National Defense 1*1 Defence nationale CNTHA Maritime /Mews inside! Engineering Journal CANADA'S NAVAL TECHNICAL FORUM Spring 2000 On the Navy's 90th Birthday: Looking Back at the River/Prestonian-class Frigates — 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 Launches Naval Oral History Project Canada For 35 years the test ranges at Nanoose Bay, B.C. have been serving the operational needs of the Canadian and U.S. navies — The story of CFMETR begins on page 18 Maritime Engineering SPRING 2000 Journal Vol. 19, No. 1 (Established 1982) DEPARTMENTS Editor's Notes by Capt(N) David Hurl 2 Commodore's Corner by Cmdre J.R. Sylvester 3 Forum A Line in the Sand — One Ship's Perspective by Cdr Joe Murphy 4 A "line in the sand" — Applause and Aide-Memoire by Lt(N) Heather Skaarup 5 FEATURES Director General Looking Back Maritime Equipment Program Management River/Prestonian Class Frigates — Backbone of Commodore J.R. Sylvester, CD Canada's Post-war Fleet by Harvey Johnson 7 Editor Captain(N) David Hurl, CD 'Strapdown" Inertial Navigation in the Canadian Navy Director of Maritime Management by Lt(N) Jim Pederson, Jeff Bird and Henry Stacey .. 12 and Support (DMMS) Canada/US Joint Naval Operations: CFMETR— The Canadian Editorial Adviser Forces Maritime and Experimental Test Ranges Bob Weaver by Cdr Gord Buckingham and LCdr Mike Sullivan 18 DGMEPM Special Projects Officer Greenspace Production Editor / Enquiries Brian McCullough Expert Workshop — Findings: Tel. (819) 997-9355 /Fax (819) 994-8709 Oily Waste Water and Oil Content Monitoring Production Editing Services by by LCdr Mark Tinney 21 Brightstar Communications, Kanata, Ontario NEWS BRIEFS 22 Technical Editors Index to 1999 Articles 24 LCdr Mark Tinney (Marine Systems) LCdr Marc Lapierre (Combat Systems) CNTHA NEWS: Simon Igici (Combat Systems) Newsletter of the Canadian Naval Technical LCdr Chris Hargreaves (Naval Architecture) History Association Insert CPO1 K.D. Tovey (NCMs) (819) 994-8806 Print Management Services by Cover Photo Director General Public Affairs - Creative HMCS Sea Cliff in 1944: The River-class frigates had good seakeeping quali- Services ties, and proved to be very effective ships during the war, with a total of twelve Translation Services by U-boat sinkings to their credit. Story begins on page 7. (CF photo CN-3503) Public Works and Government Services Translation Bureau Mme. Josette Pelletier, Director 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 reflect The Journal is available on the DGMEPM official opinion or policy. Mail can be sent to: The Editor, Maritime Engineering Journal, DMMS, website located on the DND DIN intranet NDHQ, MGen Pearkes Building, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A OK2. The at http://admmat.dwan.dnd.ca/dgmepm/ editor reserves the right to reject or edit any editorial material. While every effort is made to return art- dgmepm/publications work and photos in good condition, the Journal can assume no responsibility for this. Unless otherwise stated, Journal articles may be reprinted with proper credit. A courtesy copy of the reprinted article would be appreciated. MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SPRING 2000 Editor's Notes Ninety Years Later — The Canadian Navy's Tradition of Excellence Continues By Captain (N) David Hurl Director of Maritime Management and Support ooking back to May 10, followed the Allied victories in Eu- bine-powered hydrofoil HMCS Bras 1910, the day the Naval rope and the Pacific. But while the d'Or, reaching an incredible speed of LService of Canada came fleet may have been cut back to a 61 knots on July 17, 1969 to earn a into being, we already had a long his- shadow of its wartime glory, the Ca- place in the Guinness Book of tory of naval technical achievement nadian navy continued its tradition as Records for four years running as the behind us through our close associa- a technologically innovative service world's fastest warship; followed in tion with the Royal Navy. Over the that would go on to redefine the state the 1970s by the sophisticated DDH- years the Canadian navy's fortunes of the art in everything from sonar 280 command and control system, a would rise and fall with the priorities development to new warship design. marvel of integrated computer tech- of the day, but the determination of nology; and more recently the su- Over the years the navy's engi- our predecessors to deliver reliable, perbly capable Halifax-class patrol neering, technical and support technically sophisticated naval ships frigates that were conceived and built branches have produced a seemingly and systems never faltered. "on the shoulders of the giants" who endless number of mega-achieve- went before them. By the time the war ended in 1945, ments that read like a Who's Who of Canada had the third-largest naval naval technical innovation of the 20th Along the way we have often cap- fleet in the world — aircraft carriers, century — such as the ultra-modern tured the imagination of other navies cruisers, destroyers, frigates, cor- St. Laurent-class destroyer escorts of with our high-tech achievements in vettes — more than 400 hulls in all. the 1950s and 1960s which, teamed variable-depth sonar, integrated ma- This couldn't last, of course. Despite with the beartrap, would go on to chinery control, and naval electronic a distinguished war record, the fleet prove the feasibility of operating warfare systems. Not bad for a navy was virtually scrapped overnight in large ASW helicopters from the used to making the most out of some- the drastic military reductions that decks of small ships; and the gas-tur- times very limited resources. Today we continue that tradition of successful inventiveness through the fine efforts of a technologically proficient workforce and a network of industry professionals. Our fleet may be small in numbers, but it re- flects in its sterling performance the heart and soul of an "extended fam- ily" of navy and civilian project en- gineers, technologists and logistical support staff committed to delivering the best. We should be proud of what we have accomplished. Happy birthday, Navy! HMCS Bras d'Or—Fastest warship in the world, 1969-1973. (CF Photo) MARITIME ENGINEERING JOURNAL SPRING 2000 Commodore's Corner Renewal of NEM and NaMMS Manuals Raises an "Old Chestnut" By Commodore J.R. Sylvester, CD Director General Maritime Equipment Program Management ecently — most particu- Ottawa. This is most apparent in the that they are in the business of risk. larly at the East/West Naval Maintenance Management Ultimately, any decision on risk to RCoast seminars — the System, where I accept that entire equipment or personnel remains the state of our Engineering & Mainte- categories of E&M support have dis- purview of Command, having re- nance policy documents has been appeared (such as in the preparation ceived all expert advice. forcefully pointed out. It has been of in-service trials agenda, for exam- While Command is accountable rightly observed that our Naval En- ple). Among other things, this has for adhering to technical orders is- gineering Manual (NEM) and the led to a perception of organizational sued under the authority of the Chief Naval Maintenance Management confusion and duplication of effort. of the Defence Staff, it is well under- System (NaMMS) Manual are out of While the resource issue has cer- stood that these orders cannot reflect date. A myriad of other technical or- tainly not gone away, we have turned all possible circumstances and situ- ders and specifications also need our attention to updating our two key ations that may be encountered. I do review, but certainly the NEM and policy documents. The NaMMS expect, however, that the NEM and the NaMMS Manual are central. Manual is being incrementally rewrit- NaMMS Manual, together with pro- Over the past decade, two factors ten as we, collectively, rebuild our fessional judgement, will form the have combined to place us in this processes and subordinate orders. basis of our advice and, yes, chal- situation. First, our fleet renewal has And, as LCdr Perks noted in the Fall lenge as necessary, to Command. added much to the existing technol- 1999 issue of the Journal, the Naval The Naval Engineering Manual ogy baseline. This is most evident in Engineering Manual is also getting and NaMMS Manual were never in- the NEM which, like its predecessor, a well-deserved overhaul. tended to be self-sufficient. The in- BRCN 5521, has been viewed as the Regarding the raison d'etre of tent of our revisions is for them to marine engineering "bible." And these two manuals, I have been hear- provide overall orders, guidance and notwithstanding that much of the ing the notion, or rather the assertion, procedure, with the detail left to sub- baseline remains relevant, once por- that our cornerstone documents are ordinate documents. They should not tions of it are perceived to be out of needed as "bricks" with which we can be expected to provide simple pre- date the unfortunate tendency is to beat commanding officers and others scriptions to solve all the problems dismiss the entire publication as an over the head whenever they contem- of our complex business — they are, entity, including the good engineer- plate committing some heinous sin however, ignored at one's peril. ing practice and lessons learned over against the E&M community or its many years of naval service.