maritime cntha inside! engineering journal · weight-critical trump ships. as he pointed out later...

$: Maritime CNTHA inside! Engineering Journal · weight-critical TRUMP ships. As he pointed out later in this journal, Iroquois-c\ass ships reentered service after the Tribal-class Update$
1*1 National DefenseDefence nationale

MaritimeEngineeringJournalCANADA'S NAVAL TECHNICAL FORUM

CNTHA/Mews inside!

Spring 2000

On the Navy's 90th Birthday:Looking Back at the River/Prestonian-classFrigates — Backbone of Canada's Post-war Fleet

Also in this Issue:• Forum: Good News on the Weight Control Front

for the Iroquois Class

• CNTHA News: Directorate of History LaunchesNaval Oral History Project

Canada

For 35 years the test ranges atNanoose Bay, B.C. have been serving theoperational needs of the Canadianand U.S. navies —

The story of CFMETR begins on page 18

MaritimeEngineeringJournal

SPRING 2000

Vol. 19, No. 1 (Established 1982)

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

EditorCaptain(N) David Hurl, CDDirector of Maritime Managementand Support (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 K.D. Tovey (NCMs) (819) 994-8806

Print Management Services byDirector General Public Affairs - CreativeServices

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

The Journal is available on the DGMEPMwebsite located on the DND DIN intranetat http://admmat.dwan.dnd.ca/dgmepm/dgmepm/publications

DEPARTMENTSEditor's Notes

by Capt(N) David Hurl 2

Commodore's Cornerby Cmdre J.R. Sylvester 3

ForumA Line in the Sand — One Ship's Perspectiveby Cdr Joe Murphy 4A "line in the sand" — Applause and Aide-Memoireby Lt(N) Heather Skaarup 5

FEATURESLooking Back

River/Prestonian Class Frigates — Backbone ofCanada's Post-war Fleetby Harvey Johnson 7

'Strapdown" Inertial Navigation in the Canadian Navyby Lt(N) Jim Pederson, Jeff Bird and Henry Stacey .. 12

Canada/US Joint Naval Operations: CFMETR— The CanadianForces Maritime and Experimental Test Rangesby Cdr Gord Buckingham and LCdr Mike Sullivan 18

GreenspaceExpert Workshop — Findings:Oily Waste Water and Oil Content Monitoringby LCdr Mark Tinney 21

NEWS BRIEFS 22

Index to 1999 Articles 24

CNTHA NEWS:Newsletter of the Canadian Naval TechnicalHistory Association Insert

Cover PhotoHMCS Sea Cliff in 1944: The River-class frigates had good seakeeping quali-ties, and proved to be very effective ships during the war, with a total of twelveU-boat sinkings to their credit. Story begins on page 7. (CF photo CN-3503)

The Maritime Engineering Journal (ISSN 0713-0058) is an unofficial publication of the Maritime En-gineers of the Canadian Forces, published three times a year by the Director General Maritime Equip-ment Program Management. Views expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflectofficial opinion or policy. Mail can be sent to: The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMMS,NDHQ, MGen Pearkes Building, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A OK2. Theeditor reserves the right to reject or edit any editorial material. While every effort is made to return art-work and photos in good condition, the Journal can assume no responsibility for this. Unless otherwisestated, Journal articles may be reprinted with proper credit. A courtesy copy of the reprinted articlewould be appreciated.

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SPRING 2000

Editor's NotesNinety Years Later —The Canadian Navy's Tradition ofExcellence Continues

By Captain (N) David HurlDirector of Maritime Management and Support

Looking back to May 10,1910, the day the NavalService of Canada came

into being, we already had a long his-tory of naval technical achievementbehind us through our close associa-tion with the Royal Navy. Over theyears the Canadian navy's fortuneswould rise and fall with the prioritiesof the day, but the determination ofour predecessors to deliver reliable,technically sophisticated naval shipsand systems never faltered.

By the time the war ended in 1945,Canada had the third-largest navalfleet in the world — aircraft carriers,cruisers, destroyers, frigates, cor-vettes — more than 400 hulls in all.This couldn't last, of course. Despitea distinguished war record, the fleetwas virtually scrapped overnight inthe drastic military reductions that

followed the Allied victories in Eu-rope and the Pacific. But while thefleet may have been cut back to ashadow of its wartime glory, the Ca-nadian navy continued its tradition asa technologically innovative servicethat would go on to redefine the stateof the art in everything from sonardevelopment to new warship design.

Over the years the navy's engi-neering, technical and supportbranches have produced a seeminglyendless number of mega-achieve-ments that read like a Who's Who ofnaval technical innovation of the 20th

century — such as the ultra-modernSt. Laurent-class destroyer escorts ofthe 1950s and 1960s which, teamedwith the beartrap, would go on toprove the feasibility of operatinglarge ASW helicopters from thedecks of small ships; and the gas-tur-

bine-powered hydrofoil HMCS Brasd'Or, reaching an incredible speed of61 knots on July 17, 1969 to earn aplace in the Guinness Book ofRecords for four years running as theworld's fastest warship; followed inthe 1970s by the sophisticated DDH-280 command and control system, amarvel of integrated computer tech-nology; and more recently the su-perbly capable Halifax-class patrolfrigates that were conceived and built"on the shoulders of the giants" whowent before them.

Along the way we have often cap-tured the imagination of other navieswith our high-tech achievements invariable-depth sonar, integrated ma-chinery control, and naval electronicwarfare systems. Not bad for a navyused to making the most out of some-times very limited resources.

Today we continue that traditionof successful inventiveness throughthe fine efforts of a technologicallyproficient workforce and a networkof industry professionals. Our fleetmay be small in numbers, but it re-flects in its sterling performance theheart and soul of an "extended fam-ily" of navy and civilian project en-gineers, technologists and logisticalsupport staff committed to deliveringthe best. We should be proud of whatwe have accomplished.

Happy birthday, Navy!

HMCS Bras d'Or—Fastest warship in the world, 1969-1973. (CF Photo)


Commodore's CornerRenewal of NEM and NaMMSManuals Raises an "Old Chestnut"

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

Recently — most particu-larly at the East/WestCoast seminars — the

state of our Engineering & Mainte-nance policy documents has beenforcefully pointed out. It has beenrightly observed that our Naval En-gineering Manual (NEM) and theNaval Maintenance ManagementSystem (NaMMS) Manual are out ofdate. A myriad of other technical or-ders and specifications also needreview, but certainly the NEM andthe NaMMS Manual are central.

Over the past decade, two factorshave combined to place us in thissituation. First, our fleet renewal hasadded much to the existing technol-ogy baseline. This is most evident inthe NEM which, like its predecessor,BRCN 5521, has been viewed as themarine engineering "bible." Andnotwithstanding that much of thebaseline remains relevant, once por-tions of it are perceived to be out ofdate the unfortunate tendency is todismiss the entire publication as anentity, including the good engineer-ing practice and lessons learned overmany years of naval service.

The second factor was the dra-matic downsizing and reorganizationof our Engineering & Maintenanceorganizations on both coasts and in

Ottawa. This is most apparent in theNaval Maintenance ManagementSystem, where I accept that entirecategories of E&M support have dis-appeared (such as in the preparationof in-service trials agenda, for exam-ple). Among other things, this hasled to a perception of organizationalconfusion and duplication of effort.

While the resource issue has cer-tainly not gone away, we have turnedour attention to updating our two keypolicy documents. The NaMMSManual is being incrementally rewrit-ten as we, collectively, rebuild ourprocesses and subordinate orders.And, as LCdr Perks noted in the Fall1999 issue of the Journal, the NavalEngineering Manual is also gettinga well-deserved overhaul.

Regarding the raison d'etre ofthese two manuals, I have been hear-ing the notion, or rather the assertion,that our cornerstone documents areneeded as "bricks" with which we canbeat commanding officers and othersover the head whenever they contem-plate committing some heinous sinagainst the E&M community or itstechnology! Yes, our ships and sailorsrepresent huge investments of tax-payers' dollars; yes, they are publictrusts to be operated and maintainedwisely. But we must also recognize

that they are in the business of risk.Ultimately, any decision on risk toequipment or personnel remains thepurview of Command, having re-ceived all expert advice.

While Command is accountablefor adhering to technical orders is-sued under the authority of the Chiefof the Defence Staff, it is well under-stood that these orders cannot reflectall possible circumstances and situ-ations that may be encountered. I doexpect, however, that the NEM andNaMMS Manual, together with pro-fessional judgement, will form thebasis of our advice and, yes, chal-lenge as necessary, to Command.

The Naval Engineering Manualand NaMMS Manual were never in-tended to be self-sufficient. The in-tent of our revisions is for them toprovide overall orders, guidance andprocedure, with the detail left to sub-ordinate documents. They should notbe expected to provide simple pre-scriptions to solve all the problemsof our complex business — they are,however, ignored at one's peril.

The Journal welcomes unclassified submissions, in English or French. To avoid duplication of effort and toensure suitability of subject matter, prospective contributors are strongly advised to contact The Editor, Mari-time Engineering Journal, DMMS, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OK2, Tel.(819) 997-9355, before submitting material. Final selection of articles for publication is made by the Journal'seditorial committee. Letters of any length are always welcome, but only signed correspondence will be con-sidered for publication.


Forum

A "line in the sand"Perspective

One Ship's

Article by Cdr Joe Murphy

As I was about totake up my du-ties as Marine

Systems Engineering Of-ficer on board HMCSIroquois in June 1998, Ispoke to LCdr GarryPettipas in DMSS 2-2-4to gain his insight into theweight-critical TRUMPships. As he pointed outlater in this journal,Iroquois-c\ass shipsreentered service after theTribal-class Update andModernization Program(TRUMP) with no marginfor weight growth ("Aline in the sand," Mari-time Engineering Jour-nal, October 1998, page26).

DGMEPM's concern Flagship of the Iroquois class: keeping a close eye on weight growth. (Canadianabout possible weight Forces photo)growth was evident in that

mander of the Standing Naval ForceAtlantic (C-SNFL).

a monitoring process was instituted.Configuration changes were trackedand a "pound on/pound off' policywas initiated. Furthermore, com-manding officers were made respon-sible for controlling and reportingchanges to ship weight. Accordingly,when Iroquois began a dockingmaintenance period at MIL Davie inHalifax in July 1998, the ship's com-manding officer, Capt(N) S.E. King,launched Operation Slimfast. Theprimary objective was to reduce theship's overall displacement and trimthe ship more by the stern (Iroquoishad been sailing trimmed by the bowprior to the docking). The secondobjective was to ensure the shipwould be ready for its upcoming de-ployment as flagship of the Corn-

Operation Slimfast was imple-mented in three phases. The firstphase was to reduce the onboardstores by 25 percent. This target wasnot only accomplished, but sur-passed by all departments, in largepart due to the enthusiasm of theleading seamen and master seamenwho reviewed the stores ashore inlay-a-part from July to November1998. Command had ensured theyboth understood the importance ofthe reduction and were committed tosuccess.

The second phase was to removeredundant brackets throughout theship, an activity that is still ongoing.

The removal of redundant cableruns, however, was deferred becauseof suspect cable identification. Theirremoval later could offer additionalweight savings. Also during thisphase, stores above 2 deck weremoved to 3 deck and below, andfrom forward to aft to assist inchanging the ship's trim.

The third phase was to more ac-curately monitor the ship's liquidload. After reviewing the ship's Pe-riodic Weight Reports, it was deter-mined that Iroquois had beenballasting unnecessarily. A new liq-uid load worksheet was thereforedeveloped by Iroquois to calculatethe ship's displacement daily at sea.The worksheet (which was later dis-tributed to all TRUMP ships) ac-


counts for black water, fresh water,fuel, ballast and the contents of thetwo main machinery space bilges incalculating the ship's minimum liq-uid load. The results were found tobe consistently accurate within 10tons (normally checked againstdraught marks on the first day backalongside). Using the data from theworksheet, Iroquois was able to sig-nificantly reduce the amount of bal-last she was carrying. Furthermore,as most ballast tanks are situated for-ward of frame 50, the approximatepivot point of the ship, the reductionof ballast assisted in achieving astern trim.

All of these efforts could easily beapplied throughout the remainder ofthe weight-critical Iroquois-classships (Huron, Athabaskan andAlgonquin), and in the 12 Halifax-

class frigates as well. Although thefrigates are not weight-critical atpresent, if one were to extrapolatetheir current weight growth over theprojected life of the Halifax class,weight could very well become anissue.

Prior to sailing with the StandingNaval Force Atlantic in July 1999,Iroquois was subjected to an inclin-ing experiment, the results of whichwere very favourable. The ship hadexperienced minimal weight growthwhen compared to the results re-corded just after coming out ofTRUMP refit in 1992. Thanks toDGMEPM policies, the new liquidload worksheet and other OperationSlimfast measures, Iroquois wasable to sail for flagship duties at un-der 5000 tons, some 200 tons lighterthan she had been the previous year.

This reduction in growth will havesignificant benefits for the ship andthe navy in that it recovers futuregrowth, improves fuel economy andimproves damaged stability capabil-ity.

CdrJ.R. Murphy is the commandantof the Canadian Forces Naval En-gineering School Halifax.

A "line in the sand"Aide-memoire

Applause andArticle by Lt(N) Heather Skaarup

A fter reading a pre-publica-/\r Murphy's

J. \submission to the Mari-time Engineering Journal, I feltcompelled to add a few supportivewords....

The results of the HMCSIroquois inclining experiment onJuly 10, 1999 confirmed that Op-eration Slimfast had indeed paidoff; the ship was calculated to havedecreased her displacement by fivelong tons since her last inclining in1993. This is a particularly note-worthy achievement given thatHMCS Iroquois had already re-ceived most of her C-SNFL up-grades. Even more remarkable isthat, in the six years betweeninclinings, we could have expecteda ship of her size to grow in dis-

placement by about three tons ayear through the natural accumu-lation of paint, stores, accommo-dation items and any number ofsmall (under 50 kg), authorizedengineering changes — in otherwords, by about 18 tons!

In recent years, the PeriodicWeight Reports from the Iroquoisclass have shown a general level-ling-off in ships' sail ingdisplacements. In 1998/99, though,PWR data indicated for the firsttime that the ships were sailing atlighter average displacements thanin 1997/98 and even 1996/97. Itappears the weight control and re-duction efforts of engineering staffare beginning to pay off as excessstores and consumables are re-moved from the ships. Unfortu-

nately, this sort of weight reduc-tion cannot be used to offset newengineering changes, a number ofwhich are currently on hold forlack of a weight offset. All navalpersonnel are encouraged to assistin identifying configuration itemswhich may be candidates for re-moval through the engineeringchange process, and to notify theDGMEPM Stability Desk (DMSS2-2-2).

As a result of the HMCSIroquois inclining results, a newManual of Trim and Stability willbe issued to all Iroquois-cl&ssships this year. The manual usesrevised consumable stores loadfigures that agree with storesweight data collected sinceTRUMP, and recommends a new


minimum seawater ballast load of147 tons (versus the current 204tons) mainly to reflect changes inthe location of stores following theTRUMP modernization. Thisshould assure that, with goodonboard weight management, theships will be able to leave harbourfor extended deployments belowtheir 5300-ton maximum displace-ment.

It is hoped that the upgradedGeneral Load Monitor (GLM)software now in service through-out most of the Canadian navalfleet will provide a more func-tional replacement for the liquidload worksheet developed by CdrMurphy. General Load Monitorcan convert draught mark readingsto corresponding displacement and

hydrostatic details, and provide areport of solid and liquid loads ac-cording to input data collected dur-ing normal engineering rounds.With GLM, ship's staff can simu-late fluid transfers and observe thechanges to trim and heel thatwould result. Load data for stores,spares, ammunition, personnelnumbers and tank contents caneasily be adjusted, and completestability assessments can be pro-duced and printed with only a fewkeystrokes.

The General Load Monitor soft-ware is being regularly improvedto better meet the needs of thefleet. For instance, a recent up-grade to add the capability of mod-elling a ship with flooded compart-ments means that it is possible toevaluate a ship's freeboard, trim,heel, righting arm, etc. (previously

available for intact conditionsonly) with any specified compart-ments flooded. Suggestions forfurther improvement will be wel-comed by the DGMEPM StabilityDesk.

Lt(N) Skaarup is the Stability Officerin DGMEPM.

Maritime Engineering Journal Objectives• To promote professionalism

among maritime engineers andtechnicians.

• To provide an open forumwhere topics of interest to themaritime engineering community

As a general rule, article sub-missions should not exceed 12double-spaced pages of text. Thepreferred format is MS Word, orWordPerfect, on 3.5" diskette, ac-companied by one copy of thetypescript. The author's name, ti-

can be presented and discussed, evenif they might be controversial.

• To present practical maritimeengineering articles.

• To present historical perspec-tives on current programs, situationsand events.

Submission Formatstie, address and telephone numbershould appear on the first page. Thelast page should contain completefigure captions for all photographsand illustrations accompanying thearticle.

Photos and other artwork shouldnot be incorporated with the type-

• To provide announcementsof programs concerning maritimeengineering personnel.

• To provide personnel newsnot covered by official publica-tions.

script, but should be protectedand inserted loose in the mailingenvelope. If at all possible, elec-tronic photographs and drawingsshould be in TIFF or JPEG for-mat. A photograph of the authorwould be appreciated.


Looking BackRiverlPrestonian Class Frigates —Backbone of Canada's Post-war FleetArticle by Harvey Johnson

HMCS New Waterford (Canadian Forces photo E-44531)

A t the beginning of thewar in 1939, the totalinventory of warships in

the Royal Canadian Navy consistedof six destroyers. Immediate effortswere made to build up the fleet asquickly as possible, which resultedin the construction of the Flower-class corvettes. Based on a basictrawler design, the corvettes couldbe built quickly and 107 of themwere constructed in various Cana-dian shipyards. The first corvetteto enter service was HMCSCollingwood, commissioned in late1940. They were originally intendedfor coastal deployments, but weresoon assigned to North Atlantic con-voys and patrols, a role for whichthey became famous through the gal-lant efforts of their crews.

Although the corvettes were themainstay of the fleet as escort ves-sels during the height of the Battleof the Atlantic from 1941 to 1943, animproved type of anti-submarineocean escort was needed for opera-tional and seakeeping requirements.The designer of the corvette,William Reed, OBE, of Smith'sDock Company, South Bank-on-Tees, U.K, put forward a design fora "twin-screw corvette" which wasaccepted by the British Admiraltyand laterally by the RCN in the per-son of Vice-admiral Percy Nelles,Chief of the Naval Staff. It was VadmNelles who suggested that the shipsbe classified as "frigates," and anorder for 60 of the new vessels wasplaced by the Canadian Navy.

The ships were all built in Cana-dian yards: Yarrows (Esquimalt,B.C.), Morton Engineering (QuebecCity), Davie Ship (Lauzon, Quebec),Canadian Vickers (Montreal), andGeorge T. Davie and Son (Lauzon).Shipyards on the Great Lakes couldnot be used for the simple reason thatthe frigates were too long to transitthe existing canal and lock systemleading into the St. Lawrence River.Thirty-three frigates were built un-der the 1942-43 program, and 37 (in-cluding 10 ships for the RoyalNavy*) were built under the 1943-44program. [*Two of these ships wereacquired by the USN and became theprototypes for their "77" ship class,and later became the basic design fortheir massive escort shipbuildingprogram.] The first Canadian frigate


; :

to enter service was HMCSWaskesiu, commissioned in June1943.

The new ships, originally desig-nated "PF" and classified "River"class, were a considerable improve-ment over the corvettes (a fact that

didn't escape the notice of formercorvette crews who went on to manthem). They carried a complement ofeight officers and 133 other ranks, a65-percent increase over the crewsize of a corvette. The frigates werelarger, some 92 m (301 feet) in

Prestonian class vs. River class: Compare the flush-deck profile of themodernized HMCS Sussexvale (top, CF photo) with the cut-downquarterdeck arrangement of HMCS Antigonish (below, CF photo F-3206)seen here in her wartime camouflage during the summer of 1944. Theupgraded combat suite in the Prestonians replaced the hedgehog ASWweapon with two triple-barrelled Squid mortars aft. Other significantchanges included the addition of an enclosed bridge and a taller funnel.Gone, too, were the Carley floats.

length as opposed to 63 m (205 feet)for the corvette, and displaced 1570tons, versus the corvette's 900 tons.The River class had good seakeepingqualities, and their large fuel capac-ity (some 720 tons, almost a third ofthe ship's loaded displacement) al-lowed a range of 9500 nautical milesat 12 knots. This was a vast improve-ment over the corvette's 4000 milerange at the same speed, but was notalways cheered by the crews whowere called on to do "an additionalstint" before returning to port froman extended patrol.

Two triple-expansion reciprocat-ing engines, developing 5500 h.p.,along with twin screws, gave thefrigates more manoeuvrability andincreased speed capability over thesingle-engine corvettes. The engine-room was fitted with 12 skylightsthat could be opened for ventilation.Two Admiralty pattern, three-drum boilers were located in twopressurized boiler rooms, withfans supplying air to the spacesand the boilers. This system, whichwas standard for the time, requiredthe boiler rooms to have double-doorairlock access. Care had to be takennot to open both doors at the sametime as the loss of air pressure in thespace would cause an immediateflashback from the boiler. Warningsigns were well posted, large andobvious. The anchor windlass was asteam-driven unit which could be abit cantankerous at times. The littlesteam engine driving it requiredsome dexterity on the throttle to getthe speed required when hauling inthe "pick."

The main 220-volt d.c. electricalpower was supplied by three steamgenerators and one diesel generator.The diesel generator was not fittedwith a starter, but was started bymotoring the generator from thestarting batteries. As with all d.c.systems, the frigate d.c. power sys-tem required a high level of mainte-nance. Commutator refurbishmentand brush replacement were ongoing


With their twin-mounted four-inch guns, the frigates could speak withsome authority. This photograph, dating from December 1961, showsHMCS Cap de la Madeleine's guncrew closed up during a shoot. Notethe hawser and fender stowage forward of the gun. (Photo courtesyMr. Ted Lemoine)

tasks for the electricians, who alsohad to deal with the occasional elec-tric motor fire!

Combat equipment included twoimproved sonar sets, one to providebearing and range data on a subma-rine contact, the other to determinethe submarine's depth. The frigateswere the first Canadian warships tobe fitted with this advanced equip-ment. Also included were an HF/DFdirection-finder, which was at thetime a top-secret device capable ofzeroing in on enemy radio transmis-sions, an improved radar, a gyrocompass and the new ARL plottingtables which provided a near-real-time "action plot" of enemy ship andsubmarine movements in relation tothe frigate's position.

The first 15 frigates built werefitted with single, four-inch gunmountings fore and aft, but after thatthe remaining ships were fitted withtwin-mounted, four-inch guns for-ward. Up to this point, twin-mountedfour-inch guns (made by the Massey

Harris Tractor company), werefound only on Tribal-class destroy-ers. Other weapons included fourtwin Oerlikon 20-mm guns, afoc'sle-mounted hedgehog launcherthat fired 24 anti-submarine contactprojectiles, and four depth-chargethrowers aft. While depth charges(some 150 to 200 were carried onboard) had to be launched across theship's noisy wake at the last detectedposition of a submarine, the 24hedgehog projectiles were fired in anelliptical pattern ahead of the shipwhile still in sonar contact with thesubmarine in the quiet water aheadof the ship. ("Canada and Hedge-hog: The First Ahead-throwing Anti-submarine Weapon," MaritimeEngineering Journal, February1999, page 18.)

The River-class frigates proved tobe very effective ships during thewar, and with a total of twelve U-boat sinkings to their credit wereconsidered to be one of the best anti-submarine vessels in the world.

There were losses. In May 1944,HMCS Valleyfleld sank off CapeRace, Newfoundland with the loss of125 lives (nearly her entire crew)when she was torpedoed after leav-ing a convoy. Others were so badlydamaged in action that they were notrepaired for further service. HMCSMagog was torpedoed in October1944 while escorting a convoy in theSt. Lawrence and had almost 30metres of her stem blown off. Shewas declared a total loss. Anothership, HMCS Chebogue, was torpe-doed off the coast of England on herthird convoy and lost most of herquarterdeck. She was towed to PortTalbot, Wales and was eventuallyscrapped.

Following the victory in Europe,many of the frigates were to be con-verted for use in the South Pacificagainst the Japanese, but few wereactually completed by VJ-Day. Withthe war over, eight of the frigateswere scrapped, while 11 others werestripped and sunk as breakwaters forvarious logging operations on theBritish Columbia coast. A number ofthe surplus frigates were sold to thenavies of India, Pakistan, Israel,Chile and Peru. Of note is HMCSStoremont which was sold to ship-ping magnate Aristotle Onassis forconversion into his well-knownyacht, Christina. (After the conver-sion, the ship was practically unrec-ognizable from her originalconfiguration.) Some of the frigateswere retained for other roles. HMCSVictoriaville became the diving ten-der Granby, while Stonetown, St.Stephen and St. Catherines becameweather ships for the CanadianCoast Guard.

Birth of the Prestonian ClassBetween the years 1953 and 1959,

twenty-one River-class frigates wereconverted and redesignated "FFE."The first of the new class, HMCSPrestonian, was recommissioned onAug. 28, 1953. (The ship was actu-ally named after Preston, Ontario,but there was already an HMS Pres-


Sailors from HMCS Swansea go ashore near Washington, D.C.(Canadian Forces photo HS-17269)

ton in the Royal Navy.) She did notremain in the fleet, but was loanedto the Norwegian navy in 1956 andrenamed Troll, then sold outright toNorway in 1959. In that year she be-came a submarine depot ship, re-named Horten, and was eventuallyscrapped in 1972.

The conversion package was anextensive one, the most obvious de-tail being the change to the foc'sledeck which was extended all the wayaft, making the ships flush-deckers.A much larger superstructure wasincorporated to house the new com-mand position, operations, sonarcontrol and radio rooms, and re-quired the installation of a taller fun-nel. The seven ships of the FourthCanadian Escort Squadron were fit-ted with a large deckhouse to provideclassroom and messing facilities forofficer cadets under training.

Another change to the hull struc-ture was a strengthening of the bowsagainst possible ice damage, eventhough the hulls were very rugged tobegin with. When Beacon Hillrammed the starboard quarter of

Antigonish after a misinterpretedflag signal during officer-of-the-watch manoeuvres on a bright sunnyday back in the 1960s, she struck sohard that Antigonish heeled over toa considerable angle. The port an-chor temporarily became an occu-pant of the P2's mess, and whenexiting, created a 4 m x 2 m "win-dow" in the steel plating. (The onlyoccupant of the mess, who was nap-ping over the noon hour, recalled thathe didn't think his feet even touchedthe deck until he arrived on the up-per deck.) Repairs basically con-sisted of replacing the plating andstraightening the frames in the localarea of the damage. No other area ofthe hull was affected.

The entire steamplant was over-hauled and upgraded in some areas,but retained the original Admiraltypattern boilers and triple-expansionreciprocating engines. The original220-volt d.c. electrical system wasupgraded by the addition of a seconddiesel generator in favour of one ofthe three steam generators, providinggreater total current capacity. (Par-alleling the generators in a d.c. sys-

tem was a function of voltage con-trol only, rather than of speed as isthe case with alternating current sys-tems.) The voltage regulators werecontrolled at the main switchboardwhich was in a tiny compartment thesize of a telephone booth. This wasadequate, however, since nowatchkeeper was required.

Combat upgrades were made tothe sonar, plotting tables and radarequipment, and to the weapons fit aswell. The hedgehog and depth-charges were replaced by two mod-ern triple-barrelled ASW mortar"Squid" mounts installed in a quar-terdeck well. The associatedmetadyne drive-control system andmagazine were fitted on either side.The new mortars could fire 180-kgbombs forward over the mast to theindicated target with a high degreeof accuracy. The bombs were armedin three stages, by a depth-settingmechanism before firing, by inertiawhen fired, and by pressure once inthe water. The four-inch gun ar-rangements remained unchanged,but the original Oerlikon guns werereplaced with one quad and four sin-gle 40-mm Bofors. The quad Boforwas trained and fired remotely froma director mounted on top of the af-ter superstructure (which housed thebos'n and shipwright workshops),and was powered by a metadynedrive follow-up system.

A new laundry and a 12-mancooks and stewards mess were fittedabaft the mortar well. The mess,which later became "home" for pettyofficers second class, offered an ex-hilarating ride in heavy seas as it wassituated directly over the screws (theauthor speaks from experience,here). Overall, though, habitabilitywas significantly improved in thePrestonian class. While living con-ditions would not be considered pa-latial by today's standards, the daysof hammocks and broadside messingwere over, replaced by cafeteria stylemessing and the fitting of bunks.

10 MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SPRING 2000

The demise of theantiquated broadsidemessing system,where meals had tobe drawn from thegalley and carriedback to the messes(where the disheswould also later bewashed), was notmourned by anyone.Occasionally atbreakfast, a latesleeper's hammockwould still be slungabove the messdecktable, and a footwould suddenly ap-pear beside one'splate of bacon and"red lead" (heatedcanned tomatoes),standard breakfastfare in those days.The comments made on those occa-sions need no clarification here.

In addition to their Cold War anti-submarine patrols, the frigates deployed on extensivetraining cruises. The large deckhouse abaft the boat position visible here on HMCSAntigonish contained classroom and messing facilities for officer cadets under training.(Canadian Forces photo E-79010)

Sadly, air-conditioning was notpart of the new package, and the lackof it was cursed by the crews whenon deployment in southern latitudes.Another "hot" source of irritationwas the system of steam lines (for thesteering gear) running underneaththe cafeteria deck, adding to the al-ready hot conditions below decks."Air-conditioning" consisted ofopening the scuttles and fitting thetraditional wind scoops. This wasdone in moderate seas only, but eventhen there was the occasional un-scheduled deckwashing when afreak wave came along.

Scuttles apparently had other ad-vantages, as well. During one cock-tail party being held on thequarterdeck to host dignitaries in aforeign port, the engineer officer no-ticed that the bar seemed to be go-ing through an inordinate amount ofalcoholic refreshment. As theevening wore on, he began keepinga close eye on the two petty officerswho, earlier, had been quick to vol-unteer to tend the bar that evening.

Every so often, he noticed, one of thebartenders would crouch down outof sight below the bar, which wassituated near one side of the quarter-deck. Easing his way through thecrowd to get a better look from therail, he soon cleared up the mysteryof the disappearing booze. As the en-gineer officer watched, one of thebartenders carefully lowered a bot-tle over the side of the ship to a wait-ing hand extending from the scuttlein the P2's mess immediately belowthe bar! The engineer went belowand advised the startled accomplicein the mess that the operation wasbust. The various bottles were re-turned and nothing more was said.

The Prestonian-class frigateswent on to become the backbone ofthe RCN fleet. After the war theywere assigned lengthy trainingcruises, and maintained this coun-try's Cold War anti-submarine pa-trols on both coasts. They becameobsolete with the arrival of the newSt. Laurent and Restigouche classesin the late 1950s, but continued inservice until the late sixties whenthey were gradually decommis-

sioned and sold to other countries orscrapped. As it turned out, HMCSGranby was the last of the class tosurvive in Canadian naval serviceand was sold for scrap in 1974.

AcknowledgementThe assistance of Marilyn Gur-

ney, director of the Maritime Com-mand Museum in Halifax, insupplying photographs for this arti-cle is gratefully acknowledged.

Harvey Johnson served in the frig-ates New Waterford and Antigonishas the electrical sonar and weaponsmaintainer. He retired with the rankof chief petty officer first class in1981, and now works in DMSS 2 asa life-cycle material manager forships hull and domestic equipment.

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SPRING 2000 1 1

"Strapdown" Inertial Navigation inthe Canadian NavyArticle by Lt(N) Jim Pedersen, B.Sc., 44C,with technical input from Defence Scientist Jeff Bird, M.Eng., andLitton-Marine Systems Engineer Henry Stacey, B.Eng.

E the spring of 1996, staff atic Canadian Patrol Frigatereject Management Office

(PMO CPF) in Ottawa were alertedto a serious problem being experi-enced by one of our ships on opera-tional duty. HMCS Calgary, berthedin Valparaiso, Chile, was without aworking heading reference. Both ofher inertial navigator/attitude refer-ence systems were unserviceable.This was the latest and most seriousof a number of such system defi-ciency reports to reach PMO CPFduring the previous two years. CdrFred Jardine, head of the combat sys-tems team at PMO CPF, immediatelymobilized the author to look at waysto replace the gimbal stabilized Mk-29 inertial navigators with some-thing a bit more robust.

From the outset, it was decidedthat the replacement would be basedon the NATO Ship's Inertial Naviga-tion System (SINS). Litton-MarineSystems had already developed andbuilt such a system — the Mk-49Ring Laser Gyro Navigator—in re-sponse to a 1985 NATO staff re-quirement. Canada was involvedwith the Mk-49's development rightfrom the start, with National De-fence's research and developmentbranch contributing a principalmember to the international NATOSINS Steering Committee, as well asproviding significant funding forvendor initiatives. By 1996 Mk-49systems were alive and well in thenavies of Britain, Spain, the Nether-lands, Australia, New Zealand andthe United States.

With the weight of this producttrack history behind it, PMO CPF,along with the Directorate of Mari-time Policy and Project Develop-

ment and the Directorate of Mari-time Ship Support built a convincingcase for sole source replacement ofthe Mk-29 system with the Mk-49.In March 1998, DND's Senior Re-view Board granted funding and ap-proval to proceed.

Just over a year later the first unitwas installed in the Pullen Buildingin CFB Halifax, while the firstshipborne installation took place onboard HMCS Montreal in early2000. The Canadian version of theMk-49 is called the "SINS-HFX,"for Ship's Inertial Navigation Sys-tem for Halifax-class Ships.

Some Combat Systems HistoryAnyone who has performed a de-

tailed assessment of a modern war-ship's combat system will havenoted that a ship's inertial navigationsystem is nothing less than critical inthe combat system architecture. Itwasn't always this way. The combatphilosophy of the Halifax class rep-resents a huge departure from that ofthe steam destroyers of just a fewyears ago. In the steamers, each gundirector had its own gyros to provideattitude and attitude rates to theweapons it was controlling. Onboard HMCS Saskatchewan, for in-stance, there was a gun directormounted atop the bridge that hadtwo built-in single-axis gyros, pro-viding attitude correction and ratesignals to the twin 3" 70 guns for-ward, as well as to the twin 3" 50mount aft. The after "director" waslittle more than a conical scan fire-control radar snuggled between thebarrels of the 3" 50, but it, too, hadbuilt-in gyros, and could provide at-titude and attitude rate informationto the after mount. Both directors re-lied on the ship's gyrocompass as

their only source of heading infor-mation.

On board the steamers, the gyro-compass was just that — a gyrocom-pass. It fed heading information, butneither pitch nor roll information tothe various peloruses and tape re-peats, weapons and sensors. Thefire-control solution "gyro" hard-ware was autonomous to each gun orASROC (anti-submarine rocket)mounting. I have noted some simi-larities between the "old" and "new"navigation data distributionarchitectures. First, the old featuredtwo ship's gyrocompasses, remotelylocated from each other (forwardand aft). Second, there were fourvital steering repeats, fed by two in-dependent distribution panels, witheach of the panels slaved to an indi-vidual gyro. Two were on the bridge,and two in the wheelhouse. The"non-vital" repeats for the radars,fire-control directors, the ADLIPSAutomatic Data Link Plotting Sys-tem, bridge wings, etc., were fedfrom a single non-vital distributionpanel which in turn could be fedfrom either gyro. This was a good re-dundancy feature. You could lose agyrocompass and still have synchroheading data to vital and non-vitalrepeats from the other gyro.

The similarity between the oldand new architectures ends rightthere. A graphical depiction of thesteamer navigation data distributionsystem is given in Fig. 1. To keep thediagram in context (not to mentionuncluttered), some blocks have beendeliberately omitted. Most con-spicuous by its absence is that"olde space heater" of an analoguefire-control computer which of-fered niceties such as ballistic and


parallax corrections into the gun-control signals.

As stated previously, eachsteamer weapon system had its ownsource of attitude data. With theHalifax class, the generation of atti-tude data was centralized. Heading,pitch and roll are taken from the Mk-29s and distributed to "non-vital"repeats like fire-control radars,weapons and other sensors througha synchro distribution network. Aswell, an improved level of redun-dancy was built into the Halifaxclass. There are two heading refer-ences and two vital heading distribu-tion systems, as there were in thesteamers, but there are also two non-vital synchro distribution panels(whereas the steamers had only one).The non-vital synchro heading dis-tribution system was the single pointof failure in the steamer combat sys-tem; we have eliminated that vulner-ability in the Halifax class. The"vital" repeats on board the Halifaxclass are the centreline pelorus, the

helm operator's console, and a repeatin the ops room. (One wonders aboutthe use of the term "non-vital" as itapplies to the combat system repeats.Aren't these also "vital" systems?Just saying something is non-vitalimplies we can live without it.)

Most weapons and sensors in theHalifax class need non-vital synchroattitude data to function. (The Mk-29s are not the only home to spin-ning gyros in the ship; there arespinning gyros in the 57-mm Bofors,but they are for rate determinationfor the elevation and train limitingfunctions of the gun.) Since the fire-control solution for all CPF weaponsrelies heavily on the Mk-29 inertialnavigator, the ships carry two Mk-29s, along with two reliable non-vi-tal synchro distribution systems("navigation switchboards") spa-tially distributed for added redun-dancy. Still, if you lose both Mk-29sor both navigation switchboards, youcannot fight. But with one good Mk-29 you can still steer, unless you also

lose both vital distribution panels!As was pointed out in the first para-graph, being left up the proverbialcreek by this navigation system isnot an entirely remote possibility.

The auxiliary switchboard is inCCER no. 3 just above the forwardINS space; the main switchboard isin the machinery control room. TheHalifax-class navigation data distri-bution system is depicted (simpli-fied) in Fig. 2. Incidentally, theforward vital panel is a real "panel,"near the forward Mk-29. The after"vital panel" is simply heading re-peats hardwired from the after INSinto the after navigation switchboardand distributed to the bridge and opsroom.

In summary, it appears we haveevolved a distinctive area of vulner-ability in our Halifax-class combatsystem. With the steamers, a multi-tude of gyros had to fail before welost the ability to fight. Now thatmultitude has been reduced to justtwo, which can quickly become a

Gyros

SynchroHeading

GYROSYSTEM

NON-VITALSWITCHBOARD

400- 80- and "W Type Heading

Forward 370 Gun

AE, AH GunDhve Signals

Alter 3-60 Gun

AE, AH GunDrive Signals,

Changeover Switch

Fig. 1: A graphical depiction of the steamer navigation data distribution system.

MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SPRING 2000 13

"multitude of one" should your af-ter Mk-29 be commandeered by ahigher-readiness ship!

The Solution:How Ring Lasers Solved theTuned Rotor Gyro DesignProblem

There are two ways to mechanizeinertial navigation — through "plat-form stabilization" and "strapdown."For years the guidance systems com-panies dreamed of building a reliablestrapdown system. In fact, theywanted nothing more than to getaway from platform stabilization.Why? Because a nagging two-partproblem had to be solved.

The Tuned Rotor Gyro DesignProblem (Part One)

With gyroscopic precession, a cir-cular mass spinning at great speedwants to keep the same orientation,regardless of Earth or vehicle rates.So an untorqued free-spinning gyrowill appear to move with 24-hour pe-

riodicity, when it is actually keepingthe same orientation. The earth ismoving around it! It wouldn't takemuch torquing force to keep thisgyro in the same orientation relativeto the observer, even on the equatorwhere Earth velocity is maximum. Ifthis gyro were then moved to anotherlatitude, say 20 degrees farther north,less torquing force would be re-quired to keep the gyro level becausethe Earth velocity at the higher lati-tude is less. So if we didn't compen-sate our torquers, the gyro wouldmove relative to the observer. Meas-uring (integrating) this change intorquing rate is analogous to meas-uring a displacement in position, andthis is the basis for inertial naviga-tion.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.In a moving ship or aircraft, Earthrates, measured in fractions of a de-gree per hour, must be measuredwith the same precision as vehiclerates, which can be as high as tens

of degrees per second] Imagine theengineering chore of developing atorquing device that can cancel ve-hicle rates as efficiently as Earthrates. One solution is to isolate ve-hicle rates from the inertial equa-tions through gimbal stabilization,as was done with the Mk-29 INSin the Halifax class and the WSN-5 in the Iroquois class. Then thetorquers only have to measure Eartheffects. But gimbal mechanismshave a lot of moving parts. They aremaintenance-intensive and involveuse of the "S" word. Yes, slip rings!Another solution is to use smalltuned rotor gyros, as is done in alot of aircraft strapdown inertialapplications. A smaller moment ofinertia in the gyros will allow foreasier torquing, even for scream-ing vehicle rate effects. So why notjust use small gyros in our inertialnavigators? There is anotherproblem...which takes us to PartTwo.

Line I Conso le I Console I I Room

STIR I- and K-Band Tracking Radarand

J-Band Continuous Wave Illuminator

SYNCHROATTITUDE1X.36X Heading,2X and 36X Pitch2X and 36X Roll

'It's really part of the Main Switchboard

AUXILIARYNAVIGATION

SWITCHBOARD

[Backup SynchroDistribution

System]

Antennacontrol,includingattitude

correction

MAINNAVIGATION

SWITCHBOARD

Changeover Switches

TargetAE, AH

57mm Gun

AE. AH GunDrive Signals

STIR Fire Control System

Synchro Heading, Pitch and Roll

Fig. 2. Halifax-class navigation data distribution system.


The Tuned Rotor Gyro DesignProblem (Part Two)

Drift in tuned rotor gyros is di-rectly related to parasitic torque,which is in turn an inverse functionof the gyro's moment of inertia. Inother words, bigger gyros drift lessand therefore work better in inertialapplications. But bigger gyros areharder to torque! In response to arequirement for an extremely low-drift gyrocompass, Litton-MarineSystems built a stabilized headingreference with enormous, 16-cm-diameter iron wheel gyros. Theyhad to pay the Devil to torque them.Despite that particular challenge, theMk-19 gyrocompass was a highlysuccessful product line.

The two parts of the design prob-lem are graphically presented in Fig-ures 3 and 4, which are qualitativerepresentations, not graphs of realexperimental data. Figure 3 repre-sents the simplified fundamentalequation of a spinning wheel gyro,T=HxQ, where H represents the an-gular momentum of the spinningwheel and equals the product of thespin rate and the wheel's moment ofinertia. In this representation,H1 <H2<H3. T represents the torquerequired about the gyro's input axisto make the gyro wheel precess (ro-tate) at a rate £1 about its output axis.

The fundamental equation andFig. 3 show that as the angular mo-mentum (H) of the gyro gets larger,more torque (T) is required to makethe gyro precess at a given rate (Q).There are two ways to change theangular momentum of the gyro —change its spin rate, or change itsmoment of inertia (its mass and di-ameter). In strapdown or other highdynamic-rate applications, therefore,it would be advantageous to keep theangular momentum of the gyro smallso that less torque is required to keepthe gyro stabilized under high input-rate conditions. However, Fig. 4shows why this is a trade-off.

Friction and imbalances within aspinning gyro can never be elimi-nated. These forces cause unwantedtorques that result in gyro drift. Thesame equation above can be used todemonstrate the effects of these un-wanted (or parasitic) torques:Q(DRIFT) = T(PARASITIC) x 1/H.This shows that to minimize thedrift rate, one must maximize theangular momentum. This is theclassic trade-off in gyro design:larger angular momentum mini-mizes the unwanted drift, but in-creases the demand on the torquingmechanism.

Okay, who's paying attentionhere? Who picked up on the wonder-

Torque Versus Precession

O.0l'/Hour Dynamic Rangeof Motion

30-/Sec

Fig. 3. As the angular momentum (H) of the gyro gets larger, moretorque (T) is required to make the gyro precess at a given rate.

ful bonus that "solving" the tunedrotor gyro design problem by plat-form stabilization gives us? Answer:If a gimbal system is used to elimi-nate vehicle rates, and the inertialplatform is kept in a fixed-level ori-entation as a result, why not use theplatform offset as an attitude refer-ence? It's as easy as picking-off thesynchro signals on the gimbal drivemechanisms. No computing, no dataconversion, just pure, real-timesynchro.

With the design and production ofthe navy's platform stabilized iner-tial systems in the late seventies andearly eighties, a central source ofattitude data became available. The"bonus" became the raison d'etre forshipboard inertial navigators, withall shipborne weapon and sensor sys-tems now using a common, central-ized attitude reference.

The Move to StrapdownApplications

Like most engineering problems,the gyro design problem wasn'tsolved, it was dealt with. However,the preferred "fix" of platformstabilization resulted in mainte-nance-intensive gimbal stabilizationschemes, schemes that were not verysailor-friendly in nature. The guid-ance companies continued in theirquest for a good strapdown naviga-tor. The gyro problem was trulysolved when a new motion sensorentered the scene. First of all, ringlaser gyros are not traditional gyros,at least in terms of 20th century ref-erences. Because of Elmer Sperry'stoys we now associate "gyro" with"spinning," and ring lasers don'tspin! Ironically, though, the word"gyro" is derived from the Greekgyros, which means "ring." (I dearlylove it when engineers re-insert lit-eral cognizance into the world of lan-guages.)

The sensing element works bygenerating two counter-propagat-ing laser beams, using mirrors toreflect them into a triangular orsquare path, then combining themat the end of the path opposite totheir point of origin. The interfer-

MAR1T1ME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SPRING 2000 15

ing beams produce a fringe pat-tern. When the device experiencesrotational movement along thenormal axis of the laser path, thebeam propagating in the directionof rotation experiences an appar-ent increase in path length. Thisbeam will have an apparent de-crease in frequency as a result. Theconverse applies to the beampropagating in the direction oppo-site to rotation.

The difference in frequenciesbetween the two beams will resultin the fringe pattern moving (rela-tive to the gyro) at rate and direc-tion proportional to the frequencydifference, i.e. the input angularrate. The passage of each fringepast the photo-diode beat detectorindicates that the integrated fre-quency difference (integrated in-put rate) has changed by aspecified increment, and a gyropulse of integrated angular rate (agyro "count") is generated.

The gyro counts, together withaccelerometer outputs are resolvedabout direction cosine matricesinto acceleration components.

Doubly integrating these accelera-tions yields position displacement.In the Mk-49 there are three ringlaser sensors and three accelerom-eters in the sensor block. They areused to produce three accelerationvalues; one each for the pitch, rolland heading axes.

This is a clean, functional sensor.It can pick out an Earth effect fromvehicle noise with the greatest ofease. No torquers here — there areno spinning masses in the inertia!block! No platform stabilization isrequired, either. The sensing ele-ments are effectively strapped downto the deck, hence the title,"strapdown navigator." (That literalcognizance yet again!)

Apart from the gyro designproblem, there was another stum-bling block on the path tostrapdown. The computationalchore of performing multiple di-rection cosine matrix andquaternian differential transfer ap-plications at a rate sufficient toeffect real-time attitude and posi-tion data was not trivial. A rate ofat least 50 transfers every second

Q

Fig. 4. Friction and imbalances within a spinning gyro can never beeliminated. To minimize the drift rate, one must maximize the angularmomentum.

is required. By the mid-eighties wewere cooking with computationalgas, as it were, with the advent ofthe 286 processor. Together withthe ring laser sensor, this madestrapdown inertial navigat ionpractical.

An Early Ring Laser SensorApplication

In the seventies the UnitedStates Navy's fire-control philoso-phies were identical to our own.The first thing the USN cried outfor was a reliable attitude refer-ence for their directors. In responseto this, Litton-Marine Systems builtthe Mk-16 Strapdown AttitudeReference (Fig. 5) which was usedin the Mk-68 fire-control system.This was the first shipborne use ofthe ring laser sensor. It requiredheading from the ship's gyro, andproduced training and elevationcorrection signals for the gunsand missiles. They were clearlya long way from the inertial sys-tems of present. The evolution ofthe strapdown inertial navigatoris depicted in the photo-essay inFig. 5.

ConclusionThe best solution to any engi-

neering problem is to eliminate thesource of it. With our hot new mo-tion sensor, spinning mass gyrosare becoming obsolete, but eventhe new toys can't save us withoutgood supporting equipment. Anystrapdown application, ring lasersor not, still needs good processingpower and effective technique toconverge. With the advent of ringlaser sensors, the 286 processor,and Litton-Marine System's devel-opment of advanced gyro biascompensation techniques, real-time strapdown attitude and posi-tion computation became possible.

Finally, a confession. All Mk-49systems, including those beingbuilt as our SINS-HFX systems,are not purely strapdown in nature.When people who are so inclined(not just acoustic techs, I hope)start looking inside our SINS-HFXunits, they will actually see a two-


Circa 1970:

MK-29 Inertial Navigator andAttitude Reference. "Traditional"tuned rotor gyro sensors, withgimbal stabilization to isolatevehicle rates from the inertialequation. A "strapdown" qualitymotion sensor was not yetavailable.

Circa 1978:

MK-16 Attitude Reference, the firstwarship use of the ring lasersensor. Though a good "torquefree" motion sensor was nowavailable, the bias correctiontechniques to implement inertialnavigation had not beendeveloped.

Circa 1990:

MK-49 Inertial Navigatorand Attitude Reference.Ring laser sensors, 486processor power, andgood bias compensationtechniques enabledstrapdown inertial naviga-tion.

Fig. 5. Evolution of the modern-day strapdown inertial navigator.

axis gimbal system. This is for a effects from the inertial sensors. sors, and it has worked very wellproprietary gyro-indexing process(bias reduction) which occurs pe-riodically. In addition to this in-dexing process, the roll axisgimbal also serves to isolate roll

However, full strapdown equationsare still absolutely required. Thispartial stabilization serves to re-duce the dynamic range of motionthat must be measured by the sen-

in this application.

Henry Stacey works for Litton Ma-rine Systems in Charlottesville, Vir-ginia as a systems engineer on theMK-49 line of products.

Lt(N) Pedersen is the MaritimeNavigation Systems EngineeringOfficer in DMSS.

Jeff Bird is a Defence Scientist at theNavigation Section of Defence Re-search Establishment Ottawa.


Canada/U.S. Joint Naval Operations:

CFMETR — The CanadianForces Maritime Experimentaland Test Ranges

Article by Cdr Gord Buckingham and LCdr Mike SullivanPhotographic support courtesy of Terry Berkley, CFMETR

If anyone thought CFMETR'sfuture at Nanoose Bay, B.C.was in some doubt during the

recent dispute over seabed rights inmilitary exercise area "WhiskyGolf," Ottawa's decision to expro-priate this area has assured the con-tinuance of joint Canada/U.S. navaloperations here. Although a fewcourt challenges remain to be re-solved, testing, training and evalua-tion continue apace.

Situated 80 km west of Vancou-ver, the Nanoose Bay ranges havebeen in constant use by the Canadianand U.S. navies since 1965. That wasthe year CFMETR was formed as anADM(Mat) field unit with the pri-mary role of operating an instru-mented, three-dimensional test range(jointly operated by Canada and theUnited States). Today, the 70 or soemployees of this state-of-the-art fa-cility capture and package data ob-tained from range operations,analyze Canadian torpedo and shipsystem trials, perform acceptancetesting of sonobuoys, and repair andoverhaul the Sea King AQS-502 air-borne sonar.

The Strait of Georgia nearNanoose Bay was selected for therange because of its soft, muddysea bottom and its 300-to-400-me-tre depth over 217 square kilome-tres. This is large enough to testmost underwater sensors andweapons to their design limits, andaffords some shelter from openocean conditions. Excellent track-ing accuracy is provided by short-

The tug CFAV Lawrenceville nudges the USS Greeneville alongside atCFMETR in December 1999. The improved LA class SSN was visitingthe Nanoose Bay ranges for torpedo testing. (Photo: LCdr C. Hierons.)

baseline hydrophone arrays situ-ated on the seabed.

The location is also advantageousto the majority of customers since itis within 15 minutes' flying time forComox-based Canadian Forces Au-rora aircraft, 40 minutes away for theSea King helicopters from Pat Bay,and about the same for the P-3Orions from U.S. Naval Air StationWhidbey Island, Washington. To-gether with a sister unit, the NavalUndersea Warfare Center — Divi-sion Keyport, Washington (approxi-mately 210 km to the south),CFMETR provides a significanttraining, test and evaluation capabil-

ity that is particularly useful to theships of the USS Abraham Lincolnand USS Carl Vinson battle groups,and to the Canadian naval fleet, eacha half day's sail away in home portsof Everett, Washington andEsquimau, B.C. respectively.

CFMETR's staff is made up of 11Canadian military personnel, 49DND civilian employees, six U.S.Navy civilian technicians, and vari-ous contracted support personnel in-cluding Commissionaires. Approxi-mately half of the Canadian employ-ees belong to DGMEPM, while therest are members of CFB Esquimaudetachments tasked directly by


Nanaimo

CFMETR. Everyone lives in the lo-cal communities, as there is no on-site accommodation.

The3-D RangeThe instrumented 3-D range is a

Canada/U.S. joint venture in whichthe United States Navy provided thecapital for technical equipment,some technical personnel (includingthe salaries of five Canadians), andsome range vessels manned by aU.S. contractor. The Canadian De-partment of National Defence pro-vided the fixed facilities, includingthe earthquake proof main jetty,some range craft, as well as com-mand, control and security of opera-tions.

From the range operations centreon Winchelsea Island, all platformsand underwater weapons on therange can be tracked three-dimen-sionally by differential global posi-tioning systems, radar andcine-theodolite, or underwater by acomplex system of transducers andreceivers. Acoustic pulses frompingers on ships, submarines and testweapons are received by one or moreof 30 bottom-mounted hydrophonearrays. The computed tracks are dis-played in real-time on variousscreens and plotters, or transmitteddigitally for debriefings in remote lo-cations (e.g. air squadron briefingrooms).

All torpedo warheads are re-placed by an exercise head (equiva-

lent to an aircraft's black box) priorto loading. Whenever possible, toreduce the cost of firing real torpe-does, specially configured, reusablenon-motorized torpedo-shaped"REXTORPs and HOTTORPs" areused. Most lightweight torpedoes arelaunched by ships and aircraft, andrecovered by a Hughes 500D heli-copter on contract from Airspan inSechelt, B.C. Heavyweight torpe-does are launched by a yard torpedotender or a submarine, and are pickedup by a torpedo retriever boat.

The Canadian range vessels —two torpedo and ship ranging vessels(TSRVs) and a sonobuoy recoveryvessel (YAG-680) — deploy a vari-

ety of targets, and also measure tem-perature and salinity vs. depth, aswell as underwater noise. Thesethree vessels are crewed by civiliansfrom the Queen's Harbour Master(Nanoose Bay detachment), while arange patrol vessel, the Pelican(YAG-4), is crewed by naval person-nel. The QHM team also responds toenvironmental emergencies in thebay.

Sonobuoy Testing and Sea KingSonar Repair and Overhaul

The sonobuoy test facility oper-ates separately from the 3-D range,although it shares the area and someof the infrastructure. Developmentalprogram support, design qualifica-tion and production quality assur-ance testing are conducted inNanoose Bay, Georgia Strait, JervisInlet or Hotham Sound. Typically,one of the TSRVs is configured witha purpose-built, modular laboratoryto support testing. To save the ex-pense of tasking an Aurora patrolaircraft from Comox, many airlaunches of sonobuoys are madefrom a Turbo-Beaver aircraft char-tered from SEAIR in Richmond,B.C. Sonobuoy manufacturers andauthorities who make use ofCFMETR's operations on a cost-re-covery basis include Hermes Elec-tronics of Dartmouth, N.S., Sparton

HS 443 Squadron personnel load a Mk-46 exercise torpedo at CFMETRin November 1999. (Photo: Cpl Mike Weber)


Sonar technician Bill Reynolds prepares ahelicopter sonar hydrophone for in-water testingas part of the R&O process. (Photo: Terry Berkley)

of Florida, Ultra from the U.K., andrecently, the U.S. Navy in-serviceengineering authority for sonobuoysin Crane, Indiana.

As well, the AN/AQS-502 heli-copter-borne sonar has been re-paired on the West Coast for morethan two decades. While the "dryend" is refurbished by FMF CapeBreton in the dockyard inEsquimau, the "wet end" is over-hauled at CFMETR. Here, staff

test, dismantle, re-pair, reassemble andretest the projectorsand hydrophones inthe facility's work-shops. Final in-watertesting is conductedfrom a special bargethat houses auto-mated equipment anda submersible test rig.Over the past year theacoustics section hasalso overhauled sev-eral of the similarAN/AQS-13B unitsfor Canadian industryrepresenting foreignclients (again, on acost-recovery basis).This repair capabilityno longer exists in

private industry.

Community RelationsOver the years various protest

groups have voiced their oppositionto CFMETR, but CFMETR's envi-ronmental record is excellent. A1996 study by the Pacific MarineTechnology Centre found the envi-ronmental consequences of range ac-tivities to be minimal — and the unitcontinues its efforts to be a good cor-porate citizen. Staff members regu-

larly make presentations to variousgroups and support local events suchas the Nanaimo Marine Festival andWorld Championship Bathtub Race.The mayors and chambers of com-merce of the three nearby communi-ties of Nanaimo, Parksville andQualicum Beach have been fullysupportive of CFMETR's existence.

The recent jurisdictional disputebetween the federal and provincialgovernments over the seabed rightsin area WG has now been settled. Anarea of approximately 8!/2 squarekilometres, containing several rockyislets, was severed from the originaltenure and remains choice habitat forthe myriad species of wildlife andsealife that have populated this areafor eons.

Cdr Buckingham is the Command-ing Officer of CFMETR. LCdr MikeSullivan is the Range Officer Des-ignate at CFMETR.

A United States Navy torpedo retriever boat stationed at CFMETR carries Canadian Mk-48 torpedoesbeing tested on the ranges. (Photo: Terry Berkley)


Greenspace: Maritime Environmental Protection

Expert Workshop — Findings:Oily Waste Water and Oil ContentMonitoringArticle by LCdr Mark Tinney

As indicated in the previousedition of the MaritimeEngineering Journal,

DGMEPM/DMSS 4 hosted a NATOSpecial Working Group 12 work-shop in Hamilton last fall to discussand share information concerning allfacets of shipboard oily wastewatertreatment and control (Greenspace,MEJ, Fall 1999/Winter 2000, p. 14).In that article I promised to passalong the results of the workshoponce the conclusions and recommen-dations had been tabled at the sub-sequent SWG12 meeting. This hasbeen done, and findings and in-tended actions are listed below.

During the workshop it becameapparent that each nation had a dif-ferent definition of the term "oil." Tofurther complicate matters, we wereall using different methods to meas-ure oil content in water. As a result,when we compared notes on equip-ment performance we were compar-ing "apples with oranges." In somecases the differences were remark-able. It became obvious that this wasa significant problem when the efflu-ent quality of a highly sophisticatedoil/water separation process, usingthe most stringent testing method,was compared to the effluent qual-ity of a very simple system using theleast accurate method to measure oilcontent. On paper the results lookedthe same, though in reality they werenot. These results and other discus-sions on the problems with oil con-tent monitors led to the groupdrafting the findings as follows:

• There is a requirement for a pre-cise, universally accepted definition

of the term "oil." Many existingregulations do not differentiate be-tween free oil, dissolved oil and to-tal hydrocarbons.

• There is a requirement for a uni-versally accepted standard againstwhich to measure oil content in theeffluent of an oil/water separator.

• There is no existing oil contentmonitor that can accurately, reliably,quickly and consistently measure oilcontent in water when subjected towidely varying influent. (This situ-ation could be rectified if there werea clear definition of the term "oil,"and a universal standard for measur-ing oil content.)

• There is no requirement for anoil content monitor to verify the per-formance of a membrane-based oil/water separation that has been testedand certified to meet a certain stand-ard. The nature of membrane tech-nology is such that it acts as a physi-cal barrier to the flow of oil throughthe membrane. As such, once amembrane-based oil/water separatorhas been certified to a certain efflu-ent quality, the system will continueto meet this standard as long as theintegrity of the membranes remainsintact. In view of this, the only re-quirement for an oil content monitoris to serve as an alarm to alert theoperator to stop the system andcheck the membranes.

In response to this, as a first step,the NATO SWG12 committeeagreed to convene a special workinggroup to agree upon a precise defi-nition of the term "oil," and to agreeupon a single analytical procedure tomeasure oil content in bilge water.

Ultimately, it is intended to preparea submission to the InternationalMaritime Organization's MaritimeEnvironmental Protection Commit-tee to formally amend MARPOL 73/78 accordingly.

SummaryThese actions could lead to oily

water separators and oil contentmonitors being developed to a com-mon recognized standard, which isnot currently the case. Furthermore,information concerning the technol-ogy and processes employed to sepa-rate and monitor oil content frombilge water will become universallyrecognized and interchangeableamong NATO navies. Perhaps thefunction of oil content monitors willdevolve to that of an alarm in theevent of membrane failure, and willno longer be the "Achilles heel" ofmembrane-based bilgewater treat-ment systems. It is also believed thatmembrane-based oil/water treatmentsystems will become the minimumrequired standard for future ship-board oily water separator systems.

After three years as project managerof the navy's Maritime Environmen-tal Protection Project, the Journal'sMarine Systems technical editorLCdr Mark Tinney moves on to thecareer management shop in Ottawa.The editorial staff of the Journalwishes him well.


News BriefsALSC senior project staffappointed

The navy's Afloat LogisticsSealift Capability Project is gainingmomentum. As proof, an ALSCproject management office (PMO) isbeing established at NDHQ to pro-vide the necessary support while theproject charter, statement of require-ments and procurement strategy aredeveloped.

Cdr Eric Bramwell has been ap-pointed Project Manager, and willhead up the PMO at National De-fence Headquarters in Ottawa. CdrDave Harper, a Maritime Surfaceofficer in the Directorate of Mari-time Policy and Project Develop-ment, has been appointed ProjectDirector.

The ALSC PMO will, of neces-sity, remain modest in size. Currentrequirements are for an engineeringproject team of six to eight individu-als having skills in project manage-ment, systems engineering, integratedlogistic support and acquisition/pro-curement. The project aims to de-liver an as yet unspecified numberof ships that will give the CanadianForces the broadest possible flex-ibility for the next generation ofstrategic sealift, underway fleet re-plenishment and joint task forceoperations.

Cdr Bramwell is a member of theMARE 44E, naval architectsuboccupation. His previous capitalproject experience includes CPF and

Obituary: LCdr Patrick W. Brett, CDIt is with great sadness that I

announce the passing of Lieu-tenant Commander PatrickWalter Brett onDecember 24,1999, peace-fully at homeafter a long ill-ness.

Pat joinedthe navy in1975, was edu-cated at Water-loo University,and served onboard Her Maj-esty's Canadianships Gatineauand Kootenay.In 1994 afterextensive com-bat systems en-gineering duties LCdr Pat Bretton both coasts,Pat, his wife Wendy and daughterKaighley settled in east end Ot-tawa while Pat continued his serv-ice to the navy in the offices of theCanadian Patrol Frigate Projectand later the Directorate of Infor-mation Services. Pat is also sur-

vived by a daughter, Danielle,from a previous marriage.

In the con-duct of his du-ties, Pat em-bodied thequiet humanityand profes-sional grace ofthe true intel-lectual navalofficer. He wasmy divisionalofficer forthree years,and I can attestthat he was"ever on duty,"with matureguidance forhis people andexpert engi-neering carefor the systems

in his charge. He will be dearlymissed by a loving family and byhis navy colleagues who wishhim fair winds and followingseas. — Lt(N) Jim Pedersen,DMSS 8-5-6.±

TRUMP. Most recently, he hasserved as section head of DMMS 5,the acquisition management sectionfor DGMEPM. Cdr Harper is aMARS officer with five years' ex-

perience working with require-ments issues. He last served at seaas the executive officer of HMCSProtecteur. 4


MARE Journal wins second editing awardFor the second time in four years

the Maritime Engineering Journalhas been recognized for the qualityof its editing by the Eastern OntarioChapter of the international Societyfor Technical Communication(STC). In February the Society an-nounced the results of its annualtechnical publications competition,conferring the 1999/2000 MeritAward (magazines category) on theproduction editing team of BrianMcCullough and Bridget Madillfor their work on the October 1998,February 1999 and June 1999 issuesof the Maritime Engineering Jour-nal/CNTHA News.

their editing and designwork on the 1995 vol-ume of the Journal.

Brian McCulloughbegan his associationwith the Journal as anaval reserve MARSofficer at the maga-zine's inception in1982, and took over asfull-t ime productioneditor in 1985. Follow-ing the cancellation of Brian McCullough and Bridget Madill. (Photo:Class C service in 1994, Lori Prowse)he established Bright-

According to STC Technical Pub-lications Competition ManagerGordon Brown, the Merit Award isgiven "when a publication consist-ently meets high standards in mostareas and applies technical commu-nication principles in a highly profi-cient manner." Competitors in themagazines category were required tosubmit three consecutive issues oftheir publication as a single entry. In1996 Brian McCullough and DNDgraphic designer Ivor Pontiroli re-ceived STC achievement awards for

star Communications and has beenproducing the Journal under ten-dered contract ever since. BridgetMadill earned her Bachelor of Jour-nalism degree from Carleton Univer-sity in 1973, and worked for manyyears as an editor for the federal gov-ernment in Ottawa. She now worksas an associate editor with BrightstarCommunications in Kanata, Ontario.

In 1998 the Maritime EngineeringJournal and CNTHA News, thenewsletter of the DND-sponsoredCanadian Naval History Associa-tion, joined forces as "strategic part-ners" in preserving Canada's naval

technical heritage. The two publica-tions share production services, butmaintain separate editorial boards.CNTHA News now appears as aregular insert in the Journal.

The Society for Technical Com-munication was established in the1950s to improve the quality and ef-fectiveness of technical communica-tion for audiences worldwide. Withsome 24,000 members, it is the larg-est professional society in the worlddedicated to the advancement of thetheory and practice of technical com-munication. 4

No bug bitesOver the last two years, signifi-

cant resources were committed topreparing systems for the rollover toJan. 1, 2000. Since an uneventfulNew Year's greeted us, we've collec-tively been wondering what all thefuss was about.

Did the Y2K bug not bite at NewYear's? Was it thwarted? Was it everthere? Did we spend a lot of need-less effort?

The Y2K bug was predicted tosend machinery haywire, causepower failures, create financial dis-ruptions and trigger nuclear emer-gencies. In fact, nuclear plants inJapan and Spain did suffer systemfailures, and a man in Albany, NY

was charged $96,000 in late fees ona video rental. Elsewhere, a Britishbank suffered disruptions to its creditcard operations, while slot machinesin Delaware and automatic bus ticketdispensers in India went crazy.

What to make of all this? Werethese anomalies spurious Y2K com-puter glitches, or the tip of an icebergof yet-to-come crises?

The navy did fix a number of sys-tems that exhibited hard Y2K fail-ures during early testing: globalpositioning systems, communicationsystems, and certain direction find-ing equipment, for example. Further-more, other critical systems weretested and shown to be unaffected by

the date rollover: missile launchers,propulsion systems, firefighting andmonitoring systems, etc. The fewY2K anomalies that we did observewere minor glitches.

It is now obvious that Y2K prepa-ration was necessary. In the courseof undertaking this effort we becamebetter able to quantify and manageour materiel and operational Y2Kvulnerabilities, and became betterinformed about our systems as well.— LCdr Richard Gravel, DMSS 8,andLt(N) Erick DeOliveira, DMSS5-6.4


Index to 1999 ArticlesFebruary

Focusing on Common Purposeby Capt(N) David Hurl

People, teamwork and the product —It's time to return to fundamentalsby Cmdre I.D. Mack

The Branch Advisor on PI Cert FourEmploymentby Capt(N) D.G. Dubowski

Life After the Forcesby LCdr(ret.) Serge Lamirande

1996 Engineering Incident: HMCSHuron Gearbox Failure and Repairby LCdr Darren Rich

Naval Maintenance for the NewMillenniumby Lt(N) David Evans

Condition Based Maintenance — TheSolution for the Next Millennium?by Peter MacGillivray

The Elusive Decibel: Thoughts onSonars and Marine Mammalsby David M.F. Chapman and Dale D.Ellis

Canada and Hedgehog — The FirstAhead-throwing Anti-submarineWeaponby Dr. W.A.B. Douglas

Navy's Y2K Ship Systems Project inFull Swingby LCdr Richard Gravel andLt(N) ErickDeOliveira

Obituary: RAdm Sam Davis, CD,Ph.D.by Dr. H.W. Smith, Cdr(ret.)

CNTHANews• RAdm Sam Davis: Remembering a

Man who Lived to Serveby Mike Saker

• Docking with a Difference: HowHMCS Restigouche went Under-groundby Michael Young

• Sam Davis — Historianby Hal Smith

June

A Change of the Watchby Capt(N) Gerry Humby

Prefacilitated Contracts—Navy isProceeding with Cautionby Cmdre J.R. Sylvester

Engineering Recognitionby Cmdre W.J. Broughton (ret.)

The Naval Divisional System and itsFundamental Importance to Morale inthe Navyby Lt(N) Keith Coffen

The Navy's Solution to Simulation-based Command Team Trainingby LCdr Steven Yankowich

Extended Work Period Management —Principles for Successby IrekJ. Kotecki and David B. Jones

Yard Diving Tenders — A SuccessfulVessel Conversion Projectby Ed Chan andLt(N) GastonLamontagne

Protecting the Oceans in the Futureby LCdr Mark Tmney

HMCS Fredericton Joins the SolidWaste Management Fleetby Sean Gill

Ship Signature Reduction in theCanadian Navy — A Balancing Actby Mike Belcher and Ping Kwok

Year 2000 Ship Readinessby LCdr Richard Gravel andLt(N) Erick DeOliveira

Towed Array: CANTASS Updateby Lt(N) Scott MacDonald

1998 MARE Training Awards

CNTHANews• War Museum Seeks CNTHA Assist-

anceby Mike Saker

• Helping Official History: The Valueof the CNTHAby Michael Whitby

• Book Review: Desert Sailor: A Warof Mine (Hewitt)by Michael Young

•RCN/RN Relations, 1955by Hal Smith

• Canadians at Harwellby Hal Smith

Fall 1999/Winter2000

Remembering the Lessons ofKootenayby Capt(N) David Hurl

Afloat Logistics and Sealift Capabilityby Cmdre J.R. Sylvester

Life after the Navy — Is the grassgreener on the other side?by LCdr(ret.)Xavier Guyot

Halifax-class On-line Technical DataPackage: Easing the Navy's PaperBurdenby Hugh Simpson

Bosnia: Greetings from the Front!by LCdr Rob Mack

HMS Sultan: Canadian MARE MSOfficer Training for the 21SI Centuryby LCdr Gary J. Lahnsteiner

Expert Workshop: Oily Waste Waterand Oil Content Monitoringby LCdr Mark Tmney

Department receives U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency award

They Were as One: Remembering theVictims of HMCS KootenaybyLt(N)PatJessup

Victoria-class Fire Control System

New Naval Training Facility

Naval Engineering Manual Update andRevision Project

Conferences: Coastal Environment2000 (Sept. 18-20), and Oil Spill 2000(Sept. 20-22)

CNTHANews• Obituary: Hal Smith a Moving Force

in the CNTHAby Roger Sarty

• "Cabinet" Approvalby Michael Whitby

• Messdeck Lighting in HMCS Haidaby Pat Barnhouse

• Book Review: Salty Dips Vol. 5, "UpSpirits!" (NOAC)by Pat Barnhouse


1

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

CNTHA ChairmanRAdm (ret’d) M.T. Saker

DHH LiaisonMichael Whitby

SecretaryGabrielle Nishiguchi (DHH)

Executive DirectorLCdr (Ret’d) Phil R. Munro

DGMEPM LiaisonMr. R.A. Spittall

Maritime Engineering JournalLiaisonBrian McCullough

Newsletter EditorMike Saker

Newsletter Production Editing Services,Layout and DesignBrightstar Communications,Kanata, Ont.

CNTHA News is the unofficial newsletter of theCanadian Naval Technical History Association.Please address all correspondence to the pub-lisher, attention Michael Whitby, Chief of theNaval Team, Directorate of History and Heritage,NDHQ Ottawa, K1A 0K2. Tel. (613) 998-7045,fax 990-8579. Views expressed are those ofthe writers and do not necessarily reflect offi-cial DND opinion or policy. The editor reservesthe right to edit or reject any editorial material.

Preserving Canada’s Naval Technical Heritage

CANADIAN NAVAL TECHNICAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION

SPRING 2000

CNTHA News Est. 1997

From the Archives:Damage Control in the 1953

Huron Grounding ................. 2

Technical Timeline................... 3

Landlocked!Can you identify the man

in the photo? ......................... 4

About the CNTHA ................... 4

CANADIAN NAVAL TECHNICAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION

Inside this issue: I ran into Dr. WilfLund (Captain (N)

ret’d) at the BytownMess during Up Spiritson the Friday precedingthe Battle of Atlanticweekend. He informedme of a project uponwhich he is working thatwill be of interest to usall. Dr. Lund has beentasked by the Directo-rate of History and Her-itage to conduct aninterview program withformer Maritime Com-manders and other sen-ior naval and air officers. The objective is to capture, for historical record, personalperspectives on the development of policy and the major challenges and issuesat the higher levels that affected the Canadian Navy in the post-Second WorldWar period.

The undertaking includes focus on the major acquisition projects such as thegeneral-purpose frigate, the DDH-280 tribal-class destroyer, the Canadian pa-trol frigate, submarines, maritime patrol aircraft and helicopters. Specifically,DHH hopes to enhance its understanding of the acquisition decisions and proc-esses from the standpoint of both requirements and policy. The interviews willprovide guidance to the interpretation of the extensive documentation available,as well as important personal insight.

Dr. Lund has asked me to pass this information along to our members, someof whom will be on his list to be interviewed. He also mentioned that a subse-quent interview program will be conducted by DHH to gather information onthe more technical aspects of acquisition projects from project managers andothers who were involved. This is precisely the purpose of the Canadian NavalTechnical History Association, to gather and record this type of information forhistorical purposes. Those who wish to be included in these projects, or whowould like to provide written input are encouraged to contact the Directorate ofHistory and Heritage.

— Mike Saker

DHH Launches Post-WarNaval Oral History Project

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

2

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

CNTHA News — Spring 2000


1910-2000

McNally

The ship was cruising in state III.

All “X” hatches and W/T doors were closed. The watertightintegrity of the ship was at its maxi-mum, with only “Y” manholes open toliving compartments and ventilation onthroughout the ship.

Damage control parties were pipedto close up immediately after the im-pact at about 0038. Reports coming into the DCHQ from damage controlparties indicated the damaged area tobe in the forecastle. The engine-roomreported engines stopped and thatmachinery was not affected by thegrounding. Propellers were free andgenerators operating satisfactorily.

The EO and electrical officer wentforward to determine the extent of thedamage. A preliminary examinationshowed that maximum damage ex-tended aft to the forward lowermessdeck and forward of W/T bulk-head 30. Number 3 deck was heavedup forward of W/T bulkhead 25, riv-ets were missing and the W/T hatchesto No. 2 naval stores and No. 1 provi-sion room were distorted. The follow-ing spaces were found to be flooded:No. 2 naval stores, No.1 provisionroom and the 144Q2W compartment,the refrigerating machinery compart-ment and the cold room. The 147Fcompartment was examined and rockswere seen piercing No. 3 deck. Thepaint locker and forecastle were notentered at this time.

W/T bulkhead 30 was the floodingboundary. Since it showed no signs ofleakage, it appeared safe to back theship off the rocks before permanent

Damage Control in the HuronGrounding Incident of July 13,1953*(*Condensed and edited from file: DHN 1151-355/10, dated July 30, 1953.)

On July 13, 1953 the destroyer HMCS Huron went aground duringoperations in the Korean War. The ship’s engineer officer, Lt/Cdr.(E) H.D.Minogue, RCN, submitted the following damage control report:

shores were placed behind the bulk-head. So long as the ship was oper-ated astern, bulkhead 30 would hold.

Damage control parties erectedvertical shoring in the forward upperand lower messdecks to carry thevertical weight in the forecastle areaof the ship. Two-by-fours were usedfor this work because no larger tim-ber was available in the ship. It wasfound that two-by-fours placed flat onthe deck at either end of a mess benchmade good temporary shoring. Themess benches distributed the loadingover as wide an area as possible.

By 0400 considerable temporaryshoring had been completed. As muchfuel oil as possible had been pumpedaft from the forward tanks, and thefirst lieutenant had slipped both an-chors. Pumping ceased at 0400 toensure the boilers did not lose suction.All personnel except for thewatchkeepers were piped aft to thequarterdeck.

The ship went to “full astern both”in easy stages with no result. Thebridge then ordered “stop port, fullastern starboard.” The ship took on adefinite port list. The bridge thenstopped the starboard engine and or-dered “full astern port.” At about 0426the bridge reported the ship clear ofthe rocks. The ship went slow asternto the seaward side of Yang Do,where Huron rendezvoused with theUSS Rowan at about 0500. The de-stroyer squadron engineer officerfrom Rowan came aboard to see thedamage and find out what equipmentwould be required. Huron requested

Canadian Navy90th

Anniversary!

3

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

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



one complete set of oxyacetylene cut-ting equipment, 30 16-foot lengths offour-by-four, and a quantity ofwedges. In addition, Rowan supplieda crew of welders to assist.

Since the ship could now manoeu-vre astern and W/T bulkhead 30 washolding, it was decided to recover thewatertight integrity forward of bulk-head 30 as far as possible. Curtainbulkhead 18 forming the after part ofNo. l central stores would be used asa watertight bulkhead. The entrancewas considerably distorted, so a sec-tion of the door frame was cut away.Two-by-six planks were placed hori-zontally across the opening, and seatcushions were placed horizontallyalong the planks to make a seal. Thewhole section was backed by a steeldoor, a table top and two messbenches. Shores were then placedagainst the backing. Number 3 deckwas made watertight by the use ofsmall shot plugs, splinter boxes andseat cushions backed by half-doors orradiators. An attempt was made topump out the cold room compartmentusing two 70-ton portable pumps andmain suction without success. Theattempt was abandoned and shoreswere placed on the closed hatch.

At 0853 on July 13, Huron pro-ceeded astern to meet the dockingship and rescue tug until 1133 when astop was made to cool off main en-gines. The docking ship and tug were

sighted on the horizon and it was de-cided to wait for them. They camealongside and the tug proceeded totransfer anchor cable aft to the quar-terdeck. The tug also tried to removethe asdic dome, so that the forward 90feet of Huron could be put into thedocking ship. The tug’s underwatercutting gear gave considerable trou-ble, but before the dome could be cutaway the effort had to be abandonedas the weather began deteriorating.

At 2224 Huron started south ac-companied by the tug and dockingship. With W/T bulkhead 30 now com-pletely shored, Huron could proceedat slow ahead. Progress was satisfac-tory until the afternoon of July 14when waves began working at theloose plating on the starboard side. Theship was stopped at 1652 and the sen-ior officer in Rowan ordered the tugto take Huron in tow astern. The shipreached Sasebo, Japan without fur-ther incident on July 18.…Postscript

In the covering letter to his engi-neer officer’s damage control report,Huron’s CO, Cdr R.E. Chenoweth,MBE, reported to the CommanderCanadian Destroyers Far East (em-barked in HMCS Iroquois):

“The Ship’s Damage Control or-ganization was found to work smoothlyand efficiently. The time element in this

(Cont’d page 4)

CNTHA members PatBarnhouse and Mike Young arecollaborating on an ambitious ef-fort to produce a “Timeline of Ca-nadian Naval Technology.”

The timeline is intended toidentify and briefly describe all thetechnological achievements of ournavy — good, bad and indiffer-ent! The first version is expectedto be published in the Spring 2000issue of Maritime Affairs. Thatedition will be a special one, com-memorating the 90th anniversaryof the founding of the Royal Ca-nadian Navy.

The authors welcome any com-ment on this work in progress andit is hoped that the next updatewill be included in a future issueof this newsletter.

— Mike Young

TechnicalTimeline

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

4

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



This mid-section mock-up of a St. Laurent -class hull compartment was one of theprojects constructed by the Trade Group 3 shipwrights as part of their coursesyllabus at Engineering Division in Stadacona in the mid-1960s. All three men in the photo are brand new petty officers (second class), but we onlyknow the names of two of them: Darwin Robinson, who is kneeling by the hatchwent on to receive his commission and eventually retire as a lieutenant-commander;and Don Teed, who left the navy after seven years, is standing in the doorway. Cananyone identify the man at the deadlight? (DND photo, 71244)

Landlocked!

— Harvey Johnson, DMSS 2

case was a major factor in that it wasessential that every effort be made torefloat before first light due to theproximity of enemy shore batteries….

….this case is perhaps unique inthat the damage incurred by the shipsubsequent to the refloating and whileon passage to Sasebo was negligible.This was largely due to the weatherand that the ship was taken in towstern first. As a result this enabled themaximum amount of stores, equip-ment and personal gear to be recov-ered.

It is also desired in the light of ex-perience to submit the following dam-age control recommendations:

(1) That all ships should be providedwith a power driven saw. If such had

been the case the shoring time wouldhave been cut down by 50%.

(2) That all ships should have stow-age forward as well as aft for bottlesof Oxygen and Acetylene. This wouldeliminate the necessity of having tomove these heavy and cumbersomebottles under blackout and adverseconditions.

(3) That at least 90% of all shoringlumber should be 4 x 4’s with the re-mainder 2 x 4’s. It was found that 4 x4’s were the primary requirement, andin this instance, in addition to the 4 x4’s carried by Huron, the entire sup-ply of two USN destroyers was re-quired.”

(Cont’d from page 3)

About the CNTHAThe Canadian Naval Technical

History Association is a volunteerorganization working in support ofthe Directorate of History andHeritage (DHH) effort to pre-serve our country’s naval techni-cal history. Interested personsmay become members of theCNTHA by contacting DHH.

A prime purpose of theCNTHA is to make its informa-tion available to researchers andcasual readers alike. So how canyou get to read some of it? For themoment there is only one copy ofthe Collection, situated at the Di-rectorate of History and Heritagelocated at 2429 Holly Lane (nearthe intersection of Heron andWalkley Roads) in Ottawa. DHHis open to the public every Tues-day and Wednesday 8:30-4:30.Staff is on hand to retrieve the in-formation you request and to helpin any way. Photocopy facilitiesare available on a self-serve ba-sis. Access to the building requiresa visitor’s pass, easily obtainedfrom the commissionaire at thefront door. Copies of the index tothe Collection may be obtained bywriting to DHH.

maritime cntha inside! engineering journal · weight-critical trump ships. as he pointed out later...

Documents