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

HMCS Athabaskan

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/01/02/ns-hmcs-athabaskan-damage.html

I don't know much about towing, but having a hard time figuring out how that happened unless the towing tender tried to get alongside her?

Almost everytime I read comments on CBC stories, I wish there was a way to reach thru the Internet and crack someone.  :facepalm:
 
The damage is above the water line, at least in the photo on CBC.  That's not so bad as it could have been.  Won't be hard to patch that up when she comes home.  Won't be cheap but not difficult for the plate shop to accomplish at FMF.  As the Black Knight said,  "Tis but a scratch!".
 
Ack.  Would it not likely be from the towing vessel coming along side her in rough seas and mashing into her once to twice?  I'm trying to imagine a tow line letting go and snapping back in a way that would do that damage and my brain doesn't see how.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/01/02/ns-hmcs-athabaskan-damage.html

I don't know much about towing, but having a hard time figuring out how that happened unless the towing tender tried to get alongside her?

Almost everytime I read comments on CBC stories, I wish there was a way to reach thru the Internet and crack someone.  :facepalm:

Most likely when she separated the tow they most likely put the tug on her sideways to keep her off the rocks and damaged the plates.

I was as well looking at the comments on the CBC web site, I was waiting for "Why do we have a Navy" post, didn't have to wait for long >:( Quite a few blamed Harper and Mackay, like its their fault.
 
If I was a betting man I'd say:

1- the damage at the bow was from the tow line, (either before or after it separated);

2- the damage at the boot topping was the tug trying to keep it from drifting; and

3- the perforations in the hull behinds the number was from a 2nd ship, (possibly the Coast Guard) getting people onto the ATH to re-attach the tow line. 

Seeing as though tugs are normally fendered from bow to stern and back and that they have a low freeboard I doubt the tug pierced the hull.
 
TwoTonShackle said:
3- the perforations in the hull behinds the number was from a 2nd ship, (possibly the Coast Guard) getting people onto the ATH to re-attach the tow line. 

Not likely, since the pers required to reconnect the towing hawser were transferred to ATH by Cormorant (via several news sources).
 
Occam said:
Not likely, since the pers required to reconnect the towing hawser were transferred to ATH by Cormorant (via several news sources).

Flying low and pitched over? ;D
 
Occam said:
Not likely, since the pers required to reconnect the towing hawser were transferred to ATH by Cormorant (via several news sources).

Perhaps there was an attempt to board ATH, but the attempt failed and then the Cormorant was used?

Edited to add:
This site is usually pretty good. He has three or four posts on the incident, but he only has guesses as to what happened.
http://shipfax.blogspot.ca/
 
Sure there will be some kind of official investigation once the ship is back.  Doubt much is happening during the xmas leave period other then that.

The PA seems to be wandering off the previous script though...
 
Just some observations from the CBC and Shipfax photos; There's blue paint rubs on the hull near the puncture and the tug docked at Sydney is coloured the same blue..
 
Article Link

HMCS Athabaskan repair bill rose by $5M, says shipyard

Iroquois-class destroyer damaged later during trip to Nova Scotia


The shipyard that did refit work on a navy warship before it was damaged while returning to Halifax says the repair bill had already cost $5 million more than expected before the vessel left its dock.

The Defence Department announced last February that Seaway Marine Inc. of St. Catharines, Ont., was awarded a $21.7 million contract to repair HMCS Athabaskan as part of a scheduled refit. The company was contracted to repair air pressure systems and firefighting and deck equipment, as well as strip, repair and repaint the underwater portion of the hull.

But Charles Payne, the company's president, said inspectors discovered more rust and damage than expected when they examined the 40-year-old destroyer.

"As you remove the paint, you find structural problems and the structural problems are dealt with," Payne said in an interview Friday.

Payne said the navy asked for more repairs and the final bill came to $26.7 million.

"They [the destroyers] are in very, very poor condition," Payne said. "That's what caused all this work arising … the condition of the vessel."

He said the work went on almost two weeks longer than expected.

The Athabaskan suffered damage to its hull while it was being towed back to Halifax and is now berthed in North Sydney. The military has said it is assessing that damage and trying to determine when it occurred.

Last Friday, tethering lines broke after the vessel left Sydney and was being towed in rough waters off a rocky shoal, a military spokesman has said.

Repairs took longer than expected
Payne said the repair work in Ontario was supposed to have been completed in late November, and navy officers were then expected to recommission the destroyer's engines while at the shipyard.

The ship was expected to steam back to Halifax under its own power before the St. Lawrence Seaway closed for the winter. But Payne said because the repairs took longer than expected, there wasn't enough time for the navy to recommission the engines before the seaway closed.

He said the navy then decided to have the vessel towed, rather than leaving it in dry dock over the winter.


The navy issued a brief statement late Friday saying a damage assessment had been completed and temporary, minor repairs were underway to ensure the ship's hull is watertight.

Lt.-Cmdr. Bruno Tremblay said the ship will be towed to Halifax once the repairs are completed, but his email did not say how long that would take.

"Once this work completed, we are highly confident that the ship can safely return to her home port," Tremblay said.

"Once in Halifax, we will be in a position to complete a thorough follow-on assessment and make a decision on any requirement for a more fulsome investigation."

The Public Works Department did not return messages for comment.

HMCS Athabaskan, which was commissioned on Sept. 30, 1972, is one of three Iroquois-class destroyers that provide navy task groups with air defence and command and control capabilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curious if the stuff in yellow text is accurate.
 
So apparently a repair party left FMF yesterday to repair the holes with steel plates, rubber gaskets and a hilti gun to attach it.
 
Curious if the stuff in yellow text is accurate.
In all likelihood, yes. I remember bringing TOR out of NEWDOCK (St Johns, NL) in Dec 00 just in time for Christmas with bare minimum systems but cleared 'safe at sea'. Talking to some of the crew as late as mid December, that was still being looked at as an option.

Pedantic point though: "... navy officers were then expected to recommission the destroyer's engines ..." - Navy 'Officers' would NEVER recommission engines in RCN vessels.
 
Pat in Halifax said:
Curious if the stuff in yellow text is accurate.
In all likelihood, yes. I remember bringing TOR out of NEWDOCK (St Johns, NL) in Dec 00 just in time for Christmas with bare minimum systems but cleared 'safe at sea'. Talking to some of the crew as late as mid December, that was still being looked at as an option.

Pedantic point though: "... navy officers were then expected to recommission the destroyer's engines ..." - Navy 'Officers' would NEVER recommission engines in RCN vessels.

Wow, that is pretty pedantic... It would have been a navy team made of of Mil and Civilians, overseen by a Navy engineering officer and also a civilian or two on the engineering side.  When that gets filtered through public affairs folks, what was in the story was pretty close
 
Navy_Pete said:
Wow, that is pretty pedantic... It would have been a navy team made of of Mil and Civilians, overseen by a Navy engineering officer and also a civilian or two on the engineering side.  When that gets filtered through public affairs folks, what was in the story was pretty close
Having spent the last 30+ years of my life starting and stopping diesel, gas and steam turbine main and auxiliary engines, countless trials and roughly 10000 hours on multiple class Cert 3 tickets and being an NCM, it strikes a bitter chord when statements like this are made-Call me too emotional - fine.

That said, I am sure there will be some interesting conversations around the water fountains Monday morning. I suspect there will be more info on this early in the week too.

Pat
 
Fair enough, although watching a team of officers reactivate it would be pretty entertaining....  "Where does the gas go in?" 
"Is this line not supposed to be attached to something?"
"What does this part do?"
"Has anyone seen the CERA?" ;D

 
Pat in Halifax said:
Having spent the last 30+ years of my life starting and stopping diesel, gas and steam turbine main and auxiliary engines, countless trials and roughly 10000 hours on multiple class Cert 3 tickets and being an NCM, it strikes a bitter chord when statements like this are made-Call me too emotional - fine.


Well, the article never said commissioned officers, did it?
 
Pat in Halifax said:
Having spent the last 30+ years of my life starting and stopping diesel, gas and steam turbine main and auxiliary engines, countless trials and roughly 10000 hours on multiple class Cert 3 tickets and being an NCM, it strikes a bitter chord when statements like this are made-Call me too emotional - fine.

That said, I am sure there will be some interesting conversations around the water fountains Monday morning. I suspect there will be more info on this early in the week too.

Pat

Well they needed someone to drive the truck right? ;)
 
dapaterson said:
Well, the article never said commissioned officers, did it?



When you Commission something, you're putting it into service. 

When you Warrant something, you're guaranteeing it will work.  ;)
 
But isn't there a key that fits in the steering column that requires a degree to turn?
 
Back
Top