Jump to content

      













Photo

CFB Esquimalt / navy news


  • Please log in to reply
435 replies to this topic

#421 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,323 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 05:55 PM

Claiming it was coincidental is hardly an answer for the crews who have stay safe on the high seas. There could be a coincidence that all the upgrades might have been done by the same contractor installing the same equipment on similar frigates based in Esquimalt.

 

They will tell us the truth once they have finished with their investigation of the fire in Protecteur!

 

If these fires really occurred as they claim, they would be looking for similar problems with other ships in the same class and for safety reasons likely taking them out of service while that happened. If they don't do that work as a precaution, then it tells you that they are probably not telling us the truth.



#422 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,243 posts

Posted 07 November 2018 - 05:59 PM

This morning there was a fire drill pretending a hydraulic system malfunctioned aboard HMCS Victoria (one of the subs) and responding fire crews had to douse the torpedo bays.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#423 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 24 November 2018 - 07:53 PM

Of course they did: "Failed bidder files trade challenge against Ottawa's frigate design pick" 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/n...court-1.4916881

 

Honestly is there any other nation that so predictably, indisputably !and repetitiously! gets its wrong time after time after time when it comes to its military policies and its procurement practices above all?

 

This one has all the stench of the Sea King debacle (remember that: half a billion dollars wasted in contract penalty fees - thank you for that Msr. Chretien - and then nearly 30 years to replace some_helicopters??); as well as the ridiculous controversy currently surrounding the F-18 fighter replacement (whatever that turns out to be...). Yep the Hornets are aging and badly outclassed by most other air force front line planes so the Canadian 'solution' is to plug the gap with equally old Australian aircraft of the same vintage while we continue to waffle and dilly dally because a decade into the process we still can't decide or agree on a permanent replacement. Sigggggggh.....

 

At the end of the day the RCN will be lucky to have a few kayak's and perhaps some canoe's armed with machine guns fulfilling our NATO/treaty obligations and patrolling our sovereign waters. With regard to things military we really are a nation of Keystone Kops playing Russian Roulette while engaged in a Chinese Fire Drill.....


  • Lorenzo likes this

#424 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 673 posts

Posted 01 December 2018 - 03:15 PM

The CH 124 Sea King was officially retired after 55 years of serive and had their final flight today. A ceremony was held at 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadren at YYJ today.

Edited by Mattjvd, 01 December 2018 - 03:16 PM.

  • Mike K., Bernard, jonny and 1 other like this

#425 Lorenzo

Lorenzo
  • Member
  • 344 posts
  • LocationWest Shore

Posted 01 December 2018 - 07:35 PM

The CH 124 Sea King was officially retired after 55 years of serive and had their final flight today. A ceremony was held at 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadren at YYJ today.

I was at Clover Point this morning as they did a three chopper flypast. Pretty impressive. Managed to snap a few pictures. Going to miss them.


  • jonny likes this

#426 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 01 January 2019 - 06:23 PM

Was out and about walking off some of that Christmas turkey with Mrs ASE at Ogden Point, and snapped a few pics of the MV Asterix, the RCN stop gap fleet replenishment ship until we build the two *real* replacements for the Provider and Protecteur.

 

She is a nice looking ship and by RCN standards a big one - but in true Chinese Fire Drill-Canadian fashion - inasmuch as she was civilian designed as a container ship originally (later converted by Canada for the navy, hence the designation as MV and not "HMCS"), she has limited to no ability to sustain damage in a shooting situation; the ship also lacks any installed self-defense weapons systems, although there are provisions should the need arise. These issues prevent the ship from being deployed to hazardous combat areas.

 

Note the Christmas tree forward in a couple of these pics - paid for presumably by the Canadian taxpayer. Guess they don't subscribe to the Ben Isitt theory of 'public' religious symbolism. And no sighting of Ben down there today either....

 

 

Attached Images

  • 20190101_123616.jpg
  • 20190101_123551.jpg
  • 20190101_123513.jpg
  • 20190101_123434.jpg
  • 20190101_123350.jpg

  • todd likes this

#427 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,570 posts

Posted 01 January 2019 - 07:22 PM

^Provider had no armaments either, she (sometimes) had helicopters that could be armed with torpedoes but nothing built in.

 

It was also built to civilian standards, no extra protections there either.


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

#428 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 01 January 2019 - 08:10 PM

Yup which was partially my point; almost all other navies' replenishment ships have at the minimum some combination of CIWS or Bofors, Oerlikon or even surface to air weapons in the case of the Berlin-class ships of the German Navy.

 

Not sure why we insist on not following suit like the RN, USN, the Kreigsmarine and other major navies. HMAS Sirius was like Asterix a civilian tanker purchased by HMAS well over a decade ago and at least features various calibre machine guns it can bring to bear.

 

I guess we want to uphold our reputation as the World's Nice Guy nation. More likely I'm guessing its typical Canadian military budget-related bs.

 

However by definition in the event of bad things happening internationally on the high seas - and a 'situation' can change mighty quickly in a world run by the Putin's, the Jong Un's and the Trump's - these ships may well find themselves one day caught right smack in the middle of the s*** - and then what are they supposed to do? Hope the other side plays nice, calls a time out and allows the Canucks to slink home?



#429 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 673 posts

Posted 01 January 2019 - 08:38 PM

The recently retired Protecteur class were not unarmed. They had 2 CIWS, 6 .50 Cal machine guns, 4 chaff launchers, and a towed acoustic decoy for submarine defence.

A pretty good suite of defensive weaponry.

#430 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 01 January 2019 - 09:46 PM

Protecteur was nevertheless also the victim of our infamous military procurement system: she was supposed to get NATO-badged Sea Sparrow anti ship missiles but didn't due to that thoroughly broken and inefficient procurement process. Remember too she only got the CIWS prior to deployment to the Persian Gulf in 1991. She however at least had some Bofors, chaff and the (torpedo decoy) nixie for defence. Poor old Provider had zip beyond the helicopter-borne MOD torpedoes.

 

Thankfully the two new Protecteur-class ships coming out of the NSP will have CIWS installed from the get go, along with other defensive capabilities:



#431 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,323 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 09:03 AM

Protecteur was nevertheless also the victim of our infamous military procurement system: she was supposed to get NATO-badged Sea Sparrow anti ship missiles but didn't due to that thoroughly broken and inefficient procurement process. Remember too she only got the CIWS prior to deployment to the Persian Gulf in 1991. She however at least had some Bofors, chaff and the (torpedo decoy) nixie for defence. Poor old Provider had zip beyond the helicopter-borne MOD torpedoes.

 

Thankfully the two new Protecteur-class ships coming out of the NSP will have CIWS installed from the get go, along with other defensive capabilities:

 

You sure that Protecteur was supposed to get offensive weapons? I thought that there was some deal about the status of supply ships based on their weaponry.



#432 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,243 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 02:31 PM

Asterix is also the only vessel in the Canadian navy to be crewed by civilians (along with an active military component).

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#433 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationGorge

Posted 02 January 2019 - 06:40 PM

You sure that Protecteur was supposed to get offensive weapons? I thought that there was some deal about the status of supply ships based on their weaponry.

Spanky the Sea Sparrow is not considered an offensive weapon. Its primary function in a defensive capacity is to shoot down incoming hostile aircraft or other anti ship missiles.

 

Its too short range for starters - less than 20 kilometers if memory serves - among other things to be considered an offensive threat. And although it continues to be produced and evolve technically, the basic technology underpinning this missile dates from the 60's. All that and the fact the explosive warhead is comparatively small combine to relegate it clearly to the category of a defensive weapon.



#434 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,570 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 07:10 PM

The Provider traveled with picket ships around her that were supposed to be the protection package during exercises.


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

#435 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,323 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 07:51 PM

Spanky the Sea Sparrow is not considered an offensive weapon. Its primary function in a defensive capacity is to shoot down incoming hostile aircraft or other anti ship missiles.

 

Its too short range for starters - less than 20 kilometers if memory serves - among other things to be considered an offensive threat. And although it continues to be produced and evolve technically, the basic technology underpinning this missile dates from the 60's. All that and the fact the explosive warhead is comparatively small combine to relegate it clearly to the category of a defensive weapon.

 

You described them as anti-ship missiles which is why I asked :-)



#436 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,800 posts

Posted 02 January 2019 - 08:22 PM

Lately the most pertinent danger facing today's navy is the ship's own captain.


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.