Twenty crew members who were on board a Canadian navy ship when a fire broke out in its engine room Friday night have been treated and have returned to regular duties.
Twenty crew members who were on board a Canadian navy ship when a fire broke out in its engine room Friday night have been treated and have returned to regular duties.
Oh oh, thousands of boat people just lost their free ride into Vancouver this week.
Quick, build another one.
So that’s half the Pacific Fleet in drydock now?
Guess they’ll have to break that Zodiac with the 80 horse Merc outboard out from mothballs.
Isn’t this one the ships we are replacing in 2017? I tried Googling it but could not find out. I did learn it was launched in 1969.
Even worse is they don’t dare send the other half out of the Pacific fleet out in case that breaks down too. Leaving nuclear free vancouver defenseless. Thank goodness we have the BC Ferry fleet to defend us.
Oh well, when you’re handing out mega-billions to Chrysler, GM, and multi-millionaire businessmen, you can’t expect to have a modern navy.
Nice to know that none of them have PTSD: Pretty Thick Smoke Disorder.
I don’t think Vancouver is a nuclear weapons free zone.I know Burnaby IS, but not too sure about Vancouver.
I can’t see a tough, resolute Mayor like Gregor Robertson not having his city defended by anything BUT the latest weapons.
What an inopportune time for this to happen.
Just after Harper threatened Russia with unspecified “consequences”.
Take the crew off and scuttle it before more embarrassment descends.
If the smoke was caused by some bread slices that got caught in the toaster,
you KNOW it’s gonna cost billions to fix.
For those who prefer full quotes rather than scare quotes:
“We will continue to co-operate closely with our G7 partners and other allies. Should President Putin continue on this course of action, it will lead to ongoing negative consequences for our bilateral relationship.”
Actually, DO, it happened a few days ago.
Yes, turtle. Protecteur and Preserver (east coast) are to be replaced.
What kind of cargo ship, wannabe battle cruiser, is that? :-p
Canada, I think you got ripped off.
Which replacement was shelved indefinitely in the current budget before Parliament. This thing has been thoroughly messed up by DOD. They could have built and had in service perfectly useful off-the-shelf replacements. They looked at one used by the Norwegian navy that apparently would have worked fine. But they had a bunch of unique requirements of their own, which meant that starting the project got later and later.
These two floating wrecks were commmissioned, not launched, in 1969. At more than 40 years of hard service, they’re done. But like the SeaKings, we’ll just have to live with them for years to come.
Launched in 1968. Carries oil and groceries. The US centres it’s fleets around a carrier. We centre ours around the groceries. I am not sure why we don’t put a flat-top on our new ones and have a low-tech carrier.
Still, there is some good in the news report: “The Royal Canadian Navy is very appreciative…”
THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY: say it out loud. It will make you feel good all day.
Jamie @ 2:47, you say it well. That is exactly a large part of the problem why the military is being cannibalized once again.
Let’s see, now have a Boxer Rebellion sized navy, a 1932-35 Chaco War sized air force, and soon an army fit to contain the equivalent of the 1919 Winnipeg Strike.
Sad to see. I started my reserve military career as a high school naval cadet, but a queezy stomach sent me to the trenches.
“Launched in 1968. Carries oil and groceries. The US centres it’s [sic] fleets around a carrier. We centre ours around the groceries.”
Wrong. The US Navy (like all ocean-going navies) also relies on similar tenders for its “oil and groceries”. Without them, even mighty US fleets end up dead in the water.
The problem with this ship is not its role.
The problem is its vintage.
It’s not only the advanced age of these tankers; there are some ports where they’re not allowed in because they are not a “double hull” design. Standard practice for tanker construction for years now.
We should have a small but perpetual building programme in place. One destroyer/frigate built, and the oldest decommissioned, every year, and one tanker/supply ship every 6 years or so. Then we wouldn’t have to build an entire new ship building industry every 25 years.
Thanks to Libby Davis Vancouver is also Nuclear free. It must have worked ’cause there’s been no attack since the signs were put up. They did take them down for the 2010 Olympics.
http://www.straight.com/news/nuclear-free-signage-disappears-olympic-signage-increases-across-lower-mainland
Before I retired I worked on HMCS Protecteur.
As a civilian Boilermaker local 191 in Esquimalt B.C.
Bravo Zulu indeed!
I know these people they make the most of a 44 year old ship, work hard every day and look out for each other.
I could not help but notice there is no down time, if they are not doing their duties they are studieing for their next course.
I am proud of each and every one I have ever met.
That they have such old ships should be a concern to every Canadian that values his/her freedom.
If the balloon went up they are the front line.
Just like the last time, they would not flinch or waver.
They deserve our support, not cheap shots.
JMO
Good thing that the Harper Government supports the troops. I would hate to see what kind of condition the military would be in if they didn’t…
That’s what I like about SDA. you get a bunch of air heads posting, then a real person posts and sinks them all in one shot.
Well done Bubba.
“Good thing that the Harper Government supports the troops. I would hate to see what kind of condition the military would be in if they didn’t…”
You must be too young to remember what the navy, no, make that the “sea element”, was like back during those halcyon Liberal days of unification and rifle green suits.
Any country that cannot defend itself will not survive, this is just a fact and is supported by histoty.
I was in the Navy when it was green. And no, I didn’t feel much love from the Liberals. But that being said, basically every ship built from the 1950’s till today is the result of procurement by a Liberal government. On the other hand, history has shown that while Conservative governments love to say that they support the troops, they have a long and consistent history of making a shambles of the military.
It’s because a low-tech carrier needs a lot of much higher-tech than a flat deck on top of a naval supply vessel.
When the Liberals left power the military was falling close to 50,000. Now it’s around 60,000. Mind you NDHQ went from about 8,000 to 15,000 at the same time. Who says the Conservatives don’t support the military?
“[H]istory has shown that while Conservative governments love to say that they support the troops, they have a long and consistent history of making a shambles of the military.”
Lest you think my last response was simply a knee-jerk, pro-Tory response, let me re-write the above for you:
“History has shown that Canadian governments of all stripes have a long and consistent history of making a shambles of the military.”
“When the Liberals left power the military was falling close to 50,000. Now it’s around 60,000. Mind you NDHQ went from about 8,000 to 15,000 at the same time. Who says the Conservatives don’t support the military?”
Keep in mind too that when we say 60,000 (it’s actually higher, around 68,000) we do not mean the RCN, Canadian Army or RCAF. We mean our entire regular armed forces establishment. The army has some 21,000 personnel. The navy barely more than 8,000. The air force around 15,000.
Think about that for a moment. Canada is a wealthy country of 35 million people, the second largest in the world, with a huge landmass that borders three oceans.
We truly live in Lalaland.