Jump to content

      













Photo

Esquimalt Naval Base


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#41 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,983 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 06:44 PM

Well if the Protecteur is in a "shooting war" they will lose really quickly because they have nothing to shoot with.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#42 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 10:29 AM

Well if the Protecteur is in a "shooting war" they will lose really quickly because they have nothing to shoot with.

Actually the Protecteur has one gun if I recall. Something about the Panama Canal.



#43 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 10:31 AM

Sorry dude but I will call you back: first you can't believe I was being literal when I said "shooting war" and take that to mean big gun vs big gun? That hasn't been the case since the late-50's and any military analyst worth their salt knows that, and that "of course" the term shooting war refers to any "hot" war where naval combatants engage directly - these days obviously with missiles. I would have thought that was self explanatory. With regard to the age of USN hulls I can tell you exactly how old they are - and it isn't anywhere near 50 years old although I will grant you there are a few - a very few - ships in their 300-ship fleet that are close to that age. But there are exactly zero of those in a front line capacity a la HMCS Protecteur.

 

Feel free to peruse the following Congressional report from 2010: Congressional Budget Office, “The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans: Detailed Update for Fiscal Year 2008 (March 2008),” p. 19. To save you the trouble the report authors were concerned that by 2019 the average age of their hulls would be 19 years old - which is a far cry from half a century old.

 

As for our coast guard I'm glad you feel secure because the time we got into trouble off the west coast of the island 20 years ago it certainly wasn't a maple leaf painted on the aircraft and ship that eventually came to our assistance - they sure looked like stars and stripes to me. Given the extent of our coastline on THREE oceans I will maintain my assertion that the CCG is woefully inadequate, and far too small to provide anything beyond the most basic of coverage. As for "what's in the queue" spanky - dude - when is it exactly that you think these new ships are going to be on station? Not next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after that. If we're lucky they'll be built and in active service - maybe - in a decade.

 

With the exception of Protecteur and some older training ships, most of our warships are 90's vintage or later. Look up Janes and see how old the US carriers and nuke subs are.



#44 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 10:32 AM

I wonder if photos of the damage will be made public

 

I would settle for a reason. I find it hard to believe that 2 weeks after the fact the Navy claims that they have no idea what happened. 



#45 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 12:21 PM

I would settle for a reason. I find it hard to believe that 2 weeks after the fact the Navy claims that they have no idea what happened. 

 

They had a major fire in the mechanical room that the disabled the ship.

http://lookoutnewspa...pply-ship-fire/

 

My guess is that the cost of towing her home, doing the repairs and the time it takes, will take her close to the date that she is scheduled to be "paid off " in 2017.

 

Plans for replacing Protecteur and her sister ships were first brought up in 2004. Lack of spare parts for the ship's boiler and the fact that she is a monohull tanker have been the main driving points to replacing Protecteur and her sister ship. The ship will continue to operate until 2017, however the Joint Support Ship Project will not be completed until two years later,leaving a gap in the ability for the RCN to refuel and resupply her own ships while deployed.

 

http://en.wikipedia....9)#Construction


Edited by Bingo, 16 March 2014 - 12:34 PM.


#46 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,983 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 06:31 PM

Actually the Protecteur has one gun if I recall. Something about the Panama Canal.

Well they used to have twin Bofors but removed them years ago.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#47 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 07:30 PM

I would settle for a reason. I find it hard to believe that 2 weeks after the fact the Navy claims that they have no idea what happened. 

 

I suspect that this needs to be spun politically.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#48 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 06:58 AM

They had a major fire in the mechanical room that the disabled the ship.

http://lookoutnewspa...pply-ship-fire/

 

My guess is that the cost of towing her home, doing the repairs and the time it takes, will take her close to the date that she is scheduled to be "paid off " in 2017.

 

Or she sinks while being towed back. We know that there was a fire in the mechanical room but ships don't spontaneously catch fire. Was this a mechanical failure, human error or something else? Since the taxpayer may be out a hundred million of so I think we have the right to know.



#49 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,983 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 07:16 PM

There is nothing quite as scary as a fire aboard your ship when there is nothing around you for hundreds of miles but sea.

 

The fire on the Kootenay was caused by an exploding gearbox, which was certainly unexpected and couldn't be predicted and I would expect that the Protecteur had some unexpected problem that caused the fire as well. Nothing sinister in that, they are probably waiting for a full teardown inspection to determine the exact cause.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#50 goke

goke
  • Member
  • 121 posts

Posted 18 March 2014 - 09:56 PM

I overheard a DND guy talking about this ship (he had been to Hawaii dealing with this vessel). He said it will be scrapped when it arrives here. This must have have been a massive blaze to make the ship a write-off.

I thought the automatic fire suppression (Halon etc) on large ships was supposed to prevent these issues?



#51 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 07:15 AM

I overheard a DND guy talking about this ship (he had been to Hawaii dealing with this vessel). He said it will be scrapped when it arrives here. This must have have been a massive blaze to make the ship a write-off.

I thought the automatic fire suppression (Halon etc) on large ships was supposed to prevent these issues?

 

This does not surprise me.  The ship is powered by - wait for it - steam.  

 

Is the Algonquin, that didn't look all that damaged, fixed yet?


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#52 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,902 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 19 March 2014 - 08:04 AM

This does not surprise me.  The ship is powered by - wait for it - steam. 

 

Uhm, you do realize that nuclear reactors (like are found on aircraft carriers and submarines) are simply ways of generating steam to power the ship?


  • Matt R. likes this

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#53 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 08:07 AM

Uhm, you do realize that nuclear reactors (like are found on aircraft carriers and submarines) are simply ways of generating steam to power the ship?

 

Outside of nuclear reactors, feel free to supply a list of other modern warships powered by steam.


  • AllseeingEye likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#54 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,902 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 19 March 2014 - 02:21 PM

^ Wow, you really are stuck aren't you. The use of steam in propulsion is not, in and of itself, an indicator of second-rate or "ancient" technology. You are conflating ideas. Next I suppose you will be shocked and appalled that cars being manufactured today are using the nearly as ancient technology of the internal combustion engine!

 

Of course this class of vessel is outdated. When it was designed and built it was expected that it would have been replaced twice over by now. We were supposed to be retiring the vessels that were supposed to have replaced them already.


Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#55 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 02:27 PM

Of course this class of vessel is outdated. When it was designed and built it was expected that it would have been replaced twice over by now. We were supposed to be retiring the vessels that were supposed to have replaced them already.

 

Source please? I agree that these things probably should have been replaced by now, or at least supplemented and put into a secondary type role, but it's pretty routine for a vessel hull to be in service for 40-50 years, especially in a situation like this where I imagine the Protecteur has been deployed in pretty light duty roles.



#56 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 03:21 PM

^ Wow, you really are stuck aren't you. The use of steam in propulsion is not, in and of itself, an indicator of second-rate or "ancient" technology. You are conflating ideas. 

 

If it's not second-rate or ancient technology, why don't modern ships use it?  


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#57 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,983 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 06:45 PM

If it's not second-rate or ancient technology, why don't modern ships use it?  

They do, it's called a steam turbine and is a very effective means of propulsion. It is not like it is a coal fired boiler or something of that ilk.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#58 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,983 posts

Posted 19 March 2014 - 06:47 PM

I overheard a DND guy talking about this ship (he had been to Hawaii dealing with this vessel). He said it will be scrapped when it arrives here. This must have have been a massive blaze to make the ship a write-off.

I thought the automatic fire suppression (Halon etc) on large ships was supposed to prevent these issues?

You can't use Halon in occupied closed spaces, it displaces all the oxygen and kills the people inside.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#59 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 19 March 2014 - 08:51 PM

Halon isn't that toxic, I had a 200lb bottle of it supporting our vaults for years and only replaced it with fm200 and crea13 about 8 years ago. It is a banned substance but is still in use. They dispose of it by injecting it in the fuel systems of military jets.

Put simply halon 1301 is extremely effective and is not harmful to humans with short term exposure all it really does is reduce oxygen content in confined spaces to put out fires. This is why it was most effective in computer rooms, art vaults etc

#60 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 19 March 2014 - 08:55 PM

Halons are low-toxicity, chemically stable compounds that have been used for fire and explosion protection from early in the last century. Halon has proven to be an extremely effective fire suppressant. Halon is clean (i.e., leaves no residue) and is remarkably safe for human exposure. Halon is a highly effective agent for firefighting in closed passenger carrying areas. Due to its effectiveness and relatively low toxicity, the FAA continues to recommend or require Halon extinguishers for use on commercial aircraft.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users