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

Canada’s last destroyer is temporarily sidelined after a series of engine problems and other technical issues on the 43-year-old vessel caused senior navy leaders to worry the ship might not be able to continue operating.

HMCS Athabaskan, the flagship of the country’s Atlantic fleet, is undergoing a series of repairs in Halifax, according to Royal Canadian Navy documents leaked to Postmedia. Earlier this year, the ship broke down in Florida because of engine problems. It later broke down in the Caribbean, again because of engine issues.

HMCS Athabaskan sailors have contacted Postmedia to point out a litany of problems, including limitations on fresh water on board the vessel...

HMCS Athabaskan is the last ship of its class. It and its sister destroyers served the navy as command and control vessels and provided area air defence for other warships.

The Royal Canadian Navy has been faced with a dwindling number of ships as its vessels age. Athabaskan’s sister ships, HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Iroquois, were recently decommissioned. Iroquois was taken out of service after cracks were found in her hull.

The navy also announced last year its decision to decommission its only two supply ships, HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur.

Those ships provided fuel, ammunition, food, spare parts and other supplies to warships at sea.

The RCN has temporarily leased a supply ship from Chile’s navy for operations on the west coast. It hopes to do the same with a Spanish navy ship for the east coast.

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?

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.