Posted on 07/20/2015 10:54:12 AM PDT by george76
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...
dozens of problems to be dealt with, including cracks in the ship’s hull and
...
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalpost.com ...
Canada has a Navy?.. WHY?.. Coast Guard maybe.. but a virtual Navy?.. Ok so it’s not so virtual..
Why not hirer the drug runners? They got nice boats! ;-)
Just sayin'...
Why not hirer the drug runners? They got nice boats! ;-)
The Drug Runners might BE THE GIVERNMENT...
You know, taking de Asturias might not be a bad idea for the Canucks.
They get an excellent little helo carrier that was built from the USN’s 1970’s Sea Control Ship plans and has a lot of commonality with the USN’s Ticonderoga-class Cruisers (which used the same hull and machinery as the Spruance class destroyers).
43 Years old?
Time to buy a new model......................
Scratch the Bounty.......................
Don’t see what possible benefit armed forces have for Canada.
If US decides to attack, those forces would do them no good, and the US isn’t going to let anybody else attack Canada.
Possibly some morale and self-respect benefits. Otherwise nada.
Nothing lasts forever. ..
Nothing lasts forever. ..
Nothing lasts forever. ..
Except Internet posts.......................
True.
So, you forgot the sarcasm tag.
IF Canadians had the political will, the Canadian military could build a very potent defence force at sea (RCN), in the air (RCAF) and on the ground. Unfortunately, like the US and UK, we suffer from very loud and obnoxious socialists shouting for government sponsored abortion, child care, social services, transgender operations, etc., all while the vast majority of the more conservative folks stand back and say nothing. Since the 1960s, with mostly Lieberals in power, our armed forces have deteriorated as we’ be depended on the ‘giant to the South’ for defence.
Lefties don’t like increasing military spending and in fact, currently wish to review our role in Mid-East wars. As an election is coming this fall, PM Harper can’t raise such an issue without the press (like the US, a bunch of socialists) viciously attacking the Conservatives. As they have governed since February 2006, they have to be VERY careful not to upset the press before the vote.
As an aside, it would seem to me that a large fleet of relatively inexpensive ‘Sea Control Ships’ versus a much smaller fleet of behemoth ‘supercarriers’ would make more sense, especially in light of what is bound to happen in the Persian Gulf after the Dhimmis lose the next election. While obviously WWII and current sea wars are very different, the Pacific War was won using a large fleet of less expensive, smaller carriers in groups. To me, that makes sense. Losing one SCS out of three carriers in a battle group versus losing the one super carrier in the battle group still allows the battle to continue, if the brass deem it so. Just my non-naval opinion.
You’re right. If you think about Canada doesn’t really need a military, just let the Americans do it.
The problems with SCS are that they can’t carry big enough aircraft, and can’t maintain combat ops for long enough to be effective.
They’re basically an evolution of the old CVE, good for anti-sub and supporting amphibious ops.
In WWII the US carried the war to Japan with the then-big Essex Class Carriers. Which by the end of the war had airgroups of slightly over 100 aircraft. The Independence-class Light Carriers, converted from light cruiser hulls, weren’t considered to be all that effective. They were supposed to carry 45 aircraft, but were cramped enough that they usually only carried in the mid 30s.
Yeah, since everything I said is true, I should be sarcastic and call it sarcasm.
No, its because you doubted the need for a country to even have a military, and that was actually sarcastic, but your reasoning wasn't displayed until your second post. Unless, of course, you actually think Canada and the US should actually, in fact, disband their militaries for the reasons you stated. Then, you would not be being sarcastic. Which is actually a definite possibility, since in your third post you basically said you're not being sarcastic. So really, there isn't any way yet to truly know what you mean, if you know what I mean. And I say that without any sarcasm.
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.