Canadian Armed Forces Thread

[Gurn]

HMCS Harry DeWolf has  been officially commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy. As of August this year, she will be embarking on a voyage to circumnavigate North America, a task that has not been completed by a RCN ship since HMCS Labrador in 1954. This voyage will last four months, spanning 30,000 nautical miles and will take the new ship through the Northwest Passage, Panama Canal and eventually back to her homeport of Halifax. 

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, gurn said:

HMCS Harry DeWolf has  been officially commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy. As of August this year, she will be embarking on a voyage to circumnavigate North America, a task that has not been completed by a RCN ship since HMCS Labrador in 1954. This voyage will last four months, spanning 30,000 nautical miles and will take the new ship through the Northwest Passage, Panama Canal and eventually back to her homeport of Halifax. 

She’s a beauty! 

[Gurn]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

She’s a beauty! 

1  of 5 or 6 Arctic Off Shore Patrol ships being built

Also 15 frigates being built

2 resupply ships

and numerous ships for the Coast gaurd

[Boudrias]

23 hours ago, gurn said:

HMCS Harry DeWolf has  been officially commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy. As of August this year, she will be embarking on a voyage to circumnavigate North America, a task that has not been completed by a RCN ship since HMCS Labrador in 1954. This voyage will last four months, spanning 30,000 nautical miles and will take the new ship through the Northwest Passage, Panama Canal and eventually back to her homeport of Halifax. 

Sorry but it looks like a glorified Kennedy PT 109 boat. 

[Gurn]

41 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Sorry but it looks like a glorified Kennedy PT 109 boat. 

You are obviously not a navy historian.   PT109

Displacement	56 long tons (57 t) (full load)
Length	80 ft (24 m) overall
Beam	20 ft 8 in (6.30 m)
Draft	3 ft 6 in (1.07 m) maximum (aft)
Installed power	4,500 horsepower (3,400 kW)
Propulsion	3 × 12-cylinder Packard W-14 M2500 gasoline engines 3 × shafts
Speed	41 knots (76 km/h; 47 mph) maximum (trials)
Endurance	12 hours, 6 hours at top speed
Complement	3 officers, 14 enlisted men (design)
Armament	4 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes (four Mark 8 torpedoes) 1 × 20-millimeter (0.79 in) cannon aft 2 × twin .50-inch (12.7 mm) Browning M2 machine guns 1 × 37-millimeter (1.5 in) cannon mounted forward (a field modification)
Armor	Deck house protected against rifle-caliber projectiles and splinters, some crews fitted armor plate to refrigerators

 

 

The ship that PT109 is sitting on is 135 meter in length, The De Wolfe class is 103.6 meters and PT 109 was 24 meters.

[Boudrias]

3 hours ago, gurn said:

You are obviously not a navy historian.   PT109

Displacement	56 long tons (57 t) (full load)
Length	80 ft (24 m) overall
Beam	20 ft 8 in (6.30 m)
Draft	3 ft 6 in (1.07 m) maximum (aft)
Installed power	4,500 horsepower (3,400 kW)
Propulsion	3 × 12-cylinder Packard W-14 M2500 gasoline engines 3 × shafts
Speed	41 knots (76 km/h; 47 mph) maximum (trials)
Endurance	12 hours, 6 hours at top speed
Complement	3 officers, 14 enlisted men (design)
Armament	4 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes (four Mark 8 torpedoes) 1 × 20-millimeter (0.79 in) cannon aft 2 × twin .50-inch (12.7 mm) Browning M2 machine guns 1 × 37-millimeter (1.5 in) cannon mounted forward (a field modification)
Armor	Deck house protected against rifle-caliber projectiles and splinters, some crews fitted armor plate to refrigerators

 

 

The ship that PT109 is sitting on is 135 meter in length, The De Wolfe class is 103.6 meters and PT 109 was 24 meters.

Nope, not a naval historian by any stretch.  Great movie tho. 

[Gurn]

13 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Nope, not a naval historian by any stretch.  Great movie tho. 

PT boats and politicians are linked by more than  JFK, as  2004 Pesidential hopeful John Kerry was in command of swift boats, during the Vietnam War.

[Gurn]

Navy begins thinking and planning for new submarines:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8026392/royal-canadian-navy-replacing-submarine-fleet/

The Royal Canadian Navy is launching its long-anticipated push to replace Canada‘s beleaguered submarine fleet, setting the stage for what will almost certainly be an extremely controversial debate around the need for such vessels.

Defence officials revealed to The Canadian Press this month that a dedicated team is being created to start figuring out what Canada needs in new submarines as the sunset on the military‘s existing fleet draws steadily closer.

The move responds to a growing sense of urgency within defence and industry circles about the need to start work on such a project given the age of Canada’s existing submarines and the amount of time needed to design and build such vessels.

READ MORE: HMCS Harry DeWolf welcomed into Royal Canadian Navy fleet

“The CAF is establishing a Canadian patrol submarine project to inform timely governmental decision-making about a potential replacement class of submarines, and avoid any gap in submarine capability,” navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Jordan Holder said.

“In order to enable timely decision-making at some future point regarding a replacement class of submarines and the avoidance of a gap in submarine capability, the CAF required a replacement project to be initiated this year.”

Yet the decision to move ahead also kick-starts what is expected to be a tough conversation for the navy around the need for new submarines given the high cost of building and operating such vessels, and the many problems that have afflicted its current fleet.

Questions about the costs and benefits of submarines have circulated since Canada bought four second-hand vessels from Britain in 1998. The government at that time argued it was getting a bargain by paying only $750 million for the four Victoria-class vessels.

Yet the vessels have since spent more time in dock for repairs and maintenance than at sea, with Ottawa sinking billions of dollars into the fleet over the past 20-plus years to address a series of problems and incidents including fires and faulty welding.

The most recent incident saw HMCS Corner Brook suffer what may have been permanent damage last year after an errant test damaged the submarine’s main ballast tank. Corner Brook previously ran aground in 2011, while a fire broke out on board in 2019.

The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.

A new fleet of submarines may address many of those problems, but Australia’s recent experience suggests building a new fleet won’t be smooth sailing – or cheap.

The Australian government, which has been working for more than a decade to buy 12 French-designed submarines, revealed last year that the diesel-electric vessels will cost more than $80 billion – or more than $6 billion each.

The new cost was nearly double Canberra’s original estimate, and more than the $60 billion Canada plans to pay for a whole new fleet of 15 state-of-the-art frigates to replace its fleet of Halifax-class warships over the next two decades.

Australian officials are now struggling with what to do with the project in the face of severe public and expert criticism.

The Liberal government’s defence policy committed in 2017 to extending the lives of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines, with sources pegging the cost at more than $2 billion to keep them operating until the mid-2030s.

Yet the defence policy did not set any money aside for replacements.

The navy continues to argue that submarines are critical for defending Canada, particularly as rivals such as Russia and China become more aggressive and this country’s Arctic waters become more accessible due to climate change.

“Canada’s submarine force provides a key strategic asset with formidable surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities, as well as the ability to control or deny access to a substantial ocean or littoral area,” Holder said.

“Submarines are a key element of a balanced fleet that enables the Royal Canadian Navy to project power responsively and effectively far from Canada’s shores, with the inherent flexibility and staying power required to succeed across a broad mission set.”

Holder was nonetheless quick to add that the decision to start work on a possible replacement “does not commit the government to any specific course of action, but instead preserves the time to make an informed decision when required.”

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says there is a strong argument to be made on the need for Canada to have submarines given Russia and China have both ramped up their respective underwater capabilities in recent years.

But he suggests there is nervousness in the navy as new subs will cost a great deal at a time when the government will be looking to set aside billions to upgrade North America’s defensive network and other procurement projects are running over budget.

“I’d be nervous,” he said. “We’re talking about making a pretty significant financial investment. And across defence, there’s a whole bunch of budget pressures that have emerged on all kinds of projects.”

[Gurn]

^ By the time any sub actually starts  being built, the new frigates will have been in service for about 10 years.

Thus I find the "cost" worries to be a little early.

[King Heffy]

26 minutes ago, gurn said:

Navy begins thinking and planning for new submarines:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8026392/royal-canadian-navy-replacing-submarine-fleet/

The Royal Canadian Navy is launching its long-anticipated push to replace Canada‘s beleaguered submarine fleet, setting the stage for what will almost certainly be an extremely controversial debate around the need for such vessels.

Defence officials revealed to The Canadian Press this month that a dedicated team is being created to start figuring out what Canada needs in new submarines as the sunset on the military‘s existing fleet draws steadily closer.

The move responds to a growing sense of urgency within defence and industry circles about the need to start work on such a project given the age of Canada’s existing submarines and the amount of time needed to design and build such vessels.

READ MORE: HMCS Harry DeWolf welcomed into Royal Canadian Navy fleet

“The CAF is establishing a Canadian patrol submarine project to inform timely governmental decision-making about a potential replacement class of submarines, and avoid any gap in submarine capability,” navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Jordan Holder said.

“In order to enable timely decision-making at some future point regarding a replacement class of submarines and the avoidance of a gap in submarine capability, the CAF required a replacement project to be initiated this year.”

Yet the decision to move ahead also kick-starts what is expected to be a tough conversation for the navy around the need for new submarines given the high cost of building and operating such vessels, and the many problems that have afflicted its current fleet.

Questions about the costs and benefits of submarines have circulated since Canada bought four second-hand vessels from Britain in 1998. The government at that time argued it was getting a bargain by paying only $750 million for the four Victoria-class vessels.

Yet the vessels have since spent more time in dock for repairs and maintenance than at sea, with Ottawa sinking billions of dollars into the fleet over the past 20-plus years to address a series of problems and incidents including fires and faulty welding.

The most recent incident saw HMCS Corner Brook suffer what may have been permanent damage last year after an errant test damaged the submarine’s main ballast tank. Corner Brook previously ran aground in 2011, while a fire broke out on board in 2019.

The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.

A new fleet of submarines may address many of those problems, but Australia’s recent experience suggests building a new fleet won’t be smooth sailing – or cheap.

The Australian government, which has been working for more than a decade to buy 12 French-designed submarines, revealed last year that the diesel-electric vessels will cost more than $80 billion – or more than $6 billion each.

The new cost was nearly double Canberra’s original estimate, and more than the $60 billion Canada plans to pay for a whole new fleet of 15 state-of-the-art frigates to replace its fleet of Halifax-class warships over the next two decades.

Australian officials are now struggling with what to do with the project in the face of severe public and expert criticism.

The Liberal government’s defence policy committed in 2017 to extending the lives of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines, with sources pegging the cost at more than $2 billion to keep them operating until the mid-2030s.

Yet the defence policy did not set any money aside for replacements.

The navy continues to argue that submarines are critical for defending Canada, particularly as rivals such as Russia and China become more aggressive and this country’s Arctic waters become more accessible due to climate change.

“Canada’s submarine force provides a key strategic asset with formidable surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities, as well as the ability to control or deny access to a substantial ocean or littoral area,” Holder said.

“Submarines are a key element of a balanced fleet that enables the Royal Canadian Navy to project power responsively and effectively far from Canada’s shores, with the inherent flexibility and staying power required to succeed across a broad mission set.”

Holder was nonetheless quick to add that the decision to start work on a possible replacement “does not commit the government to any specific course of action, but instead preserves the time to make an informed decision when required.”

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says there is a strong argument to be made on the need for Canada to have submarines given Russia and China have both ramped up their respective underwater capabilities in recent years.

But he suggests there is nervousness in the navy as new subs will cost a great deal at a time when the government will be looking to set aside billions to upgrade North America’s defensive network and other procurement projects are running over budget.

“I’d be nervous,” he said. “We’re talking about making a pretty significant financial investment. And across defence, there’s a whole bunch of budget pressures that have emerged on all kinds of projects.”

Practically, we already don't have subs.  If we can get more reliable ones for a fair price, let's do it.  Otherwise, I'd prefer to invest elsewhere.

[Ghostsof1915]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

 

$330 million a piece.

Diesel and Hydrogen Fuel cell powered.

Fires torpedoes and sub harpoon missiles. 

3 weeks submerged without snorkelling. 

84 day endurance.

Get 10, use 8 on regular patrols, and 2 for training/reserve purposes. 

And only needs a crew of 27.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Ghostsof1915

[Gurn]

11 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Practically, we already don't have subs.  If we can get more reliable ones for a fair price, let's do it.  Otherwise, I'd prefer to invest elsewhere.

Looking for a tank or a sub, first place to shop is Germany.

[Violator]

Having Subs is like having a need for a stealth bomber our military really isn't set up like most other countries.

[PhillipBlunt]

5 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

 

$330 million a piece.

Diesel and Hydrogen Fuel cell powered.

Fires torpedoes and sub harpoon missiles. 

3 weeks submerged without snorkelling. 

84 day endurance.

Get 10, use 8 on regular patrols, and 2 for training/reserve purposes. 

And only needs a crew of 27.

 

So do we have a deal?

[Ghostsof1915]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

So do we have a deal?

Unfortunately I’m not with National Defence in charge of purchasing.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Unfortunately I’m not with National Defence in charge of purchasing.

Sure.....

[Gurn]

Harry Dewolf, arrives today in Vancouver after coming from the east coat, via The North West Passage-first Canadian Navy ship since 1954

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/royal-canadian-navy-ship-completes-northwest-passage-journey-for-first-time-since-1954/ar-AAP0BtB?ocid=msedgntp

For the first time since 1954, a Royal Canadian Navy ship has completed the journey through the Northwest Passage.

"It was the longest time a Canadian navy ship has operated in the Arctic in consecutive days in more than 50 years," said Cmdr. Corey Gleason, commanding officer of HMCS Harry DeWolf.

The ship began its voyage in Iqaluit on Aug. 7 and is sailing to its final destination in Vancouver, where it's expected to arrive on Friday.

 

Although navy ships navigate the Arctic, Gleason said they normally spend only a short time there each year — typically between the last two weeks of August and the first two weeks of September — because they aren't designed for ice.

However, HMCS Harry DeWolf is a new Canadian navy ship designed specifically for Arctic waters.

"It's an Arctic and offshore patrol vessel.... It's every bit capable of operating in very thick ice ... it's designed to operate anywhere in the world," Gleason said.

Icebreakers normally operate only in icy waters, he said, but this vessel has been designed for a range of conditions —from the dead of winter to anywhere south of the equator.

Gleason said there are about 87 sailors aboard HMCS Harry DeWolf, which is the size of a Canadian football field. He said there are plans to have six more ships like it.

Following path of the Franklin Expedition

When the ship began to make its way through the Northwest Passage, Gleason could have taken one of seven routes.

"In this inaugural trip, I decided to take the route of the Franklin Expedition, really out of the interest of having my sailors experience the hardships of sailors of the past, to get the opportunity to walk in their footsteps, as it were, and to see where the Franklin Expedition had wintered over," Gleason said.

He said he also wanted to "talk about Franklin's decision points, where he may have been successful if he had made some different decisions."

%7B© CBC The approximate locations of where the Franklin Expedition crewmen abandoned ship and where the wrecks were eventually found.

The Franklin Expedition was the ill-fated mission led by explorer John Franklin, who took two ships from England to search for the Northwest Passage in 1845.

The ships, along with Franklin and his 128 crew members, disappeared. The vessels HMS Erebus and HMS Terror were only discovered in 2014 and 2016, respectively, thanks to the help of local Inuit.

'Meaningful commitment to the people of the North'

"The real challenge I had was to spend some time teaching my sailors how to operate up in the Arctic in the very high North. And that included small boat activities," Gleason said.

He said they stopped off at several hamlets, including Pond Inlet, Grise Fiord and Arctic Bay, and visited with leadership and community members, inviting them on board for a tour.

Gleason said the journey aboard HMCS Harry DeWolf wasn't just about completing training exercises and sailing through the Northwest Passage, but about strengthening relationships with communities in the Arctic.

"It was very special for everybody on-board," he said. "These relationships, it's not the last time that we're going to visit and see one another. This is meant to be a meaningful commitment to the people of the North."

Gleason said there is hope that through interactions with some of the youth in the communities, the trip could spark their interest in possibly wanting to join the Canadian navy one day.

He said he has an ambitious plan for the Canadian Rangers — part of the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves who work in remote coastal areas of the the North — to expand from operating on land to water.

"They are maritime people. They operate both on land and the sea, and it just makes sense to me that the navy would look to work with the people of the North to learn from them, to work with them and to operate alongside them if they let us," Gleason said.

"And perhaps one day, have a young person from one of the communities up North to even captain one of these ships."

 

[Gurn]

HMRC's Harry DeWolf arriving in San Diego- heading for the Panama canal, then  up the east coast, back to Halifax.

[Gurn]

Nov 11th.

 

A specific day and time, to remember those that fought and won, as well as those that fought and lost.

Some come back with all their parts, some come back with parts missing, both physically and mentally.

 

As a person born with a caved in chest and wonky eyes, I am fully aware the Nazi mentality would have meant my death prior to me leaving the delivery room.

I am now, and ever have been grateful to those that risked, and those  who lost their lives, so I could have mine.

 

 

I thank those that did serve, those that are serving, and those  that will serve, in the decades to come

[Gurn]

Fire aboard HMCS Fredricton, while doing NATO exercises off Norway.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/fire-breaks-out-on-canadian-warship-off-the-coast-of-norway-no-injuries-reported/ar-AAQRkar?ocid=msedgntp

OTTAWA — The Canadian military says a fire broke out on one of its warships this early morning as the vessel was serving as the flagship of a NATO fleet.

 

No injuries are being reported on board HMCS Fredericton, which is now on its way to a Norwegian port for repairs after the blaze was extinguished.

 

The military has not identified the cause of the fire, the extent of the damage or whether the ship is now sailing under its own power.

However, a Norwegian newspaper is reporting the Halifax-class frigate was participating in a NATO training exercise in extreme weather conditions when the fire broke out and the ship lost power.

Fredericton left its home port of Halifax in July for a six-month deployment during which it has been serving as the flagship of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1, which Canada is currently commanding.

The Royal Canadian Navy launched an investigation in November 2018 after a spate of fires and power failures on board several frigates over a period of several weeks.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 18, 2021.