Canada’s last destroyer, HMCS Athabaskan, sidelined by engine problems amid fears for its future

Postmedia News ^ | July 20, 2015 | David Pugliese

[nascarnation]

This guy has a spare in case they’re interested:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cargo-container-yields-2m-surprise-1.821211?ref=rss

[A Formerly Proud Canadian]

Seems to me that a super carrier can no longer go into dangerous waters, even with a battle group because of newer missiles and 'swarm' tactics with dozens of small, cheap boats. I read that the Chinese were developing or had developed hypersonic missiles, flying too fast to be intercepted or shot down by CIWS systems. There was also a post recently on FR concerning scads of radio and robotic controlled boats being used to attack capital ships, the idea being to overwhelm defences with sheer numbers.

Look at what the Brits accomplished in the Falklands with the HMS Invincible operating thousands of miles from home, close to enemy territory. After several tries at sinking her, the Argie AF ceased operations in the Falklands. They were outclassed by RAF pilots. It seems to me that if there are multiple smaller aircraft carriers operating in a battle (along with required picket ships in a battle group), there is a greater chance of success, because basically, not all your eggs are in one basket. Take, for example, the America-class amphibious assault ships. Two of those can be had for the price of a super carrier. Instead of 10 supercarriers, for the same price, there could be 20 carriers. If there were a major battle where the US had two supercarriers in battle instead, by building smaller carriers, like the America-class, there could be four carriers carrying the same or more aircraft and offering greater chance of survival, four ships to sink versus two.

It seems that in this day and age, where supercarriers are more easily at risk, they have become more about status symbols than anything else, a form of 'mine's bigger than yours'. Do ships that complex and expensive, really make sense any more?

[hal ogen]

Hey, Canada...try building some new ships.

[Squawk 8888]

Canada Ping!

[Bulwyf]

Canada had the world’s second biggest navy in WWII, but now they’re more interested in flying rainbow flags and paying for sex changes.

I’m glad I’m out of the forces.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Army Air Corps]

Canada has a navy? Since when?

The Royal Canadian Navy was created in 1910. You are aware that the sailors and officers of the RCN bled alongside us during WWII, no?

[matt1234]

From Wiki:

The Navy operates 13 warships, 12 coastal defence vessels and 4 submarines. The surface ships, which carry the designation Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS), consist of one Iroquois class guided-missile destroyer, twelve Halifax class multi-role patrol frigates, and 12 Kingston class coastal defence vessels. In addition to the surface vessels, the RCN owns four Victoria class submarines that were acquired from the Royal Navy in 1998.

[Hieronymus]

Third largest in the world at the end of WWII. When this ship was commissioned, Canada either still had, or had just recently decommissioned, her last carrier.

[MeganC]

I was being sarcastic. I know Canada once had a significant navy but right now the RCN appears to have only 20 ships and one submarine active in their flotilla (20 is not a ‘fleet’ to me.)

[Fitzy_888]

In the future Northern American Union:

Canada = Spain

Mexico = Greece (actually worse)

[Scrambler Bob]

Hemi

Glad you didn’t say tranny.

[Carry_Okie]

How do they drop the anchor on that thing?