What is the purpose behind these visits?
It's probably a combination of training, R&R, diplomacy, NATO commitments, etc...
Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:18 AM
What is the purpose behind these visits?
It's probably a combination of training, R&R, diplomacy, NATO commitments, etc...
Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:19 AM
It's been here at least once before, in 2002. Its home is Everett.
Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:21 AM
Oh ok that makes sense I guess. I'm surprised we don't see the US Navy here more often.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 28 May 2014 - 01:23 PM
What is the purpose behind these visits?
To help the residents of Metchosin re-calibrate their garage door openers.
Posted 28 May 2014 - 07:34 PM
Typically the reasons can range from everything from "flying the flag" (essentially good PR), crew R&R, and occasionally being on the receiving end of certain types of maintenance or supply replenishment; the intent of American nuclear carriers is to forward project their sea power therefore stops in Victoria usually occur at the end of a long deployment to the Far East/Pacific/Sea of Japan.
Posted 12 June 2014 - 11:52 AM
FYI the Nimitz is coming to this area in June: too bad there won't be any public tours this time out although any one out and about on the water at that time should be able to get some nice pictures:
https://www.facebook...9440877756589:0
Posted 12 June 2014 - 12:30 PM
FYI the Nimitz is coming to this area in June: too bad there won't be any public tours this time out although any one out and about on the water at that time should be able to get some nice pictures:
It's coming today or tomorrow.
Posted 12 June 2014 - 01:07 PM
Yep...so heads down in work I'm not looking at a calendar and only peripherally aware of the date, heh. We got aboard her in the fall of 1975 when the ship was brand new, and we happened to be in the UK on a family holiday. She steamed into the Firth of Forth (Scotland) during her post shakedown cruise after initial sea trials. The paint was literally still wet but I can remember how terribly impressive it all was - the sheer mass and bulk of the ship, the noise, the fantastic array of weapons and communication radars and above all the 'choreography' of the deck crew which to this day amazes the hell out of me.
Posted 12 June 2014 - 01:36 PM
Posted 31 July 2014 - 08:38 PM
This report paints a picture of a navy ship that was a disaster waiting to happen.
Knowing that situation, it is even more troubling that there were civilian family members of the crew aboard for the voyage home across the open Pacific Ocean.
What were they thinking?
OTTAWA - National Defence was warned a year before the devastating fire aboard HMCS Protecteur that the electrical system, main engine controls and navigation system aboard both of the navy's supply ships were on their last legs — and prone to catastrophic failure.
"Numerous systems, that are as old as the ships, are no longer supported by an Original Equipment Manufacturer. All systems are showing their 40 plus years of age with increased failure rates."
"For example, recent failures of the 1000 (kilowatt) Turbo Alternators have resulted in total ship blackouts and loss of propulsion, creating a potentially dangerous and unsafe situation for the ship and crew."
More;
Posted 01 August 2014 - 08:09 AM
I served in the Navy for many years. 90%+ of critical failures at sea during peacetime are caused by operator error rather than failure of the systems themselves. Warships have multiple redundant systems physically isolated from one another. If a ship loses power at sea it is far more likely to be the result of a trainee fumbling a switch then it is both generators, located at opposite ends of the ship, failing at the same time.
Equipment is old in our fleet as well as fleets around the world. Manufacturers stop making parts but that is why we carry spares. I note that the article is very careful to state that 'OEM parts are no longer available'. What it really means are that aftermarket parts are available, just not from the original manufacturer.
The context here sounds very much like an Admiral advocating for more money for the fleet. Good for him, that is his job. To try and take this an spin it into some advance warning that the Protecteur would catch fire - when we don't even know yet why it caught fire - is completely disingenuous.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 06:50 AM
Cfax1070 is reporting that it will be announced today that both HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur will be retired.
Last year those two ships collided en route to Hawaii, and earlier this year HMCS Protecteur suffered a substantial engine-room fire that put it out of service.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 11:57 AM
Cfax1070 is reporting that it will be announced today that both HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur will be retired.
Last year those two ships collided en route to Hawaii, and earlier this year HMCS Protecteur suffered a substantial engine-room fire that put it out of service.
They are actually retiring 4 ships, including the last of our old missile destroyers: http://news.gc.ca/we...ge=1&nid=885979
Posted 19 September 2014 - 12:03 PM
I suppose for the Conservatives, this is bad news, thus the Friday afternoon release. Might as well do it all at once.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 12:23 PM
I suppose for the Conservatives, this is bad news, thus the Friday afternoon release. Might as well do it all at once.
Not really news as all 4 of the ships have already been announced for decommissioning. Perhaps they are moving the dates up but no surprise as the ships haven't gone anywhere in a long time.
I am still waiting to hear what happened to the Protecteur and why we recalled our ship from an active deployment.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 12:43 PM
I am still waiting to hear what happened to the Protecteur and why we recalled our ship from an active deployment.
Protecteur had a massive fire that's not worth fixing. The other ship had some crew exhibiting bad behaviour.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 12:44 PM
I suppose for the Conservatives, this is bad news, thus the Friday afternoon release. Might as well do it all at once.
One would think but in fact during his tenure Stephen Harper (going back to Mulroney the same holds true to an extent) and the Tories, to the surprise of many haven't exactly unleashed the dogs of war and opened the spending taps in favor of the military, much as you might expect a Conservative government to do.
Our overall defence spending remains, by comparison to other similar-sized nations and especially compared to other NATO allies, quite low, in fact per capita it remains amongst the lowest in NATO.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 12:48 PM
I know, but 4 dead ships, while we just repaired a couple subs, and who knows where the new shipbuilding is, it's fodder for the opposition.
I guess it's one thing to retire 4 ships early, but to retire 1/4 of your total big-ship fleet all at once does not sound great.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 01:01 PM
I guess it's one thing to retire 4 ships early, but to retire 1/4 of your total big-ship fleet all at once does not sound great.
It's freaking embarrassing if you ask me.
I don't know how much money we have sunk into those subs, but it's in the billions. We insist upon designing and building our own ships for at least double (triple, quadruple?) we could buy them for elsewhere.
How far away are the replacement ships? I don't believe they have even begun cutting steel yet.
Edit the "Queenston Class" auxiliary vessels are scheduled into service in 2019, or five years from now.
Edited by jonny, 19 September 2014 - 01:02 PM.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 01:04 PM
The issue is of his own making. If you position yourself as the best advocates for the military and this happens on your watch, then you are the one wearing this issue. Same goes for cuts to Veterans Affairs. If Harper had not been such a champion of strong armed forces, I don't think people would see this as a big deal.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users