National Defense Defence nationale Maritime Engineering Journal · 2017-03-06 · •*•National...

•*• National DefenseDefence nationale

MaritimeEngineeringJournalCANADA'S NAVAL TECHNICAL FORUM

CIMTHAl\lews inside!

June 1999

Photo ContestWinner!Leading Seaman GaryDrainville of Halifax, N.S.snapped this winning portraitof LS J.B.Y. Menard "puttingon a snort" for the last timebefore HMCS Ojibwa's finalsailpast in May 1998.(First Place $150)

Our photo contest brought in50 great photo submissions.Turn the page to see the restof the winning entries.

Also:• Converting TSRVs into Diving Tenders

• Forum: How important is the Divisional Systemto morale?

Canada

The Rest of ourPhoto ContestWinning Entries

"HMCS Edmonton" (Second Place $75)by CPO2 Ken Levert, HMCS Protecteur

"Medevac" (Third Place $25)by CPO2 Doug Morris

(Submitted by PO1 David Ross,CFB Borden)

"HMCS Calgary in Drydock"(Category: Equipment $25)by PO1 David Ross, CFB Borden

"HMCS Ontario"(Category: Ship/Vessel $25)

by Cmdre (ret.) W.J. Broughton, Ottawa

"Damage Control School Esquimalt"(Category: People $25)by MBdr Jon O'Connor, LFCA Headquarters

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 1999 1

MaritimeEngineering JUNE 1999

Journal Vol. 18, No. 2 (Established 1982)

The Maritime Engineering Journal (ISSN 0713-0058) is an unofficial publication of the Maritime Engi-neers of the Canadian Forces, published three times a year by the Director General Maritime EquipmentProgram Management. Views expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect official opin-ion or policy. Mail can be sent to: The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMMS, NDHQ, MGenPearkes Building, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0K2. The editor reservesthe right to reject or edit any editorial material. While every effort is made to return artwork and photosin good condition, the Journal can assume no responsibility for this. Unless otherwise stated, Journal ar-ticles may be reprinted with proper credit. A courtesy copy of the reprinted article would be appreciated.

DEPARTMENTSGuest Editorial: A Change of the Watch

by Capt(N) Gerry Humby ...................................................................................2

Commodore’s Corner: Prefacilitated Contractsby Cmdre J.R. Sylvester ......................................................................................3

Letters ...................................................................................................................... 3

Forum:Engineering Recognition

by Cmdre (ret.) W.J. Broughton .....................................................................4

The Naval Divisional System and its FundamentalImportance to Morale in the Navyby Lt(N) Keith Coffen.....................................................................................5

FEATURESThe Canadian Navy’s Solution to

Simulation-based Command Team Trainingby LCdr Steven Yankowich .................................................................................7

Extended Work Period Management — Principles for Successby Irek J. Kotecki and David B. Jones ..............................................................14

Yard Diving Tenders — A Successful Vessel Conversion Projectby Ed Chan and Lt(N) Gaston Lamontagne .....................................................20

Greenspace:Protecting the Oceans in Future

by LCdr Mark Tinney ....................................................................................22HMCS Fredericton Joins the Solid Waste Management Fleet

by Sean Gill ...................................................................................................23

Ship Signature Reduction in the Canadian Navyby Mike Belcher and Ping. K. Kwok .................................................................24

Year 2000 Ship Readinessby LCdr Richard Gravel and Lt(N) Erick DeOliveira ......................................29

NEWS BRIEFS ...........................................................................................................31

CNTHA NEWS:Newsletter of the Canadian Naval TechnicalHistory Association ..........................................................................................Insert

Director GeneralMaritime Equipment Program ManagementCommodore J.R. Sylvester, CD

EditorCaptain(N) David Hurl, CDDirector of Maritime Management andSupport (DMMS)

Editorial AdviserBob WeaverDGMEPM Special Projects Officer

Production Editor / EnquiriesBrian McCulloughTel. (819) 997-9355 / Fax (819) 994-8709

Production Editing Services byBrightstar Communications,Kanata, Ontario

Technical EditorsLCdr Mark Tinney (Marine Systems)LCdr Marc Lapierre (Combat Systems)Simon Igici (Combat Systems)LCdr Chris Hargreaves (Naval Architecture)CPO1 G.T. Wall (NCMs) (819) 994-8806

Print Management Services byDirector General Public Affairs – CreativeServices

Translation Services byPublic Works and Goverment ServicesTranslation BureauMme. Josette Pelletier, Director

The Journal is available on the DGMEPMwebsite located on the DND DIN intranetat http://dgmepm.d-ndhq.dnd.ca/

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL JUNE 19992

Looking back, it seems quiteamazing to me that more than 37years have whizzed by, seem-

ingly at the speed of light, since I beganmy naval career as a mere teenage ordi-nary seaman at HMCS Cornwallis. Inthose salad days in what was then theRoyal Canadian Navy, when kit musters,boot polish and parade grounds were mydaily fare, it would have been quite im-possible to imagine that at the end of thisgreat adventure I would be a full navalcaptain, leading a huge and complex or-ganization such as Fleet MaintenanceFacility Cape Scott. I have been privi-leged to share the journey with some trulywonderful people — some of the finestpeople this country has ever produced —and it has been great fun, too (which iswhy, I suppose, the 37 years have passedso very quickly). I am happy and con-tented, and now that I am at this end ofmy career I can confidently report that themarvellous and extraordinary journey hasbeen worthwhile.

The navy I joined in 1961 was a smallerrepresentation of that which saw usthrough the Second World War, but thepeople who were training us had servedin the North Atlantic convoys, and werepassing on the fruits of their hard-wonexperiences. In those days most of thesailors in our ships still slept in ham-mocks, not bunks, and our pay washanded to us on top of our doffed caps.Technology (especially in the field ofelectronics) was a crawling infant, andeven though Sir Frank Whittle had pat-ented his gas turbine in 1930, the idea ofpropelling a warship with an airplane en-gine was still only in gestation. Over theyears I have witnessed enormous changein the navy, and as a sailor, engineer and

officer have even been instrumental inpart of it.

Some of the biggest changes havebeen cultural. As an AB sonarman“maintainer/operator” in the three-yearold HMCS Gatineau in 1962, the chancesof me seeing an officer in the course ofmy daily work were zero. Officers wouldonly be spoken to if they troubled to ad-dress you, and as a general rule theydidn’t. They were in the main unpleas-antly snobbish, and in some cases un-popular with the ship’s company — dis-tinctly un-Canadian. Clearly this had tochange, and of course it did — radically.By the time I was commissioned in 1973,the transition to the wardroom was verypleasant and easy because of the muchimproved social attitude.

The sixties brought many other signifi-cant changes to the navy. On boardHMCS Columbia in 1965, we were half-way across the Atlantic on our way tojoin our NATO cousins in the first Stand-ing Naval Force Atlantic squadron whenwe hoisted the new maple leaf ensign forthe first time. Unification of the Forcesfollowed, and as a navy we gradually dis-tanced ourselves from our Royal Navyroots. By the late sixties we were movingfrom vacuum tube technology to solid-state and digital electronics, and I was inthe thick of it with such uniquely Cana-dian development projects as hydrofoilVDS, ASROC, and AN/SQS-505 digitaldisplay sonar.

Throughout the 1970s and early 80smy career on the waterfront progressedfirst at sea and then ashore through UCSand ADLIPS, after which I went to Ottawato join the Canadian Patrol Frigate Projectin 1983. Dealing with the captains of in-

dustry was indeed an education. I fol-lowed this with a three-year stint asDMCS 2 (Surface and Air Weapons) dur-ing which time we were prime movers inNATO Sea Sparrow, and then it was backto the Coast in August of 1990, just intime for Op Friction. Shortly afterward, thepace began to get really exciting as ourlong-awaited new patrol frigates and mari-time coastal defence vessels started arriv-ing at a breathtaking rate. Not only that,but the navy began a major restructuringashore which saw my own organizationshrink from 2,200 people to 1,100 duringmy five-year tenure. Even more excitingtimes lie ahead as we anticipate the arrivalof the first two Victoria-class submarinesfrom the U.K. next year.

As I close out my own naval career,the message I would like to leave our jun-ior personnel is that your future can bejust as full of adventure, opportunity andenjoyable challenges as mine has been.But you must always remember that “yourattitude is the only difference between anordeal and an adventure.” In my estima-tion our navy has the finest calibre peo-ple, sound leadership, and a fleet ofworld-class warships.

The other day when someone askedme if I had any regrets, I hastily replied,“No.” On reflection, however, as I preparefor the change of the watch, I do haveone regret — that I cannot do it all again.

You have the watch!

[On behalf of the entire military andcivilian naval support community, we wishGerry Humby fair winds and a followingsea. You stood a good watch! — Editor]

Guest Editorial

A personal retrospective by Captain(N) Gerry Humby, CD

A Change of the Watch

The Journal welcomes unclassified submissions, in English or French. To avoid duplication of effort and to ensure suitabilityof subject matter, prospective contributors are strongly advised to contact The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMMS,National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K2, Tel. (819) 997-9355, before submitting material. Final selectionof articles for publication is made by the Journal’s editorial committee. Letters of any length are always welcome, but only signedcorrespondence will be considered for publication.


By Commodore J.R. Sylvester, CDDirector General Maritime Equipment Program Management

Commodore’s Corner

Letters

Iwas reading the Maritime Engin-eering Journal today and startedthinking about Cmdre Mack’s com-

ments about the fire on board HMASWestralia (Commodore’s Corner, Feb.1999 ). On reading the Westralia Board of

Inquiry report, I concluded that a) it wasthe best BOI report I’d ever seen, and b)there were a lot of great lessons in itabout engineering practice, and mistakesthat arise from making assumptions(pretty much what the commodore said).

HMAS Westralia Fire:Board of Inquiry report available on Internet

I think it would be a real service to theMar Eng community to publicize the re-port and its website: http://www.navy.gov.au/9_sites/o195/boi/report.htm —Sue Dickout, DMSS 2-4, Ottawa.

Last April’s MARLANT Techni-cal Support Seminar included alively debate on the subject of

prefacilitated contracts (PFCs), now thepreferred support method of the MaterielGroup. Two concerns were tabled: firstthat we, the technical community, are“contracting-out our bread and butter;”and, second, that PFCs represent alter-nate service delivery (ASD) without con-sultation or process.

On the first concern, we must acceptthat the world, industry and governmentpolicy have all changed. The Canadiangovernment “built” this country’s firstrailway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and soon, but contrast this with the recent con-struction of PEI’s Confederation Bridgeand Ontario’s highway 407. The trend isclear: nowadays, if industry has the re-sources and expertise, industry should dothe work. Government should be as smallas possible, and should “steer, not row.”DND and the CF are no exception. Sinceour downsizing, we no longer have thehuman resources to do as much our-selves, which means we must continue tocontract-out work that is economicallyand effectively delivered by private in-dustry.

In-house we now focus on the “war-rior” aspects of the military role, and onthe “smart customer” activities — design

authority, planning, contract manage-ment, unique services, etc. — which haveto be done in-house. Of course, it wouldbe false economy and frustrating if ourcontract administration were to absorbmuch of the time saved, and this is whereprefacilitated contracts come in. By bun-dling contract work into larger packagesthan in the past (e.g. one PFC to coverhitherto separate contracts for R&O,TIES/FSR, spares, data warehousing, andso on), PFCs should reduce both theamount and cost of contract administra-tion.

The issue, therefore, is not with PFCphilosophy, but with the volume and typeof work to be included in a prefacilitatedcontract. A number of you have sug-gested that downsizing and future con-tracting-out will render us incapable ofbeing a smart customer, meaning that ex-perience in doing some work is a prereq-uisite to proper specification and analysisof contract deliverables. I fully agreethere is a limit beyond which we must notgo if we are to remain capable of offeringknowledgeable analysis and independentadvice to our navy and our government. Iam very conscious of this responsibilityand we will proceed with caution.

On the second issue — PFCs as alter-nate service delivery — it is not our in-tent to bypass the ASD policy if a PFC

affects work currently conducted in-house. In most cases, we are simply con-solidating R&O, supply arrangements,FSR support and documentation servicesthat have already been contracted to in-dustry, but in many separate vehicles.Where a PFC is to include work currentlydone in-house, consultation will takeplace. For incremental new equipment,and even ships like the MCDV, we haveutilized large omnibus support contractsfrom the outset because it made sense todo so as part of a new procurement.

With all of this in mind, I remind youthat the overall objective is to provide themaximum amount of support for everybudget dollar we receive. I simply will notrecommend to CMS or ADM(Mat) prefa-cilitated contracts, or any other contractsfor that matter, which do not achievevalue for money.

Prefacilitated Contracts —Navy is Proceeding with Caution


Forum

Icontinue to enjoy reading theMaritime Engineering Journaland appreciate being kept on the

mailing list. I was particularly interested inLt(N) M.D. Wood’s open letter in the Oc-tober 1998 issue. Engineering recognitionis, of course, a long-standing debate andperhaps your readers would be interestedin some personal recollections from whatis becoming the distant past!

Maritime engineers have come a longway since 1964. That was just two yearsafter I completed my naval architecturaldegrees at M.I.T. You can imagine myconsternation when the navy consideredestablishing a restricted duty list on therecommendation of the Tisdale Report,according to which any officer with a PGdegree would be too specialized to riseabove the rank of commander! I submit-ted my concerns and a rebuttal quotingthe M.I.T. calendar which specificallystated that the purpose of postgraduatestudies was to broaden (and deepen) thestudent. If integration had not comealong, the intended policy would have

I can now confirm, after consultingMacPherson’s “Ships of Canada’sNaval Forces” that it is definitely

not the Algerine-class minesweeper

gone into effect. And, on reflection, I amsure that I would not have stayed in thenavy for 37 years.

When I was sent on Course II of thenewly integrated Staff College in Torontoin 1967, I pursued my interest in the sta-tus of engineering within the service byselecting, “Dual-professionalism in theCanadian Armed Forces” as my majorpaper. Three particular groups were exam-ined. It is important for clarity to knowthat I applied the term “specialty/special-ist” to all officers (i.e. we are all officersfirst and then have a particular specialty).

I concluded that the first group, con-sisting of doctors, dentists, lawyers andchaplains, enjoyed a civilian view of theirdual-professionalism in the CF, which wasvalid considering they were almost com-pletely divorced from the prime warriorfunction of integrating available man-power and equipment into an effectivefighting system. Hence, the policies of thetime — particularly with respect to profes-sional pay for doctors —were considered

to be valid. Little has changed for themsince then, other than to put them on thethree-phase career employment scheme.

The second group I examined was airforce officers. At the time they receivedextra pay throughout the rank structureeven if they were flying a desk and onlyputting in minimum hours to maintaintheir flying qualification. (Needless to sayI took a dim view of this.) I concludedthat their dual-professionalism was dipo-lar, in that they received most of the ben-efits of both the civilian and warriorapproaches to dual-professionalism.Hence, I wrote, “Both pilots and naviga-tors must come under similar approachesto their professionalism as do engineers...flying pay must be eliminated except asa risk pay when on flying duty, and statusand career opportunities must be equal-ized between pilots and navigators andbetween aircrew and other specialists.” Ineffect, I was saying that their professionalobligation to be professional in the war-rior role was no different from the obliga-tion of engineers in theirs. As an aside, I

Francis in the Navy?

Ihave just been reading the Febru-ary 1999 edition of the Journal,and have noticed what I believe to

be an incorrectly captioned photo. In theHedgehog article on page 20, I think theship depicted is one of the ex-American“four-stackers” named after Canadiancities and rivers: HMC ships Niagara,Annapolis, Hamilton, etc. Definitely notFort Frances, which was an Algerine-class minesweeper.

I do enjoy the Journal very much. Isthere a chance of getting excess copiessent to the Warfare Centre? — LCdrDoug Thomas, Editor of Maritime War-fare Bulletin, etc., Halifax.

fied to look like a German vessel, rammedthe drydock gates at St. Nazaire, thus pre-cluding the use of the dock as an Atlanticdocking facility for German capital shipssuch as Tirpitz.

Given the evidence, I think it is safe topresume the ship in the photo is HMCSSt. Francis. Regards, — Pat Barnhouse,DSTM 3, Ottawa.

HMCS “Fort Francis” (sic) in the Hedge-hog article photo. It is definitely one ofthe Town-class destroyers, as evidencedby its very distinctive bridge superstruc-ture. The lower portion is the configura-tion as per the original build of theseships, and the upper portion is as modi-fied in Canada in WWII.

The Town class in RCN service num-bered eight (among them being HMCS“St.” Francis). These ships were a por-tion of the 50 ships transferred from theUnited States to the United Kingdom dur-ing the fall of 1940 in the “destroyers forbases” deal (Argentia, Bermuda, etc.) tohelp the RN close the gap in escort shipnumbers until sufficient corvettes (andlater, frigates) could be brought into serv-ice. Perhaps the most famous of these“four-stackers” was HMS Campbeltownwhich, loaded with explosives and modi-

[A good eye, gentlemen – the four-stackerHMCS St. Francis it is indeed! A case ofmistaken identity on the part of yourproduction editor. My apologies to Dr.Douglas, and also to the Directorate ofHistory and Heritage who had correctlyidentified the photo in the first place! —B. McC.]

Engineering RecognitionArticle by Cmdre W.J. Broughton (ret.)

Letters


drew attention to my discovery that navi-gators were even worse off than engi-neers in terms of rank status. Strengthfigures showed 73 percent as many navi-gators as pilots overall, but only 10 per-cent as many generals.

But what about engineers? First, I ar-gued against the then recent thinkingwithin the navy to train all officers (in-cluding engineers) for command at sea.For most, I said, it was “an unattainablemyth and an unnecessary requirement.Dual-professionalism of all specialistsmust be based on professional ability inonly one specialty, be it engineering orthe management of violence, coupledwith an underlying professionalism interms of motivation to the service.” As faras treatment was concerned, I noted thatengineers fell into two subgroups — “thetraditional military engineers and gunneryspecialists who had a consistent warriortreatment of their dual-professionalismbased on their long history and their inti-mate association and training for the con-duct of battle,” and “the variety of newengineers which have emerged in thetwentieth century...whose status, employ-ment and career opportunities failed to re-enforce either a warrior view or a civilianview. The result was considered to be aneutral view in that the new engineersderive few of the benefits and most of thedisadvantages of both the warrior andcivilian approaches to dual-professional-

Forumism.” Again you will notice that I calledthe warrior group a specialty, too, in aneffort to seek more parallel treatment inpersonnel policies. Such an approach, Istated, meant unprejudiced personnelpolicies, including the following for theengineering group in particular:

a. no extra pay;b. equal opportunity for promotion to

all billets not requiring a warrior expert;c. realistic job requirement specifica-

tions and posting opportunity, particu-larly with respect to opening up certaintraditional warrior billets which need notbe restricted to the warrior group (person-nel being an outstanding example);

d. promotion percentages in terms ofnumbers and time-in-rank on par with thewarrior group; and

e. staff training percentages on parwith the warrior group.

Although at the time I thought I was“whistling Dixie,” I think it is fair to saythat much was redressed, not that I hadanything to do with it. The navy in its wis-dom adopted a “Best Sailor” approach,largely due to the foresight of vice-admiralsJock Allan and Chuck Thomas, andCmdre Ray Ross. Flying pay was changed,although probably more for budgetaryreasons than for considerations of soundpersonnel policies, and “any” positionswere worked into the preferred manninglists of engineering classifications. I my-self enjoyed my five years in personnel

almost as much my time in engineering,and it certainly aided my career. I hardlysee “purple jobs” (we used to call them“green jobs”) as diluting one’s engineer-ing professionalism as Lt(N) Wood sug-gests. The question of extra pay willalways reappear, but I still believe MAREswould lose far more than they would gainby taking that route. The quid pro quowould undoubtedly be limitations on bothjob and promotion opportunities.

Finally, I see the question of profes-sional registration as a matter of personalchoice. In my experience we were alwaysencouraged to join appropriate profes-sional associations such as the Society ofNaval Architects and Marine Engineers,the Engineering Institute of Canada, theAssociation of Professional Engineers ofOntario, etc. Senior officers, military andcivilian, were always willing to endorseour qualifications. Lt(N) Wood’s letterbrought back many memories. It is goodto see junior officers taking their MARErole and their professionalism seriously,and being prepared to speak out on suchan important and personal topic.

Cmdre W.J. Broughton retired from thenavy as DGMEM in 1990.

Ihave chosen this moment to writean article for the Maritime Engi-neering Journal because the navy

has begun to encounter significant diffi-culty in retaining properly qualified andexperienced CSE technicians. As I under-stand it, last year there were 36 unplannedreleases of NE Techs and 13 unplannedreleases of NW Techs from the WestCoast alone. At the Eastern Region NavalTechnical Support Seminar held at the endof April, Cmdre Davidson and Cdr Bell ofDGNP presented a bleak outlook for alltechnical trades on both coasts, as man-ning shortages are expected to continuethroughout the next five to, possibly, ten

years. Manning problems are not uniqueto the combat systems MOCs, and workis needed virtually everywhere in thenavy to ensure these occupations do notbecome more critical than they alreadyare. Certainly, the recent pay raises andthe proposed cost of living allowance willhelp to resolve some of the problems, butthere is more to do than simply throwmoney at the problem.

It is my belief, confirmed to someextent by discussions with the sailors inHuron, that more important to our sailorsthan pay — is leadership. Our leadership,especially at the junior officer level, needs

to improve. The divisional system is a keyleadership tool, yet in my opinion it issuffering as a result of inattention fromthe officers who are supposed to lead it.

I will preface my remarks by sayingthat my views have been formed from arelatively short, four-year period of obser-vation, and it may be that many of youwho have the benefit of greater experi-ence will disagree with my point of view.So be it. My intent is less to convinceeveryone that the navy is in dire straitsthan it is to prompt discussion about thedivisional system among the officerscharged with its upkeep.

The Naval Divisional System and its FundamentalImportance to Morale in the NavyArticle by Lt(N) Keith Coffen


ForumThe Divisional System

I recently read a book by historianDavid Bercuson, entitled “SignificantIncident” [McClelland and Stewart, 1996].While his book focuses primarily on thearmy and its leadership challenges, some-thing he said struck me as appropriate tothe navy also:

Problems with family life, difficultieswith career management systems,complaints about poor equipment,and gripes about officers andNCOs…are a normal part of army life.When soldiers believe that theirleaders...care about them and appre-ciate their sacrifices, the complaintsmean little.

It is my view that the divisional systemis of paramount importance to the navybecause it is our demonstration of suchcare and appreciation. The purpose of thedivisional system is to foster loyalty tothe navy and to build the morale of oursailors by seeing to it that their concernsas individuals are met. In the absence of aproper measure of care applied to the wel-fare of our sailors, morale begins to de-grade. The ultimate manifestation of suchdegradation would be mutiny, like thosewhich prompted Admiral Mainguy to rec-ommend that the navy institute the cur-rent formalized system for the welfare ofour sailors. Today, however, it is muchmore likely that degraded morale will re-sult in sailors simply walking away fromthe navy, or taking on an “eight to four”attitude, both of which are essentiallywhat we are seeing. For those of us whowould blame that on the sailors, I offerthese words from Gen. Jacques Dextraze(CDS, 1972-77) who once said, “There areno bad soldiers — only bad officers.”

Reduced morale degrades our capabil-ity as a navy to accomplish any givenmission by robbing us of people, or byreducing the willingness of people towork to their full potential. Morale mustbe a fundamental concern for any leaderwith a mission to accomplish, and the di-visional system is the naval leader’s toolfor building morale.

As I see it, there are three key elementsto the proper application of the divisionalsystem:

a. Being available at all times to hearthe concerns of our sailors;

b. Allowing the sailors to speak, andlistening carefully to what they have tosay; and,

c. Acting in their best interest, regard-

less of the burden we assume by doing so.

I have observed officers fail to meetone or more of these general principlesregularly throughout my brief career. Weare busy people, and it often seems unde-sirable to take time out to deal with prob-lems that seem to have no immediateimport. We need to remember that failureto deal promptly and satisfactorily withsuch concerns will have a cost in terms ofthe regard our sailors hold for us. There isalways off-duty time to catch up on workthat may have shifted to the right as aresult of a divisional matter. Officersshould be prepared and expected tospend that time.

The proper application of the divisionalsystem is more important to us than anytechnical issue we might ever face. It has,however, been my observation that manydivisional officers have a tendency tohold the divisional system as a subordi-nate concern to “their real job,” which isviewed as strictly technical, or in the caseof our MARS brethren, strictly opera-tional. I think it should go without sayingthat no matter how good an engineer ortactician we may be individually, we runthe risk of being unable to accomplish ourmission by not demonstrating strongleadership. Strong leadership builds mo-rale and a genuine desire to accomplishthe mission in the hearts and minds of oursailors. There is more to leadership thansimple technical or operational skill. Cer-tainly to win the respect and trust of asailor, an officer must excel in his or herarea of expertise, but this is not enough.Officers must also concern themselveswith, and be very visibly seen to be con-cerning themselves with, the well-beingof the teams they lead, without whom themission would either not be accomplished,or would be accomplished at greater fiscalor human cost than necessary.

I have attended three of the so-called“junior officer” symposia, now, and whileeach meeting was more than three hourslong, not one minute of that time wasspent discussing issues that affect oursailors. Instead, we tended to focus in-ward on a steady stream of complaintsabout promotions, pay, and ORO or HODselection. I am as guilty as anyone else inthis matter, having rationalized that theforum was really for junior officer issuesand that it would not have been appropri-ate to raise other concerns. Lately, how-ever, I have begun to ask myself howoften, as junior officers, we get access to

DGNP or any other element of the Person-nel system. In reality, we have in thosemeetings an ideal forum in which to airsome of our concerns for our sailors. Wehave an obligation as officers to focusmore of our attention on our sailors andless on ourselves, whatever the perceivedpersonal costs may be. While the con-cerns are raised by and for junior officersduring these meetings do have validity, Iquestion whether the voices complainingmost loudly about promotions and so-called “deep” selection are in fact thosemost deserving of either promotion orselection. By complaining so loudly aboutour own problems, we demonstrate a cer-tain blindness to the basics of leadershipand our responsibilities as officers — ourships, our men, ourselves, isn’t it?

ConclusionThe divisional system is one of the

things makes the navy unique. It is notfound in private industry, and the reasonfor this, mutinies aside, is that the navy is(or is at least supposed to be) comprisedof better leaders than would be found inthe average private company. The divi-sional system is a formal demonstration ofour concern for our sailors and our com-mitment to their well-being. It is a guaran-tee that we will put their concerns aheadof our own. The divisional system, whenproperly applied, will win loyalty andbuild morale, which is of course what itwas designed to do.

Junior officers have a vital role to playin upholding the divisional system andusing it to serve the needs of their sailors,thereby setting a positive tone in the day-to-day working environment in the fleet.We are, in an era of scarce resources andincreasing workload, as pressed for timeas anyone, and it does indeed require agreat deal of effort to make time availableto every member of our division. The factremains, however, that this is our duty.Officers are officers not because of theireducation and training, so much as be-cause of their greater commitment to dutyand their ability to lead. We need to askourselves regularly whether or not we aredoing the best job we can for our sailors,and act according to the honest response.

Lt(N) Coffen was, until recently, theAssistant Combat Systems Engineer inHMCS Huron.


With the introduction of 12Halifax-class frigates intothe fleet, the Canadian na-

vy’s operational capability has undergonea significant revitalization. To fully realizethe potential of the technology employedby this class of ship, a comprehensiveand modern training system must be es-tablished. The core of an effective navaltraining system is command team training,and the Canadian navy’s OperationsRoom Team Trainer (ORTT) is designed tofulfill this critical role. This paper de-scribes the unique and cost-effective ap-proach through which the ORTT is beingdesigned and implemented.

BackgroundCanada’s Halifax-class frigates employ

a fully integrated combat systems archi-tecture in which all shipborne control,sensor, weapon and communication sys-tems are interfaced to the central com-mand and control system (CCS). The CCSis comprised of 22 AN/UYK-507 digitalcomputers, executing compiled CMS-2software in an SDX real-time operatingsystem environment. The computers aredeployed in a distributed configurationand networked together via a triple-redun-dant, four-channel serial data bus. Theintegrated system performs the functionsof navigation, target detection, acquisi-tion, tracking, classification, threat analy-sis and evaluation, localization andengagement. The system is capable ofautomatic threat response up to and in-cluding weapon firing.

The command information organization(CIO), or operations room team, is com-prised of 11 operator positions (includingthe bridge officer of the watch) which in-terface to the CCS through multifunctiondisplay consoles. The displays providethe principle operator-combat system in-terface and facilitate command of the ship,compilation of the tactical picture andcontrol of the ship’s sensors and weap-ons.

The ORTT is required to provide CIOteam training in command, control, com-munications and intelligence for anti-sub-

The Canadian Navy’s Solution toSimulation-based Command TeamTrainingArticle by LCdr Steven Yankowich

marine, anti-surface and anti-air warfareoperations in a realistically simulatedmultithreat, multiplatform time-stressedenvironment. It must present dynamicsimulations of tactical engagements toexercise the team in picture compilation,procedures, operations and the executionof tactics in a variety of simulated sce-narios which may occur during peace orwartime conditions. To satisfy the train-ing requirement, the ORTT must be capa-ble of providing simulated natural andtactical environments necessary to sup-port operator interaction with high-fidel-ity communication, sensor and weaponsystems (Fig. 1).

Simulation RequirementsThe ORTT must provide a realistic

training environment in which the full CIOteams for two independent Halifax-classships (herein referred to as “cubicles”),accessing a common scenario, performtheir individual and collective processesthrough interaction with simulation-driven equipment systems which accu-

rately reflect actual shipborne commandand control system functionality. Specificsystems requiring high-fidelity simulationinclude:

• Radar video — mode dependent ren-dering of contacts, coastline, chaff, jam-ming and environmental clutter;

• Interrogation Friend or Foe (IFF);• Link-11;• Weapon, electronic warfare (EW) and

acoustic systems interface and control;• Fire-control (FC) system interface and

control;• Navigation system interface and cu-

bicle simulated ship (ownship) control;• All operations room panels and dis-

plays;• Integrated internal/external communi-

cations system, including all transceivers;and

• Visual rendering of the simulated ex-ternal environment to the OOW, includingvisual display of contacts, coastline, seastate and other environmental conditions.

Fig. 1. Simulated Ship’s Tactical Environment


Trainer Control RequirementsTrainer control is required to support

scenario generation and execution, opera-tional environment simulation, and realtime monitoring of the CIO team perform-ance in each cubicle. Trainer control func-tionality is comprised of three roles:instructor, support station operator, andgamepiece operator.

Instructors must have the ability tomonitor the actions of all CIO members inboth cubicles, with any four positionsbeing monitored simultaneously. Instruc-tors will use this monitoring function tolisten in real-time on any communicationcircuit; view in real time the tactical pic-ture compiled at each CIO member sta-tion; and witness in real time eachmember’s interactions with panels anddisplays. In addition, instructors musthave the capability to dynamically inter-act with, control and change the scenario

being executed. Prior to a training exer-cise, instructors must be able to script ascenario, allocating roles, tasks andevent-dependent behaviour to selectedgamepieces.

Support station operators fulfill therole of the ships’ fire-control, electronicwarfare, acoustic warfare, and ship con-trol subteams. They must exchange infor-mation with the CIO team via the internalship communication nets, configure thesimulated weapon and sensor systems inaccordance with the direction of the CIOteam; and with the aid of semi-automaticdetection models, input track data to theappropriate cubicle CCS.

Gamepiece operators control themovements and actions of individualsimulated gamepieces. They must havethe capability to participate in externalcubicle communication nets and dynami-

cally interact with the cubicles’ CIO teamsas either a neutral, friendly or hostile ele-ment. Gamepieces not specifically control-led by gamepiece operators must behavein accordance with scripted, event-drivenbehaviour.

Debrief RequirementsSelected portions of monitored data

(both voice and visual) must, at the in-structor’s discretion, be recorded duringthe execution of a training session. At theconclusion of the training session, theinstructor must be able to compile andexecute an integrated debrief whereby allthe recorded data is played back in a for-mal instructional setting.

Scaleability/WAN RequirementsThe ORTT must be scaleable to in-

clude additional cubicles situated in dis-parate geographic locations. To expandbeyond intracubicle training, it must be

Fig. 2. ORTT Network Topology and System Architecture


compatible with other simulation systemsemploying the Distributed InteractiveSimulation (DIS) standard.

ORTT System DesignThe ORTT design incorporates a dis-

tributed network architecture and coresystem functionality largely consistentwith similar in-service trainers. This func-tionality is broken down into the follow-ing subsystems (Fig. 2):

• Cubicle simulation (trainee interface);• Link simulation;• Scenario generation and control

(SGC); and• Communication simulation.

In addition to the functional require-ments (scope), the ORTT design team wasconstrained by established parameters ofquality, cost and schedule performance.Although cubicle fidelity to the actualship system was the primary factor in thedetermination and selection of candidatesolutions, more design flexibility was allo-cated to the scenario generation and in-structor interface requirements. Eachdesign choice was ultimately evaluatedon the basis of the following criteria:

• Risk (technical, and schedule);• Cost;• Reliability, availability and maintain-

ability; and• Life-cycle support.

Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) prod-uct-driven solutions, integrated in strictaccordance with the open architecturemethodology, were incorporated into theORTT system to the maximum extent pos-sible (as dictated by the requirements).This approach facilitated the implementa-tion of a standards-based system with aconfiguration of software and hardwarethat was flexible, accessible to a widerange of designers/developers, widelysupportable, and more cost-effective to

implement than military-standard compli-ant systems of similar complexity. Wher-ever possible, new software was devel-oped using POSIX-compliant C++ com-piled for execution in a Solaris environ-ment. Network and processing hardwarewere selected on the basis of cost, per-formance and proliferation in the commer-cial marketplace.

Network ArchitectureThe ORTT network topology (Fig. 2)

is based on an open and distributed ar-chitecture consisting of several intercon-nected local area networks (LANs). Thearchitecture incorporates the use of het-erogeneous platforms, layered communi-cation protocols, high traffic isolation anddistributed application software. In-creased flexibility and scaleability are fa-cilitated through the use of multiplerouting pathways and switching devicesequipped with virtual LAN capability.

The ORTT network consists of twoindependent Fiber Distributed Data Inter-face (FDDI) timed token rings of Ethernetswitches. This topology is symmetricalwith two FDDI backbone networks, eachsupporting the dedicated simulation ele-ments for one cubicle (e.g. DIS Gateway,panel system interface, communicationsystem interface) and distributing thecommon simulation elements (e.g. SGC,Link-11). The two dual-attach contrarotat-ing FDDI backbones provide redundancyand increase availability of the overallsystem. The FDDI 100-Mbps bandwidthis sufficient to handle the worst-casebackbone traffic congestion with enoughsurplus bandwidth to enable the additionof a third cubicle. Switched Ethernet pro-vides a mechanism to increase the effec-tive subsystem network bandwidth (sub-system to backbone) to 10 Mbps, whilemaintaining standard COTS adapter cardsin connected hosts. Furthermore, Switched

Ethernet provides the means to effec-tively regulate, monitor and manage LANoperation.

There are three backbone switches inthe ORTT architecture. In addition to pro-viding data filtering and routing capabili-ties between network segments, eachswitch provides two dual-attach FDDIports, six single-attach FDDI ports, and 38Ethernet ports. Each switch provides anintegral FDDI concentrator capability withsingle-attach FDDI connections to thebackbone for selected bandwidth criticalelements (e.g. DIS Gateway, Link-11 node).

Communication (network and/or trans-port layer) protocols for distributed appli-cations hosted across the FDDI andSwitched Ethernet networks are TCP/IP.Between applications, session layer mes-sage communication is achieved usingUNIX sockets for real-time critical applica-tions, and remote procedure calls for allother applications.

Network monitoring and ORTT systemconfiguration and maintenance are con-ducted through a trainer maintenance po-sition executing custom software hostedin a Solaris-based Sun Enterprise 2 stationinterfaced to the network via a SwitchedEthernet connection. Four Dual Ultra-SPARC fileservers, each interfaced to thenetwork via a dedicated FDDI connection,provide the means for file loading, saving,and backing-up the ORTT system toRAID-5 disk arrays.

Cubicle SimulationThe cubicle simulation subsystem pro-

vides the CIO team with the high-fidelityoperations room (Fig. 3) and bridge train-ing environments (Fig. 4). It is comprisedof the eight segments described below.Each segment is hosted in its own envi-ronment and interfaced to the other seg-ments via a switched Ethernet and/or anFDDI network connection.

Fig. 3. Halifax -class operations room Fig. 4. Bridge station (ORTT)


1. CCS Software and Hardware. Theheart of the Halifax-class ship is the inte-grated command and control system(CCS). The stringent fidelity requirements,coupled with the large quantity of un-known combinations and permutations ofoperator interactions occurring duringteam training, preclude the ready applica-tion of COTS simulation developmenttools to emulate this system. Conse-quently, it was decided that the best risk/cost solution was to retain the off-the-shelf CCS unmodified software as a fun-damental component of the cubicle simu-lation subsystem.

The unmodified CCS software necessi-tated using hardware which identicallyemulates that deployed in the ship. Therisk and cost associated with the emula-tion of the shipboard UYK-507 computersand serial data bus were substantiallyreduced by rebuilding the required CCShardware to commercial standards usingcommercial power supplies, chip sets,boards, interconnects and chassis. Theperformance and net saving of employingthis “commercialized” hardware was morethan 50 percent. Other CCS componentemulations, such as the trainee displayconsole, were completely redesigned andbuilt using commercially available toolsets and hardware solutions.

2. Trainee Display Console Emula-tion. The primary operator interface to theCCS is facilitated through a multifunctiondisplay console which supports the dis-play and control of all CCS functions aswell as the display of processed radarvideo. The in-service military-standarddisplay console satisfies the ORTT CCSI/O requirement, but the monitoring andradar video requirements render it difficultto integrate into the cubicle simulationsubsystem. Accordingly, a less expen-sive, wholly COTS derived solution wasimplemented.

To satisfy the human/machine inter-face (HMI) fidelity requirements, thetrainee display console emulation chassiswas built, using commercial standardsand products, to replicate the look andfeel of the Mil-Std display console. Agateway application hosted in a VME-mounted Power PC processing environ-ment and employing the VxWorks real-time operating system provides the bidi-rectional interface between the Naval Tac-tical Data System and the CCS. The gate-way is interfaced to a Solaris-based300-MHz, dual Pentium PC which hostsand executes the graphic generation andthe HMI control applications. All HMIevents, graphics and radar video are gen-erated using the X-Window Library sys-

tem. In each trainee display emulation, alocal X-server is used to detect HMIevents and generate graphic/video in re-sponse to X-requests transmitted from aclient. Since X-servers can be either localor remote, active or passive, this ap-proach enables remote instructor stationsto monitor trainee actions by recreating,using X-requests transmitted over thenetwork, the complete graphic/video pic-ture seen by a given trainee. All X-re-quests from all display emulation X-serv-ers are transmitted via a SwitchedEthernet connection across the ORTTnetwork, enabling any instructor to simul-taneously monitor any combination oftrainees.

3. Combat System Simulation (CSS).In addition to the 11 display consoles, theHalifax-class command and control sys-tem has 26 discrete interfaces to theweapons, sensor and operator panel sys-tems comprising the ship’s overall combatsystem. Providing a new high-fidelitysimulation for each of these interfaceswould have required substantial software

development and cost risk. Fortunately, aproven Halifax-class combat systemsimulation (CSS) software/hardware archi-tecture already exists. Used for CCS soft-ware support and lower level team/subteam training, the CSS architectureprovides functionality applicable to theORTT requirement:

• Proven functional I/O to CCS inter-faces;

• Models to support simulation of eachcombat system;

• User interface to control the simula-tion of the combat system equipment;and

• Management of a simulated targetdatabase.

The existing CSS software is compiledand executed in the same processing en-vironment as the operational commandand control system software. The sub-stantial modifications required to enablethe level of simulation and instructor con-trol specified for the ORTT could not beaccommodated within the constraints ofthis legacy environment. Consequently,

Fig. 5. ORTT main menu HMI


the off-the-shelf CSS software was modi-fied to enhance individual combat systemsimulation functionality and increase thetrack database capacity. Additional simu-lation and all CSS human/machine inter-face functionality were offloaded tocommercially developed software hostedin COTS processing environments distrib-uted across the ORTT network. The CSSand the CCS are interfaced to the rest ofthe ORTT system via a purpose-builtgateway developed and hosted in aCOTS environment and linked to theORTT network via a dedicated FDDI con-nection.

4. Panel System. The panel systememulates the required panels and con-soles used for team training. Panels areeither recreated virtually on a commercialPC, or rebuilt using commercial compo-nents with a micro-controller drivenEthernet interface to the ORTT system.The panel simulations accept input fromthe individual micro-controllers and theCCS (via the DIS Gateway). Depending onthe panel, responses to operator input areprocessed by either the modified CSS orthe new CCS interface simulations.

5. Support Station Simulations. Sup-port stations provide functionality to al-low the training staff to substitute forHalifax CIO members for whom there areno ORTT trainee positions. In the ORTT,support stations are required for ownshipmanoeuvring and control, fire-control/weapon system operation and control,sonar/torpedo system operation and con-trol, and electronic warfare sensor opera-tion and control. Support stations

incorporate semiautomated, system-spe-cific detection and information process-ing functionality that closely replicatesthe behaviour of the actual system. Cus-tom HMIs are used to ease the supportstation operator workload and facilitateefficient transfer of information to the CIOteams. Support station simulation soft-ware is hosted by a Pentium PC runningthe Solaris operating system, and is con-nected to the ORTT network via a dedi-cated Switched Ethernet connection.

6. Master Radar Video Simulation.The master radar video simulation syn-chronizes the associated video contact,land topography and environmental ef-fect databases, and generates the radarvideo picture for each operating mode ofeach of the three search radars. The videopicture generated by the various sensorsimulations is compiled in real-time andtransmitted in the form of X-requests via aSwitched Ethernet connection to eachtrainee display emulation and instructorstation. The processing environment is aSolaris-based multiprocessor SPARC En-terprise 4000 server (one per cubicle)shared with the SGC subsystem.

7. Officer of the Watch (OOW) VisualSimulation. The OOW visual simulationwas developed and implemented by athird party vendor. The system receivesDIS protocol data units (PDUs) from thecubicle simulation and SGC subsystemsvia a Switched Ethernet connection to theORTT system. Gamepiece-specific entitystate PDUs are converted to high-fidelitymodels and rendered in real-time on threehigh-resolution 67-inch BARCO rear-pro-

jection monitors. Land topography (con-sistent with the area of the world in whichthe game is situated), environmental ef-fects and a dynamic sea state are dis-played in conjunction with the gamepiecemodels. Each model is updated 30 timesper second, creating a realistic visual en-vironment.

Consistent with the open architecturedesign approach employing COTS tech-nology, the gamepiece model, dynamicsea-state model and land topography(coastline) visual simulations are createdusing Multigen OpenFlight databases.Real-time rendering software is OpenGLcompliant, with simulation extensions pro-vided by IRIS Performer and ParadigmVega. A Silicon Graphic’s ONYX II com-puter running IRIX 6.2 provides the hostenvironment.

8. DIS Gateway. The DIS Gateway isused to connect the cubicle simulationsubsystem to the other subsystems. Itreceives natural and tactical environmentinformation in DIS PDU format and trans-lates the data into intermodule messageswhich are used to populate and maintainthe CSS target database and to controlthe CSS simulations. Conversely, the DISGateway translates the intermodule mes-sages into DIS protocol data units for useby simulations external to the cubiclesimulation subsystem. It also providesintermodule message translation servicesfor non-DIS compliant intrasubsystemsimulations such as the panel system.Due to the large data throughput require-ment, the DIS Gateway is interfaced di-rectly to the ORTT system FDDI back-bone. The host processing environmentis a VME bus architecture with multiplePower PC processors running theVxWorks real-time operating system.

Scenario Generation and Control (SGC)The SGC subsystem provides the ca-

pability to define, script, execute and con-trol simulation scenarios containing bothcubicles and up to 300 simulated game-pieces. It is comprised of three distinctcomponents: a user interface for the sup-port station, gamepiece operator and in-structor station positions; a customizedversion of the COTS integrated softwaresystem Export Computer Generated Sur-face Forces; and services for real-timemonitoring, recording and debriefingtrainee performance in the simulation en-vironment.

Support Station, Gamepiece Operatorand Instructor Station Human/MachineInterface (HMI). The HMI pages for eachposition were designed by navy subjectmatter experts for efficient and intuitive

Fig. 6. ORTT trainer control


control of information dissemination(Fig. 5). Individual pages were built us-ing Motif widgets selected from a custom-ized UIM/X tool kit.

Each support station and gamepieceoperator position is configured with oneSolaris-based, 166-MHz Pentium PC andone 21-inch monitor. Each instructor sta-tion is configured with one Solaris-basedDual 300-MHz Pentium PC with a graphicscard driving four 17-inch monitors. Thisarchitecture enables the instructor to dy-namically configure and change the infor-mation displayed on each monitor. Usingthe previously described X-request tech-nique, the instructor is able to monitor upto four different trainee consoles at anygiven time.

Information from each ORTT subsys-tem is made available to the support sta-tion, gamepiece operator and instructorstations via a Switched Ethernet connec-tion. Consequently, all positions, depend-ing on the user’s access permission, maybe configured to enable real-time controlof the other ORTT subsystems. Undernormal operation, the instructor stationpositions are granted access to all HMIpages and functions, while the supportstation and gamepiece operator positionsare granted access to a subset of thesepages. This architecture provides flexibil-ity and redundancy to the ORTT trainercontrol organization (Fig. 6).

Export Computer Generated Forces(CGF). Export CGF is a COTS integratedsoftware system that configures and runsa synthetic tactical environment. It pro-vides the core functionality throughwhich the instructors create and control atactical scenario comprised of large num-bers of gamepieces. Definable physical,environmental and gamepiece behaviourmodels enable individual or groups ofgamepieces to function in a realistic man-

ner, independent ofoperator control.Predefinable scriptsand behavioural rulesets enhance the com-plexity and realism oflarge tactical sce-narios. Scenarios arecreated off-line withthe operator selectingand configuring thesensor, weapon andbehavioural character-istics of constituententities. This informa-tion is stored in a da-tabase where it is ex-tracted and used byhigh-fidelity simula-

tion models to run real-time tactical sce-narios. The effectiveness of these prede-fined scenarios can be validated off-lineat accelerated execution speed.

To satisfy the ORTT requirements, Ex-port CGF has been modified to incorpo-rate a custom HMI, as well as more entitymodels, scripting functionality and be-havioural rule sets. The software ishosted on two Solaris-based multiproces-sor SPARC Enterprise 4000 serversshared with the Master Radar Video Simu-lation. Connectivity to other ORTT sub-systems is achieved through thetransmission and receipt of DIS protocoldata units over the ORTT network via adedicated Fibre Distributed Data Interfaceconnection.

Monitoring, Recording and Debrief-ing. Through the custom HMI, instruc-tors can monitor and record the truesynthetic tactical picture, all trainee dis-play pictures, panel system interactions,and communication circuits. Eventswithin the recorded information can betagged during game execution for extrac-tion and playback during exercise debrief.All recorded information is stored overthe network. Prior to exercise debrief, aninstructor selects, extracts over the net-work, and compiles specific segments ofrecorded information for synchronizeddisplay (on one of three large-screenvisual projectors) and audio playback inthe ORTT Brief/Debrief theater (Fig. 7).

Link-11 SimulationThe Link-11 subsystem provides a tac-

tical data exchange radio link environmentto support each cubicle’s Link-11 opera-tions. It simulates Link-11 communicationbetween reporting and participating unitsto produce a consolidated tactical picture.A total of 14 gamepiece participatingunits, and two Halifax-class participatingunits are supported — any of which can

be designated as Net Control Ship. Theinstructors have the capability to dynami-cally create and change the Link-11 envi-ronment for each cubicle and gamepiece.Trainees interface with the simulationthrough the CCS and a high-fidelitymicrocontroller-based panel simulation.The simulation is comprised entirely ofnew development software hosted on aVME bus with SPARC processors run-ning the Solaris operating system andinterfaced directly to each cubicle CCS viaa direct point-to-point NTDS connection.A dedicated Switched Ethernet connec-tion is used to interface the simulationwith the rest of the ORTT system. Spe-cific synthetic tactical environment infor-mation (gamepiece identity, location,emitter information, etc.) is exchangedwith the SGC subsystem via the transmis-sion/receipt of DIS protocol data units.

Communications SimulationThe communications simulation sub-

system provides the internal and externalradio environment through which the cu-bicle CIO teams and the instructors com-municate. The entire communications en-vironment is simulated using a custom-ized COTS solution supplied by a third-party vendor. High-fidelity microcontrol-ler-based panel replicas are used tosimulate the actual shipboard communica-tions interface for each trainee position.Instructors interface to the systemthrough a customized HMI, and have theability to dynamically select and simulta-neously monitor/record up to four sepa-rate circuits. Radio frequency propaga-tion, communications range filtering andjamming effects are realistically modeledas part of the COTS simulation package.The communications simulation subsys-tem interfaces with the ORTT network viaa Switched Ethernet connection. Inter-gamepiece range and emitter status dataare exchanged with the cubicle simulationand SGC subsystems via the transmis-sion/receipt of DIS protocol data unitsover the network.

WAN ConnectivityConnectivity with other DIS-compliant

simulations is facilitated through a singleconnection to one of the FDDI/Ethernetswitches and a separate connection foreach of the communication simulation andLink-11 simulation subsystems. A routingtable provides appropriate field of viewfiltering for the ORTT and distributes DISdata to the appropriate simulation. Thecustomized COTS communication sub-system provides a separate interface forthe integration of external communicationcircuits into a WAN exercise. Similarly, theLink-11 simulation can be integrated into

Fig. 7. ORTT Brief/Debrief Theatre


Foruma WAN exercise through a dedicatedTADIL-A compliant interface.

Development and Integration StrategyThe ORTT development and integra-

tion strategy incorporates the incrementalbuild paradigm. This approach is basedon a structured design and developmentmethodology which enables design is-sues to be identified and corrected earlyin the development cycle. A necessaryprerequisite for the incremental build ap-proach is a firm validated requirementsspecification. In the ORTT this specifica-tion is comprised of two substantial docu-ments: the customer system specificationand the ORTT detailed design data pack-age. The system specification is a high-level text document enumerating 600specific requirements. Its focus is whatfunctionality the ORTT shall provide. Thedesign data package focuses on how theORTT system will provide the specifiedfunctionality. The system design is com-prised of eight computer software con-figuration items and five hardwareconfiguration items. The computer soft-ware configuration items are comprised ofcomprehensive software requirementspecifications developed using theRumbaugh Object-Oriented design ap-proach. The hardware configuration itemsprovide detailed hardware system prod-uct specifications.

In the ORTT adaptation of the incre-mental build paradigm, timing and execu-tion of the system development, test andintegration, qualification and deliverytasks are addressed based upon capabil-ity precedence and risk priorities. Using

the information provided by the systemspecification and the detailed design datapackage, the ORTT system is subdividedinto six manageable increments (builds)with each successive build adding func-tionality to the system as a whole. Eachbuild is defined by its functional traceabil-ity to the system specification, and is de-scribed with a statement of functionalobjectives which may be directly associ-ated with the ORTT high-level systemrequirements. In general, the ORTT incre-mental build approach achieves two ob-jectives. First, it mitigates risk by enablinghigh-risk system elements to be devel-oped early in the program cycle. Second,it compresses the project schedule byfacilitating and synchronizing parallel de-velopment and integration of systemcomponents.

Builds 1 and 2 provide the entire net-work and message communication infra-structure. Builds 3, 4 and 5 integrate theCOTS simulation applications and vendorsupplied subsystems. Build 6 is reservedfor the resolution of outstanding softwaredeficiency reports. At the time of writing,Build 4 has been successfully closed out,Build 5 is 10 percent complete and Build 6is scheduled for completion by summer1999. The Canadian navy expects finalacceptance of the ORTT in early 2000.

ConclusionThe Canadian navy’s Halifax-class

frigate Operations Room Team Trainercombines the integration of legacy soft-ware solutions with hardware emulationand developmental COTS-based solu-tions to create a cost-effective

multiplatform, multithreat high-fidelitysimulated command team training envi-ronment. Its powerful simulation applica-tions and scenario generation and controlsubsystem enable the creation and dy-namic interactive execution of realisticcomplex virtual exercises situated any-where in the world. Its open architectureand Distributed Interactive Simulationcompliance facilitate reduced life-cyclecosts and flexible expansion to incorpo-rate additional cubicle simulations and/orparticipation in a networked exercise com-prising other DIS-compliant simulations.

LCdr Yankowich is the former projectmanager for the ORTT and MPT projects.He is now on exchange with the RoyalNavy in England.

As a general rule, article submis-sions should not exceed 12 double-spaced pages of text. The preferredformat is MS Word, or WordPerfect, on3.5" diskette, accompanied by one copyof the typescript. The author’s name,title, address and telephone number

Submission Formats

Maritime Engineering Journal Objectives• To promote professionalism among

maritime engineers and technicians.

• To provide an open forum wheretopics of interest to the maritime engi-neering community can be presentedand discussed, even if they might becontroversial.

• To present practical maritime engi-neering articles.

• To present historical perspectives oncurrent programs, situations and events.

• To provide announcements of pro-grams concerning maritime engineeringpersonnel.

• To provide personnel news notcovered by official publications.

should appear on the first page. The lastpage should contain complete figure cap-tions for all photographs and illustra-tions accompanying the article.

Photos and other artwork should notbe incorporated with the typescript, butshould be protected and inserted loose

in the mailing envelope. If at all possi-ble, electronic photographs and draw-ings should be in TIFF or JPEG format.A photograph of the author would beappreciated.


When the scheduled refits forHMCS Athabaskan (DDH-282) and HMCS Iroquois

(DDH-280) had to be postponed until af-ter the ships returned from their 1999 de-ployment with NATO’s Standing NavalForce Atlantic, it was deemed prudent inthe interim to schedule shorter durationextended work periods (EWPs) to handleessential maintenance and implement cer-tain design configuration changes. TheEWPs were relatively brief (17 weeks), butvery intense, with configuration changebeing the predominant work. Both EWPswere highly successful, with all scheduledwork being completed on time and to asatisfactory quality standard. By review-ing the conduct of these two work peri-ods (Athabaskan’s in 1997; Iroquois’ in1998), certain common denominators canbe identified as critical success factors forEWP management. The same principlesand criteria would apply to any refit orother work period conducted in a commer-cial shipyard.

Normally, the EWP project is initiatedseveral months prior to the actual com-mencement of work and does not termi-nate until some time after completion ofwork on the ship. Although extended workperiods must be treated as stand-aloneprojects, each EWP should build upon thelessons learned from previous efforts —an especially important consideration inthe implementation of large configurationchanges throughout a ship class.

The overall success of the EWP de-pends on a series of linked activities, andon the actions and interactions of fourgroups: the project manager and his on-site team; the parent organization(NDHQ); the customer organization (for-mation/ship) and the contractor. Theproject manager can improve the probabil-ity of success through careful planningand execution of the project, and by beingmindful of certain critical success factors.This paper sets out some of these keyfactors.

EWP PreparationPlanning

The importance of EWP preparationcannot be overemphasized. The average

Extended Work Period Management —Principles for SuccessArticle by Irek J. Kotecki and David B. Jones

preparation time is approximately ninemonths, and many of the activities carriedout in this period will directly affect theconduct of the EWP. Any errors in judge-ment or failure to effectively carry outcertain tasks at this stage can jeopardizethe successful completion of the work inthe contract yard.

Preparation begins with the establish-ment of realistic milestones for the EWP.The milestones leading to contract awardand commencement of the EWP are iden-tified and initiated by the Dynamic Deliv-erable List letter, and should include thefollowing principal events and minimumrecommended lead times (longer in thecase of a refit):

• 36 weeks prior to EWP start – Main-tenance and Repair Specification List(MRSL) and configuration change speci-fication preparation commences; ship-board MRSL review meeting;

• 22 weeks prior – MRSL approval;• 20 weeks – MRSL distribution;

MRSL review and revision;• 17 weeks – Request for Proposal is-

sue;• 12 weeks – bidders conference;• 9 weeks – bid closing;• 6 weeks – contract award;• 3 weeks – Ship preparations

(destoring, deammunitioning, etc.); and• 0 weeks – EWP start

The project manager prepares and im-plements a detailed activities plan to meetthe set milestones.

Cost and DurationSeveral months before the Dynamic

Deliverable List letter is issued, theproject’s budget and duration must beestablished. The project manager esti-mates the level of effort required (workscope, duration and proposed schedule)based on the ship’s maintenance history,condition, the backlog of configurationchanges and the anticipated post-EWPdeployment of the ship, and seeks projectapproval from the Director General Mari-time Equipment Program Management inconjunction with the Director MaritimePolicy and Project Development and theformation. Once the work scope and dura-tion have been agreed upon and the cor-

responding project budget has been ap-proved, detail planning commences. Itshould be noted that the cost and dura-tion may vary depending on a contrac-tor’s geographical location and commer-cial market workload. It is important thatall factors be fully analyzed and that arealistic budget and schedule be estab-lished.

Critical Path and Risk ManagementA contracted work period has its criti-

cal risk areas. Properly assessing theseareas and developing risk managementstrategies to deal with them should beone of the most important activities of theproject manager during the preparationphase. The risk assessment must considersuch issues as:

• Is the proposed work achievable inthe specified time frame? Assume thatthe implementation schedule is based ona single shift, working weekdays.

• Will material be available? Considerthe assembly and delivery schedule forgovernment-supplied material, and theavailability of contractor-furnished mate-rial, long-lead items, substitute material,etc.

• What are the technical risk areas?Produce risk notes to identify potentialproblems and propose solutions.

• Does the on-site team fully appreci-ate the risk issues? This requires on-siteteam involvement in the preparations.

During implementation — be preparedfor the unexpected. Take a proactive ap-proach and work with the contractor toanticipate and resolve problems.

The On-site TeamThe composition and capability of the

on-site team is the most instrumental fac-tor in the success of the EWP. Duringimplementation, it is this team that man-ages the day-to-day EWP activities onbehalf of the project manager. Since theproject manager must have complete faithin the on-site team and trust their judge-ment, he must have the right to select keyteam members. Due to the complexity andintensity of the EWP, there is no time for alearning curve for the on-site team. To beeffective from day one, the core teammembers must have proven track records


in their field, know the ship and its sys-tems, and have engineering capabilities.The project manager can further stimulatethe probability of success by:

• developing the commitment andsense of mission from the start;

• generating an attitude of co-opera-tion and mutual respect and support; and

• having key team members participatein the decision-making and problem-solv-ing.

Specification ReviewAnother critical factor for a successful

EWP is the detailed review of specifica-tions and drawings for Maintenance andRepair Specification List (MRSL) work,and configuration change work by keymembers of the on-site team and by thelife-cycle material managers (LCMMs).This review serves several purposes inthat it:

• familiarizes the on-site team memberswith the work requirements;

• permits an assessment of areas whereone specification affects another, thuseliminating conflicts, contradictions andduplications;

• permits an understanding of the inter-connection of work items in the samework zone;

• permits identification of material defi-ciencies;

• provides time to incorporate neces-sary changes to a specification (includinglessons learned from a previous installa-tion); and

• permits comparison of the installationdrawings against the ship’s configuration,and identification of interference points orother areas of conflict.

Government-supplied MaterialWhen confronted with schedule con-

straints imposed by a short time frame andhighly labour-intensive work periods, it isvital that government-supplied material beorganized and available at the contractyard when work commences. Material isidentified in the configuration changespecification and drawings through theInventory and Bill of Material. From this, aConsolidated Material List (CML) is gen-erated and included with the specificationto combine like items such as cable or pip-ing in a single line item. Columns areadded to the CML so that the LCMM andsupply managers can indicate whether anitem is government- or contractor-sup-plied. Thus, the Consolidated Material Listbecomes the primary document for mate-rial procurement. However, because theCML items reflect the requirements ofmore than one drawing item, it is not pos-sible to determine the details of the item’send use without going back through the

Inventory and Bill of Material to thedrawing. This is an unwieldy processand is prone to errors.

When technical and logistics person-nel encountered problems identifyingand pre-staging government-suppliedmaterial for the Iroquois EWP in 1996,the on-site team generated a database inMicrosoft Access™ to correlate the draw-ings, the Inventory and Bill of Material,and the Consolidated Material List (Fig.1). The database proved to be invaluableas incoming material could now be read-ily identified by item, by the applicableconfiguration change, by drawingnumber and title, by drawing item numberand by the MRSL specification number.In other words, the end use of each itemwas identified.

There were more than 7000 line itemsof government- and contractor-furnishedmaterial in the database for both theAthabaskan EWP at Port Weller DryDocks in St. Catharines, Ont., and theIroquois EWP at Davie Industries inLevis, P.Q. To reinforce the spirit of co-operation, DND provided the contractorswith a copy of the integrated databasecreated by the on-site team. In bothcases, the contractors found the data-base to be an extremely useful and time-saving tool as it allowed them to combinethe procurement of like items required formore than one configuration change (e.g.cables, valves, etc.) rather than have toorder material separately for each con-figuration change. This resulted in sig-nificant economy of scale whenpurchasing.

At Davie Industries, the unexpectedprovision of the database by DNDshowed that the on-site team was sympa-thetic to the contractor’s procurementproblems, and went a long way towardestablishing a team approach to the con-duct of the EWP. What’s more, a soft-ware interface established between thematerial database and Davie’s procure-ment and inventory control system sim-plified and expedited the contractor’sprocurement and inventory control proc-esses. And since virtually all of the gov-ernment-supplied material was assembledprior to the commencement of the EWP,there were no schedule delays attributedto any late supply of material by the gov-ernment. Taken together, these factorsplayed a major part in the contractor’sability to deliver the required product onschedule.

Ship Preparation PlanA comprehensive and widely promul-

gated ship preparation plan is an impor-

Consolidated Material List(CML)

Inventory & Bill of Material(IBM)

IBM/CML Integrated Database

GSM Identification & Assembly

CFM Identification& Purchasing

GSM/CFM Receipt & InventoryManagement

Contractor’s Procurement& Inventory Mgmt Database

ConfigurationChange

Drawings

ConfigurationChange

SpecificationMRSL

Material

Fig. 1. Material Identification and Control


tant factor in the successful commence-ment of the EWP. The plan is prepared bythe EWP project manager, reviewed bythe responsible authority in the formationand by the ship’s commanding officer,and promulgated as a joint planningdocument. The plan sets out the respon-sibilities for the various players in theEWP, including the on-site team, and de-tails the ship preparation requirements.There are many potentially conflictingactivities that require co-ordination, suchas deammunitioning, removing radar an-tennas and weapons, defuelling the waterdisplaced fuel tanks, destoring, and start-ing the compartment turnover process.The successful commencement of theEWPs in both Athabaskan and Iroquoiswere the result of commendable effort bythe ship’s crew, the fleet maintenance fa-cility, formation personnel and the on-siteteam, guided overall by a jointly devel-oped, detailed plan.

EWP ImplementationSetting the Tone

As soon as possible after contractaward, a “kick-off” meeting should bearranged with the contractor. This meet-ing is extremely useful for a number ofreasons. First, it permits the key playersfrom the contractor’s staff to meet withthe contract officer from Public Worksand Government Services Canada(PWGSC), the DND project manager andkey members of the on-site team. An im-portant aspect of the meeting is to culti-vate a “team” approachso that the contractorcan be assured that thePWGSC/DND team un-derstands the pressuresfaced by the contractorand will deal fairly withissues faced by bothsides. The meeting alsosets the stage for thedelivery and turnover ofthe ship to the contractyard by dealing withsuch aspects as compart-ment turnover, berthing,jetty services, security,safety, defuelling anddestoring assistance.

The short durationand highly labour-inten-sive nature of the workperiod make it absolutelycrucial that the contrac-tor be able to ramp upresources very quicklyand begin meaningfulwork as soon as possibleafter the vessel has ar-

rived at the yard. This means that severalcritical activities first have to be com-pleted. For instance:

• The compartment turnover effortshould begin prior to the vessel’s transitto the contractor’s yard, continuethroughout the transit and be completedwithin two or three days after arrival.

• The initial work phase in the EWPinvolves stripping-out redundant equip-ment and systems as required by the vari-ous configuration change specifications.All of this material — the piping, cables,valves, panels, equipment, etc. — has tobe tagged to indicate whether it will bescrapped, saved for re-use, or returned tostores. An offer should be made to thecontractor to begin this work at the sametime as the compartment turnover andcontinue it during the transit.

• It is also important that the ship begas-freed as soon as possible after arriv-ing in the yard — but it has to bedefuelled first. Iroquois-class vesselshave a water-displaced fuel system whichrequires special procedures for removingthe fuel and effluent. Since the proce-dures are somewhat risky and should notbe undertaken by inexperienced person-nel, it was judged prudent in the case ofthe Athabaskan and Iroquois EWPs tohave the ship’s upper-deck stoker workwith the on-site team to provide guidanceto the contractor’s staff on the defuelling.This DND assistance not only contrib-uted to the safe and prompt defuelling of

the ships, it also set the tone for co-op-eration with the contractor.

• Destoring ship is an all-hands activ-ity, with labour provided by the ship, andcranes, forklifts and warehouse spaceprovided by the contractor. This usuallytakes three to four days to complete.

• And finally, all government-suppliedmaterial should be delivered to the con-tract yard immediately after the ship ar-rives in the yard. Any discrepancies orshortfalls at this point should be aggres-sively pursued and resolved.

ProceduresOn arrival at the contract yard, the on-

site team should set up in the designatedoffice area and establish smooth adminis-trative procedures for handling work aris-ings, deviations, requests for technicalinformation and government-suppliedmaterial, technical inspection require-ments, etc. To facilitate this, the team pre-pares process flow charts which shouldbe discussed with the contractor,amended as required, agreed to by thecontractor, and promulgated to all con-cerned parties.

At the same time, the on-site team de-velops a responsibility assignment matrixto designate which member of the on-siteteam is responsible for each element ofthe work and for each technical disciplineassociated with that work. The matrix isthen passed to the contractor to identifyhis counterpart staff responsible for each

Fig. 2. Logic Chart for Chiller Set-to-Work

Hydronic SystemValve Overhaul

Hydronic SystemVa lves Installed

Chilled WaterChemical Flush

A/C Cont rolsCalibrated

De -aerateChi lled Water Syste m

Post Flushing Req’mts Com plete

Chi ller CC E le ctri cal Chec ks Comp

Relief ValveBlowout Trial

A/C DEAAvailable

Chilled WaterPressure Test

SW Circ. Pump Overha ul

LP AirAvailable

Ship’s Steam Syste mAvailable

From Ge ne rator Trials Logic Chart

440 Powe r Available

Heat LoadAvailable

Ship undockedfor Pum p Suction

Chille r CCInstallation Inspect ion

Chille r CCCom plete

Refrig. Moni torSystem Trial

Chiller FSRAvailable

Chil le d Water Sys .Balanced

Chi llerSet-to-Work


work item. In this way, personnel on bothsides can meet at the commencement ofthe EWP and begin to establish a smoothand co-operative working relationship.

In the case of the Athabaskan andIroquois EWPs, a large portion of thework entailed implementing large-scale,technically complex configurationchanges. It was imperative, therefore, thatthe on-site team have sufficient technicalknowledge of the configuration changes(including how the new systems inte-grated with other related ship systems) tobe able to respond quickly and profes-sionally to contractor requests for de-tailed technical clarification right down tothe subtiers of referenced specificationscalled up by the configuration changespecification. Individual members of theon-site team also had to be aware of howthe implementation of certain configura-tion changes affected the implementationof other changes, and what impact thathad on the EWP schedule. They also hadto know when to go to the LCMM, or

other engineering authority for technicaladvice.

Contractor’s Master ScheduleOne of the most important factors in

the success of the EWP is the integrity ofthe master schedule that is developedand followed by the contractor. Becausethese schedules are largely generic, theydo not always logically integrate workitems nor take into account the need toreactivate systems in an orderly andachievable fashion. Thus, with a view toproviding constructive suggestions forimprovement to the contractor, the on-siteteam must undertake a detailed review ofthe master schedule.

To do this effectively the team mustfirst fully understand the highly complexinterconnection of work items. Consideran example from HMCS Iroquois’ 1998EWP. At one point the critical path workinvolved stripping-out four 75-ton chillerunits and installing three 125-ton units ina new configuration. Completing this

work was an essential habitability prereq-uisite to remanning the ship, yet thechiller reconfiguration work was itself af-fected by other related work items, includ-ing the overhaul of 67 chilled water sys-tem valves, the removal of 300 Measure-flo valve diaphragms, a chemical andfreshwater flush of the hydronics system,reassembly and reactivation of the sys-tem, and a complete balancing of thechilled water system. It also incorporateda new requirement to install a refrigerantmonitoring system for two of the chillers.

To demonstrate the logical sequenceof events, the on-site team developed acolour-coded logic diagram (Fig. 2), iden-tifying both contractor and DND activi-ties. But note in Fig. 2 that a key require-ment is 440 electrical power. Since jettypower was insufficient, it was necessaryto ensure that at least one of the ship’sgenerators was available for the chillerset-to-work. This in turn required its ownsequence of events (and another logicdiagram).

Using the logicin the charts, theon-site team wasable to develop adetailed schedulefor the integratedhydronics andchiller work (Fig.3). Both charts il-lustrate the degreeof interdependenceof various workitems and the needto consider theselinkages whenscheduling thework. These logiccharts were devel-oped for a numberof linked workitems and wereused by the con-tractors in bothPort Weller andDavie to revise themaster schedule.Each week, theschedule was re-viewed and, whereslippage occurred,the contractoramended theschedule to reflectthe revised dates.The willingness ofboth contractors toadopt and adhereto the revised

Fig. 3. Sample of detailed schedule for the integrated hydronics and chiller work


schedule was a very important factor insuccessfully meeting project milestones.

Final PhaseOne of the most difficult challenges in

managing an extended work period in-volves the co-ordination of work, trials,set-to-work and compartment acceptancein the last few weeks leading to delivery.The contractor’s production supervisorsare often competing for time and re-sources and are hard-pressed to completeassigned tasks on schedule. Subcontrac-tors such as flooring, insulation and sheetmetal workers are trying to complete theirwork. Refuelling is required for set-to-workactivities. Attendance by field service rep-resentatives, LCMMs and designated en-gineering authorities must be planned inadvance for set-to-work of configurationchanges and related systems. Compart-ment by compartment, the ship must becleaned, inspected and accepted by theCrown. The ship must also be made readyfor the return transit as soon as possibleafter the EWP is complete.

With such a complex series of inter-linked activities under way the potentialis there for many conflicts and problems,yet there is little or no margin for slip-page. This is one of the most critical man-agement areas with potentially seriousschedule consequences if errors aremade. As problems arise, they must bedealt with and resolved quickly. Thus,management experience in the DND on-site team is an extremely important riskcontrol factor in meeting the vessel com-pletion schedule. To ensure appropriatemanagement visibility, all of the final EWPwork and certain non-EWP activities mustbe integrated into the contractor’s workschedule for the final portion of the workperiod.

In the case of the EWPs for Atha-baskan and Iroquois, an integrated com-pletion schedule covering the last four orfive weeks of the EWP was prepared bythe on-site team (Fig. 4). This scheduleco-ordinated set-to-work, trials and ves-sel reactivation activities by ship’s staff

and field service repre-sentatives with thecontractor’s own activi-ties and completiondates as laid out in themaster schedule. Adraft of the integratedschedule was dis-cussed at length withthe contractor, PWGSC,DND staff and the ship,and was finally adoptedby all concerned as theplan for completion anddelivery of the vessel.Daily meetings wereheld throughout theset-to-work period toreview progress, planevents for the comingweek, and fine-tune theschedule to resolveconflicts and meet thetarget dates. The inte-grated completion planshowed its worth tomanagement on bothsides by making prob-lems readily visible andby making it easier todetermine the impact oflate completion of anyone activity on subse-quent activities. Thus,the contractor was ableto sensibly arrange hispriorities and plan forshift work or overtimewhen required.

Set-to-work of newsystems and equipment installed as con-figuration changes requires careful plan-ning. Most new systems are set-to-workand trialled by DND using LCMMs, fieldservice representatives and ship’s staff,with assistance as required from the con-tractor. Prior to any set-to-work activity, aconfiguration change installation must bethoroughly inspected by the responsiblemember(s) of the on-site team togetherwith contractor’s staff to ensure compli-ance with the relevant specifications anddrawings. Deficiencies are noted and (asfar as possible) the parties agree onwhether correction of the deficiency is theresponsibility of the contractor or DND.The deficiency list is processed by thecontractor’s organization into a prelimi-nary CF1148 Report of Inspection docu-ment. The deficiencies that affect theset-to-work of equipment change items(ECs) are identified and marked for imme-diate action by the contractor.

Fig. 4. EWP Integrated Completion Schedule


Prior to the set-to-work activity, thecontractor is expected to provide the Pro-visional Acceptance Certificate (PAC) filefor review and approval by the DND on-site team. This file contains inspectionreports, certificates and other relevantdocumentation to provide evidence thatthe work has been completed in accord-ance with the specifications and draw-ings. A designated DND trial conductingauthority then leads each set-to-work ac-tivity, noting any defects resulting fromthe trial in the preliminary CF1148. It is theresponsibility of the conducting authorityto ensure that the necessary trial docu-mentation is complete and that the criticalparameters have been met.

As the EWP contract work nears com-pletion, the contractor is required to re-store the vessel to an agreed-upon levelof cleanliness. The physical condition ofthe vessel is documented at the com-mencement of the EWP by a joint contrac-tor/DND team using deficiency forms andphotographs of each compartment. Thisprocess is repeated throughout the finalfew weeks of the EWP and requires verycareful planning by the contractor to en-sure that a compartment, once accepted,can be secured to prevent unauthorizedaccess. There is frequently a conflict be-tween this activity and the need to enter acompartment to inspect a system installedas a result of an equipment change.

An essential prerequisite to the deliv-ery and remanning the vessel is that basichabitability requirements be in place. Thisinvolves the reactivation and set-to-workof many systems, some of which had nowork responsibility by the contractor. Thereactivation of these systems is carriedout at the same time as the contractor’swork is being completed and set-to-workand trial activities are under way. For ex-ample:

• the heating, ventilation and air condi-tioning system must be operational;

• certain auxiliary machinery must beavailable;

• the fire-main and pumping systemsmust be functional;

• the ship’s generators must be provenand available in the event of an emer-gency;

• the main refrigerators and galley mustbe functional;

• fixed and portable fire-fighting sys-tems must be in place;

• accommodation areas such asmessdecks, heads, washplaces and din-ing areas must be completed and ac-cepted;

• internal communications need to befunctional; etc.

All of these activities must be com-pleted prior to acceptance for a success-ful turnover.

Post EWP ActivitiesEC Certificates of Compliance

At the completion of the contract, themembers of the on-site team return to of-fices in the navy dockyard. An immediatepriority is to assemble and check all of theredlined drawings resulting from the in-stallation of equipment change items dur-ing the EWP. For each equipment changethe arisings, technical information re-quests and EWP notebooks are reviewedto identify any specification deficiencies.All such deficiencies are recorded onSpecification Deficiency Reports (SDRs),and a brief report is also prepared outlin-ing any major problem areas and summa-rizing the installation costs. A packagecontaining the summary report, redlineddrawings, SDRs and a certificate of com-pliance is then submitted to the appropri-ate DMCM refit manager at NDHQ. Thepriority in preparing this package is puton ECs that are likely to be included in thecontract requirements for a follow-onship. This allows a clean-up of the speci-fication and drawing package to be doneto reduce the incidence of work arising,thereby reducing the EC installation costin subsequent vessels.

Lessons LearnedA lessons learned report is prepared

for discussion at a wash-up meeting sometime after the EWP is completed. The con-tractor should be consulted as to how theCrown can improve EWP managementprocesses and procedures. Where signifi-cant improvements can be achievedthrough changes in processes and proce-dures, the DMCM class desk should un-dertake to document and implement thechanges. (The EWPs for Athabaskan andIroquois prompted a reevaluation of thecurrent maintenance policy for refits ofIroquois-class ships. As a result, a modi-fied, more cost-effective, Iroquois-classmaintenance profile has been proposedbased on cyclic EWPs.)

Summary and ConclusionsAs demonstrated throughout the pa-

per, the success of any work period de-pends on several key factors. Althoughsome factors are more crucial than others,to maximize the chance of success all ele-ments must be included in the manage-ment plan. In summation, the “notnegotiable” factors required for a suc-cessful work period or refit are:

• An EWP preparation plan must bedeveloped and promulgated.

• A risk management plan must be pre-pared.

• The project manager must have theright to select key on-site team members;

• Key on-site team members must par-ticipate in preparations by:

- reviewing the technical data package;and- pre-staging government-suppliedmaterial.• A co-operative and mutually support-

ive team approach must be fostered withthe contractor.

• Constructive input must be providedto the contractor’s master schedule.

• Set-to-work and trials must beplanned and conducted by the Crown.

• The ship reactivation plan must bedeveloped and integrated with contrac-tor’s activities.

• The project manager must ensure thatlessons learned, SDRs and redlined draw-ings are promptly produced and incorpo-rated into the technical data package forthe next EWP.

The project manager is ultimately re-sponsible for the success or failure of theEWP and the results depend on his abilityto incorporate the “critical success fac-tors.”

AcknowledgementsThe importance of the Public Works

and Government Services Canada con-tract officer’s contribution to the suc-cess of the EWP cannot be overesti-mated. Michael O’Connor representedPWGSC during both EWPs. At Davie,he was aided by Mr. Paul Lachance.Mr. O’Connor’s contribution to the suc-cess of the EWPs is acknowledged andhis professionalism and support to the“team” approach are greatly appreci-ated.

Irek Kotecki is the DGMEPM Iroquois-class refit manager at NDHQ.

David Jones is the president of LALMarine Technical Services, whichprovided key members to the on-siteteams.


Surveys indicated there was insuffi-cient deck space on the TSRVs to accom-modate both 20-foot containers simulta-neously, but a decision was made to pro-ceed with a conversion package thatwould fit the recompression container ondeck and build a new deckhouse on No.1deck between the funnels for the work-shop and diving equipment stowage.This arrangement would give the newYDTs the capability to deploy any ISOcontainerized package, and the flexibilityof having space available on the opendeck. [Even though the converted YDTswould have a built-in diving workshop,a separate containerized diving work-shop was also acquired for each coast sothat the maritime coastal defence vesselscould, if required, transport a full divingpayload of a containerized workshopand a recompression chamber.]TSRVs into YDTs

The torpedo and ship ranging vesselswere designed and built in accordancewith Canada Shipping Act regulationsand American Bureau of Shipping classi-fication standards, and also to complywith DND stability and buoyancy require-ments. It was essential that these require-ments be maintained during the conver-sion. In addition, since the TSRVs weredesigned to operate on the West Coast,and the converted ships would be re-quired to operate on the East Coast andon the Great Lakes as well, changeswould have to be made to the heating,ventilation and air-conditioning systemsand to the insulation of some compart-

ments to allow for the different environ-mental conditions.

The TSRVs had also been designed asday boats, but as YDTs they would berequired to operate unsupported for peri-ods of up to five days. Their current fuelcapacity was adequate, but the blackwa-ter, freshwater and ration storage capaci-ties needed to be increased. As a result,new black and greywater holding tankswould be built in the pump room, a newreverse osmosis desalination unit in-stalled in the auxiliary machinery room,and a new dry provision locker andfreezer installed.

The accommodation arrangements alsorequired upgrading. The TSRVs had onlybeen designed to accommodate a crew offour, plus two scientists, but the new re-quirement included accommodations for acrew of 12, which necessitated addingextra bunks and lockers to all cabins, rear-ranging the lounge and eating area, andenlarging the pantry. The numbers of liferafts and life-jackets would also have tobe increased accordingly.

To allow the new YDTs to navigate inrestricted visibility, a Furuno 1831 colli-sion avoidance radar capable of acceptinginput from the global positioning system,speed-log and gyro would be installed.The communication system was also up-graded to include a UHF transceiver, oneship-mounted and two hand held VHFunits, along with a Spectra A4 VHF/FMtransceiver. An internal communicationsystem would be installed between the

Auxiliary Vessels:

Yard Diving Tenders — A SuccessfulVessel Conversion ProjectArticle by Ed Chan and Lt(N) Gaston Lamontagne

When the navy decided in 1995that a one-for-one replace-ment of its only diving sup-

port ship HMCS Cormorant would beunaffordable, it meant thatmanned submersibleswould no longer bepart of the Canadiandiving inventory after1998. Instead, the navychose to meet its deep-diving requirementthrough the acquisi-tion of an unmannedROV — the 1,000-metrecapable Deep Seabed Intervention Sys-tem — and a containerized system of div-ing workshops and recompression cham-bers. While the single ROV would have tobe shuttled from one coast to another asrequired and fitted on one of the maritimecoastal defence vessels (or other medium-sized vessel of opportunity), the work-shop and recompression containers oneach coast could be carried on muchsmaller platforms. The question was —Which ones?

Two of the navy’s yard diving tenders(the wooden-hulled YDTs 8 and 9) weredue to be replaced…and, as luck wouldhave it, two other vessels in the Canadianauxiliary fleet — the torpedo and shipranging vessels (TSRV) Sechelt andSooke — had been declared surplus onMarch 31, 1996. (Could the TSRVs possi-bly be converted into diving tenders?)

Four of the 33-metre TSRVs had beendelivered to the Canadian Forces Mari-time Experimental and Test Ranges(CFMETR) at Nanoose, B.C. in 1990-91.Built by West Coast Manly Shipyard inVancouver, the steel-hulled vessels weredesigned to carry a containerized scien-tific package during operations. A studywas made to determine whether theycould accept the 20-foot ISO containersfor the diving workshop and recompres-sion chamber, and meet all the other re-quirements of a YDT replacement vesselincluding sufficient stowage to supportmine countermeasure operations, surface-supply diving, explosive ordnance dis-posal and battle damage repair diving ops.


new workshop and the recompressionmodule, and a seating made for side-scansonar equipment such as the AN/SQQ-505(V). A third anchor and anchor winchinstalled on the quarterdeck would enablethe vessel to carry out precise, three-point anchoring.

The greatest changes to the TSRV re-lated to the vessel’s new diving equip-ment systems. Securing points had tobe fitted on No.1 deck to accept the20-foot ISO standard recompressioncontainer, and the new deckhouse hadto be fabricated. This deckhouse con-tains the diving workshop for con-ducting first-line maintenance, storingdive equipment, calibrating pre-diveset-ups and charging diving sets. Theworkshop’s dedicated calibrationbench allows up to three divers at atime to set up, test or calibrate theirrebreather sets. A full system of high-pressure air compressors and gasbanks leading to the calibration panellets the divers charge their sets withthe required mixture of gases. There iseven a water bath for immersing thediving bottles during charging. Low-pres-sure air banks will supply power to oper-ate underwater air tools. To facilitategetting divers into and out of the water, adiving platform would be installed at thestern. The existing deck crane would berelocated to support diving operationsand lower the rigid-hull inflatable boat.

The contract for developing the TSRVconversion engineering change specifica-tions and drawings went to competitionand was eventually awarded to MIL Sys-tems Engineering Inc. in February, 1996.Ed Chan (DMSS 2-7) managed this con-tract, while various life-cycle materialmanagers reviewed the final design. Theconversion packages for Sechelt andSooke were incorporated with other nec-essary periodic refit work, and on Aug.1,1996 an invitation to tender was issuedfor a single contract to refit and convertboth TSRVs. The contract was limited tosuppliers in Western Canada and stipu-lated that the award of contract would bebased on the lowest priced responsivetender. To be considered responsive, con-tractors were required to:

• demonstrate they have completed atleast one previous ship refit for a vesselof this size (length 33.07 m; breadth 8.45m; draft 2.47 m; displacement 275 tonnes)with a contract value exceeding $0.5M;

• demonstrate a capability to dockthese vessels, and include a docking cer-tificate for their own facility along withthe name of the dockmaster; and

• provide a performance bond, alongwith a labour and material payment bond.

Contractors were also required to:• commence/complete work as follows:

Sechelt: Oct. 23, 1996 – Feb. 6, 1997Sooke: Nov. 13, 1996 – Feb. 27, 1997

• use an electronic planning and workscheduling system to plan and managethe project; and

• use an ISO 9002 compliant qualityassurance system during the implementa-

tion of the project (proven to have beenin place and used in similar projects).

Three bid proposals were received, butwhen the lowest was disallowed after thecontractor’s quality control system wasexamined and found to be non-compliant,the contract for the refit and conversionof the two TSRVs was awarded toNanaimo Shipyards Ltd. on Oct. 28, 1996.The delay in having to evaluate two ship-yards meant that Sechelt would com-mence refit almost three weeks later thanexpected, and Sooke approximately oneweek later than originally scheduled.

A “virtual” project management teamwas established to conduct the refit andconversion. The team was “virtual” in thesense that the individual members contin-ued to carry out their primary functionswith their parent organizations. The teamcomprised: Project Manager Lt(N) GastonLamontagne (DMCM/AUX 4); Procure-ment Officer Ken Black (PWGSC, PacificRegion); Financial Manager Kathy Pope(DMMS 5-3-5); Regional Quality Assur-ance Manager Al Carter (8 CFQAR); On-Site Refit Manager and Quality Assur-ance Representative for YDT 610 Sechelt— CPO2 Bob Bourdage (8 CFQAR); QARep for YDT 612 Sooke — CPO2 KevinGates (8 CFQAR); and TSRV ConversionSpecification Project Manager Ed Chan(DMSS 2-7).

The conversion of the two TSRVs intoyard diving tenders was successful on anumber of fronts. To begin with, the totalcost of the project came in under budget.

Even though a total of 331 work arisingswere accepted, they accounted for only15 percent of the contract price, a verylow figure compared to other navy refits.While it is true that the YDTs were deliv-ered somewhat later than expected (onMay 12, 1997), Fleet Diving Unit Atlanticwas still able to conduct a ship readinessinspection of YDT 610 Sechelt and make

the long transit to Halifax prior to theonset of the hurricane season in theCaribbean. The transit itself was com-pleted without any mechanical diffi-culties.

Both vessels have continued toperform well with their respective Eastand West Coast diving units sincecoming out of refit, and have beenwell tested in a variety of naval exer-cises and operations. Last fall, YDT610 Sechelt was deployed as the maindiving platform during Operation Per-sistence — the Swiss Air Flight 111crash recovery effort off Nova Scotia.During this operation Sechelt logged10,121 manhours on site, 108 dives intotal, without a vessel-related failure

of any kind.

The current chief of Sechelt, CPO2Kevin McNamara (a member of the origi-nal transit crew), has described the newdiving tenders as “the best thing that hasever happened to the trade.” As he toldTrident, he now “likes his job but loveshis boat.” Coming from one of the navy’smost senior divers, this accolade speaksvolumes about the success of the conver-sion. It should also put the CanadianForces Maritime Experimental and TestRanges on alert. As the two remainingwooden-hull diving tenders (YDTs 10 and11) move ever closer to retirement, CFMETR had better keep a close eye on itsremaining two range vessels — YPT 611Sikanni and YPT 613 Stikine — lest thefleet diving units come up with any long-range plans for diving operations thatcould benefit from another couple ofsteel-hulls!

Ed Chan is the DMSS 2-7 project managerresponsible for the TSRV conversion speci-fication.

Lt(N) Lamontagne is now the DMSS 2project officer for the navy’s Afloat Logis-tics and Sealift Capability Project.

The recompression chamber in its container (DNDPhoto)


Greenspace: Maritime Environmental Protection

Regular readers of Greenspacewill be familiar with initiativesunderway to make Canada’s

warships compliant with existing environ-mental regulations. For example, in re-sponse to the International Maritime Or-ganization’s call for a complete ban on thedisposal of waste plastic at sea, many ofour ships are being outfitted with plasticwaste processing systems. The equip-ment illustrated is designed to shred, meltand compress all of a ship’s waste plasticinto pizza-size disks which can be con-veniently retained on board until the shipreaches its next port of call. This is a typi-cal example of technology being devel-oped specifically to enable ships to com-ply with regulations currently on thebooks. Since regulations continue toevolve, however, so must our navy’s re-sponse. In this article I intend to providean opinion on where it’s all heading.

Protection of the oceans affects everyfacet of naval operations and will con-tinue to do so to an even greater extent infuture. Navy ships, as well as all otherforms of vessels, will be obliged to treatthe world’s oceans with the utmost careand respect. To that end, adherence toenvironmental doctrine will be an essen-tial element in planning naval operations.Non-compliant vessels will be severelyrestricted in the type of operations thatthey can perform.

Today’s effluent standards for oilywater, black & grey water, and solidwastes can be fairly easily met using ex-isting technology. The standards applyonly to certain areas, and generally arenot policed outside of territorial waters.This will change. Effluent standards ofthe future will be challenging to meet, andextend to greater areas of the oceans. Fur-thermore, the international community isgenerally starting to accept that it is notgood enough merely to adopt regulationswithout having an established means forenforcing the rules. Thus, policing of shipactivities will become a fact of life, andpenalties will be severe.

In the same incremental manner beingused to force cigarette smokers into ex-tinction, environmental regulators areleading the world’s navies toward zero-

discharge regulations. Within the foresee-able future, the discharge of any non-biodegradable solid or liquid waste at seawill be prohibited. Ships will be obliged toretain all forms of non-biodegradablewaste on board for offloading in port, andship operators will be held fully account-able for any breach of the rules. All prod-ucts brought on board a ship will have tobe accounted for when they leave theship. Ship operators won’t be able to ar-rive in port with the announcement thatthey have no waste to offload; the wastemiraculously having disappeared in themiddle of the ocean. And in the true spiritof “Big Brother is Watching,” satelliteswill be used to a much greater extent tomonitor ship activities, watching for signsof illegal dumping of any waste stream.

Even today, it is very expensive forship operators to comply with environ-mental regulations. As regulations movecloser and closer to zero discharge it willbecome prohibitively expensive to oper-ate in an environmentally conscientiousmanner. As long as port authoritiescharge huge levies to offload waste, theincentive will remain for ships to try tominimize the amount of waste requiringoffloading (through illegal dumping). So acouple of things need to happen. First,

industry is going to have to develop thenecessary technology, which is cost-effective and easy to operate, to enableship operators to process waste streamsin accordance with the law. Second, portauthorities are going to have to supplythe necessary waste handling facilities tomake it easier and less expensive to off-load waste products in port.

To comply with stricter regulations,ships will need equipment which canprocess solid and liquid waste streams tothe higher standards. Research and de-velopment on technologies which canmake this practical are under way. Severalcountries, including Canada, are devel-oping plasma arc incinerators which canreduce all manner of waste to an inertslag. The waste by-products can then beconveniently retained on board untilthey can be off loaded in port. Technol-ogy and processes being developed torecycle fluids on manned spacecraftwhich one day will be deployed to thefarthest reaches of the solar system andbeyond (without the benefit of a replen-ishment in space), will also be prime can-didates for use in shipboard systems.

In the near term we can see changescoming which will have a significant im-pact on the design of liquid waste treat-

Protecting the Oceans in the FutureArticle by LCdr Mark Tinney

HMCS Fredericton ’s plastic waste processors. (CFB Halifax photo by Pte. Kent)


Looking Back

LCdr Mark Tinney is the project managerof the navy’s Maritime EnvironmentalProtection Project.

HMCS Fredericton (FFH-337) isthe most recent Halifax-classfrigate to be outfitted with the

solid waste management equipment se-lected by the Maritime Environmental Pro-tection Project (MEPP). Project staff mem-bers Mario Gingras and George Power willinstall a USN plastic waste processor andshredder, and a Hobart pulper on each ofthe 12 patrol frigates by the end of 2001.Fleet oilers have already received a plasticwaste processor, pulper and Strahan andHenshaw shredder compactor unit, whilethe Iroquois class will be outfitted with atrash compactor and pulper only. Thisequipment will allow each class to effec-tively process solid waste for discharge/storage in accordance with dischargeregulations.

Aboard the Halifax class the pulper isused to process approximately 70 percentof shipboard generated waste — paper,cardboard and food — which can then bedischarged beyond the three-mile limit.The plastic waste processor is composedof two distinct machines — a compressmelt unit, or CMU, that turns plastic wasteinto 20-inch-diameter plastic disks, and asolid waste shredder that serves severalroles: preprocessing plastic waste prior toloading it into the CMU; and shreddingmetal and glass for discharge beyond 200nautical miles. (As plastic discharge intothe oceans is prohibited at all times, theplastic disks must be offloaded ashore.)

The MEPP team visited HMCS Freder-icton in Halifax last February, followingthe fit of new solid waste equipment bySaint John Shipbuilding Ltd. As with allnew installations, MEPP personnel andtheir FSRs were on hand for the set-to-

work to ensure the equipment was in-stalled and operating properly, and totrain the ship’s company in how to oper-ate and maintain the equipment. Interest-ingly, Fredericton accepted our offer totrain the crew while the ship was at sea.

Making sure the equipment works iseasy, but providing the best training op-portunity to the crew can be a difficulttask if not taught in the right classroom.We have found that an underway ship, inits at-sea routine, actively generatingwaste, is the teacher’s best forum. It ishere that the sailors can observe and usethe equipment under real-life operatingconditions. They get to experience actualwaste flow “battle problems” while oper-ating all the equipment under variousscenarios, including the failures we simu-late to teach the maintainers their trouble-shooting techniques. Another big advan-tage to conducting the training while theship is under way (apart from our havinga captive audience) is that we are able tooffer much more individual instructionthan we might otherwise be able to pro-vide. And, we get to watch the newlytrained operators in action for the rest ofthe time we are on board!

During the three days we were em-barked in the ship, we encountered someof our most enthusiastic students to date.We trained a total of 32 people — includ-ing six maintainers — who will surely beable to handle any problems they comeup against with the equipment.

The set-to-work on board HMCSFredericton was an unqualified success.Top-down support combined with a re-ceptive, interested crew made for a veryrewarding visit. The ship now joins a

growing list of vessels in the Canadianfleet having the tools to better protect themarine environment by managing theirsolid waste in accordance with dischargeregulations.

To the crew of Fredericton, the MEPPteam says, Thank You for your enthusi-asm, support and friendship. And to LSChisholm — Thanks for the ride home!

Greenspacement systems. Probably within five yearsnew regulations will require food wasteand grey water to be treated prior to dis-charge. This will have a huge impact onthe size of shipboard liquid waste treat-ment systems which are already heavilychallenged dealing with black water alone.

The requirements for pollution abate-ment equipment will be enormous. War-ships, commercial ships and cruise ships

will all need systems which can processlarge volumes of solid and liquid wasteproducts efficiently and cost-effectively.As the regulations evolve, so will thetechnology and procedures that we em-ploy to process waste at sea. With theright equipment it doesn’t need to be-come an increased burden on ship’screws, beyond the level that it is now. Butone thing is certain. As regulations be-

come stricter, it is imperative that we donot falter in our resolve to comply.

Sean Gill is the field service representa-tive for Geo-Centers Inc., of Pittsburgh,PA.

HMCS Fredericton Joins the Solid WasteManagement FleetArticle by Sean Gill

Overall, the training was very wellreceived; it was exceedingly beneficialto have the experts at hand to answerquestions as they arose.

Having completed formal waste-processing training, the crew will nowturn its attention to waste collection.During the brief training period, it be-came obvious that sorting garbage atthe source will greatly reduce the work-load of the waste processing watch. Anefficient waste management programwill therefore depend upon the propereducation of the ship’s company, thekey (as always) being the three R’s ofReduce, Reuse and Recycle. — Lt(N)Clark Patterson, Deck Officer,HMCS Fredericton.

“ Freddie” Goes Green— the View from the Ship


Throughout history, the mostsuccessful hunters have trackedtheir prey using keen senses of

sight, hearing, smell and touch. Thisholds true even in today’s high-techarena of naval operations. Among theworld’s navies, the “prey” is as wellarmed as the hunter, and the “victor” isoften the one who detects the other first.

We all instinctively know that invisibil-ity equates to invincibility; if you can’t beseen, you can’t be hurt. This is the basicpremise of naval stealth technology,which aims to improve survivability byreducing detectability. Modern sensorsoperate above and below the ocean’s sur-face throughout the electromagneticspectrum, searching for signals that canfind, identify and provide guidance to atarget. This task is made easier if the tar-get can be remotely monitored and reli-ably analyzed as to identity, location,speed and direction — characteristicsbroadly referred to as the target signature.

A signature can be regarded as anemission of acoustic or electromagneticenergy (either transmitted or reflected),usually with spectral (i.e. frequency), tem-poral (time-dependent) or spatial (shapeor directional) content. While the powerlevel of the energy can sometimes beused to determine range, it is the othervariables which serve to identify and clas-sify the target. In the case of weapon trig-gering mechanisms, the identifiableaspects of a ship’s signature are used todetermine whether the physical phenom-enon the mechanism is monitoring isnatural (and can therefore be ignored), oris a hostile warship that should be de-stroyed.

To counter the widespread availabilityof sophisticated detection and surveil-lance sensors among other maritimeforces, navies everywhere are turning tostealth and information denial techniquesto tip the balance in their favour. This arti-cle will address some of the issues relat-ing to signature reduction in Canadiannaval ships.

SensorsThe threats to modern warships are

weapons launched from aircraft, land-

Ship Signature Reduction in theCanadian Navy — A Balancing ActArticle by Mike Belcher and Ping K. Kwok

based sites, other surface ships or sub-marines, and mines. In the majority ofcases the weapon originates out of visualrange of the ship, and the decision tolaunch and subsequent guidance to thetarget are based on sensor input. Remotesensors are used for surveillance, detec-tion, tracking and classification of targets,ground-mapping and weapon-homingguidance.

Sensor systems are divided into twobroad categories: active sensors, such asradar and “pinging” sonar which radiateenergy to detect a target, and passivesensors (i.e. sensors in quiet mode) whichdetect, either directly or indirectly, theenergy emanating from a target. Sensorsare also categorized by their operationalenvironment as either above-water sys-tems (e.g. radar, infrared, optical sensors),or underwater systems (e.g. sonar, pres-sure sensors, magnetic field detectors).For each type of sensor there is a corre-sponding signature, the primary ones be-ing acoustic, underwater magnetic andelectric, radar and infrared (see sidebararticles).

Signatures and the Changing Role ofthe Canadian Navy

The Canadian navy developed its ex-pertise as a major antisubmarine forceduring convoy escort operations in theSecond World War, a role that was rein-forced later during the Cold War. Not sur-

prisingly, Canada optimized its fleet forthis function over the years in terms oftraining, sensors, weapons and acousticsignature reduction. As our ships incor-porated many quietening features such asgas turbine propulsion, air-emission sys-tems and effective vibration isolation ofmachinery, the operational communitydeveloped a good awareness of the im-portance of acoustics.

Following the collapse of the SovietUnion and the subsequent reduction ofthe submarine threat, the navy’s opera-tional focus shifted away from transatlan-tic ASW escort duties to a broader com-bat role in support of NATO littoral opera-tions worldwide. And although ourlong-standing attention to acoustic sig-nature reduction continues to serve uswell, we must now turn our attention toother areas of signature reduction thathave assumed greater importance in thethreat scenarios associated with coastaloperations. Shallower coastal waters arefertile fields for mines (turn to p. 3 of theenclosed issue of CNTHA News to seethe result of USS Tripoli’s encounter witha mine off Kuwait in 1991), and ships arewithin easy striking distance of land-based aircraft, missiles and, in some cases,even coastal artillery. Increased emphasison above-water signatures, includingvisual components, therefore needs to beconsidered. The key lies in a balancedapproach to signature management.

The funnels show up as hot spots in this normal IR image of the now decommissionedHMCS Skeena (DDH-207). (Photo courtesy W.R. Davis Engineering, Ltd.)


Signatures and the Evolving ThreatAs sensors become more sophisti-

cated and are incorporated into weaponsystems, the need to update the signaturemanagement of naval ships becomes in-creasingly important. But because signa-tures are not always well understoodwithin the naval community, there is atendency to rely on information that maybe outdated. For example, when magneticmines were first developed they couldonly sense variation in the vertical mag-netic field. Initial degaussing systems,therefore, were configured to deal withthat threat using horizontal M coils. Un-fortunately, the NATO standards for de-gaussing still refer primarily to verticalfield limits, even though the majority ofmines inventoried around the world todayuse multi-axis sensors and trigger on hori-zontal fields. It is important to recognizethat weapon development is a constantlyevolving field, and that countermeasuresdesigned for last decade’s threat may notbe effective on today’s battlefield.

The technology has advanced on allfronts. Underwater sensors are now capa-ble of detecting changes in AC or DCelectric fields, but it is the above-waterthreat that requires special vigilance. Theadvent of radar-guided anti-ship missileshave prompted some drastic changes in

ship configurations to incorporate“stealth” technologies such as shapingand radar absorbent materials. However,these measures cannot completely hidethe target ship, and some missiles are ableto use multiple sensors to couple radarand IR for targeting. Active countermeas-ures like chaff and flares can be effective(the common wisdom being that thesemeasures must be able to project a moreattractive signature than the platform it-self), but imaging IR sensors negate someof the utility of flares. In the end, above-water threats are best countered througha combination of signature reduction andactive countermeasures integrated withweapons.

Interestingly, the visual component ofwarship signature is front and centre onceagain. Prior to the Second World Warwhen ships had to close to within visualrange to identify a target, visual camou-flage was a key factor in remaining unde-tected. The advent of radar during the warseemed to make camouflage an anachro-nism, but is enjoying something of a re-surgence among today’s navies. Heavierreliance on passive sensors which do notgive away an attacker’s position, the useof electro-optical seekers on weapons,the employment of stealthy remotely pi-loted vehicles (RPVs) for airborne recon-

naissance, and the increased likelihood oflittoral operations have all combined tomake the denial of ship visual identifica-tion by other forces important once again.While the garish stripes painted on thesides of ships to confuse optical range-finders during the First World War areprobably gone for good, more navies areconsidering some scheme of colour and/or pattern camouflage for reducing thevisual impact of their vessels.

Signature MeasurementThe first step in reducing ship signa-

tures is to identify the areas of the shipthat are contributing to the signature, andthis calls for accurate measurement. Be-cause of the various physical processesinvolved, each signature is measured in adifferent manner, using highly sensitivesensors under controlled conditions.

The Canadian navy operates severaltest ranges for dealing with signaturemanagement. There are two facilities onthe East Coast — the Ferguson’s CoveInfluence Range and the Bedford BasinDegaussing Range. Ferguson’s Cove is amulti-use facility incorporating a deep-draught degaussing facility for ships withbeams greater than 55 feet (16.8 m), andboth static and dynamic sound ranges.The Bedford Basin range is strictly a de-

MagneticSteel ships develop individual magnetic fields through their

interaction with the earth’s magnetic field. During constructionthe structure develops a permanent magnetic orientation in align-ment with the earth’s field at that location. Furthermore, movinga ferromagnetic object (such as a steel-hulled ship) within a mag-netic field will cause the field of the object to change as it at-tempts to reorient to the local field. Such induced magnetism isdetermined by the ship’s global position and heading, and alsoleads to the formation of eddy currents within the structure. Anyelectrical machinery operating on board the ship will also gener-ate its own electromagnetic field. Altogether, these effects makeup the ship’s magnetic signature, normally described in units offield strength (nanoTesla) at some distance below the ship’s keel.

Magnetic signature reduction aims at reducing a ship’s fieldto a level which will allow the ship to pass at some predeterminedstand-off distance from mines which trigger on detecting achange in the earth’s magnetic field. The most effective way toreduce the signature is to minimize it during design. Modern mine-sweepers are typically constructed with GRP or wooden hulls,and the machinery is made primarily of non-magnetic metals, butfor the vast majority of warships other methods are required.

Deperming reduces the permanent field by temporarily wrap-ping the ship with a series of coils which are then energized withstrong currents applied in alternating polarities. In addition, de-

Underwater Signaturesgaussing coils permanently installed in the ship generate oppo-site fields to counteract any remaining permanent and inducedfields. A horizontal degaussing loop (the M coil) generates avertical field, while fore and aft loops (A coils) generate anathwartships field. The longitudinal field is controlled by hori-zontal coils of opposite polarity on the foredeck (F coil) andquarterdeck (Q coil), or by a series of circumferential loops (Lcoils). By altering both the number of turns in these coils andthe power applied to each, it is possible to vary the field strengthin the coils to manipulate the ship’s signature. Changes due toship’s heading are controlled by a link to the gyro compass. AllCanadian warships, including Kingston-class MCDVs, are fit-ted with degaussing systems.

ElectricShips also emit underwater electric fields, which are a combi-

nation of electric machinery AC signals and a static-electric fieldresulting from galvanic currents. The static-electric field can inturn generate an extremely low-frequency electric (ELFE) AC sig-nal caused by the modulation of the static-electric field by shaftrotation. Halifax-class ships are now fitted with a Canadian-de-veloped active shaft grounding system to counter the ELFE sig-nature.


Defence Research Establishment Valcartier’s trailer-mounted infrared imagingspectrometer has been used to measure IR signatures of Canadian warships.The imaging spectrometer produces a series of multidimensional graphedoutputs of a ship’s IR intensity mapped against different variables.

All objects emit a characteristic pattern of wavelengths in the infrared (IR) regionof the electromagnetic spectrum, with intensities proportional to the temperature andsurface optical characteristics. IR signatures include spectral signature (intensities ofthe emitted radiation at specific wavelengths), spatial signature (a pattern of the im-age with the relative intensity defining the target shape), and temporal signature (thefluctuation of the target signal over time).

Infrared signature can be controlled by reducing the contrast of the radiant powerwith the backgrounds against which the ship is viewed and by eliminating any directline-of-sight to the heat source. Since background radiance varies with time of day,weather, and geographic location, IR signature management should consist of a pas-sive system designed to keep the IR signature as low as possible against a standardenvironmental condition, and an active system to vary the ship’s radiance to accountfor different conditions.

Halifax-class frigate gas turbine uptakes are fitted with the “DRES Ball” fan-cooledexhaust diffuser, while simpler diffusers are used for all other exhausts. Iroquois-classships have exhaust diffusers on all exhausts. Ship’s internal heat emission is control-led by insulation fitted throughout the ship, especially around the exhaust pipes andducts, and by special ventilation in the funnel. All Canadian major combatants arefitted with an NBC defence pre-wetting system which can be used to alter the IR sig-nature in the 8-14mm wavelength band.

Defence Research Establishment Valcartier, in conjunction with W.R. Davis Engineer-ing Ltd., has developed the Naval Threat/Countermeasures Simulator (NCTS) softwareto model the IR signature of naval ships. It can be used to study the impact of engi-neering changes on the infrared signature and on the ship’s susceptibility to antisurfacemissile IR seekers under a wide range of operational and maritime conditions.

Infrared (IR) Signature

gaussing facility for ships up to 55 feet inthe beam. It has both east-west andnorth-south magnetometer arrays to allowcalibration in vertical, longitudinal andathwartship directions. Mooring buoysand a deperming barge in Bedford Basinare available for deperming/wiping.

Both ranges have shore facilitieswhere range data is gathered and proc-essed, and offer secure voice communica-tion with ships on the ranges. Thesefacilities use either visual or laser trackingsystems, and are now being augmentedwith a digital global positioning satellite(DGPS) tracking system. This will improvethe accuracy of ship tracking, providetrack feedback to ships and allow all-weather operation.

On the West Coast, facilities includeequipment at the entrance to EsquimaltHarbour which incorporates a magneticcheck ranging capability, a degaussingrange at Coburg Spit where a north-southmagnetometer array is situated, and theParry Bay dynamic sound range. A trialacoustic range was recently establishedat Pat Bay to take advantage of betterambient noise conditions. The WestCoast ranges are also being updated withDGPS tracking systems.

Sound-RangingTo measure underwater radiated noise,

a warship must conduct static and dy-namic sound ranging trials on aninstrumented range employing sensitivehydrophones and accurate positionaltracking. The profile of the ship’s under-water noise signature can then be used topredict acoustic detection andcounterdetection ranges, and determinethe ship’s vulnerability to acoustic weap-ons. Sound-ranging can also detect indi-vidual ship and class defects so thatcorrective action can be taken. Typically,rangings are done before and after a refit,and following repairs or changes to majormachinery, the hull or propellers. Tacticalsound rangings are conducted before anymajor deployment.

Magnetic RangingDetermining the coil effects and initial

optimization of the magnetic signaturerequire the use of a magnetic range. Therange consists of an array of highly sensi-tive magnetometers fixed on the seabedwhich measure the ship’s magnetic fieldstrength as it passes over. Accurate posi-tion measurement of the ship during thispass allows the field strength to be plot-ted against the ship’s keel position, allow-ing the effects of the various coils to beevaluated. A complete ranging is an itera-tive process, combining range data with

knowledge of the ship’s magnetic charac-teristics. The result is a ship with its de-gaussing coils set so that the magneticsignature is minimized.

Infrared ImagingIR imaging systems measure the differ-

ential radiance produced by a target andits immediate background. The image re-


corded depends on the spectral radianceof the target and background, the trans-mittance of the atmosphere and the spec-tral response of the imaging system.Canadian warship IR imagery has beenrecorded by Defence Research Establish-ment Valcartier (DREV) using a portableIR imaging system from a Sea King heli-copter. In addition, a DREV IR imagingspectrometer operating in the 2-5mmwaveband (see sidebar) has measuredship signatures from Osborne Head nearHalifax. Further development is requiredto establish a permanent shore-based IRimaging system with quick-look analysiscapability to support fleet deployment.

Radar Cross-sectionMeasurement of Canadian warship

radar cross-section has been conductedby Defence Research Establishment Ot-tawa (DREO). Their I/J-band measurementradar (see sidebar) can collect coherentdata and includes a high-resolution modethat will resolve one-dimensional RCS“hot spots.” Naval Electronic System TestRange Atlantic (NESTRA) and Pacific(NESTRP) both have RCS measurementsystems.

Signature Reduction — A Balancing ActA ship’s signature reduction measures

must be in line with the relevant sensor

characteristics and the associated signalprocessing systems. When multispectralthreat systems exist, signature reduction

Fig. 1. The ever-diminishing “design spiral” for control over a ship’s thresholdsignature shows an iterative process of measurement and improvement.

The radar signature of a vessel is a measure of its ability to reflect radarenergy back to a transceiver. It is typically expressed as radar cross-section(RCS) in square metres, or in decibels relative to one square metre. RCS bearslittle relation to the actual physical size of a target. A complex object such as aship contains many significant “scattering centres,” and its radar cross-sec-tion varies as a function of radar frequency, polarization, elevation and azimuthangle.

Radar waves are only reflected from conductive materials. GRP materials areessentially transparent to electromagnetic radiation, but internal metal struc-tures would be visible. The intersection of three orthogonal planes, called atrihedral reflector, is the most efficient design of reflector and should be avoidedthrough careful attention to “shaping.” Similarly, vertical planes in the uppersuperstructure can combine with the deck to form reflectors, and so should beinclined slightly — 10 degrees or less is sufficient — to reflect radar energyaway from the transceiver. Reflective deck equipment such as boat davits, cap-stans and even stanchions can also contribute to the radar cross-section, andsome navies have taken drastic steps to remove these items or hide them be-hind screens. Further RCS reduction can be achieved by fitting radar absorb-ent material either as sheet material permanently attached to the structure, or asflexible panels that can be rigged as required. In all cases, effective use of hulland superstructure shaping, as in the Halifax-class ships, requires rigorousadherence to design principles.

The radar cross-section of a ship can be determined through scale-modeltesting, computer simulation and full-scale range testing. (Scale-model tests ofthe Halifax-class were conducted to verify the design and to identify the majorscattering sources.) Defence Research Establishment Ottawa (DREO) has analy-sis codes to predict the RCS of various targets with complex geometries. How-ever, full-scale ship testing on an instrumented range remains the most accuratemethod for establishing the radar cross-section of a ship.

Radar Signature

DREO’s I/J-band mobile RCS measurementsystem.


must be applied to all signatures for it tobe tactically effective, although measuresto reduce one signature may increase an-other. For example, screens to reduce theIR signature on deck may increase theradar cross-section of the ship. Figure 1provides an overview of the dynamic,sequential and iterative process of thethreshold signature management spiral.Once an acceptable ship self-protectionsystem effectiveness has been achieved,the threshold signatures must be main-tained to ensure the ship can accomplishits mission effectively against a set ofthreat sensors under a given set of envi-ronmental conditions.

It is important to remember that shipsignatures be considered together withthe available countermeasures and withthe defined threats. There is a commonmisconception that stealth technologycan make objects invisible to radar. This isno more true than saying special paintscan make an object invisible to the eye.The aim of stealth technologies is to re-duce the signatures in specific areas be-low the sensor acuity in a given set ofenvironmental conditions. In certaincases, the signature need only be reducedbelow the level at which decoys are effec-tive. By the same token, it makes nosense to reduce signatures to levels be-

low which sensors cannot detect at nor-mal engagement ranges.

While there are often palliative meansto improve ship signatures, the mostcost-effective method of ensuring lowsignature levels is to build these featuresin at the design stage. This can be accom-plished through proper selection of mate-rials, equipment and structural designdetails. In many cases, the cost of build-ing a stealthy structure is not signifi-cantly more than building a non-stealthyone. In other cases, as in the case of mod-ern minesweepers, the requirements forlow signature levels will dominate the de-sign.

The methods for controlling and re-ducing signatures are for the most partwell understood. Because the threat isconstantly evolving, and because manyelements of ship signature are dependenton the maintenance of existing designfeatures, it is desirable that a signaturemanagement organization monitor the“stealth health” of the fleet. The goal ofthis organization should be to review sig-nature control efforts on a ship-level fo-cus, to ensure that these efforts arebalanced and congruent.

To address these issues, a Naval Sig-nature Management Committee has been

established with representation fromheadquarters, the research communityand both coasts. This allows open dis-cussion of policy, provides input for thedevelopment of new and current facilities,and ensures that naval signature manage-ment retains high visibility. An AtlanticSignature Management Working Groupalso exists in MARLANT to deal withissues relating specifically to the EastCoast fleet. West Coast fleet survivabilityissues are the responsibility ofMARPAC/N34. In DGMEPM, technicalresponsibility for signature managementfalls within the Passive Protection section(DMSS 2-5), which has unique experiencein underwater noise, vibration, magnetics,above-water signatures and survivability.This section is also responsible for main-taining the navy’s various signature testranges.

Way AheadSignature reduction is a passive pro-

tection system, an integral part of theship’s defensive system, and cannot betreated in isolation. The effectiveness ofcountermeasures will be improved withsignature reduction. Underwater signa-ture management, both acoustic and mag-netic, is well established. Although not allthe components required for radar cross-section and IR signature management arein place, requirements to address theseissues have been identified. With the ad-vance of new sensors such as millimetremicrowave (MMW) radar, imaging infra-red, and laser detection and ranging(LADAR), there will be a need to dealwith the threat from new missile seekers.Each new threat will pose unique signa-ture control challenges, and the battlebetween measure and countermeasurecan be expected to continue. However,with an effective method for understand-ing the effect of signatures and dealingwith these issues, the Canadian navy iswell prepared to respond to these chal-lenges.

Mike Belcher is a survivability analyst inDMSS 2.

Ping K. Kwok is the DMSS 2 engineer forabove-water signature management.

Acoustic SignatureThe acoustic signature is the underwa-

ter noise generated by a ship, expressedin decibels (dB) relative to a referencesound pressure level of 1 mPa(micropascal) one metre from the hull. It isa complex spectrum of sounds, dominatedby narrowband machinery and propellertonal components at slower ship speeds,and by broadband propeller cavitationnoise at higher speeds. Noise radiated bya ship can be detected at great distances,and can also degrade the performance ofthe ship’s own sonars.

Machinery vibration is transmittedthrough seatings and piping systems tothe hull, then radiated into the water. Air-borne acoustic energy can also be radiateddirectly to the hull. Machinery noise isreduced by minimizing vibration at thesource through accurate balancing andalignment of rotating parts, and by keep-ing machines in good repair. Interruptingthe vibration coupling path is accom-plished by resiliently mounting machinery,fitting fluid and acoustic mufflers, install-ing acoustic enclosures, and avoiding rigidconnections to the hull. Air-emission sys-tems distribute a layer of bubbles in the

water near the machinery spaces to createan acoustic impedance mismatch, thusreducing the transfer of machinery noiseto the water. Acoustic decoupling tilesattached externally to the hull around themachinery spaces also prove effective.Although such tiling is more common onsubmarines, and rarely used on surfaceships, they are currently fitted on HMCSMontreal.

Hydrodynamic noise results from acombination of propeller cavitation andflow noises. Flow noise can be controlledthrough careful design of the hull and itsappendages. The cavitation inceptionspeed can be increased by good propellerdesign and by smoothing the flow of wa-ter into the propeller. To reduce the effectof cavitation, operators can keep the ship’sspeed below the cavitation inceptionspeed, or run propeller air-emission sys-tems above that speed, accelerate gradu-ally and use minimum rudder and stabilizerangles where practicable.


The year 2000 computer problemanticipates a number of compu-ter failures that could occur

should computers misinterpret key datesin their internal calculations. The basis forthe problem lies in the ambiguity of thetwo-digit year indicator “00” (Is that year1900 or year 2000?), and in the confusinglogic presented by certain dates (such asApril 9, 1999 — the 99th day of the 99th

year — which some computers might readas a 9999 “end-of-file” date field). Two ofthese key dates, Jan. 1st (the first appear-ance of “99”) and April 9th, have alreadypassed seemingly without incident for theCanadian navy, but there is concern thatthe effects of some of these events mightmanifest themselves only later. For in-stance, one concern with routine busi-ness processes is that the bugsmight not show up until softwareis invoked to perform quarterlyroll-ups.

Y2K bugs are likely to affectvarious systems differently, andoperators could see their systemsreact with anything from quirkybehaviour, to a refusal to performcertain activities and outright fail-ure and shutdown. Errors in per-forming date interval calculationscould affect database archives,such as those used in messagehandling systems, by reportingthat no messages had been received be-tween, say, December 99 and February 00— the year 00 having been logically as-sumed to have occurred before the year99. (In a combat system, this type of errorcould produce ludicrous target informa-tion.) A database with a memory optimiza-tion feature could even end up deleting“stale” data from the year 00 (i.e. 2000) ifthe computer misinterpreted the 00 as theyear 1900.

At the beginning of DND’s Y2K effort,there was a sense that time was tight andthat organizations would not haveenough time to review and remediateevery system that could be affected bythe millennium bug. An operational readi-ness program was therefore launched toidentify and rank those missions thatwere critical to meeting Canadian Forcesnational and international objectives. Theresult of this high-level review was amuch clearer definition of computer sys-tems with respect to their criticality to the

overall nature of operations. This in turnallowed the three environmental elementsto to prioritize and manage their own Y2Kefforts, such as the navy is now doingwith its joint CMS/DGMEPM Year 2000Ship Systems Project [see “Navy’s Y2KShip Systems Project in full swing,”Maritime Eng. Journal, Feb. 1999].

The Y2K Ship Systems Project (SSP) istasked with ensuring that Canadian navalship systems and related shore installa-tions are able to function normally in theface of the millennium bug. The project isbeing supported by a full program ofdocumentation, certification and auditingfor Y2K compliance, including systemfunctionality validation trials being con-ducted by the Naval Engineering TestEstablishment (NETE).

Compliance and CertificationThe decision to fund Y2K assessment

and remediation activities has been ad-dressed in many ways within the CF andthroughout the private sector. In the navy,senior management was determined notto mortgage future capital plans againstY2K remediation. Consequently, an el-egant measure was taken when all Y2Kassessment activities and correctivesteps were directed to come from the ex-isting maintenance budget. Life-cycle ma-terial managers (LCMMs) would simplyprioritize Y2K as the first issue to addresswithin the scope of all other materiel con-cerns.

To enable review of year 2000 plansand actions by LCMMs as they related totheir systems, a certification review boardwas established by the project. The boardis chaired by DMSS 8, with membershipincluding the project manager of the ShipSystems Project, as well as representa-tives from ship system engineering and

CMS/DMPPD. Each LCMM was requiredto prepare a year 2000 certificate and sup-porting technical package for each systemor project under his management. Thepackage supported the case for the par-ticular certification category beingsought, and provided such details as asystem and interface block diagram, a ba-sic description of the system’s functions,and an analysis summary. Eight possiblecertification categories were established:

• No date usage (the system computes,but no dates are processed);

• Fully compliant;• Converted (the system has been con-

verted, tested and implemented, and isfully compliant);

• Replaced (the system has been re-placed by: ______ );

• Abandoned (the system willbe removed from service beforeJan. 1, 2000);

• Non-compliant with signifi-cant impact;

• Non-compliant with no sig-nificant impact;

• No computing component.

The project adopted a “stem tostern” approach for shipboardsystems in each class of ship.Many systems were found tohave no computing components.Among the remaining systems a

large number did not process dates in anymanner, while still more were already year2000 compliant (using and displaying thefull four-digit year). Approximately adozen systems needed remediation work.About half of these systems have beenconverted, while the remainder were wellon their way to compliant status, or hav-ing a CRB-accepted workaround put inplace.

Validation TrialsIn order to develop the necessary con-

fidence in ship systems’ ability to dealwith the millennium bug, NETE wastasked to conduct Y2K system functional-ity trials in HMC ships. These trialssought to demonstrate that no Y2K bugswould propagate across the interfaces ofcomplex, integrated systems, and thatthese and stand-alone systems could bedemonstrated as Y2K-ready in the opera-tional environment. In addition to demon-strating Y2K system functionality ofintegrated systems, these trials served to

Year 2000 Ship ReadinessArticle by LCdr Richard Gravel and Lt(N) Erick DeOliveira

Fig. 1. Status of Mission Critical Systems


educate our personnel, and to betterprioritize our remediation efforts.

Because the stakes of advancingclocks in seagoing ships were high, a pro-gressive approach was taken to minimizethe risk in these trials. Assiduous LCMMefforts to assess the compliance of spe-cific equipment and individual systemsprovided early confidence that the ship-board trials would proceed safely. Wherepossible, trial programs for individual sys-tem groups (AWW, UWW, IMCS, Comms,NAV/INS and EW) were tested first inshore-based trainers before being movedon board the ships. Altogether, NETE hasconducted Y2K testing in 10 different ships,including an AOR, two Kingston-classcoastal defence vessels, four Halifax-class frigates and three Iroquois-classdestroyers.

It is important to note that there aresystems that will not be investigated bythe navy’s Y2K Ship Systems Project. Forinstance, the numerous personal comput-ers used on board ship are being lookedafter by other agencies within DND/CF,while large commercial systems such asGPS, Inmarsat, and Satcom satellite net-works are being addressed outside ofDND (although the compliance of theground-based receivers for these net-works is being assessed).

The NETE system functionality trialshave sought to establish Y2K complianceby verifying that there is no noticeableoperator impact as a result of the Y2Kenvironment. For example, during AAWserials, the emphasis was not on the abil-ity to hit a towed target, but on the abilityof the command control system to desig-nate a target to a fire-control director, andsuccessfully continue the process to thepoint of target prosecution.

In addition to validating the compli-ance of shipboard integrated systems foreach ship class, ship-to-ship interoper-ability was tested between HMCSAlgonquin (DDH-283) and her consortHMCS Winnipeg (FFH-338). The testingincluded such systems as Link-11, mes-sage handling, and the Joint MaritimeCommand Information System.

Finally, the Ship Systems Project seizedan opportunity to demonstrate that Cana-dian warships could perform in a Y2K en-vironment with an allied force. HMCSRegina (FFH-334) participated in a lengthyexercise with a USN carrier battle group.During this exercise, Regina demon-strated functional interoperability in allwarfare environments (surface, air, sub-surface), SAR events, helicopter air sup-port, communications management, and

maritime interdiction/naval boarding op-erations.

NETE produces reports of each sys-tem trial which are scrutinized by a formaltrials acceptance review board. In thisway, the SSP closes the loop that beginswith LCMM equipment tests and predic-tions, and NETE field tests of shipsets.The result of the trials acceptance reviewdetermines whether a system’s Y2K be-haviour is satisfactory, and whether addi-tional tests or remediation are warranted.

sage traffic, alarms, or other historicalevents.

The Y2K bug has also been observedto produce special symptoms in certainsystems, such as in the SRD-502 directionfinding system which loses exactly onesecond of clock time upon the rollover.While the SRD-502 only needs to be re-started to resynchronize its clock, moresevere problems have come to light dur-ing recent tests of mission fits for the Ca-nadian command ship for the StandingNaval Force Atlantic. The SRD-503, forexample, exhibits significant degradationthat is directly attributable to Y2K dateenvironments (presently being addressed).

Auditing ActivitiesDND has established a review and au-

dit process to span the entire CF year2000 effort. The purpose of this Monitor-ing Review Program is to conduct inde-pendent reviews of both system certifica-tion and the process used to certify sys-tems. The program has four streams ofreview, and the SSP is subjected to each.

The first review, sponsored by PMOY2K, is a verification of system certifica-tion which examines the overall process,including the certification review boardsand NETE integration testing. Specificsystems were chosen, and the processand certification package for each waschecked. The second audit program isconducted by the Chief of Review Serv-ices, and consists of a similar process anddocumentation review. The most extensiveaudit is the technical review program,which is mandated to conduct a technicalreview of certain high-priority, missioncritical systems to ensure that assessmentof Y2K activities has been duly diligent.The technical review program involvedvisits to field and support sites, a reviewof technical data packages, a review ofmanuals and specifications, and a detailedtechnical appreciation by a team of experi-enced technologists and engineers. Thefourth audit is a risk reduction process putin place by the Y2K team for ADM(Mat).

In all cases, a minimum of 10 percent ofan organization’s systems was to be ex-amined. All audits and reviews have re-vealed a solid process and a proper tech-nical approach to the business of ensur-ing year 2000 readiness of shipboard sys-tems. Few changes have been proposed,and no further review has been recom-mended. The final drafts of the audit re-ports are being submitted to the sponsor-ing organization for review.

ConclusionThe Year 2000 Ship Systems Project

has endeavoured to take a practical ap-

Brie

“Ship is...under sailingorders to proceed to sea toconduct Y2K testing. Inpreparation...the internaldate is to be set at 1 Jan 2000by 0730Q (Jan. 20, 1999).” — Extract from HMCSMontreal’s Captain’s Night Order Book,Jan. 19, 1999.

Known Y2K Anomalies in HMC ShipsLCMM efforts to investigate their sys-

tems have identified Y2K phenomena in anumber of systems. In many cases, thesewere subsequently observed during vali-dation trials. The phenomena include allof the expected behavioural quirks, but inmost cases the Y2K problems in questioncan be worked around. These are beingsuitably documented and advertised. Forexample:

In both Iroquois- and Halifax-classships, the command and control softwareexhibits Y2K symptoms when analyzingor playing back history recording filesrecorded across the millennium transition.This is a common Y2K symptom, and iseasily overcome by dividing the task be-tween the period prior to, and after, Jan. 1,2000. Also, the software updater in theHalifax-class CCS-330 displays leap-yearproblems and would incorrectly link filesthat span the rollover. This particularproblem will be eliminated by updatingfiles so that they all reflect the same year.

The new message handling and distri-bution system in Iroquois-class ships isalso non-compliant in terms of its abilityto stamp the proper date-time group. Thiswill cause some retrieval challenges, butthe problem is being addressed through anew software release. Also being ad-dressed is the inability of the communica-tions control and monitoring system toaccept date ranges spanning the millen-nium as valid intervals. This is reflected inempty system activity reports for mes-


proach toward Y2K certification of sys-tems and testing in Canadian warships.The legal requirement to demonstrate“due diligence” and collect objective evi-dence has necessitated a managementand operational level review of systems.

In 1998 the world’s Y2K gurus werenot only concerned that individual sys-tems might fail, but that interfaces be-tween integrated systems might alsoprovoke Y2K failures. For this reason, theNaval Engineering Test Establishmentwas directed to conduct progressive inte-grated system testing. As an independentvalidator, NETE was the first agency (inplace prior to all of the auditing organiza-tions) to take a sober second look at thenavy’s Y2K activities. NETE reviewed thestate of both stand-alone systems andthe interfacial connections of integratedsystems – delivering an effective check of

LCMM efforts in the end-use, operationalenvironment.

Certification efforts, laboratory testingand actual shipboard trials all suggestthat HMC ships will experience little, ifany, operational limitations as a result ofthe millennium rollover. The anomalieswhich have been identified are predomi-nantly confined to archival and historyrecording functions. Extensive testing atthe single-ship and battle-group level hascontinued to reinforce the robustness ofour ships, and confidence in their abilityto carry out almost any kind of missionwith system clocks set to millenniumdates.

Since its genesis in May 1998, the SSPhas tackled an ambitious project withcreditable results. The certification ofsome 1100 systems for all ship classes

LCdr Gravel is Project Manager of thenavy’s Year 2000 Ship Systems Project.

Lt(N) DeOliveira (DMSS 5-6) is Test andTrials Manager for the Year 2000 ShipSystems Project.

efs

and the completion of at-sea trials forboth major ship classes were completed inearly February. The preliminary results ofthese efforts — system certification andvalidation trials together — give us excel-lent reason to be satisfied that ships willbe available and fully capable after theupcoming New Year’s Eve party.

A Senior Review Board convened inMarch to review CANTASS project statusand way ahead activities. The project re-ceived approval to address operationaland training shortfalls (the main thrust ofthe way ahead) via the introduction of anadjunct signal processor for each CAN-TASS set, and the procurement of a CAN-TASS Mission Simulator for the WestCoast. (The East Coast simulator, whichwas installed in the summer of 1998, isexpected to be fully operational this fall.)

A signal processing insertion will beimplemented to handle HF processing andtransient signal detection, which are cru-cial in detecting high-frequency emis-sions and speed-related components ofsubmarine and surface ship contacts.Transient signals can herald prelaunchand launch activity with torpedoes andmissiles. The signal processing will occuron a COTS chassis adjunct to the existingCANTASS hardware that will host theCANTASS signal processing algorithms.The input to the adjunct processor will bea variety of pre- and post-processed sig-nals and tracker data. The output will beintegrated back into the CANTASS DataManagement and Distribution Unit, whichwill allow new display formats to be inte-grated into the existing CANTASS dis-plays. The upgrade promises shorterintegration periods.

Towed Array: CANTASS Update

Target motion analysis requirementsfor Halifax-class frigates will be resolvedby incorporating the Passive LocalizationAssistant (PLA) into the adjunct CAN-TASS processor. A trial of a stand-aloneversion of PLA in the frigates Regina andToronto concluded that PLA is a valuableand necessary tool for undersea warfare,and fully addresses the Halifax-class tar-get motion analysis requirement. It wasalso noted that PLA must be integratedinto CANTASS due to the limited numberof TASOP billets in Halifax-class ships.

A contract will soon be let to procure aCANTASS Mission Simulator for theWest Coast. Following its analysis ofCANTASS at-sea performance (using thePost Analysis System), the navy now hasa much clearer understanding of its towedarray training requirement. The signalprocessing, transient detection and PLAinsertions will be incorporated into thenew trainer, along with improved oceano-graphic and graphical user interfaces. Allmodifications to the new trainer will beretrofitted into the East Coast system.

The repair and overhaul contract forthe CANTASS Post Analysis System(PAS) has been awarded to Array Sys-tems Computing of Toronto. The com-pany will initially produce a softwaresupport environment for PAS softwaredevelopment, then begin to address out-

standing issues with the PAS (includingY2K concerns).

Other Activities...• CANTASS Mission Simulator free-

play week (April 19-23, 1999): Fleet opera-tors assessed the operational/trainingvalue performance of the East CoastCANTASS Mission Simulator prior to siteacceptance testing (May 17-27).

• Fleet Operational Readiness Assess-ment Check (May 6-12, 1999): Proved theoperational performance of CANTASS atsea, and benchmarked the system’s per-formance against CANTASS Baseline 3software.

• CANTASS Mission Simulator — In-structors Training Course (June 7-July 9,1999): for CFNOS instructors.

• Program Generation Centre Upgrade:will bring the CANTASS software devel-opment tools to a more modern and sup-portable environment. This will ensurelong-term support in an open architectureenvironment that will enable easier andless hardware-intrusive upgrades. —Lt(N) Scott MacDonald, DMSS 7-8-2.[http://dgmepm.d-ndhq.dnd.ca/dmss.dmss7/pcantass/cantassf(3).htm]

News Briefs


News Briefs1998 MARE Training Awards(Photos by CFB Halifax Photo, Pte. S. Kent, courtesy CFNES Halifax)

The following awards were presented at this year’s East Coast MARE mess dinner on April 29th:

Mack Lynch Memorial AwardSLt Ryan New (presented by Capt(N) D. Hurl)

Northrop Grumman Canada AwardLt(N) Joseph Pike (presented by Capt(N) G. Humby)

CAE AwardLt(N) Edward Hooper(presented by Wendy Allerton, CAE)

MacDonald Dettwiler AwardLt(N) Greg Marquis(presented by Lee Carson, MacDonald Dettwiler Canada)

Runners-up:Lt(N) DucasSLt BouayedSLt Mondoux

Runners-up:Lt(N) DeschenesLt(N) PorteousLt(N) PattersonLt(N) Gray

Lockheed Martin AwardLt(N) Keith Coffen(presented by Capt(N) (ret.) B. Baxter, Lockheed Martin Canada)

The Maritime Engineering Journalis always on the lookout for goodquality photos (with captions) touse as stand-alone items or asillustrations for articles appearingin the magazine. Please keep usin mind as an outlet for yourphotographic efforts.

Share Your Snaps!

Preserving Canada’s Naval Technical Heritage 1

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

CNTHA ChairmanRAdm (ret’d) M.T. Saker

DHH LiaisonMichael Whitby

SecretaryGabrielle Nishiguchi (DHH)

Executive DirectorLCdr (Ret’d) Phil R. Munro

Research DirectorDr. Hal W. Smith

DGMEPM LiaisonMr. R.A. Spittall

Maritime Engineering JournalLiaisonBrian McCullough

Newsletter EditorMike Saker

Newsletter Layout & DesignBrightstar Communications,Kanata, Ont.

CNTHA News is the unofficial newsletter of theCanadian Naval Technical History Association,published by the Director of History and Herit-age, NDHQ Ottawa, K1A 0K2, telephone (613)998-7045, fax 990-8579. Views expressed arethose of the writers and do not necessarily re-flect official DND opinion or policy. The editorreserves the right to edit or reject any editorialmaterial.

CANADIAN NAVAL TECHNICAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION

JUNE 1999

CANADIAN NAVAL TECHNICAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION

Inside this issue:

Mike Saker

Helping Official History:The Value of the CNTHA .....2

RCN Official HistoryDue in 2010.............................2

Book Review:Desert Sailor:A Warof Mine .....................................3

The Collection.............................3

RCN/RN Relations, 1955.......... 4

Canadians at Harwell .................4

Readers with a sharp eye will likely have noticed that Dr. Roger Sarty is no longerour point of contact with the Directorate of History and Heritage. Roger, who

was recently recruited by historian Jack Granatstein to head up historical research andexhibit development at the Canadian War Museum (CWM), is ably replaced by MichaelWhitby (who worked with Roger and Dr. Alec Douglas to establish the naval historyprogram at DHH). Roger, meanwhile, continues to actively participate in the CNTHA,and is now asking our readers for assistance.

The war museum is seeking to strengthen its holdings of post-Second World Warnaval artifacts, especially those from the Cold War era. This is an important develop-ment as the foundation of the CWM’s collection consists mainly of Canadian army ar-tifacts from the two world wars. According to Roger, the retirement of the last of Canada’ssteam-driven destroyers presents an unparalleled opportunity to fill in some of the gapsin the naval collection, but the museum needs advice on what equipment to look for.

The St. Laurent- and follow-on classes were built at the height of the Cold War in the1950s and 60s, and remained the backbone of our naval fleet right up until the early1990s. As such, they embody some 30 to 40 years of Canadian naval history. They werethe first major warships to be designed in Canada, and their repeated upgrades over theyears often featured equipment and concepts that were in themselves Canadian inno-vations. Home to several generations of Canadian naval personnel, these ships harbourthe essence of the Canadian naval experience from a long and important period.

Roger is asking for assistance in identifying specific pieces of equipment, perhapseven parts of structure, that should be acquired by the museum to meet its mandate ofpreserving key artifacts that will serve both as a memorial and as an educational resource.One suggestion already passed on to the museum is that they should especially try togather equipment, consoles and displays from the operations room and bridge (whichthe museum says can be worked up into a nice display), but what they need to know is,Which specific items? Also, are there reasonably compact pieces of equipment and struc-ture from other parts of the ship (say an engine-room display), that would meet the dualobjectives of preserving what was familiar and important to service people, and provid-ing a good resource for education and research?

Roger Sarty promises to keep us posted on developments. In the meanwhile, if youcan help him out in any way with the new naval display for the Canadian War Museum,please contact him directly at: Director Historical Research and Exhibit Development,Canadian War Museum, General Motors Court, 330 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, K1A 0M8.([email protected]); Tel. (819) 776-8664; Fax (819) 776-8657.

War Museum seeks CNTHAAssistance

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Preserving Canada’s Naval Technical Heritage2

CNTHA News — June 1999

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Given the fact that there has been achange in leadership of the naval

history team at the Directorate of Historyand Heritage, it might be beneficial to re-emphasize the important contributionthat the members of the CNTHA make tothe writing of official history. In doing so,I will rely heavily upon Dr. Roger Sarty’sdiscourse on the subject that appeared inthe March 1997 edition of this newsletter,for he captured succinctly the reasonswhy official historians need your assist-ance.

First, let’s clarify the term “official his-tory.” It can be misleading, but JamesButler, editor of the massive British offi-cial history series on the Second WorldWar, described official history as thatcommissioned and sponsored by a gov-ernment which then opened its records forthat purpose and took responsibility forthe competence of the authors. That wellsums up the position and role of Canada’sofficial historians at the Directorate ofHistory and Heritage. We are given a task,we receive unfettered access to depart-mental records and we complete a compre-hensive historic volume to the best of ourability. Our job is to get it right, warts andall.

In January the Directorate of Historyand Heritage received the go-ahead tocomplete a three-volume official history ofthe RCN in time for the centennial of theCanadian navy (see box at left). This willbe a huge undertaking, especially VolumeIII which will cover the years 1945 to 1968.Veteran sailors of that period know of themassive changes that took place, not justin the RCN, but in naval warfare in gen-eral, and understand the ever-increasingimpact that technology had on naval war-fare during that time frame.

Documents are useful only to a pointto the historian who is seeking to under-stand and interpret the complexities oftechnological change. As Dr. Sarty ex-plained so well, innumerable questionsarise that must be addressed: How wereship and equipment requirementsevolved? How did the teams responsiblefor equipment selection, design and pro-

curement evolve? Who were the key play-ers? How did the technical branches re-late to the naval staff and to each other?How did the navy relate to the DefenceResearch Board, to the Department of De-fence Production and to industry? Howdid the ships and equipment perform inthe fleet? What problems arose and howwere they tackled?

The recollections of those who wit-nessed or participated in those events areof immeasurable assistance to the histo-rians who grapple with these critical ques-tions. That was revealed to me in my workon “Certified Serviceable, The TechnicalStory of Canadian Naval Aviation.” Thevast expanse of anecdotes, reminiscences,copies of working papers, accounts ofexperience with certain types of kit, alongwith the photographs collected by a smallgroup of dedicated naval air technicians,shed an enormous amount of light onwhat would otherwise have been a prettydark hangar. It’s not that the technical sideof naval air would have been ignored inthe official history, but it is doubtful thatit would have been written with the clar-ity and insight of “those who made it so.”

So we welcome, enthusiastically andgratefully, any material that members of theCNTHA can contribute to our growingnaval technical collection at DHH. Wealso welcome your advice when we seekto understand the complexities of the post-war naval experience. You are valuablemembers of the naval team and you willhelp us to get it right.

Helping Official History:The Value of the CNTHA

Michael Whitby is the chief of theNaval History Team in the Directorateof History and Heritage.

Article by Michael Whitby

Official Historydue in 2010

In January the Directorate of His-tory and Heritage received renewedpriority from the DND Heritage Boardto complete a three-volume officialhistory of the RCN in time for the cen-tennial of the Canadian navy in 2010.This isgreat news. When completed,the project will enhance public under-standing of the vital role the Canadiannavy has played, and continues toplay, in both peace and war.

The project will be a massive un-dertaking, but DHH is in good shapeto see it through with our traditionalhigh quality. We are in the final stagesof completing Volume II, which cov-ers the Second World War. A draftshould be ready for the publisher atthe end of this year, with publicationabout 18-24 months after that.

Some preliminary work has beendone for Volume I (1867-1938), but weare much farther along with VolumeIII, which will cover the post-war yearsto 1968. The great progress with Vol-ume III is thanks in no small part tothe dedication of the naval technicalcommunity which has gathered a vastarray of material on specific subjectssuch as naval aviation, sonar devel-opment and the hydrofoil project, aswell as more general technical matters.

Over the past decade the naval his-tory team at DHH has received tre-mendous support from the entirenaval community. We are grateful forthat and it gives us a great level ofcomfort to know that we will be ableto continue to count upon that sameenthusiasm as we see the naval his-tory project through to completion.

M.W.

Preserving Canada’s Naval Technical Heritage 3


•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

mine warfare aspects of the 1991 Gulf War.Sent to the Gulf in late 1990, the authorultimately joined the staff of the multina-tional mine countermeasures (MCM)force, which was commanded by a USNofficer. After the shooting stopped, LCdrHewitt was one of the first ashore at theformer Kuwait naval base. There he wit-nessed some of the effects of the Iraqioccupation — looting, vandalism andwanton destruction, coupled with somenasty booby traps — and collected someofficial “souvenirs” for use as training aidsin the fleet school back in Halifax.

What makes this story fascinating isthe insight the author brings as a special-ist in the business of mine warfare. He was

Book Review:Desert Sailor: A War of MineBy James T. Hewitt, Canadian Peace-keeping Press, Cornwallis Park, P.O.Box 100, Clementsport, NS, B0S 1E0,1998. ISBN 1-896551-17-3. Soft cover,192 pp, Illus., photos, appendices and in-dex. $24.95 plus taxes and shipping.

Reviewed by Mike Young

To this reviewer’s knowledge this isonly the second book published by

a Canadian naval officer on his Gulf Warexperience1. A specialist mine warfare of-ficer, LCdr Jim Hewitt kept a journal dur-ing his time in the region. He has editedand smoothed the entries into a fascinat-ing book.

As the title implies, this is both a per-sonal account and an account of the sea (continued on page 4)

The amphibious assault ship USSTripoli (LPH-10) lies in drydock inBahrain after sustaining damage belowthe waterline from an Iraqi mine offKuwait during the Gulf War in 1991. Theship was able to continue operationsafter damage control crews were ableto stop the flooding. (USN photo by JO1Joe Gawlowicz. Used with permission.)

The Collection(354 Items!)

Among our latest acquisitions isa VHS tape entitled, “The TrackerYears.” It is an amateur video pro-duced and written by Alfred T.Bristow. In the credits he recognizesseveral retired naval officers, two ofwhom are known to me — RobbieHughes and Benny Oxholm. Thetape runs close to an hour in lengthand is most professional in presen-tation. Although primarily opera-tional, it tells the story of the trackeraircraft in full and is a joy to watch.The production group is called Crys-tal Creations, and proceeds from thesale of tapes (at $34.50 each) are be-ing used to support the ShearwaterAviation Museum Foundation.

Copies can be obtained from:Alfred T. Bristow#94-100 Burrows Hall,Scarborough, Ontario M1B 1M7phone (416) 299-8016

We are continually on the look-out for new material. If you havesomething and think we have it,send it anyway. We can sort it out.You can reach me by:

mail: 673 Farmington Ave.,Ottawa, Ont., K1V 7H4

fax: (613) 738-3894 E-mail: [email protected]

Phil Munro

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Preserving Canada’s Naval Technical Heritage4


•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Regarding an earlier query of, “Whowere the Canadians, if any, who joinedthe team at Harwell?”

The following people undertook the16-week course at Harwell, U.K.,

completing it in mid-January 1958:• Cdr(E) (later Vadm) R. St.G. Stephens• Constructor LCdr W.M. Ogle (left

the RCN 1964)• Lt(L) G.A. Kastner (retired as Lcdr)• R.A. Mitchell, civilian engineer

from NEDIT

They all then went to Y-ARD to workwith the RN team studying nuclear pro-pulsion.

Lt(E) (later Capt) S.E. Hopkins com-pleted an M.Sc. degree in nuclear engi-neering at the University of Ottawa inSeptember 1957. Cdr(E) (later Capt) M.W.Anketell-Jones was on the Harwell courseimmediately after the above four. [Source:Crowsnest, Feb. 1958, pp. 14-19, “Atomic

aboard the MCM command shipUSSTripoli when she hit a mine in the barrieroff Kuwait and he describes the chillingscene as damage control parties fought tocontain the flooding, shore up weakenedbulkheads, restore electrical power andprevent explosions from a variety of flam-mable products released by the mine dam-age. The damage caused by a single mineto this 20,000-ton ship was major and a re-minder of just how dangerous mines canbe. The missile cruiser USS Princetonwas also severely damaged as a result ofactuating a mine in the same field.

It is clear from the observations of theauthor that, once again, when it came tomine warfare, some key naval planners, aswell as some coalition senior officers,overlooked the lessons of history. Fortu-nately, this time the coalition forces wereable to side-step. Next time we may not be

so fortunate. This book should be man-datory reading for naval officers attend-ing the Canadian Forces Command andStaff College.

Mike Young is an independent consult-ant based in Ottawa.

[1Cmdre Duncan “Dusty” Miller wroteabout his experiences as a task groupcommander in the 1995 book, “ThePersian Excursion,” written in collabora-tion with Sharon Hobson. RAdm Millernow commands the Canadian MaritimeForces Atlantic.]

power high in naval planning: RCN offic-ers train in nuclear engineering,” (which Ihappened to stumble across while look-ing for something else!). Most of the arti-cle is quoted from a survey by RAdmG.A.M. Wilson, RN, Deputy E-in-C in theAdmiralty, December 1957.]

The article also says that LCdr(L) C.R.Nixon (left the RCN as Cdr 1963; laterDeputy Minister of National Defence) andLCdr(L) J.A. Stachon (later Cdr) “arestudying nuclear engineering as part ofthe course they are taking at MIT.” Thisis something of an exaggeration as, at thetime and for some time afterward, MIToffered only one course in nuclear reac-tor control — or about five percent of thetotal courses they took. [Source: Me! Itook this MIT course in 1959.]

Hal Smith

Canadians at Harwell

RCN/RNRelations, 1955

In 1955 a number of Canadian of-ficers and ratings were serving inRoyal Navy submarines based in Port-land, England as part of the deal thatbrought the (RN) Sixth SubmarineSquadron to Halifax in that year. OnJune 16, 1955, one of the boats, HMS/M Sidon sank alongside the depotship after a torpedo explosion, withfourteen lives lost. I happened to beDuty Staff Officer at NMCJS (London)that day. That evening I got a call fromsomeone in the Admiralty askingwhether the Canadian Governmentwould have any objection to theQueen sending condolences to therelatives of the one Canadian pettyofficer killed in the blast. After a quickcheck to make sure that the next of kinhad already been informed, I told theAdmiralty to go ahead. On reportingthis to Commodore Brock the nextmorning, he was appalled by thethought that anyone would even askthe question. We’d certainly suc-ceeded (maybe too well) in sensitiz-ing the RN to Canadianindependence. — Hal Smith

(continued from page 3)

We’d love to hear from you…If you have information, documents or questions you’d like to pass along to the

Canadian Naval Technical History Association, please contact the Directorate ofHistory and Heritage, NDHQ, MGen George R. Pearkes Bldg., Ottawa, CanadaK1A 0K2 Tel.: (613) 998-7045/Fax: (613) 990-8579

National Defense Defence nationale Maritime Engineering Journal · 2017-03-06 · •*•National...

Documents

Transcript of National Defense Defence nationale Maritime Engineering Journal · 2017-03-06 · •*•National...