water every day, the ships still sail, been to the Arctic, Northwest passage, Asia, Antarctica, Europe.
The same applies to many of the rumours that continue to circulate. For years people have repeated stories about blocks being three inches misaligned, systemic quality failures, and ships supposedly riddled with defects, yet hard evidence is rarely produced beyond low resolution photos and second hand accounts. If there is a documented defect, discuss the defect. If there is a proven quality issue, discuss the quality issue. But a blurry photograph and stories that have been circulating for a decade are not evidence of systemic failure.
Everyone has an Irving story. That does not mean every Irving story is true. Criticism is fair when it is based on facts, evidence, and documented findings. What is not helpful is treating dockyard folklore, hindsight, and social media speculation as proof that an entire shipbuilding program is flawed. Irving has made mistakes, just as every shipyard has made mistakes, but the discussion should be based on what can be proven, not on rumours that grow a little bigger every time they are retold.
