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

Next Iteration of the Naval Warfare Officer Rebranding

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
928
Points
910
I see that and raise you an ammunitioning ship evolution; the shells come in hardened cases that we lovingly pass along the chain like it's a premie baby. Our ex-arty guy the remustered to NWO just shook his head, as he was used to 105 shells being kicked off the back of a truck. If something gets bumped the whole evolution stops while they do an inspection. It's pretty stupid that we still form a line and manually pass the ammunition along as well, especially as it has to go down multiple vertical ladders to get to the deep magazine.

After seeing how much precaution we take doing it alongside with a jetty crane, kind of chuckle at the concept of doing it from a tanker with the same restrictions in place. Even doing it parked at a jetty would be not fun.
And then I come along and sling ammo at sea with a helicopter, where we “firmly” place the load on deck and hustle back for the next load. The disconnect between what are, essentially, the same two acts (ammunitioning ship) are striking.

I get that both the Halifax explosion of 1917 and the Bedford Magazine explosion of 1945 are deeply ingrained into the RCN DNA, but seriously, all of the packed ammo is designed, by STANAG, to be safely dropped from 1 m and is HERO safe. I love how one cannot even carry a can of small arms ammo thru dockyard and across the brow of ship, for fear that the whole dockyard will suddenly explode into a firey ball of death. Ammunitioning is another soul sucking evolution that is ripe for a real world review of what actual risks are...
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
344
Points
910
And then I come along and sling ammo at sea with a helicopter, where we “firmly” place the load on deck and hustle back for the next load. The disconnect between what are, essentially, the same two acts (ammunitioning ship) are striking.

I get that both the Halifax explosion of 1917 and the Bedford Magazine explosion of 1945 are deeply ingrained into the RCN DNA, but seriously, all of the packed ammo is designed, by STANAG, to be safely dropped from 1 m and is HERO safe. I love how one cannot even carry a can of small arms ammo thru dockyard and across the brow of ship, for fear that the whole dockyard will suddenly explode into a firey ball of death. Ammunitioning is another soul sucking evolution that is ripe for a real world review of what actual risks are...
For sure; that's one I never get, especially as the explosion wasn't caused by unsafe handling of the ammunition itself, and knowing that when it actually gets loaded it's getting tossed around a bit and then rattling up the ammo lift, or like the CIWS which is a stupid manual load from a really bad spot high up fully exposed to the weather with any ship movement really amplified because of where it is. Meanwhile no one really cares about the various fueling operations and is pretty nonchalant around helo ops that are significantly riskier.

Non sequitor, but I lived in the North end of Halifax and still regularly picked out bits of shrapnel from my garden the whole time I was there. In the 7 years or whatever only had success with lupins and shrapnel.
 

boot12

Member
Reaction score
89
Points
430
Good old CFAD Bedford, where you can't have your remote car starter in your pocket while humping 5.56. Or wear your ballcap, because what if it blows off your head and you decide to slam the cased ammo you're holding onto the deck to grab it?

Always said that CFAD were the best kingdom makers in the CAF.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
I hate to say this, but when the Bedford depot "incident" happened in 1945, both the village of Bedford and the town (then) of Burnside were a lot further away from the depot than they are now. I don't think another incident in the depot would look good today in view of the current situation.

Just saying!
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
928
Points
910
I hate to say this, but when the Bedford depot "incident" happened in 1945, both the village of Bedford and the town (then) of Burnside were a lot further away from the depot than they are now. I don't think another incident in the depot would look good today in view of the current situation.

Just saying!
I get that, but if you have been anywhere near an ammunitioning in the past few years, it is a soul-sucking evolution that, in no way, takes into account real world risks. I say this as someone with more than a passing familiarity with ammunition and how it is to be stored and handled.

small arms ammunition is handled as if it was nitroglycerin, wrapped in gun cotton. Ditto main gun ammo.

I get that you want to be careful craning a missile into a launcher- they are expensive!
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
I get that, but if you have been anywhere near an ammunitioning in the past few years, it is a soul-sucking evolution that, in no way, takes into account real world risks. I say this as someone with more than a passing familiarity with ammunition and how it is to be stored and handled.

small arms ammunition is handled as if it was nitroglycerin, wrapped in gun cotton. Ditto main gun ammo.

I get that you want to be careful craning a missile into a launcher- they are expensive!
I see your ammunitioning and raise you RADHAZ. Oh, the nav radar with a 1m MEL is radiating on the bridge top, a full 75m from where the fmf workers want to go aloft on the hangar? Sorry, works not happening. At least ammunition is technically something that CAN hurt you.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
928
Points
910
I see your ammunitioning and raise you RADHAZ. Oh, the nav radar with a 1m MEL is radiating on the bridge top, a full 75m from where the fmf workers want to go aloft on the hangar? Sorry, works not happening. At least ammunition is technically something that CAN hurt you.
Again, another place where the true risks get confused and by treating all emitters the same, we dilute the risk. I have been closely scanned by the old SPS-49 on landing on the flight deck, so I get the risk. That was not cool.

Clearly divide the high risk emitters (HF, fire control and air/surface search, satcom) from the low risk (UHF, VHF-FM, nav radars) which makes it easier for the OOW/OOD to control.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
773
Points
1,010
TBH, I think NOPQ as it is presently executed is a deeply flawed evaluation system. Especially when the vast majority of students that graduate from Venture get posted to non-deploying units or Ships not in high-readiness.

They then fill out all their reqs, do alongside "discussions" about how they would theoretically do something, get the checks in the box and sit a board that only confirms their ability to memorize something as opposed to actually execute on operations.

The Navy then considers both these Watchkeepers equals for all intents and purpose when everyone knows it's not the case. It's one thing to do a few TGEX's off the coast of Vancouver Island and say you're G2G, it's quite another to do it in a place like the SCS with 100s of fishing vessels, deep seas, etc around you.
Well, at least you have friends in high (seas) places. :p
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,240
Points
890
To add: what could be more interesting of a subject than becoming an expert in modern naval warfare? Only the RCN, in it’s infinite stupidity, could make that area of study boring.
Sort of like how only the Army could make late teen / early 20s men not enjoy running around the woods with automatic weapons.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,233
Points
1,060
Sort of like how only the Army could make late teen / early 20s men not enjoy running around the woods with automatic weapons.

mood GIF
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
So the RCN just announced the next phase of it's rebranding of the ol' MARS officer. To go along with the "Naval Warfare Officer", they are also redesigning the position of Combat Officer onboard ship. From now on they will be called "Senior Naval Officer - Warfare".
There hasn't been a Combat Officer on RCN ships for about 2-3 years
 
Last edited:

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
Clearly divide the high risk emitters (HF, fire control and air/surface search, satcom) from the low risk (UHF, VHF-FM, nav radars) which makes it easier for the OOW/OOD to control.
That already happens on the RADHAZ board. Major, minor and greater than 75m emmiters are in different boxes and labeled as such. Of course that might have changed in the last few years but that was where East Coast Dockyard was headed. 3 categories. This means you can go aloft aft if a minor emitter is operating forward. Of course in Dockyard the workers can always say no if they feel "unsafe" even if they are safe.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
868
Points
910
Or crates of 105mm floating around the back of gun tractors going cross country. Properly stored rifle and pistol ammunition is remarkable safe, considering ammunition that is still good is routinely dug from WWII aircraft that thundered in.

SAAMI fire test of ammunition
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
276
Points
1,010
And then I come along and sling ammo at sea with a helicopter, where we “firmly” place the load on deck and hustle back for the next load. The disconnect between what are, essentially, the same two acts (ammunitioning ship) are striking.

I get that both the Halifax explosion of 1917 and the Bedford Magazine explosion of 1945 are deeply ingrained into the RCN DNA, but seriously, all of the packed ammo is designed, by STANAG, to be safely dropped from 1 m and is HERO safe. I love how one cannot even carry a can of small arms ammo thru dockyard and across the brow of ship, for fear that the whole dockyard will suddenly explode into a firey ball of death. Ammunitioning is another soul sucking evolution that is ripe for a real world review of what actual risks are...
The Navy does all sorts of ridiculous things which don't make any sense. A real good example is Harbour Evolutions where the Ship isn't operating under power. Everyone I've talked to will always say "You need a BWK on the Bridge if you are doing a Cold Move" and they will force a BWK off leave to come in and do a Cold Move even though they don't hold Charge (that is retained by the OOD) and the Queen's Harbour Master is entirely responsible for the Safety of the Vessel once the lines are let go. In fact, if something does get screwed up while they are doing the move, it's entirely on the Pilot, yet we still have an OOW standing there on the Bridge, for no other reason other than someone somewhere said we had to, in contradiction of HCI's.
 
Last edited:

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,144
Points
1,160
The Navy does all sorts of ridiculous things which don't make any sense. A real good example is Harbour Evolutions where the Ship isn't operating under power. Everyone I've talked to will always say "You need a BWK on the Bridge if you are doing a Cold Move" and they will force a BWK off leave to come in and do a Cold Move even though they don't hold Charge (that is retained by the OOD) and the Queen's Harbour Master is entirely responsible for the Safety of the Vessel once the lines are let go. In fact, if something does get screwed up while they are doing the move, it's entirely on the Pilot, yet we still have an OOW standing their on the Bridge, for no other reason other than someone somewhere said we had to, in contradiction of HCI's.
Fortunately the RCAF doesn’t require a pilot to be sitting in the cockpit to tow an aircraft from/to the hangar. They actually trust the least, but fully qualified individual to oversee the move.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
240
Points
760
Ah, the joys of ammunition transfers. In Dockyard.

From my original ammunition plan when we re-took our ship from ISI in 2013:

Plan 1 : The Force Protection ammo will be moved by ship's vehicle from D-40 to the ship, and will be escorted by a fire-truck to ensure that the 600 rounds of 5.56 and 80 rounds of 9mm do not spontaneously combust.

Plan 2 : The FP ammo will be walked from D-40 to the ship, (because the vehicle didn't have placards or a static strap) and will be escorted by the fire-fighters in a pickup truck.

Plan 3 : The FP ammo will be walked from D-40 to the ship, escorted by myself and a firefighter carrying a portable extinguisher.

Yes, I presented these three COAs.

Option 1 was seriously considered. (They didn't realize I put it in as a method of poking fun at the system...they took it seriously....)

We used option 3.

sigh
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,233
Points
1,060
Ah, the joys of ammunition transfers. In Dockyard.

From my original ammunition plan when we re-took our ship from ISI in 2013:

Plan 1 : The Force Protection ammo will be moved by ship's vehicle from D-40 to the ship, and will be escorted by a fire-truck to ensure that the 600 rounds of 5.56 and 80 rounds of 9mm do not spontaneously combust.

Plan 2 : The FP ammo will be walked from D-40 to the ship, (because the vehicle didn't have placards or a static strap) and will be escorted by the fire-fighters in a pickup truck.

Plan 3 : The FP ammo will be walked from D-40 to the ship, escorted by myself and a firefighter carrying a portable extinguisher.

Yes, I presented these three COAs.

Option 1 was seriously considered. (They didn't realize I put it in as a method of poking fun at the system...they took it seriously....)

We used option 3.

sigh

As long as you're both smoking while performing this task, that would square nicely with my memory of how to properly handle SAA natures :)

Now that I think of it, although I have been required to complete several online training modules for items like GBA+ and CTAT policy, I have never been required to complete any training regarding ammunition safety while serving apart from things like 'keep the caps separate from the C4' type stuff (as a kid, of course, I learned about what can happen when you throw a handful of .22s into a camp fire :).

All that to say, alot of the fear surrounding ammunition movement and storage might be best managed through some sort of more formalized training/ awareness building.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
Ah, the joys of ammunition transfers. In Dockyard.

They are way too restrictive frankly. However, as I stated earlier there are many things that we did while transferring ammo that don't need to be done. For example no smoking throughout ship. That's not a rule. It's only a rule while actually on the ammunition jetty and the gate is open. Because that's a rule for the ammunition storage facility and when the gate is open you're "on the base". You can smoke on a ship as long as the transfer of ammo doesn't go through the smoking area. We've been doing it wrong for decades and no one cared to look at the actual documents apparently. (Looks at the army guys putting out their butts on the full ammo cases... )
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,144
Points
1,160
NS, a go with COA 1 would have been a classic! You could have told your grandchildren of ‘The Great Ammo Trek.’
 
Top