Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Jul 22, 2010 0:40:13 GMT -8
A few of my grandfathers photos from when he was an officer on board HMCS Fraser in the late 50's. HMCS Fraser - 1957 HCMS Fraser Awards - 1957 HMCS Skeena refueling at sea - 1958 Fleet Review - 1958 HMCS Fraser - 1958 HMCS Fraser Refueling at sea - 1958 HMCS Skeena - 1958 HMCS Fraser, Skeena and Margaree in Saigon - 1958 HMCS Fraser - 1959 HMCS Fraser - 1959 HMCS Fraser - 1962 HMCS St. Laurent - 1962 Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 22, 2010 8:11:14 GMT -8
Thanks for the pics of the Fraser and Skeena. My Uncle served on the Skeena out of Esquimault in the late 50's early 60's.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 8, 2011 9:06:22 GMT -8
I noticed at Chapters a magazine on the Canadian Forces. I will go back in the next few days to get the correct name. Of interest was an article on WMG and obvious positioning for the upcoming Fleet orders. Other shipyards were also mentioned. The WMG cited a comment that the large BC Ferries were built there accompanied by a pic of one of the C Class in drydock. No mention of BCF latest orders mind you and the ISky.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 24, 2011 17:49:58 GMT -8
HMCS Brandon going north in Seymour Narrows.
|
|
|
Post by swartzbaydreaming on Jul 28, 2011 11:18:57 GMT -8
It will be interesting that the Canadian Navy is looking at replacing the Iroquois class destroyer with a new build class of ships. Let's all hope that they will be built in Canada and maybe a few here in B.C.! Still some years away I would think...
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 28, 2011 16:30:36 GMT -8
They will be built in Canada. And likely will have two Destroyer-replacements at Maritime Forces Pacific.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jul 28, 2011 16:43:51 GMT -8
:)in my youth I followed the building of several St. Laurent DE's that were built on the this coast at Yarrows Esquimalt yard, VMD downtown Victoria, the same yard that built a multitude of BC ferries in the 1960's and over here in North Vancouver at Burrard DD. Those were the years that we had believers in our west coast ability! Now we are in different times and off shore visionaries that throw thank you parties in Flensburg! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 29, 2011 11:20:56 GMT -8
It will be interesting that the Canadian Navy is looking at replacing the Iroquois class destroyer with a new build class of ships. Let's all hope that they will be built in Canada and maybe a few here in B.C.! Still some years away I would think... If you're talking about the ships that are to be built as part of the upcoming huge contacts that the Federal Government will be awarding to 1 Canadian shipyard, then your general comment of hope is actually related to something really specific (specific contract award process, specific ships, specific timeline). - it's much different than "we hope they are built in Canada". See earlier in this thread, and in our shipyards thread for lots of recent (ie last few days) discussion, as this Navy contract has been a big news story in recent weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 15, 2011 14:36:08 GMT -8
Why hello again, Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force....
RAAUZYUW RCCLHAV6006 2271731-UUUU--RCCBMUA. ZNR UUUUU ZOC RIFD T NADEFCOL RIFTST T NCISS LATINA RGFLID T NSS OBERAMMERGAU RXCAFDA T CA NLR HQ SACT RXFEAA T CFSU E DET NAPLES RXDBON T HQ MC NORTHWOOD RXFKBA T CFSU E DET RAMSTEIN RXFKI T CFSU E DET BRUNSSUM RXFEAA T JFCHQ NSE CA NAPLES RAYASAP T CANSTANDREP CANBERRA R 151502Z AUG 11 FM NDHQ VCDS OTTAWA TO CANFORGEN BT UNCLAS CANFORGEN 147/11 VCDS 021/11 SIC CNW BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE SUBJECT: RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY, THE CANADIAN ARMY AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE. 1. THE CDS IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY (RCN), THE CANADIAN ARMY (CA), AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) 2. THE INITIATIVE TO RESTORE THE HISTORIC NAMES OF CANADAS THREE FORMER SERVICES IS AIMED AT RESTORING AN IMPORTANT AND RECOGNIZABLE PART OF CANADA S MILITARY HERITAGE. THESE WERE THE SERVICES THAT FOUGHT AND EMERGED VICTORIOUS FROM THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND KOREA AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENCE OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COLD WAR. THESE WERE ALSO THE SERVICES THAT PAVED THE WAY IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS
PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS 3. THE CHANGE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED BY RENAMING THE THREE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMANDS. MARITIME COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY LAND FORCE COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE CANADIAN ARMY AND AIR COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE. IN THIS WAY WE WILL REGAIN AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COLLECTIVE HERITAGE WITHIN A UNIFIED EFFECTIVE CANADIAN FORCES COMMAND STRUCTURE 4. MORE DETAILED INFORMATION WILL BE PROMULGATED BY YOUR RESPECTIVE CHAINS OF COMMAND AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE 5. FOR GREATER CERTAINTY, ALL CURRENT RESPECTIVE COMMAND ORDERS, RULES, DIRECTIVES, INSTRUCTIONS OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED TO REFLECT THE NAME CHANGE OF THE COMMAND END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT OBJET : RETABLISSEMENT DES ANCIENNES APPELLATIONS DE LA MARINE ROYALE DU CANADA, DE L ARMEE CANADIENNE ET DE L AVIATION ROYALE DU CANADA 1. LE CEMD A LE PLAISIR D ANNONCER QUE LE GOUVERNEMENT RETABLIT LES ANCIENNES APPELLATIONS DE LA MARINE ROYALE DU CANADA (MRC), DE L ARMEE CANADIENNE (AC) ET DE L AVIATION ROYALE DU CANADA (ARC) 2. L INITIATIVE DE RETABLIR LES ANCIENNES APPELLATIONS DES TROIS
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS ANCIENS SERVICES DU CANADA VISE A RETROUVER UNE PART IMPORTANTE ET IDENTIFIABLE DU PASSE MILITAIRE DE NOTRE PAYS. TELS ETAIENT LES NOMS SOUS LESQUELS DES CANADIENS ONT COMBATTU ET ONT CONNU LA VICTOIRE LORS DE LA DEUXIEME GUERRE MONDIALE ET DE LA GUERRE DE COREE, ET AUSSI SOUS LESQUELS ILS ONT CONTRIBUE A LA DEFENSE DE L EUROPE ET DE L AMERIQUE DU NORD DES LES PREMIERS JOURS DE LA GUERRE FROIDE. CES SERVICES ONT AUSSI OUVERT LA VOIE AUX MISSIONS INTERNATIONALES DE MAINTIEN DE LA PAIX 3. CES CHANGEMENTS AURONT POUR EFFET DE MODIFIER L APPELLATION DU COMMANDEMENT DES TROIS ELEMENTS. LE COMMANDEMENT MARITIME SERA DESIGNE LA MARINE ROYALE DU CANADA, LE COMMANDEMENT DE LA FORCE TERRESTRE SERA DESIGNE L ARMEE CANADIENNE ET LE COMMANDEMENT AERIEN SERA DESIGNE L AVIATION ROYALE DU CANADA. DE CETTE MANIERE, NOUS RETROUVERONS UNE PART IMPORTANTE DE NOTRE PASSE COLLECTIF AU SEIN D UNE STRUCTURE DE COMMANDEMENT EFFICACE ET UNIFIEE DES FORCES CANADIENNES 4. DE PLUS AMPLES RENSEIGNEMENTS VOUS SERONT COMMUNIQUES PAR VOTRE PROPRE CHAINE DE COMMANDEMENT, AU FUR ET A MESURE QU ILS SERONT CONNUS 5. POUR PLUS DE CLARTE, PRECISONS QUE TOUS LES ORDRES DE
PAGE 4 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS COMMANDEMENT, REGLES, DIRECTIVES, INSTRUCTIONS OU INSTRUMENTS SEMBLABLES ACTUELLEMENT EN VIGUEUR DEMEURENT PARFAITEMENT EN VIGUEUR AUSSI LONGTEMPS QU ILS N AURONT PAS ETE MODIFIES EN FONCTION DU CHANGEMENT D APPELLATION DE CHAQUE COMMANDEMENT BT #6006 LAR032 DELIVERED 2271728 262884
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Aug 16, 2011 16:54:36 GMT -8
Great! I've always liked the sound of 'Royal Canadian Navy' better than 'Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command'.
When asked how much it would cost taxpayers, all that Defence Minister Peter MacKay could come up with was that it had 'yet to be determined'.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Aug 16, 2011 20:19:32 GMT -8
Why hello again, Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force.... SUBJECT: RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY, THE CANADIAN ARMY AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE. 1. THE CDS IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY (RCN), THE CANADIAN ARMY (CA), AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) 2. THE INITIATIVE TO RESTORE THE HISTORIC NAMES OF CANADAS THREE FORMER SERVICES IS AIMED AT RESTORING AN IMPORTANT AND RECOGNIZABLE PART OF CANADA S MILITARY HERITAGE. THESE WERE THE SERVICES THAT FOUGHT AND EMERGED VICTORIOUS FROM THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND KOREA AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENCE OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COLD WAR. THESE WERE ALSO THE SERVICES THAT PAVED THE WAY IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS 3. THE CHANGE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED BY RENAMING THE THREE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMANDS. MARITIME COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY LAND FORCE COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE CANADIAN ARMY AND AIR COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE. IN THIS WAY WE WILL REGAIN AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COLLECTIVE HERITAGE WITHIN A UNIFIED EFFECTIVE CANADIAN FORCES COMMAND STRUCTURE 4. MORE DETAILED INFORMATION WILL BE PROMULGATED BY YOUR RESPECTIVE CHAINS OF COMMAND AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE 5. FOR GREATER CERTAINTY, ALL CURRENT RESPECTIVE COMMAND ORDERS, RULES, DIRECTIVES, INSTRUCTIONS OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED TO REFLECT THE NAME CHANGE OF THE COMMAND How much will it cost to re-brand the entire military, and where was the demand, or need? This is the sort of thing that plays well with the Conservative Party's base, i.e., the kind of older middle aged males who listen to AM talk radio shows. The same kind of people who are impressed with Harper's plans to expand the prison system, despite the fact that serious crime rates are not rising. The same people who have a very clear conviction that the 1950s was an era we would do well to return to. The contribution our military made in the first and second world wars, and other conflicts, was not based on being refered to as 'royal'. Do we really need to revive our connection with the British royal family? Does this move help recruiting in Quebec, which has zero connection to anything royal? A very strange move.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 16, 2011 21:29:53 GMT -8
I don't quite get the cost thing? I know the media had played it up a bit, but really they're renaming three commands. Typically one command a year gets renamed as general practice. Mine was renamed in April, with no such fan fare. We went from the Canadian Forces Provost Marshall to the Canadian Forces Military Police Group.
I would disagree with the strange move comment within the CF's traditional recruiting base, including Quebec where the ties to the historic Canadian military are, by name, stronger than the crown. This was a great move for moral, and I do not think the CF expected such a back lash on what's essentially an administrative move.
There's no big "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" signs posted all over the place that need to be removed - and that's not how things change, anyways. My building has had the wrong unit name outside for three years. Things will continue to be life cycled as per the status quo.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Aug 16, 2011 21:55:14 GMT -8
I don't quite get the cost thing? I know the media had played it up a bit, but really they're renaming three commands. Typically one command a year gets renamed as general practice. Mine was renamed in April, with no such fan fare. We went from the Canadian Forces Provost Marshall to the Canadian Forces Military Police Group. I would disagree with the strange move comment within the CF's traditional recruiting base, including Quebec where the ties to the historic Canadian military are, by name, stronger than the crown. This was a great move for moral, and I do not think the CF expected such a back lash on what's essentially an administrative move. There's no big "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" signs posted all over the place that need to be removed - and that's not how things change, anyways. My building has had the wrong unit name outside for three years. Things will continue to be life cycled as per the status quo. Perhaps I'm wrong about the cost factor, but re-branding, whether corporate or government, tends to carry significant cost outlay. Quebec enlistment in the First World War was very low, in a war seen as being a British thing. Perhaps times have changed, but I can't help thinking that Quebecers are no more inclined to serve British royal interests than they ever were. If we are attempting to create a Canada free of colonial connotations, inclusive to both major European founding peoples, this step back to our days as a British Dominion does indeed seem like a strange step to be making. We're told that this is a way to honor our history. I disagree, and think a better way to do it would simply be to concentrate on funding the military as needs require, regardless of who our colonial masters were.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Aug 17, 2011 5:58:46 GMT -8
Quebec enlistment in the First World War was very low, in a war seen as being a British thing. Perhaps times have changed, but I can't help thinking that Quebecers are no more inclined to serve British royal interests than they ever were. If we are attempting to create a Canada free of colonial connotations, inclusive to both major European founding peoples, this step back to our days as a British Dominion does indeed seem like a strange step to be making. We're told that this is a way to honor our history. I disagree, and think a better way to do it would simply be to concentrate on funding the military as needs require, regardless of who our colonial masters were. Well, I'm sorry, because I know I will offend some with this statement, but even with the name change, it's still the same army, still the same navy, and still the same air force as it was before the name change. Canadians enlisted in the forces aren't fighting for it's name, they're fighting for their country, their province, their territory, their city, and their people. If Quebecers are telling us they can't deal with a few new words (or old words, however you look at it), then frankly, I find that quite stuck up. Sure, they aren't affiliated with the British Monarchy, but the rest of their country is. Quebec's citizens amount to around 20% of Canada's population. That's quite a minority, 20 vs. 80. Canada has a rich history with connections to the British Monarchy, and I believe it's an honour to both countries to keep that connection alive.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Aug 17, 2011 7:57:13 GMT -8
:)being a child of the past, and not embrasing present changes as much as I should, I kind of like going back to the old RCN, but looking at the present day realities, it does not make sence to disrupt the more politically correct present day designation, it is definitely a different world than the one I grew up in, and it is not just the dogwood that I miss! :)mrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Aug 17, 2011 10:03:12 GMT -8
Most polls in recent years show that a majority of Canadians are either indifferent or opposed to the continuation of the British royals as our heads of state. In Quebec, the numbers are overwhelmingly negative.
Our country is made up of immigrants who, in the majority, have no historical connection to the British monarchy.
Australia is exploring the process of becoming a republic, free of royalty, and it seems inevitable that we will head down that path eventually.
With all this in mind, it makes little sense to revive colonial connections. One can respect history, and the contribution our military has made, without the 'royal'.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 17, 2011 14:24:25 GMT -8
Perhaps I'm wrong about the cost factor, but re-branding, whether corporate or government, tends to carry significant cost outlay. True enough - but they have renamed the "Level 1" command. I cannot think of something civilian to equate it to, but the "Royal Canadian Navy" as an organization now has got to be less than 200 people, 198 of which (hyperbole) are in cubicles in Ottawa. The "actual" Navy continues to be made up of three organizations that were not renamed, those are: Maritime Forces Pacific Maritime Forces Atlantic Naval Reserve Command In the Air Force it is even more pronounced since literally 90% of the organization is in 1 Canadian Air Division - the Royal Canadian Air Forces replaces Air Command which is really small. Interestingly the largest rename will probably be the Canadian Army - if there is going to be any major cost outlay it may be there as the politicians have left the naming structure fairly illogical. This is because the Army, more so than the other two environments is substantially more divided along geographical lines, and anything down from Ottawa in the chain does not use "Army" naming conventions, rather "Land Force Area."
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 21, 2011 19:00:54 GMT -8
PCT Grizzly, seen in Swanson Channel on July 2, 2011
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 21, 2011 16:00:00 GMT -8
Well, I'm sorry, because I know I will offend some with this statement, but even with the name change, it's still the same army, still the same navy, and still the same air force as it was before the name change. Canadians enlisted in the forces aren't fighting for it's name, they're fighting for their country, their province, their territory, their city, and their people. I was feeling too lazy to respond to this post earlier than I did - but here it goes. In reality people typically sign up to armed service because of ideas of nationalistic pride or what have you. In a country like Canada, and some other developed nations, this is typically combined with a slightly more level headed rational decision to gain employment like anyone else does. This isn't true of the whole "West", though. A name actually means a lot. Soldiers fight for their peers, and for the success of their unit. Not for their country, per say. Perhaps for their country at a high end philosophical level, but if you meet a veteran with combat experience they relate to their unit & campaign. Not "fighting for Canada" as it may be. There is actually a fairly substantial library of research around this. Espirit de Corps, in the Army, is built around Regimental families and pride in the named identity of the unit. In the Navy & Air Force this is important, but not quite so much. This was important in Canadian history as in 1968 when Her Majesty's services were unified the Canadian Army, transformed into the Land Forces Command, maintained Regimental identities (for example, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry). Even Hellier, the MND at the time, who could not have cared less about the line-service members of the time realized eliminating the identity, propagated through a Army unit's name was a terrible idea. He had established standardized numbering systems, akin to our neighbours to the South, but was dissuaded. Even to this day it is very, very rare of a member in the Combat arms to be posted outside of their Regiment until they reach a senior leadership position (when necessity demands them moving). Until a member of the combat arms reaches a combination of very senior rank and appointment they maintain the badging/name sakes from their initial line unit (so, for example, a Chief warrant Officer from the PPCLI would still associate with their previous unit when working outside of it). The Navy and Air Force relied a lot less on the naming conventions, but again it was apart of military pride. When the historical names were taken from the RCN and RCAF it was apart of a substantial drop in moral amongst sailors and aircrew alike. Moving to a common army uniform & ranks for all also did not help. Restoring the names to Her Majesty's services was one of the single largest moral boosters to come to the Canadian Forces recently. A close second for me is when a second thread was established for the Coast Guard. Really having the Navy and CCG together would be like having a "Alaska State Ferries & Sail Boats" thread. Random, but they both float!
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 29, 2011 22:23:25 GMT -8
This thread should have a name edit to include the word "Royal," to reflect the proper title of Her Majesty's naval service. Regardless, I include a photograph of Her Majesty's Canadian (Stone) Ship MALAHAT, moored in Victoria, BC. 18 Dec 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 30, 2011 6:42:40 GMT -8
Scott changed the thread titile. Dane is happier now (or less perturbed).
all is well....
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 30, 2011 14:09:40 GMT -8
I am never satisfied lol
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Dec 30, 2011 20:43:32 GMT -8
And nor am I, with that disturbing grammar...
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 30, 2011 22:22:19 GMT -8
please tell me that was a joke or part of me will die. the other part will ask if the three periods was undertoned irony. note the lack of capital letters, please.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Dec 30, 2011 22:52:21 GMT -8
please tell me that was a joke or part of me will die. the other part will ask if the three periods was undertoned irony. note the lack of capital letters, please. its ok to have 3 dots at the end of that sentence its called a ellipsis and its grammatically correct it really hurts to write like this why am i even trying
|
|