What you need to know to sail in the ORCAs

[Snakedoc]

That's interesting to know.  So on the ORCA, is there still the requirement for there to be both an OIC (captain type figure) and a person acting as the OOW like in larger vessels (I know during my MARS training there was but is this also true for sea cadet training or operations involving smaller vessels)?  Or is the requirement only to have a tender charge qualified person on the bridge and someone to essentially steer the boat?

Also, I'm assuming that the tender charge qualification is not limited to training situations but can involve operations as well?  For example, if during the 2010 olympics, the ORCA's were used as additional patrol craft during the weeks of the olympics, tender charge qualified CIC officers could be asked and given the opportunity to volunteer in security operations?

Thanks again for the responses!

 

[Neill McKay]

That's interesting to know.  So on the ORCA, is there still the requirement for there to be both an OIC (captain type figure) and a person acting as the OOW like in larger vessels (I know during my MARS training there was but is this also true for sea cadet training or operations involving smaller vessels)?  Or is the requirement only to have a tender charge qualified person on the bridge and someone to essentially steer the boat?

There is an OIC who is, as you suggest, the captain (but is not a Commanding Officer as the term applies to a commissioned warship).  The OOW is not necessarily the OIC.

The requirement for a YAG, as it was explained to me, is that the OOW need not have a tender charge certificate; the qualification course is enough.  (After the course one must accumulate a certain amount of sea time and pass a board to receive the certificate).  If the OOW is does not have the certificate there must be another officer who does have it somewhere on the upper decks.  I don't know if this is the same for an ORCA.

 

[Sailorwest]

Also, I'm assuming that the tender charge qualification is not limited to training situations but can involve operations as well?  For example, if during the 2010 olympics, the ORCA's were used as additional patrol craft during the weeks of the olympics, tender charge qualified CIC officers could be asked and given the opportunity to volunteer in security operations?

This is an interesting question. The Orca is a far more capable vessel than the YAG that preceeded it and could be used in operational activities like this. Some of the talk I had heard was that if the ORCA was to be employed in an operational role (in contrast to training), it would require at least a MWV command qualification. Given the potential for having weapons on board and use of force issues, a tender command/charge would simply not be sufficient. That being said, it is just as likely that they would use KIN class ships and establish a PSU during the olympics.

 

[Snakedoc]

This is an interesting question. The Orca is a far more capable vessel than the YAG that preceeded it and could be used in operational activities like this. Some of the talk I had heard was that if the ORCA was to be employed in an operational role (in contrast to training), it would require at least a MWV command qualification. Given the potential for having weapons on board and use of force issues, a tender command/charge would simply not be sufficient. That being said, it is just as likely that they would use KIN class ships and establish a PSU during the olympics.

That being said, if the Canadian Navy were to be officially asked to perform security operations (not sure if they have yet) in support of the Olympics, wouldn't it be hypothetically just as likely to use both the KIN class ships AND ORCA vessels in combination to establish a PSU....(and obviously any other resource the Navy deems necessary)?  ORCAs having the advantage of speed, smaller size, and smaller crew requirement.  However if you meant the Navy's training requirements would limit them to using the KIN class ships and not the ORCAs, that is a possibiltiy.

Sailorwest also made an interesting comment about the requirement for a MWV command qualification, and a logical one.  However, though CIC members are not trained in use of force, arn't all other CF members (namely NCOs and Officers in leadership roles) trained in the use of force to some extent within the confines of ROEs issued?  What I'm getting at is that NCO's on RHIB's during PSU exercises routinely encounter potentially hostile contacts and need to make a judgement on use of force.  Would this be not much different from a NCO (or CIC officer with past training in a different branch?) possessing a tender charge certificate on a ORCA in a operational role making the same judgement?  Or is the difference in the fact that a .50 cal could potentially be mounted and the higher fire power would require a MWV command qualification?  Or maybe in the larger size of an ORCA versus a RHIB?

 

[Sailorwest]

That being said, if the Canadian Navy were to be officially asked to perform security operations (not sure if they have yet) in support of the Olympics, wouldn't it be hypothetically just as likely to use both the KIN class ships AND ORCA vessels in combination to establish a PSU....(and obviously any other resource the Navy deems necessary)?  ORCAs having the advantage of speed, smaller size, and smaller crew requirement.  However if you meant the Navy's training requirements would limit them to using the KIN class ships and not the ORCAs, that is a possibiltiy.

Sailorwest also made an interesting comment about the requirement for a MWV command qualification, and a logical one.  However, though CIC members are not trained in use of force, arn't all other CF members (namely NCOs and Officers in leadership roles) trained in the use of force to some extent within the confines of ROEs issued?  What I'm getting at is that NCO's on RHIB's during PSU exercises routinely encounter potentially hostile contacts and need to make a judgement on use of force.  Would this be not much different from a NCO (or CIC officer with past training in a different branch?) possessing a tender charge certificate on a ORCA in a operational role making the same judgement?  Or is the difference in the fact that a .50 cal could potentially be mounted and the higher fire power would require a MWV command qualification?  Or maybe in the larger size of an ORCA versus a RHIB?

I think water side security for the olympics is likely tasking for the Navy. Similar to what occurred for APEC in Vancouver a few years ago.  Given that the RHIBs of a PSU are faster still then the ORCA and controlled by the PSU commander, they would be more effective as the small vessels. It is possible that the ORCA could be used in this role but to me it seems redundant. The KIN provides the larger vessel to establish a presence and the RHIBs give the high speed vessel for investigation and response.
As for the Tender charge and tender command qualifications, you need to keep in mind that those are just slightly advanced from bridge watchkeeping quals. With no disrespect to any such qualfied pers here, these roles are strictly for supporting training. While a good number of Bosuns who are tender charge certified might also be very experienced at ROE and use of force, they have not been tested by a senior peer group on command appreciation for that purpose through a board process. The Navy being generally risk-averse, is unlikely to put people who might be considered unqualified into a highly pubic position where a high threat environment could result. MWS command qual provides that level of satisfaction for the grown ups.

 

[Snakedoc]

For those that are interested, there is an interesting article on training requirements for the ORCA PCT vessels on pg 22-23 of the CIC Cadence magazine:

http://www.cadets.ca/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=63796

 

[NavyShooter]

Interestingly, these ships carry an AIS transponder, and they appear to have it on.

http://ais3.siitech.net/VTSLite/AView.aspx

Zoom in on Esquimalt.

NS

 

[Stoker]

Yeah, i'm surprised they would have something like that onboard. Makes it really easy to track their progress.

 

[quadrapiper]

Yeah, i'm surprised they would have something like that onboard. Makes it really easy to track their progress.

It can be turned off at need.

 

[NavyShooter]

I actually called "someone" about that last night, and it's OK to have them on.

I was rather surprised.

That said, they're just training ships, not warships.

NS

 

[Stoker]

Yes I realize it can be turned off, but my point is why have that thing on a military vessel in the first place.

 

[Stoker]

I actually called "someone" about that last night, and it's OK to have them on.

I was rather surprised.

That said, they're just training ships, not warships.

NS

Wow, i'm surprised at that. That's something I definitely don't agree on, even if they're "training ships". It's like announcing to everyone where a bunch of our assets are.

 

[NavyShooter]

The person I talked with last night was "on Watch" at a big brick building in Halifax.

As much as I was surprised at it, it's apparently OK for it to be that way.  *Shrug*

Info has been passed up the chain, what they do with it is now out of my hands.

NS