• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Two Canadian warships collide during exercise manoeuvres en route to Hawaii

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
I thought this one was the best.

2,493 of 2,560 people found the following review helpful
TOO Informative.
By Dan on December 25, 2010
Format: Paperback
Read this book before going on vacation and I couldn't find my cruise liner in the port. Vacation ruined.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,308
Points
1,090
"Good Advice For Most Readers, But Doesn't Cover All The Bases."

"There is one major oversight in this generally well-written book, and that is that it addresses animate readers exclusively. As a large rock in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the coast of Giglio Island, I have recently been confronted with instances in which avoiding huge ships was of fundamental interest to my personal well being. However, the methods presented in Capt. Trimmer's book were none too useful in my efforts to avoid huge ships, as I was recently struck by a very large ship indeed, a cruise vessel called the 'Costa Concordia'. I think the ship came off slightly worse in the exchange, but the experience was disruptive to my afternoon and rather jarring. In a situation such as this, Capt. Trimmer's advice would have been immensely beneficial to humans, fish, seabirds, and other animals, but I am none of those things. I'm a big rock. I can't zig-zag or duck and cover. Rocks don't do that. I've tried. I tried some time ago to scoot over to the left a bit to get some better sunlight, and it took me three thousand years! That's not fast enough to avoid even the slowest huge ships. It is for precisely this reason that I would advise Capt. Trimmer to augment his original volume with a section intended for readers like me; perhaps "How To Avoid Huge Ships If You Are A Rock, Iceberg, Or Coral Reef". There is a market out there for this, Capt. Trimmer, and I assure you it would be well worth the time and effort. "
 

Jacky Tar

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
E.R. Campbell said:
The unfortunate collision is getting some media attention to the important issues of "how much is enough?" in terms of both equipment and budgets from the Globe and Mail and National Post.

Those articles and my coments are in the Defence Budget thread.

Some of the comments are priceless, too. The number of self-appointed experts is truly impressive.
 

mad dog 2020

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
OTTAWA - A weekend collision with naval supply ship could hasten the demise of the Canadian navy's only command-and-control destroyer in the Pacific, a naval expert warns.

The accident involving HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur will "quite seriously compromise" the country's naval readiness on the West Coast, especially in light of continuing repairs to the frigate HMCS Winnipeg, rammed by an American fishing trawler in a separate accident last spring.

"This is a politically awkward time to be absent from the Pacific," said Dan Middlemiss, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, who has written extensively about the navy.

Naval engineers are conducting damage assessments on both the destroyer and supply ship, which have returned to their home port of Esquimalt, B.C., and have not said how long each vessel will be laid up.

Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, commander of the Pacific fleet, said the damage to Protecteur is "cosmetic" and the ship hopefully will be back at sea next week.

A more extensive damage survey will be carried out on Algonquin over the next few weeks.

Middlemiss says both the Harper government and the navy must decide whether the benefits of returning the 40-year-old destroyer to service outweigh the cost of retiring the ship, which has the capacity co-ordinate other Canadian warships when they operate as a task force.

Retirement would be a serious consideration, especially if repairs stretch out more than a year, Middlemiss said.

Auchterlonie wouldn't speculate on what might happen.

"We're only at the beginning of this extensive and thorough damage assessment," he said in an interview from Esquimalt.

"It's going to take some time. Once we have that information, based on that assessment, we'll consider the repair paths and the timeline to get her back to sea."

Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information legislation show the navy anticipates Algonquin and her sister ships HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Athabaskan will retire over the next few years, possibly without replacements in the water.

A series of slides, prepared in 2011 for the now-retired commander of the navy, admiral Paul Maddison, show the navy has been anticipating a "capability gap" with its command destroyers, but was doing everything to move replacements forward.

That replacement program — known as the Canadian Single Class Surface Combatant — is part of the Harper government's $33-billion national shipbuilding strategy. The program remains in the concept stage and is not expected to begin delivering ships until the mid-2020s.

Middlemiss says the navy may consider moving one of the two Halifax-based destroyers to the West Coast.

Damage to the Protecteur, the navy's only West Coast-based supply ship, appears limited to the bow. Middlemiss said having it out of commission underlines the government's inability to deliver replacements ordered by the previous government — and the wisdom of having three replenishment vessels.

When the Liberals first proposed new joint support ships, the program was set to deliver three all-purpose vessels. But when shipyard proposals came in higher than the budget, the Harper government put the program on ice in 2008.

The program is now expected to deliver only two ships, perhaps in 2018.

"The navy is in a tough spot on the West Coast," said Middlemiss.

But Auchterlonie says once Protecteur is back in operation, the navy's ability to operate task forces, as opposed to single ships, will be enhanced, and newly refurbished Halifax-class frigates have command capabilities that can substitute for Algonquin.

Courtesy Leader post
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,635
Points
1,040
mad dog 2020 said:
OTTAWA - A weekend collision with naval supply ship could hasten the demise of the Canadian navy's only command-and-control destroyer in the Pacific, a naval expert warns.
...

Retirement would be a serious consideration, especially if repairs stretch out more than a year, Middlemiss said.

A YEAR?!?  Wow, guess his expertise isn't in ship repair.  You could dock a ship and replace most of the hull in a year.

Assuming the damage is limited to the hangar, this is a relatively easy repair.  There is almost nothing in the way, you have full access from the jetty.  It might take longer to get that much  of the required grade of sheet aluminum then to actually complete the welding, non destructive testing and painting, plus reinstalling the trunking, wiring etc.  Even if they do no overtime and take their time, really no reason it won't be done before people start making their xmas preps.

Is it news though that all the destroyers are all retiring soon?  The ships were all commisioned in 1972 with plenty of original parts still in use (fun trivia a lot of the loudspeakers have a 'Royal Canadian Navy' tally plate because they date back to before unification).  Maybe ALG decided she didn't want to wait another 6 years or so and is trying to decomission herself!

Or so the underground fascist alien bunkers would have us believe... :Tin-Foil-Hat:
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,359
Points
1,260
Navy_Pete said:
A YEAR?!?  Wow, guess his expertise isn't in ship repair.  You could dock a ship and replace most of the hull in a year ....
I guess folks lost faith in the RCN Info-machine's assessments when they use terms in other incidents like "fender bender"  ;D
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
20
Points
230
I'll bet the Navy's kinda regretting having sunk Huron back in 2007.

Just cut the hangar off and replace it; they did it with ship's bows before.
 

Jacky Tar

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Fred Herriot said:
I'll bet the Navy's kinda regretting having sunk Huron back in 2007.

Just cut the hangar off and replace it; they did it with ship's bows before.

Very true - "Now wherever KOOTENAY goes, CHAUDIERE leads her by a nose" :)
 

Pat in Halifax

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
260
And another was when GATINEAU's funnel almost got tore off during a RAS in the early 90s so we ended up with ST CROIX's.
Methinx though that a hangar is a slightly different 'cat' here. I keep nagging my west coast counterpart for an ETR but he isn't answering my queries...now that's just plain rude.

BTW, that same NATO that saw the PRESERVER PENELOPE collision, there was also one between a German tanker and USN destroyer (can't recall the names) which cut off the destroyers stern...and a Belgium frigate ran aground and when ATHABASKAN went in to tow her, she ran aground...and the brand spanking new Spanish OHP (I think her name was VICTORIA) lost all propulsion and electrical power and had to be towed home from somewhere south of Italy. I think there was us and a little Portuguese corvette who were the only ones left unscathed through that NATO!

Pat
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
I did a half NATO in 2000 with the VICTORIA.  They and the TORTUGA were our port partners.  The Yanks hated us and were dicks and the Spaniards couldn't speak English and thus avoided us all.  Quiet ports, they were.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
They should have done damage control and run the ship as if it had suffered battle damage while continuing the exercise. As mentioned this is not hull or machinery damage and in a real fight the ship would be expect to continue, it would prove to be educational and allow the crew to come up with some innovative solutions.

As for why so close, you need to be close enough to pass a heaving line, either tossed by hand or gun. Sometimes a commercial salvage vessel will float a line across and I have done that myself.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
864
Points
960
As someone said in the Wardroom yesterday:

When maneuvering for a tow you don't have to be able to shake hands with the fellow passing you the rope.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,635
Points
1,040
Colin P said:
They should have done damage control and run the ship as if it had suffered battle damage while continuing the exercise. As mentioned this is not hull or machinery damage and in a real fight the ship would be expect to continue, it would prove to be educational and allow the crew to come up with some innovative solutions.

As for why so close, you need to be close enough to pass a heaving line, either tossed by hand or gun. Sometimes a commercial salvage vessel will float a line across and I have done that myself.

I'm reasonably confident they did do damage control and came up with innovative solutions, but an entire wall off the hangar was gone, and they weren't sure what kind of damage was done to the other two or the post between the doors, or other structure from the shock.  A lot of the metal is 40 years old and already fatigued, so they will also need to inspect all the nearby structure for cracking.

Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.
 

Towards_the_gap

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Navy_Pete said:
I'm reasonably confident they did do damage control and came up with innovative solutions, but an entire wall off the hangar was gone, and they weren't sure what kind of damage was done to the other two or the post between the doors, or other structure from the shock.  A lot of the metal is 40 years old and already fatigued, so they will also need to inspect all the nearby structure for cracking.

Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.

Do they still teach sail-making to you matelots? :)
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,363
Points
1,160
Jacky Tar said:
Very true - "Now wherever KOOTENAY goes, CHAUDIERE leads her by a nose" :)

I've dived on the Chaud  a few times, out of Sechelt. IMHO it is a fine way to extend the useful life of our Navy resources ;D. Bring on the Kootenay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Chaudiere_(DDE_235)

 

Jacky Tar

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Navy_Pete said:
Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.

Not really - #2 Solar intake plenum and exhaust trunking,  yes. #3 is on the stbd side of the hanger. None of the main prop GTs have air intake through there. Not an insurmountable problem. Besides, according to a winger, #2 was on load at the time and held it just fine, though they did xfer to #3 ASAP.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
Navy_Pete said:
I'm reasonably confident they did do damage control and came up with innovative solutions, but an entire wall off the hangar was gone, and they weren't sure what kind of damage was done to the other two or the post between the doors, or other structure from the shock.  A lot of the metal is 40 years old and already fatigued, so they will also need to inspect all the nearby structure for cracking.

Don't forget half the air intakes are in that general area; a small piece of metallic debris could turn a 14000 rpm gas turbine to shrapnel.  Would have been pretty stupid to attempt a pacific crossing like that; the hull may have made it but a ship without generators or propulsion doesn't go too far.

Not by any means a slag on the crew and I know they would do immediate damage control, but this is an opportunity to carry out repairs and temporary fixes under a simulated combat situation, it would require some fairly out of the box solutions and that would well worth the extra costs later. In WWII and Falklands, ships had to make do with onboard damage repairs till they made it to dockyard. That's a skill set that you don't often get a chance to practice for real.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,635
Points
1,040
Jacky Tar said:
Not really - #2 Solar intake plenum and exhaust trunking,  yes. #3 is on the stbd side of the hanger. None of the main prop GTs have air intake through there. Not an insurmountable problem. Besides, according to a winger, #2 was on load at the time and held it just fine, though they did xfer to #3 ASAP.
Everything would have been done that could be done in the first four hours or so anyway DC wise, so after that it's just monitoring and hoping for the best.  I doubt there is much if anything that would have been gained from staying out, and then there would have been a ridiculously expensive repair to do somewhere foreign, which we can't afford.

The entire hangar structure is suspect, and if it partially/fully collapsed it could collapse the uptakes that contain almost all the exhausts.  No exhaust= no generators or engines = dead ship.  Also, the impact could have cracked the 40+ year old fatigued weather deck steel, which is one of those things that starts small and can rapidly propagate into a big problem.

So yes, they could have stayed out, and sailed the rest of the way to Pearl Harbour (4000 kms?) with the hangar open to sea.  And yes, they maybe would have made it.  Or maybe they would have been lost at sea, or somewhere in between.  Also guessing that after a collision like that the ship was most likely ordered to return to base.  Taking that kind of unplanned risk with a crew during peacetime on an antique seems kind of negligent, and a bit more extreme then what is normally accepted during training.  Just my  :2c: but that seems like a huge risk for very little/no reward.
 
Top