Canadian Military Photos

Discussion in 'World Military Pictures' started by Nem116, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,045
    Likes Received:
    32,012
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    Whoa. Amen to that. That one is going to hurt.

    Significant damage to the Hanger, lucky no one was killed.

    Also, significant damage to a few careers I'll bet. Here's how the Algonquin normally looks.


    [​IMG]

    She is an Iroquois class destroyer. Although she was commissioned in 1972, in 1994 she went through the extensive TRUMP (Tribal Class Update and Modernization Project) Modernization that was done to the whole class. This extensive modernization re-purposed the whole class for area air defense. Following TRUMP, the Iroquois-class were referred to as air defense destroyers. Their anti-submarine role was largely transferred to the newer Halifax-class frigates, though the Iroquois still have significant ASW capabilities. Four were built, one was decommissioned and sunk in a SINKEX in 2007, so there are three left.

    Here's the specs for the Iroquois now:

    Displacement: 5,100 tons
    Length: 130 m
    Beam: 15.2 m
    Draft: 4.7 m
    Propulsion:
    - COGOG
    - 2 × Allison 570-KF gas turbines
    - 2 × Pratt & Whitney FT4A-2 gas turbines
    Speed: 29 knots
    Crew: 280
    Sensors:
    - AN/SPQ 501 DA-08 radar
    - LW-08 AN/SPQ 502 radar
    - SQS-510 Hull/VDS sonar
    Armament:
    - 32 x Mk-41 cells for SM-2MR missiles
    - 1 x 76mm DP gun
    - 1 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS
    - 2 x 3 533mm torpedo tubes
    Aircraft: 2 Sea King ASW Helos & Hanger
     
  2. vincent
    Offline

    vincent Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    Well, another billion or two of our tax dollars up in smokes. Maybe the navy can mothball the damn subs now and use the savings for the repairs
     
  3. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,045
    Likes Received:
    32,012
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    With their naval vessels, the Canadians have been relatively austere in their goals and budget.

    Their TRUMP modernization of these vessels was a cost effective way of prolonging their service life and keeping them effective. When the Single Class Surface Combatant Project replaces them through the 2020s, these vessels will have served ably for over 50 years, and that is a great service life to get out of such naval vessels.
     
  4. bd popeye
    Offline

    bd popeye The Last Jedi
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    29,031
    Likes Received:
    22,498
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    Photos of the damage..

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,045
    Likes Received:
    32,012
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    Sliced through that hanger with a real ragged cut.

    I bet that was one hellacious noise as it was happening...particularly for anyone in or near the hanger as it occurred.
     
  6. vincent
    Offline

    vincent Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    You do know the billions those morons wasted on the lemon subs, rights? Can someone tell me WTF Canada needs subs?
     
  7. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,045
    Likes Received:
    32,012
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    Any modern maritime nation needs a navy to protect itself. In today's world, this includes submarines.

    Canada has had an active, albeit small submarine force since World War I. However, inworld War II, Canada's sailors served mainly on Royal Navy submarines.

    Canada received a couple of submarines from the US after the war, but the first serious effort to define a purely Canadian submarine force came with the building of four UK Oberon Class submarines for the Canadian Navy where the first was commissioned in 1965.

    The controversy you refer to involves the replacement of those older Oberon class submarines that Canada operated for thirty years. Originally there were four of these vessels, but one was decommissioned in 1992 and then used for spare parts for the other three. By the year 2000, all of them had been retired. In 1998, Canada agreed to purchase four newer diesel-electric submarines from the UK, the Upholder class, which were the last of the Royal Navy's diesel electric submarine. When the UK decided in a defense review in the mid-1990s to only maintain an all nuclear submarine force, the Upholder class was decommissioned and put up for sale after less than eight years of service. They were essentially new.

    Canada purchased all four after they had set in storage for almost four years. Canada christened them the Victoria Class and the 1st of class, Victoria, was commissioned in Halifax in December 2000, Windsor in June 2003, Corner Brook in March 2003, and Chicoutimi in September 2004. These vessels cost the UK $900 million to build in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Canada purchased them for $750 million each. Then Canada received them and retrofitted them to their purposes and liking, which cost additional money. At that time, the controversy began because the press in Canada presumed that the vessels should not have had to cost more with a purchase price of $750 million each, and this attitude and mind set was broadly telegraphed by the press.

    On October 5, 2004 Chicoutimi declared an emergency north-west of Ireland following a fire. The fire occurred when seawater that had entered the vessel through open hatches in rough seas soaked through some electrical insulation starting the fire. The Chicoutimi lost power and was rescued by Royal Navy frigates Montrose and Marlborough on October 6. Lt(N) Chris Saunders of the Chicoutimi died due to smoke inhalation. As a result of the rough weather it had taken over two days to airlift him to a hospital. The Canadian press, already not happy about the costs of the vessels, complained that the UK had purposely sold Canada vessels that were unsafe and a huge controversy developed which has continued ever since.

    Also in 2004, a maintenance error by the Canadian Navy destroyed the electrical system on HMCS Victoria. After the accident, the Halifax Chronicle Herald reported that the Navy spent “about $200,000 to buy old technology that mirrors what the sub’s British builders used,” equipment that one of the Navy’s own “electrical technologists” said “probably goes back to the ‘60s.” The vessel spent six years undergoing repairs. This just fueled the fire of the controversy and conspiracy theories that began to grow up around it.

    As to the fire that killed the Canadian Lt., a board of inquiry cleared the captain of any fault. However, later the accident was shown to be due to an error in operational procedure and the regulations permitting the submarine to run on the surface with open hatches were revised.

    As far as the vessels themselves are concerned and their design, for the time period (late 1980s to early 1990s), the diesel electric design turned out quite well. The UK initially had improper diesel engines installed which they had to change out, and so even in the UK there was some controversy. Acceptance of the class into service by the UK was delayed for three years, partly due to the overall project being scaled back by the UK Ministry of Defense, and while several problems (like those diesels) were corrected.

    In the end, all four vessels were built and commissioned, and the result of the corrections produced an extremely capable submarine. When operating on battery power, Upholders/Victorias are almost undetectable on passive sonar, and when snorkelling, their acoustic signature is comparable to their SSN contemporaries in normal operation. They are physically small, and thus difficult to detect by magnetic anomaly or other non-acoustic means..

    The boats were designed with advanced noise reduction features that significantly lessened the radiated noise levels below those of the very quiet preceding Oberon class. There was also a reduction in the snorkel time required to recharge the batteries to ensure minimum exposure time of any part of the masts above the water. The design also included an updated version of the fire-control system the UK was using at the time on its nuclear SSNs.

    A large double-armature motor is powered by either a 9000-ampere-hour battery or a pair of Paxman Valenta diesel engines. Slow patrolling requires only 30 to 60 minutes of snorkeling per day to charge the battery; a higher speed eight knot (15 km/h) transit requires snorkeling about 30% of the time. The top speed matched any modern and comparable SSK class - such as the Scorpène-class submarine - and could be sustained for 90 minutes.

    A local area network was built into the Upholders/Victorias, supporting most of the sensors and fire-control systems, including remote viewing through the periscopes using both low-light television and infrared, an unmanned helm, and direct control of the main motor from the conn. The boat can fight with a team of four in the sonar room and a conn team of eight. Fire-suppression in unmanned compartments can be initiated remotely, and watch-keeping logs are automatically recorded. In port, the boats can be electronically linked such that one duty watch stander can monitor several submarines.

    The submarine has a single skin hull constructed very high tensile steel. The outer side of the submarine's hull, casing and fin is fitted with about 22,000 elastomeric acoustic tiles to reduce the submarine's acoustic signature. The main sail houses a five-man lockout chamber. The submarine's escape and rescue system has been extensively upgraded with additional stowage space for escape stores and an underwater telephone to meet the Canadian Maritime Force requirements.

    Again, all in all, this is a very good design.

    Have they been costly? Yes. But any modern, very capable diesel electric design like this is going to be. All in all, despite the problems, Canada got a good deal and has some very capable submarines in its service. Most of the problems they have had have been self inflicted.

    Now, the Canadian military and political leadership has to decide if they submarines are needed in the future.

    Every major maritime nation has decided that submarines are necessary because they remain the best system to protect sea lanes and serve as a deterrent to hostile nations violating the national maritime interests of other nations. Canada has seen the need for such systems for almost 50 years and it is no surprise that to date she has continued with them.

    As with her other naval assets, Canada has been very austere in her use and in the numbers of vessels she operates. Since the mid 1960s, Canada has had two classes of submarines, the Oberons and now the Victorias. I can think of few, if any, major nations that could make the same claim. The US, in the same time period has had the Thresher Class (14 built), the Sturgeon Class (37 built), the Los Angeles Class (62 built), the Sea Wolf Class (3 built), and now the Virginia Class (10 built and many more building). That's five classes in the last 50 years, compared to just the two for Canada, who has used a total of eight boats.
     
  8. vincent
    Offline

    vincent Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    we get most of our produces from the US (through land) and most of the day-to-day stuffs from China (through the sea). Now, who has the ability to threaten our LOC? US and China! If they chose to threaten us, they can just stop shipping stuffs to us instead of using force. Who else in the world can threaten our supply lines? Russkies? They have enough problems just to prevent their ships from sinking
     
  9. SamuraiBlue
    Offline

    SamuraiBlue Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    1,924
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    Well never say never especially when the polar ice cap is said to diminish in the summer season in the next decade with Russia making bold claims around that region.
    If Canada is interested maybe you can buy second hand Oyashio class which will probably start to be taken off line in the next 5~7 years or better yet consider a joint purchase of the advance Soryu class with Australia around the same time.
     
  10. vincent
    Offline

    vincent Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Re: HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Protecteur collides at sea, no one hurt

    When you want to enforce your claim on the polar region, you don't do it with subs. You want to be seen. You only use subs when you are ready to use force, for real.
     
Loading...

Share This Page