⚓ Thanks for watching, some mistakes to correct lol! I said Aye Ready Aye instead of Ready Aye Ready! My bad navy folks! Told you I’m not navy smart lol! I apologize. Also, got mixed up with CSC and River Class. It's the same thing. The type 26 is the RN version but now we call ours the River Class Destroyer. The Kingston class MCDV'S are unarmed patrol vessels with some equipped for mine hunting. The program to replace the Kingston class has just in early phases and is termed the Canadian Patrol Corvette. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Royal Canadian Navy. What do you think about the new ships like the Type 26 frigates or the Harry DeWolf class patrol vessels? Have you ever visited Halifax or seen an RCN ship up close? Let me know in the comments below! 💬 Also, if you have any questions about the Navy, my experiences in the Canadian Army, or ideas for future videos, drop them here-I’ll do my best to respond to as many as I can! Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more military content!
Could the American LCS Fleet be repurposed for Canadian Northern Littoral operations? The LCS Combat and Minesweeper vessels would fit us perfectly (if equipt with a steel butt plate), and I believe they are more automated than the type 26. But idk if Littoral ships will work well in 1-3klm deep water. Northwest Passage belongs to Canada, we must administer it unquestionably. I love the work our "department of the boat people" does and will always support them. G'dang SAR techs (sometimes) and bording party are navy, badass!
@@Jreg1992 No, the needs of Litoral operations are very different than Arctic operations. They would likely require a major refit that would be expensive enough to make anyone question why it was done. Refitting a ship can sometimes be more expensive than making a new one since changing designs is not easy. One example is the plate you mentioned as a potential addon. That changes the weight distribution of the ship and can cause a chain reaction of changes that turn it into a completely different ship. There is also the question of what kind of capabilities we need for ship-based arctic defence. A fighting ship design for the Arctic might not necessarily be better. Adding ice-breaking capabilities adds a lot of weight to the ship and the design changes normally make the ship slow (there may be a conflict between the idea of an ice-breaking hull design and a hull design intended for movement at 25+ knots). Therefore a mix of different assets like strategically positioned land-based aircraft and patrol boats to support a normal fighting ship might be a better choice than a special big slow ship made in small numbers that cannot keep up with a NATO fleet.
@@Jreg1992 No. The LCS hulls are not suited to anything involving Ice, even great lakes or st lawrence ice. Whatever replaces the Kingston class should at least have a minimally ice strengthened hull, PC 6 or 7 for example so that they don't need an ice breaker support to operate in the great lakes, or along the st lawrence seaway in the winter. The AOPS would be cheaper to up-equip with more sensors, defensive equiptment and at least a weapon upgrade so to be logistically compatible with the future River class (such as the same Leonardo 30mm autocannon system and a SeaRAM). They're faster than the Kingston class, much longer ranged, and have better crew accomodations and mission bay compatibility with the existing ISO 20ft containerized systems currently used on the Kingstons. So they can do the remote mine clearance, diver support, and sonar survey duties if needed.
Canadian Procurement: "Good news everybody, we just ordered 15 new ships! Our 14 new ships will serve our needs until the year 2065 and when those 12 ships are finally completed we'll be able to man all 11 hulls with qualified sailors. These 8 amazing Canadian built ships will be the envy of the world and after the 5th and final hull is completed in 2066 we'll all have reason to rejoice."
What’s crazy is that China is building like 30-50 ships per year! Their shipbuilding capacity is 200% times greater than the US…. Canada needs to get its ass in gear! Our warships also always end up costing a lot more with less armaments!
I have been beat up for saying this, but I still stand behind my opinion. Buy the F-35's but also buy a second platform... perhaps the the F-15EX. The F-35 could be used in a strike role where it's stealth abilities gives it an edge. And use the F-15EX for CAP and Northern patrol The other idea was to buy the Gripen (to get the technology transfer and build them ourselves) and partner for a Gen 6 fighter We could have purchased more Gripens, retire the 18's and build up the Air Gorcebwith Gen 6's
We need to be investing 4-5% like Poland is doing and fix procurement to make-up for the decades of neglect. 2% assumes a country was actually maintaining its military. We haven’t.
Hate the situation, hate the equipment, hate all you want, but don't hate the navy, don't hate the men and women who protect our waters, be proud of them. GO CANADA, GO NAVY 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦⚓⚓⚓
I used to work on the CSC project and being at the Irving shipyard seeing the conditions of the Halifax class is really a bit worrying. Our sailors deserve better equipments and ships.
THey do indeed, but the Type 26 should not have even made it into the competition. By the rules it had to be and "off the self" product to keep costs down. Instead they went with a concept drawing and then instead of buying it as it was designed, made an assload of changes that adding 10's of billions to the cost of the contract, and we wont even have enough sailors to put them all in the water if things continue with the Canadian Military as is.
Davie will be doing the refits/maintenance on half the atlantic fleet assigned Halifax class frigates until they're retired specifically because of the problems with Irving's issues doing the work.
@@claymclaren5788 Look at what the Constellation class frigate program is costing the US Navy. They also wanted an "off the shelf" design but because they, like us, wanted DIFFERENT weapons and sensors and combat systems, also have added billions to the cost and years to the development / construction schedule. The dutch proposal hadn't been built in 16 years and was never exported to anyone else. The Spanish proposal did have relatively recent export success in Australia (becomming the Hobart class destroyers) but there had been numerous construction defects in building the three of them and Canada didn't want to fall victim to that same problem. By the time in late 2017 that the competition was down to three options, the british government already had the first Type 26 under construction and by the time they announced that as the winner, Australia had already chosen it also. And that's worked to our benefit because some of the design changes to the hull shape/size implemented by Austrailia to increase its number of Mk41 VLS cells have been relatively cheaply copied by us also. Basically we're keeping the original beam but lengthening the hull about 5 feet. This will improve the length to beam ratio and should marginally increase its hydrodynamic efficiency (less drag so faster and a bit longer range).
@@claymclaren5788 The requirements of the contest were changed due to none of the previously submitted designs being satisfactory, so the Type 26 design was allowed to compete.
None of the most Modern Western Frigate designs in western navies were deemed satisfactory? So they decided they should include a clean sheet design that had not been even prototyped design by BAE and Supported by Locheed Martin, after the Canadian Government had JUST reneged on their purchase of the F-35 and the portions those contractors were set to make from the 26 Billion dollar CSC contract just neatly cover what those companies lost out on from the loss of the 9 Billion dollar F-35 contract. Huh, crazy coincidence. Also crazy that the Liberals just signed a cheque for 7 Billion dollars for 16 of the same fighters the Conservatives were set to purchase 65 of for 9 Billion. Government efficiency at work.
Still can't get over the harry dewolf class ships only having the 1 gun in the front, with 2 manual .50cals in the rear. With all of the drone threats nowadays feels pretty exposed. But again I guess if it will stay in our territorial waters it won't be mutch of an issue...
They are patrol ships not surface combatants. That said they could have and probably should put a bigger gun up front. What is interesting about these ships is the capability of taking on modular weapon systems. These are typically contained and launched from shipping containers. It's my understanding that they tested a towed sonar array from a shipping container last summer. The class also makes an excellent platform for launching drones. I think these are a very capable and versatile class of ships and deserve a lot more respect.
@@nickgooderham2389lol, they are ultra expensive ice breakers with 3 small cannons. Welcome to the absolute corruption of the RCN and Irvin corporation.
I like the Type 26 frigate. She looks clean. I like her lines, but I'm cautiously optimistic about the automation. Automation is great as long as the sailors can service the equipment.
lol those will be ready for Canada when they are obsolete, like most of our equipment. The other problem with smaller crew count is damage control. Usually the spare crew (usually naval ships carry 200-300% crew so they can work in 12-8hr shifts) ships carry become damage control parties in combat. Less crew = significantly less damage control parties.
@@BrianZinchuk They have the typically anemic armament of frigates, not destroyers. They are glorified coast guard patrol ships meant to keep merchantmen honest. They are little more than a target for a peer adversary. I have no issue with referring to them as frigates.
@@panpiper A 127 mm main gun is not anemic. And the missile load out is to include Tomahawks. So, they can do anti-air, anti-ship and land attack. On top of that, they still maintain anti-submarine capabilities
I did 8 years professional Infantry, and 19 in the Vermont (Vert Mont) National Guard. We were very close with Princess Patricias and. village had about haf French speakers (Quebecois) and not only are Canucks (friendly term) outstanding soldiers, but just grea people. I am old and beat up, but I would back up a Canuck any day. Respect Canada. Just a bonehead Vermonter here and Salute
Thanks for the video Matsimus. I am a sailor for the CAF and definitely feel like the Navy is disrespected by the other elements. The navy is essential and deserves massive respect. I personally am encouraged and exited by the new fleet additions in the next 20 years or so. Cheers
A Canadian maritime presence in the Arctic is important now and will become increasingly important in the future. There will be intense competition for resources in the North as global warming results in more open water and ease of passage. I hope our government provides our men and women with the resources they need and deserve.
As a navy vet it's nice to see the pride is still there, I sailed steamers but can remember the excitement of them starting construction of the Halifax class just as I was getting out and I'm sure you are feeling the same way about the River class. 😊
While Canada on building a new class of destroyers, they are woefully under armed. 24 Mk 41 VLS tubes is a small number for a modern frigate, much less a destroyer. The British type 26 frigate upon which it is based. Also has 4 8 VLS tubes for the Sea cepter missile I happen to think this makes it a little underarmed but at least they are trying to have a competitive frigate. The Australian version will have 32 Mark 41 VLS cells and they are considering increasing this to 96.
Outstanding footage of the navy proceeding and great coverage on whats going on as we move forward. I loved the interior footage as miss my naval days, the Canadian Navy is a fantastic group of people and this story did a good job showing that.
Nice to see this celebration of our Royal Canadian Navy and the new classes coming into service. Our Navy long time seems to me like it's been underfunded considering the importance of it's mission to our Country so new investment is very welcome. I am really proud of all of you serving in our Navy, thank you!
My son was in Navy Cadets on the Atlantic coast, we met some of the most organized people I have ever seen. Reliable day in and day out despite bureaucratic delays and political lacunae from Ottawa. (my impression as a civilian father, I am not in the CF) Thank you Matt as usual.
They need to retain the Halifax class (Reserve status) in order to have additional lethality and to improve upon the RCN operations tempo. Having a few LPD’s or MPSS built by Damien will add value to the RCN’s Expeditionary capability. The MPSS is an ideal design for those maritime services that have small to medium budgets but want quality and affordability. The RCDF deserves better than what they are getting currently.
We should probably be aiming for 20 surface combatants instead of 15 but the don't all need to be top of the line like the type 26. We should looking at the mix that the Brits and Aussies are planning for inspiration.
@@DJC-it2sw 15 CSC's for NATO commitments and long distance patrols..we can agument that with actual frigates for territorial/ littoral work. While it's good to see the AOPS operating, it's sedioualy underarmed compared to what Russia has opersting in the Arctic. We need an armed vessel capable of opereting year round in the Arctic.
@@gryph01 I don't have a problem with AOPS armament or icebreaking capability. Our navy has responsibility for sovereignty patrols and these ships are well enough armed for that purpose. If you look around the world, OPVs are not armed for peer level combat. Also, no one is running destroyers through the NWP in the coming decades so getting up there late spring to late fall to show a presence is 90% of our immediate requirement. The CCG cand handle the winters. My problems with AOPS are cost (8x what they should cost), numbers (probably only need 3-4) and stated role (these are medium icebreakers with top speed of 17knots so why are we pretending they are appropriate for global patrols?) Everyone worries about China and Russia in the NWP but I see that as paranoia. They have their own challenging claims for territorial waters to defend so violating our claims is counter-productive. The US is our main adversary here and no military capabilities will solve that issue.
@DJC-it2sw I agree, especially with the cost. It was a poor choice relying on one or two yards to build both the AOPS and the CSC. More yards should have been engaged or developed to reduce lead times and increase a skilled workforce I wouldn't call it paranoia about the increased presence of China and Russia in the Arctic. And I don't think Russia is crazy enough to play around in the NWP. They have plenty of open water alomg their shore. It's the North Shore of our islands up their I'm concerned about. If we want to protect or EEZ on the North Shore, we need more of a presence and that presence needs to be better armed. I recognize what the AOPS is... it's a patrol vessel and not expected to engage warships. But we need a stronger presence up North. Onenof the ressons we have a "dispute" with the U.S. claim that the NWP is international waters is the fact we don't have a strong enough presence up North. Since the late 80's, I have advocated for a larger Navy which should include nuclear powered submarinces. And if we want more of an armed presence up North, we will need more than 15 CSC's. We have a lot water to cover.
@gryph01 We don't have more yards to engage. There are only 3 yards in the country that have build ships over about 2000 tons in the last 30 years, and all are building NSS ships.
Thank you for this video! As a former commissioned infantry officer (commissioned in 1981) in the CAF, I've enjoyed this content and have been educated as to the future plans for our Navy. Good work. I look forward to your next videos.
These new ships will have a serious upgrade in terms of firepower, from a 57mm borors and 20 mm CIWS to a 5in (127mm) main gun and two 30mm autocannoms amd also going from what i understand as two types of missiles up to 5 types, and still retaining the torpedos and helicopter. These will be proper destroyers for the RCN. "In God we trust, all others we trsck"
Totally agree with you about the high quality of the RCN videos and would never have seen them if it wasn't for you Matt. Great video and it looks as if you really enjoyed yourself there.
Canada needs at least 3 on both coasts, that is if Canada desires to deploy any abroad annually for exercises with NATO and RIMPAC... Frankly I would prefer at least another one on both coasts for a minimum of 8 providing cover for mid-life refits or loss of ships for any number of reasons... The train, deploy, and maintenance cycle, plus a extra for cover...
I spent a number of years working on SRN6 Hovercraft, while the AP1-88 would be useful in the Arctic, they would require a fair bit of shoreside infrastructure, for a vessel that would have a patrol area of about 200nm in either direction,
@@Colinpark I have always thought that hovercraft can perform many missions, both combat and logistics, and that any modern navy must have them. Greetings.
@@arbelico2 Hovercraft do very well in certain niches. Hovercraft have been extensively used in the Arctic, but there is a lot of upkeep to keep them going. Several of my Captains had previously run hovercraft in the arctic and Caspian sea.
I really would love to see one or two of the Halifax Class as they get decommisoned become museum ships. Spesifically HMCS Fredericton, have her set up as a museum in Saint John where she was built.
Dang I hope this comes to pass! Exciting video for sure. Personally I am thrilled but say about time. To the men and women who serve so professionally and so courageously, my family and I thank you. You deserve the best. To us, YOU are one of Canada's most precious resources. Stay safe.
Good to see you doing content again. The Type 26 is the new River class, the Type 26 has been upgraded to be a destroyer with increased weight and increased capacity over the original T26
Australia is not under any illusions America will come to their rescue unless they invest significantly arming themselves unlike Canada. America is not adjacent to Australia, as Australia is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean...
Hear, hear. I am actually impressed that they put two CWIS on the replenishment ship, a smart move in my opinion. The River-class FRIGATE on the other hand will make a fine coast guard vessel that should keep merchantmen honest. It is utterly unsuited for anything else. Way to go Canada. (I am ashamed to be Canadian frankly.)
Canada just recently launched the first Protecteur class ship, the last ship with that name suffered a engine room fire a DECADE ago... In that time Australia has ordered and received two Spanish built AORs, and the South Koreans have delivered four AORs to the British... Come on Canada, pull the dildo out...
For a real take on the Canadian navy have a look at Perun’s videos. Canada spends too much for too little and underfunds to an unbelievable level. All political parties in Canada do not support our military.
Nothing new there, unfortunately. We entered WW1 without an army and an over glorified Fishing Protection Service with 2 crappy rust bucket cruisers (both scrapped almost immediately), a couple of similar rust bucket subs (also scrapped within a couple of years), and a bunch of boats. Ended it with a few destroyers, which by WW2 had been replaced. With slightly more modern rust buckets. Ended WW2 with the third largest navy by # of active ships and personal. Admittedly, helped somewhat by the previous #3 (Japan), 4 (France), and 5 (Italy) being much reduced. Only had 1 escort carrier and a handful of cruisers, the rest were destroyers and corvettes.
@@hanzzel6086 With both those cruisers and a good chunk of that fleet laid up and eventually scrapped soon after the war...Canada had one of the most unbalanced navies in the western world...
@ronclark9724 Nobody wanted to give us a battleship for some reason, probably didn't even want to think about how much more we would add to the Geneva Suggestion with one.
How would you comment on Perun's recent video regarding Canadian spending on defence? If I was Canadian I would be worried, if he's right. As a Norwegian I noticed the work on ships of the Svalbard class, where the project development cost way more than we paid for a complete ship, everything included. And building ships for our navy is seldom considered cheap as we have expensive ways to do it.
Perun does a good job looking at cost overruns in that video, but not a very good job at looking at the "why" of those costs (particularly in regard to the Harry Dewolf. Other criticisms in the video are entirely justified). In part, because information is very limited. The Harry DeWolf has to patrol much further distances than the Svalbard (only resupply is in Southern ports, and it needs to be able to transit the entire N-W passage, meaning more food, fuel, and general independence), be able to self-dock in rough terrain to reach remote communities (as I understand, the Svalbard requires port facilities) (which is also why the "no tug boats" is mentioned in the promo video), and carry a more broad array of mission items to complete tasks in the artic (as its essentially an independent base of operations rather than just a patrol boat). The need to be completely independent much further distances away than Norway might deal with cost money. In some ways that's just the cost of making the ship you need. Its absolutely overcosted when you look at it in pure military value terms (guns and tonnage), but as a unique design that fulfills canada's need; its harder to say. Not a lot of ships can operate independently in the North the way it does. Other side of the coin; in an actual conflict its a lot of money for not a lot of value. Its the sort of ship you need to enable search and rescue operations and otherwise open up the N-W passage to trade. For pure patrol boat purposes we could achieve something similar a lot cheaper. Whether or not it was worth the added cost will depend entirely on how Canada is able to use it and if we can benefit from the artic because of it going forward.
@@yellowgreyandsinister Svalbard has Svalbard to go to, so no need to travel huge distances on its own. About Peruns comments, I think it was more about the huge cost of planning, and not so much the actual ships. The cost of planning alone cost many times the cost of the Svalbard all included. And it was an example of many, where Canadian purchases seem to end up costing way more than similar projects in other countries. All this is new to me, so my only source at the moment is Perun. He's pretty good at this stuff, and I've found him to do good work most of the time.
@@mortarboss Well, so, that's sort of my point. Svalbard has the port to go to. It was designed with that in mind; and its capabilities reflect that. Its well suited to its task. We don't have the ports in the far North, so the design team had to pack even more capability for distance and sustainment into the same general platform (along with several other things). Was that worth the design cost involved? Debatable. I think they were still atrociously expensive. But there is at least some reason behind the cost more than "Canadian Procurement Bad." I feel Perun missed that. And to be clear; Perun is broadly very good and I look forward to his upload tomorrow. This isn't trying to knock him in any way.
@@yellowgreyandsinister I totally agree with your points. What we have learnt over here the last 2-3 years is that in order to get what we need, we will stop making all kinds of small idiotic and often unnecessary changes to stuff we buy, and from now on will try to buy off the shelf instead. Delivery times are reduced by a lot, and prices go way down. We also will do joint purchases. The frigate you have picked, the British 26, that might be our new one as well. It's a strong contender. But we will buy it as is. And we will build it in Norway. All our recent ships have been built outside Norway, despite a very strong ship building industry here, and the result have been huge delays, huge extra costs, and crap quality. Also looking forward to Perun's new video today. I never miss any of them.
Thanks for the video on the Canadian Navy. I pulled into CFB Shearwater (near Halifax) three times while in the US Navy. I enjoyed every visit. The Canadians always treated us very well. The RCN deserves so much respect.
hey Matsimus, as an RCN sailor, its nice to finally see some screen time for our navy. a lot of those "B-roll" clips you had in your video for the halifax class were taken on my ship during our deployment in the black sea back in 2019 on HMCS Toronto ^_^. just some friendly corrections for you: the river class destroyers are canada's version of the type 26s. they aren't two different ships. an easy mistake to make seeing as they kept calling them frigates right up until last year when they reveled the class name. also, the moto is ready aye ready, not aye ready aye. cheers ^_^
Greetings from Spain. The Canadian Navy has a big task ahead of it, both because it is the largest country on the planet and because of the number of new challenges it faces. Apart from the new ships, drones of all kinds, SOUS networks, the future of the SKS and DSV submarine weapons, and over-the-horizon radars are systems to be acquired. Another area is the marine corps and its resources.
Canada does not have a Marine Corps. Concetration in addition to what was mentionsed will be buying between 8 and 12 conventional subs possibly the KSS 3 from Korea and the building of 15 Vigelence class patrol vessels of about 2500 tons. Also in development are new radars for the north, and under water detection systems along with buying 88 Block 4 extended bay F35s. Great to hear from Spain who Canada works with in Latvia.
AWESOME VIDEO AND ONE BEST VIDEOS OUT THERE FOR ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY I HAVE SEEN IN YEARS AND ITS ABOUT TIME FOR NEW VESSEL FOR RCN AND I HAVE SOFT SPOT FOR RCN EVER SINCE MY GRANDFATHEER SERVED FROM 1940 - 1964 AND I GREW IN MILITARY FAMILY MY YOUNGER BROTHER IS CANADIAN ARMY AS WELL AND THANKS FOR HONEST UPDATE OF RCN NEW VESSELS THAT ARE IN PROGRESS
Canada needs to encourage patriotism and a desire to protect and defend this country. The last few generations have been allowed to feel safe because of our giant neighbor to the south. If we cant get people then we need to get tech. If we can buy/build enough ships and man them then we need to figure out unmanned in my own opinion. Deleveoping a culture of pride and willingness to defend this country should come first
yes but the completely negative bs from certain political people is having the opposite affect unfortunately the next government has a very poor history of buying or building the military conservatives will not spend the necessary dollars.
@@alpearson9158 As if the Liberal government has... NOT... It was a Liberal PM Jean Chretien that said Canada was fortunate to be in the position to NOT spend MORE on defense being adjacent to America, so we won't... This has been Canada's defense policy since the Second World War... Canada's submarines will be forty years old before they are replaced, if then. Canada's polar icebreaker is over fifty years old, and the keel for a new polar icebreaker has yet to be laid down. While the DeWolf class ships will help patrol the far north archipelago, Canada does not have a large sea lift ship to supply and sustain a significant army unit to defend two of the more populous islands, Vancouver or Newfoundland. Presumably the Canadian government won't be alarmed concerning defense until the enemy if within artillery range of Ottawa...
I think Canada's security needs would be better served by 8-10 subs of either Swedish or German manufacturing. Surface ships are good for waving the flag and chasing drug runners, but to give the enemy pause, subs are the tool that have the potential to harm the enemies fleets.
already in the plan and I suspect may be ordered before the next election to help meet the 2% but remember as Canada's 2% is far far bigger than most European nations ( by actual gdp ) you will have to be prepared to actually pay for them
Yup. If you really want to kill ships, you need subs. Type 212CD or something like it would be great, considering the way Germany designed the CD for Norway's needs. (And hydrogen fuel cells? Canada has an edge in clean H2 production if we ever want to get serious about building the facilities.) However, the South Koreans are making a strong case for their subs, and it looks like the Navy brass is interested in those too.
Agreed but defence has never been a priority for Canadian governments outside of active wartime. There's always something more pressing and more local for the government to spend money on and the threats are far away.
hmm... I was under the impression that Arctic ship lost its front gun and now is down to the 2x.50 Cal machine guns. Also, CSC/Type26 is the same thing than River class destroyer. This new naming was created in the last 6 months. Hope everyone is armed with patience to see that ship. Also the replacement of the Kingston class should have been showcased, but that too is way too early to see definite designs.
Matsimus for Honorary Sea Sergeant PS, I've painted that exact turret deck on the FRE back in 2022/2023 lol... We went ham chipping the rust off and then going with paint rollers with ship side and water way grey.
Thank you for your service sir, been watching your production for awhile, and have liked and subscribed. Just my two bits, our destroyers will be the most heavily armed of the type 26.
Great coverage, I'm certainly no expert on naval issues but can't help but feel the Arctic patrol ships are quite under armed. One 25mm canon isn't going to strike fear into an adversary. Shouldn't she have more missile capabilities and counter missile capabilities ?
Remember the AOPS was a Harper-era project; if it were designed in the 2020's not in the 2000's, it would likely have more emphasis on peer-level combat, and more measures to deal with relatively new threats like air & sea drones. As @yellowgreyandsinister points out in his comments, the AOPS is not like a normal patrol ship; it is meant for mostly solo operations in a very isolated and huge region with punishing conditions, so it no doubt has self-sustainment and shore sustainment as a major feature, but designing with that in mind comes with compromises in terms of what sort of weapons it can carry. Upping the gun size for example would not likely make much difference, considering the kind of encounters it was considered likely to have, particularly in its intended region of operation (the Canadian arctic). You can game out various scenarios, but a weapon-to-weapon "gunslinger face-off" scenarios, are probably the least likely way that any incident would play out.
I really like the Harry DeWolf patrol ship, I just wish it was better armed. A single 25mm gun and two 50cal open mount machine guns, That is great for a armored fighting vehicle, but a bit weak for a ship. Have you seen the Chines "coastguard" ships that are causing trouble near the Philippians?
We should sail one of these to the Phillipines, and see if the Chinese coast guard likes getting into the mosh pit with a vessel that has an ice-strengthened hull. 😅
The Harry DeWolf class is a platform. The ship has a full combat management system on board. While the current state isn't heavily armed that doesn't mean that can't add to it if required. Today the Harry DeWolf class is more about logistics than combat.
Love the hat, where may I get one? You really made me look closer at my choices, for our troops Thank you. CA,RCN, RCAF are all one heck of a punch. 🇨🇦 Vet
Love you, Canada. You have great armed forces that i respect. But i heard from a member of the Canadian armed forces, and i believe it's true. The primary part of Canada's defense strategy is hope the US likes us for a long time
I mean, realistically speaking, the U.S. is the only real military threat to Canadian sovereignty. And they outnumber us more than 10 to one. If they ever decide they don't like us, we are boned.
Though I'm certainly proud of our sailors, I'm questioning designs like the Harry DeWolf class. Like the narrator said, with its paltry cannon and two machine guns: "It has enough firepower to easily enforce domestic laws"...so, basically a coastguard ship by most countries' standards. It's not, however, equipped to go up against Chinese or Russian icebreakers that are more heavily armed than it, and can handle thicker ice.
LOL...first...chinese ice breakers aren't armed nor do they have many as being in south east asia, they don't have to deal with iced over waters. Russia BARELY has any operational armed ice breakers and as Ukraine has demonstrated, their navy is a total joke and they're not about to do an expeditionary warfare across the arctic with the few ships they have. What exactly would they accomplish other than becomming a torpedo target for the USN Virginia class submarine that will undoubtedly be following them from beneath the ice pack.
The River Class Destroyers are in fact based upon the British Type 21 Frigate ... we are not getting both of them as apparently misrepresented in the video.
awwww we are only buying 15, when we should be buying 50.....but this is typical of us since we do not spend anywhere near the money we should be spending on defense, and the worst part about that is the incredibly low wages we pay ppl in our military.
Isnt the UKs type 26 frigate referred to at the start known in Canada as the River-class destroyer, which was formerly the Canadian Surface Combatant ( eg type 26)‽?
Sadly Irving got the exclusive contract. Davie would have made the ships cheaper and faster, but its not about doing that, its about drawing production out as long as possible to milk as much out of the Canadian Taxpayers as they can. What was originally to cost 18 billion is now going to cost 77 Billion. The contract needs to be reduced to 8 and then the savings need to be used to do what the UK is doing and purchase 10 Iver Huitveldt Frigates as a cheaper and more flexible alternative. Build them in Denmark by Odense and by Davie in Quebec in half the time for less than half the cost of the CSC. Use the prepurchased systems for the CSC for the Iver Huitfeldt's. They can be maintained by Davie, Seaspan and Irving, spread the love, no monopolies.
I remember seeing a TV documentary about Submarines it was from the late 80s early 90s and had some info on the then Upholder Class SSK of the RN and had some trash talk about the USN having just by 89? Gone all nuclear as the RN had just gotten a new SSK only a few years later they were RCN Victoria Class SSK and the RN all Nuclear thanks for reminding me of when I was a kid the Upholder /Victoria Class still looks cool
I hope the RCN Type 26 Frigates are better than the lumps of lard the Australian Navy (RAN) is getting (Hunter Class Type 26's) but I do note the "Harry DeWolf" patrol boats, like the RAN patrol boats are very under gunned. A ship if the "Harry DeWolf" class size should have multi role 30-40mm gun capable of air defence, ie Typhon Mk30C or Bofors 40mm. Also given the conditions the 2 x 50cal guns need to be remote weapons stations so personal do not need to brave the elements. The Protector Class support ships seem well equipped and well protected, WELL DONE Canada. Please send the plans to Australia to show our Government and the RAN you can have a capable ship that can protect itself ...ie can shoot ! You failed however to provide any details of the River Class vessels so I can not comment (would love to see a video on them and the details of the RCN Type 26 Frigates). Its all about the details.
To call the arctic patrol ships naval vessels is an absolute travesty. Most coast guards have higher armament than the De Wolf class. One, singular 25 mm gun and a couple Ma Deuces on the rails? I could put a 50 cal on our 17 foot runabout, for goodness sake. How toothless can you possibly be? Zero air defence, zero vertical launch tubes, zero torpedoes. Not even a 3 incher on the bow. If they had at least put in some VLS cells they could have had a few torpedoes and a few air defense missiles these. are arguably the least-armed "naval" ships we have ever put to sea. They should have just called them Coast Guard and been done with it, instead of embarrassing Canada.
Great video. :) yes "technically" we have a navy but it is not anywhere near the size it should actually be given our amount of coastline and our almost complete lack of a presence in our northern waters.
Every time I drive along the NCSM Onondaga near Pointe-aux-Père, laying on the beach with a Tim Horton's plastic lid covering one of her torpedo tube I cry internally. A mari usque ad mare my arse.
As always great video Matsimus! If you or anyone else wants to see how bad Canadas procurement and cost production for our navy, watch Perun’s video on the Canadian military.
Are you referring to the type 31 being built by the Royal Navy? Those are 6,000 ton frigates not patrol boats. We should have some to supplement the CSC but they are nothing like the Kingstons.
@@lloydkuepfer1599 true but if we're going to imagine hypothetical fleets, you need to consider a mix of capabilities and be realistic about what we can afford (even assuming 2-2.5% spending) as well as what we could eventually crew. 20 type 31 means about $20B (canadian build) and about 2,500 crew. We can probably use a mix of 20 surface combatants (type 26, type 31 and AAW destroyers) in the image of the Brits and Aussies. Patrol boats (like UK River class) also play a role so the mix of capabilities is what you want to useful.
The Kingstons are slated for replacement rpretty soon - most likely by the Vard "Vigilance" design for multi-role patrol / coastal defense vessels. As far as I know that's not written in stone just yet, but the pitch was made, and I have yet to read about any competing proposals or ideas.
Someone else touched on this but the 26 Frigate started out as the Canadian Surface Combatant because the original plan under the Harper government was to have 15 hulls have between 10 and 12 of them be the general purpose frigate with limited air defence capabilities and have 3 to 5 of the same design of hulls be kitted out to be the full fledged Air Defence Destroyers. I had wondered if the air defence gear would be transferable from one hull to another so we could always have the four or five destroyer functions available regardless of how many of the class was ready for sea at any time. I never really got that answer. When the Trudeau government took over they must have done a deal with the RCN similar to what they did with the RCAF where after a strategic review Trudeau committed to buying more F35s than Harper had signed up for. The RCN must have done their own Strategic Review and decided that the way ahead needed to be Destroyers so the next thing we know is that Trudeau committed to making all 15 hulls into the full destroyer package. It’s a little weird to keep up with. What one navy calls a Frigate an other navy will call a Destroyer. Before and during WW2 it was pretty easy to tell the difference, Destroyers were bigger and had more fire power than frigates. In the modern era, the frigates and destroyers are about the same size as each other and both have grown to the size of pre WW2 Cruisers. The difference today seems to be in capability and therefore price. The Frigate is more general purpose with an emphasis on anti submarine warfare. While the destroyer can do those things plus fleet air defence and ship to ship combat being able to engage a hundred targets of all shapes and sizes at once with this AGEIS weapons system this type of weapons system is what makes the destroyer so much more expensive than the frigate. So you will see more and more that the term CSC will be giving away to the term destroyer when describing these new ships.
There isn't any specific rule for naming conventions. The US Ticonderoga cruiser was slightly smaller than the latest Arleigh Burke destroyers and both are much smaller than the Zumwalt destroyers. Typically they've been designated by role more than size, but again, there's no rule.
@ yeah, you’re right. The Type 26 Frigate is a good example of that. The British designed it for the RN and are calling it a frigate but I think they are replacing a class of destroyers with it. The Australians are buying it as well. I believe the RAN is replacing a class of frigates with it. Because Canada was replacing 2 classes of warships ( 4 Destroyers and 12 frigates) with 1 class of 15 vessels. The original plan was to have 10 to 12 be a more general purpose (cheaper) version of the vessel to replace the frigates and 3 to 5 of the vessels to be the more capable ( expensive) version of the vessel replace the Destroyers. That was why they were originally going to call them the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) But recently something has changed and Trudeau seems to have signed off on all 15 vessels having the fully capable “Destroyer” function. This is a major shift. That AGIES defence system (or equivalent) makes each vessel 2 to 3 times more expensive. This is why I believe Trudeau got the RCN to do a similar Strategic Review that he required of the RCAF before buying new fighters. When the review was done Trudeau agreed to buy more of the F35s than what Harper committed to. I think the Navy did that same type of review and decided they had more need for a destroyer than a frigate. Much like the Canadian Army the RCN does not just contribute to an operation it seeks out and accepts leadership roles as part of its commitments. Right now the Canadian Army is commanding the international brigade in Latvia as well as contributing a battalion sized force. In the same way the history of the navy is to look for and accept positions like commander of the Escort Group or Protection Group what have you. My interpretation of developments is the RCN feels it can do that function in a Destroyer better than in a Frigate.
I mean, first of all, this isn't the kind of decision the PM of any political stripe is going to be making. It's DND/RCN driven planning and procurement that makes these calls, the pols only really care when money gets involved and you can't sell it. I suspect the designation largely comes from the fact that it'll be the first Aegis equipped ship class Canada operates, something usually (but not always - the Aussie ones will also have Aegis but are still classified as frigates, for example) associated with destroyers, and that the Type 26s are already in destroyer territory size-wise. Also, the Kingston-class replacements are next up after the submarine replacements, and while the initial assumption was that they'd be fairly capable OPVs, the RCN is hinting that they want something more like a full-fledged corvette to replace them, so taking up some of that traditional frigate space. As for the F-35s, that one WAS political for the aforementioned reasons. The initial deal was cancelled because there were a lot of hidden costs, or not fully costed (one of the foibles of our procurement system as a whole), or other items (like the deal being for only 66 fighters which was a less than 1:1 replacement and would have only been enough to meet NORAD and training requirements without much left over for international deployments or attrition) that kept bubbling up, and coupled with the F-35's teething issues (which it still has, but these would have been LRIPs and required frequent downtime to upgrade and fix), it was creating a lot of bad PR. So the call was to cancel the deal and hold a traditional, open competition. We WERE on the way to buying Super Hornets (first as an 'interim' fighter, but it would have made it easier to rationalize/cheaper to make them the preferred replacement) before Boeing got themselves blacklisted for going after Bombardier for stupid, anti-competitive reasons. The European jets were a non-starter (NORAD) and mostly pulled out early when they realized it was always going to be an American fighter. Saab offered a really sweet deal that would have been good for the whole domestic industry and being able to self-support, but... not American. Also, the new deal was a 1:1 replacement for the current inventory at 88 F-35s (actually slightly better since there are only 85 CF-188s left).
@@ArmouredPhalanx you’re right PM don’t decide what to call something they just pay the bills. This is why the strategic review is important. The Government tells (in this case) the RCN what it needs to be able to do. “Guard the Arctic Ocean”, “maintain our NATO Naval commitments”, etc . The RCN comes back with a shopping list it needs to do the jobs the government want them to do. The government decides on how much of the list they are going to pay for. As to the Destroyer - Frigate debate it’s a bit strange. Destroyers were always bigger, faster and more capable than frigates. Cruisers were even bigger than destroyers. Now most frigates on the market today have the displacement of pre WW2 light cruisers. This purchase is different in that the RCN has always been (for lack of a better description) a Frigate Navy. We have had mostly small general purpose ships with a few larger, more capable vessels sprinkled in from time to time and our war experience in two world wars was convoy escort. This was followed up by a NATO commitment of being able to do convoy escort during the Cold War. Supply convoys run from danger so they only need an escort to stand between them and the threat while it runs away so in most cases a frigate will do. A combat fleet is different not only does it not run away from danger in most cases it’s looking for danger. So a Combat Fleet’s escorts have to be able to stand and fight in a prolonged battle. It has to defend the capital ships from a variety of threats (air threats in particular) while those capital ships go about doing what it is they were built to do. The fact that the RCN has convinced the government to spend the extra money to give all 15 of the new ships the full Destroyer function tells me that their Strategic Review tells them that convoy escort is no longer the RCN’s primary mission. Some version of “Standing and Fighting” is.
@@rickcosman9670 during both ways the majority of the fleet were corvettes. Small sub hunters. Post WWII they were typically destroyers. Either classes as DE destroyer escort or DDH helo carrying destroyer escort. The Halifax class is really the only frigate in general use by the RCN, although like before, the naming conventions are really up to the individual nation and those earlier ships were frigates in all but name. The biggest difference with the new ship is they are the first with an area air defense system designed in from the get go. There's not a lot of aircraft mid-Atlantic. The Iroquois were not purpose built for it and the Halifax is basically self defense only. This is going off memory, so don't take any of this as gospel.
can't confirm anything until we see the ships hitting the water, but everything i have read suggests that you are correct. the last update that was put out by the government of Canada listed the RIM-116 as replacing the Sea Ceptor missiles.
Future and Canada made me laugh. Sorry but with the budget being less than the NATO requirement every year means at this rate there is no future, there is only wishes. Now if funding increases, then I'd say there's a chance, but thing have to CHANGE!
Our budget is about 27 bill, and thast 1.3% of our GDP only Germany France, the US and UK spend more than us, so many NATO states have 2% or more and don't even spend close to 10billion Y'all should stop complaining and start doing, the CAF is changing and change would come, stop this whining attitude, we didn't win both world wars with whining
@shocktnc and we played decisive roles, the trench raids, juno beach We made a big difference, the battles for Britain. We helped a lot, and we were feared
@@Drexler638No, compared to the contributions of other countries Canada was not special. I'm glad they supported the other allies, but don't pretend they won the war for them.
I'd be curious to hear what Royal Canadian Navy Personel would like to have? Types of ships? And #'s of them? CSC would be a good baseline, but what else do we need? Ignore the AOPS, they are not combat vessel's.
Canada need new 16 Frigate, new 12 submarine, new 12 coastal defence vessels new 2 ship replenishment oiler and 2 Helicopter carrier. Canada need Modernizing the Coast Guard's too.
Your videos would pop up time to time on my feed, but after seeing this earned a sub from me. All I see recently is people disparaging our nation, Canadians none the less, and frankly I'm sick of it as it seems it's all these people can do. They even go so far as to say they're not proud to be Canadian anymore and have written the country off. But having someone who is still proud of our nation, and to be proudly serving in our military is a sign of hope that all these people complaining and disparaging are merely the loudest ones. Thank you.
They call them frigates but the role is more like a destroyer and are the size of a WWII cruiser. It seems to be the way most navies are going but I am concerned about the price. $60 billion for 15 ships is insane. If Canada can't build ships for a decent price we should be buying overseas. Enough subsidies for the Irving family.
I doubt these ships have virtually no weapon systems compared to their British counterparts. Why have the weapon systems been so drastically eliminated?
Okay, now I'm really confused about what they're doing with the Type 26. Are they splitting them into River DDGs and frigates? Because the announced armament for the River class is already significantly lighter than the RN/RAN Type 26
canada is using the design of the type 26 to build destroyers. and truth be told, as far as armament is concerned, based on the last update i read, the river class destroyers will be packed with more fire power. yes, there is just a 24 cell VLS up forward, but there is also a 6 cell VLS just aft of the mast which can hold 24 ESSMs (each cell can hold 4 missiles), with two RIM-116 missiles launchers, one on the port side and one on the starboard side (each of those housing 21 missiles). which brings the total on board missile count to a potential 90 anti air missiles, plus the 8 anti surface missiles. contrast that with the british type 26 frigates with "just" 72 possible anti air missiles. as far as the main gun goes, they are the same (just different brands), they both have two 30mm auto cannons on top of the hanger top. and they both carry the same amount of anti surface missiles, and while i don't know if the British ship has torpedo tubes, the river class destroyer will. hope that helped clear things up a bit cheers
@Pvtduck The RIM-116 is a point defense missile replacing the Phalanx CIWS. That hardly counts. The 24 cell mk41 leaves them with four *fewer* than the Iroquois class, which was already seen on the light end by destroyer standards. The VLS amidships doesn't seem to show up in the most recent update of the ship. Now you're right, it seems the Brits and Aussies have lost a few missiles too, since the original announcements. But then, they're still calling them frigates, and they aren't the *sole* class of warship for their respective navies. Counting capacity using ESSM is disingenuous. But let's do that. A flight I Arleigh Burke, which displaces 8400 metric tons, would house 360 in its VLS. Australia's 7000t Hobart class DDG would fit 192. My main problem is that this once again smacks of our idiot government playing name games to look better. They're calling them destroyers so they can sound tough for the people who don't know better.
@@JBob-qv2fd you are correct, that the RIM-116 is point defense, but our ships were going to be using the Sea Cepter and ESSM as point defense missiles. and had decided early on that they wouldn't go with any phalanx CIWS. also, correct that there isn't any mention of the silos after of the mast, but in the diagrams its still there (yes, that was an assumption on my part based on what i see) being an EW and air defense guy i still consider the RIM-116 in that equation, because the frigates only carried 1800 rounds in the CIWS before it needed to be reloaded which takes a crazy long time, and 16 ESSMs, compared to that, the new ships are insanely superior in air defense. now, do i wish they had more strike length VLS cells ? 100% i do. and i agree with you on your last point, but also acknowledge that weight distribution is a thing. and for their length, that is the most we can stuff on these ships once you factor the on the weight of the components for the aegis combat system, and the spy 7 radar. if they wanted to put more missile cells on the ships, they would need to lengthen the ships, or take out the mission bay. also, based on their length and tonnage, they do class as destroyers.... its a technicality, and a bit of splitting hairs, but you know how the government is :P my own personal opinion on this matter, I would like to see them take that mission bay off and replace it with an addition strike length VLS in at least 4 of the river class. it would give the navy more options, while still sticking to the single class model the government wants to stick to.
It's criminal that the previous government let the Navy rust out - their focus should have been on replacing the DDHs and AORs not building the AOPVs. However, because the previous PM promised 'armed icebreakers' in a campaign, we got the AOPVs instead of AORs and DDGHs. Sadly, no government in the last 50 years has given much thought or care to the CAF.
So you prefer cheap equipment over quality? If your paying for a ship you better pay big money. Also why TF are y'all acting as if we would stand a chance without our allies ina ww3 event, we don't even have nukes, the job of the CAF is not to compete with china and Russia, it's to defend our borders. Stop this bs
Nice to see, but the arctic ships don't look like much, shouldn't there be more armaments? Some SAMs and stuff? a 25mm main gun - not a 95mm? her even a 57mm would at least be more impressive, it just seems like a floating LAV III, the arctic needs more defence than that
There is a size or class of ship that is missing in the current plan. There is no real replacement ... "Corvette sized" that would replace the Kingston Class. I'm aware that Heddle in Hamilton, Ont. has developed such a craft Vigilance Class) and plenty of others would be available from all over the World now. Irving, Seaspan and probably Davie are full up so, in the great tradition of past Corvettes, they will need to be built in smaller yards. Of course, those yards would have to be in Liberal ridings badda-boom-badda-bing.
The Harry de wolf class IS an incredible waste unless it’s to support a northern base of operations. What we need are modern AIP drive submarines. The protector class is missing the boat on a lot of things. We could use it to transport an infantry battalion to trouble spots around the world as well as refuel ships. The mistral helicopter carriers built for Russia would have been a huge boon. The river class is greatly needed but you didn’t have much as to when it will be in service, cost, who’s design ect ect.
The Harry de Wolf class ships were designed for multiple purposes such as an ice breaker up to 3.2 meters or 4 ft of ice at 3.5 knots a supply ship for northern communities, research vessel, ocean floor mapping a scientific research vessel and of course a patrol ship
I have no confidence what so ever for the new ship River Class coming in on time or on cost. Shame on Irving. It's already over budget. ...that said, I sincerely hope I am wrong. Looking at the fiasco of the Harry DeWolf Class I am not holding my breath. The Harry de Wolf is WAY TOO OVER PRICED and not to mention under gunned. The one they sent to Cuba that was all over the news a couple months back looked from the photo's to be covered in rust.
⚓ Thanks for watching, some mistakes to correct lol! I said Aye Ready Aye instead of Ready Aye Ready! My bad navy folks! Told you I’m not navy smart lol! I apologize.
Also, got mixed up with CSC and River Class. It's the same thing. The type 26 is the RN version but now we call ours the River Class Destroyer. The Kingston class MCDV'S are unarmed patrol vessels with some equipped for mine hunting. The program to replace the Kingston class has just in early phases and is termed the Canadian Patrol Corvette.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Royal Canadian Navy. What do you think about the new ships like the Type 26 frigates or the Harry DeWolf class patrol vessels? Have you ever visited Halifax or seen an RCN ship up close? Let me know in the comments below!
💬 Also, if you have any questions about the Navy, my experiences in the Canadian Army, or ideas for future videos, drop them here-I’ll do my best to respond to as many as I can! Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more military content!
M1117 as well as the new Turkish scout car.
Could the American LCS Fleet be repurposed for Canadian Northern Littoral operations? The LCS Combat and Minesweeper vessels would fit us perfectly (if equipt with a steel butt plate), and I believe they are more automated than the type 26. But idk if Littoral ships will work well in 1-3klm deep water. Northwest Passage belongs to Canada, we must administer it unquestionably. I love the work our "department of the boat people" does and will always support them. G'dang SAR techs (sometimes) and bording party are navy, badass!
@@Jreg1992 No, the needs of Litoral operations are very different than Arctic operations. They would likely require a major refit that would be expensive enough to make anyone question why it was done. Refitting a ship can sometimes be more expensive than making a new one since changing designs is not easy. One example is the plate you mentioned as a potential addon. That changes the weight distribution of the ship and can cause a chain reaction of changes that turn it into a completely different ship. There is also the question of what kind of capabilities we need for ship-based arctic defence. A fighting ship design for the Arctic might not necessarily be better. Adding ice-breaking capabilities adds a lot of weight to the ship and the design changes normally make the ship slow (there may be a conflict between the idea of an ice-breaking hull design and a hull design intended for movement at 25+ knots). Therefore a mix of different assets like strategically positioned land-based aircraft and patrol boats to support a normal fighting ship might be a better choice than a special big slow ship made in small numbers that cannot keep up with a NATO fleet.
1:09 not sure of the rules on this but wouldn’t it be “His majesty’s Canadian ship”.
@@Jreg1992 No. The LCS hulls are not suited to anything involving Ice, even great lakes or st lawrence ice. Whatever replaces the Kingston class should at least have a minimally ice strengthened hull, PC 6 or 7 for example so that they don't need an ice breaker support to operate in the great lakes, or along the st lawrence seaway in the winter. The AOPS would be cheaper to up-equip with more sensors, defensive equiptment and at least a weapon upgrade so to be logistically compatible with the future River class (such as the same Leonardo 30mm autocannon system and a SeaRAM). They're faster than the Kingston class, much longer ranged, and have better crew accomodations and mission bay compatibility with the existing ISO 20ft containerized systems currently used on the Kingstons. So they can do the remote mine clearance, diver support, and sonar survey duties if needed.
Canadian Procurement: "Good news everybody, we just ordered 15 new ships! Our 14 new ships will serve our needs until the year 2065 and when those 12 ships are finally completed we'll be able to man all 11 hulls with qualified sailors. These 8 amazing Canadian built ships will be the envy of the world and after the 5th and final hull is completed in 2066 we'll all have reason to rejoice."
They will also miraculously cost more and be worse armed then other countries
If we are lucky
Nailed it.
What’s crazy is that China is building like 30-50 ships per year! Their shipbuilding capacity is 200% times greater than the US…. Canada needs to get its ass in gear! Our warships also always end up costing a lot more with less armaments!
It's already started - we've promoted the Type 26 frigate to a "destroyer."
RCAF needs to dramatically expand in everyway. We need to start investing at least 2% of our GDP on our military
I have been beat up for saying this, but I still stand behind my opinion. Buy the F-35's but also buy a second platform... perhaps the the F-15EX.
The F-35 could be used in a strike role where it's stealth abilities gives it an edge. And use the F-15EX for CAP and Northern patrol
The other idea was to buy the Gripen (to get the technology transfer and build them ourselves) and partner for a Gen 6 fighter
We could have purchased more Gripens, retire the 18's and build up the Air Gorcebwith Gen 6's
@@gryph01 F15 ex not for export the Gripen is the best option and a further 48 would make sense even if reducing the F 35 to 70
@alpearson9158 I'm sure the U.S. government would release the F-15 EX to Canada if we demonstrate that we are serious to get to 2%GDP spending.
We need to be investing 4-5% like Poland is doing and fix procurement to make-up for the decades of neglect. 2% assumes a country was actually maintaining its military. We haven’t.
@@liesdamnlies3372 Agreed
Hate the situation, hate the equipment, hate all you want, but don't hate the navy, don't hate the men and women who protect our waters, be proud of them.
GO CANADA, GO NAVY 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦⚓⚓⚓
I used to work on the CSC project and being at the Irving shipyard seeing the conditions of the Halifax class is really a bit worrying. Our sailors deserve better equipments and ships.
THey do indeed, but the Type 26 should not have even made it into the competition. By the rules it had to be and "off the self" product to keep costs down. Instead they went with a concept drawing and then instead of buying it as it was designed, made an assload of changes that adding 10's of billions to the cost of the contract, and we wont even have enough sailors to put them all in the water if things continue with the Canadian Military as is.
Davie will be doing the refits/maintenance on half the atlantic fleet assigned Halifax class frigates until they're retired specifically because of the problems with Irving's issues doing the work.
@@claymclaren5788 Look at what the Constellation class frigate program is costing the US Navy. They also wanted an "off the shelf" design but because they, like us, wanted DIFFERENT weapons and sensors and combat systems, also have added billions to the cost and years to the development / construction schedule. The dutch proposal hadn't been built in 16 years and was never exported to anyone else. The Spanish proposal did have relatively recent export success in Australia (becomming the Hobart class destroyers) but there had been numerous construction defects in building the three of them and Canada didn't want to fall victim to that same problem. By the time in late 2017 that the competition was down to three options, the british government already had the first Type 26 under construction and by the time they announced that as the winner, Australia had already chosen it also. And that's worked to our benefit because some of the design changes to the hull shape/size implemented by Austrailia to increase its number of Mk41 VLS cells have been relatively cheaply copied by us also. Basically we're keeping the original beam but lengthening the hull about 5 feet. This will improve the length to beam ratio and should marginally increase its hydrodynamic efficiency (less drag so faster and a bit longer range).
@@claymclaren5788 The requirements of the contest were changed due to none of the previously submitted designs being satisfactory, so the Type 26 design was allowed to compete.
None of the most Modern Western Frigate designs in western navies were deemed satisfactory? So they decided they should include a clean sheet design that had not been even prototyped design by BAE and Supported by Locheed Martin, after the Canadian Government had JUST reneged on their purchase of the F-35 and the portions those contractors were set to make from the 26 Billion dollar CSC contract just neatly cover what those companies lost out on from the loss of the 9 Billion dollar F-35 contract. Huh, crazy coincidence. Also crazy that the Liberals just signed a cheque for 7 Billion dollars for 16 of the same fighters the Conservatives were set to purchase 65 of for 9 Billion. Government efficiency at work.
Still can't get over the harry dewolf class ships only having the 1 gun in the front, with 2 manual .50cals in the rear. With all of the drone threats nowadays feels pretty exposed. But again I guess if it will stay in our territorial waters it won't be mutch of an issue...
Well, New Jersey is outside of Canada's Territorial Waters. But then you don't really have a navy as much as you have a Coast Guard.
Yep. right up until it is an issue
This seems ridiculously under armed, it's like a floating LAV III that cost 100 times more. Get some SAMs on there and a 57mm at the very least
They are patrol ships not surface combatants. That said they could have and probably should put a bigger gun up front. What is interesting about these ships is the capability of taking on modular weapon systems. These are typically contained and launched from shipping containers. It's my understanding that they tested a towed sonar array from a shipping container last summer. The class also makes an excellent platform for launching drones. I think these are a very capable and versatile class of ships and deserve a lot more respect.
@@nickgooderham2389lol, they are ultra expensive ice breakers with 3 small cannons. Welcome to the absolute corruption of the RCN and Irvin corporation.
I like the Type 26 frigate. She looks clean. I like her lines, but I'm cautiously optimistic about the automation. Automation is great as long as the sailors can service the equipment.
Like Scotty said, "A trainee and 2 chimpanzees could run her"
lol those will be ready for Canada when they are obsolete, like most of our equipment.
The other problem with smaller crew count is damage control. Usually the spare crew (usually naval ships carry 200-300% crew so they can work in 12-8hr shifts) ships carry become damage control parties in combat. Less crew = significantly less damage control parties.
Frigate, you say? Didn't you know they miraculously became destroyers?
@@BrianZinchuk They have the typically anemic armament of frigates, not destroyers. They are glorified coast guard patrol ships meant to keep merchantmen honest. They are little more than a target for a peer adversary. I have no issue with referring to them as frigates.
@@panpiper A 127 mm main gun is not anemic. And the missile load out is to include Tomahawks. So, they can do anti-air, anti-ship and land attack.
On top of that, they still maintain anti-submarine capabilities
I did 8 years professional Infantry, and 19 in the Vermont (Vert Mont) National Guard. We were very close with Princess Patricias and. village had about haf French speakers (Quebecois) and not only are Canucks (friendly term) outstanding soldiers, but just grea people. I am old and beat up, but I would back up a Canuck any day. Respect Canada. Just a bonehead Vermonter here and Salute
FYI: Canadian Surface Combatant and the River class destroyer are the same thing
Thanks I was wondering lol
Thanks for the video Matsimus. I am a sailor for the CAF and definitely feel like the Navy is disrespected by the other elements. The navy is essential and deserves massive respect. I personally am encouraged and exited by the new fleet additions in the next 20 years or so. Cheers
Thank you for what you do. Aye Ready Aye
A Canadian maritime presence in the Arctic is important now and will become increasingly important in the future. There will be intense competition for resources in the North as global warming results in more open water and ease of passage. I hope our government provides our men and women with the resources they need and deserve.
As a just an everyday Canadian speaking on the part of the many, thank you and we appreciate you
As a navy vet it's nice to see the pride is still there, I sailed steamers but can remember the excitement of them starting construction of the Halifax class just as I was getting out and I'm sure you are feeling the same way about the River class. 😊
While Canada on building a new class of destroyers, they are woefully under armed. 24 Mk 41 VLS tubes is a small number for a modern frigate, much less a destroyer. The British type 26 frigate upon which it is based. Also has 4 8 VLS tubes for the Sea cepter missile I happen to think this makes it a little underarmed but at least they are trying to have a competitive frigate. The Australian version will have 32 Mark 41 VLS cells and they are considering increasing this to 96.
The Aussies would have to stretch the Hunter class, or completely eliminate the forward gun turret to be able to triple its VLS capacity
Outstanding footage of the navy proceeding and great coverage on whats going on as we move forward. I loved the interior footage as miss my naval days, the Canadian Navy is a fantastic group of people and this story did a good job showing that.
Nice to see this celebration of our Royal Canadian Navy and the new classes coming into service. Our Navy long time seems to me like it's been underfunded considering the importance of it's mission to our Country so new investment is very welcome. I am really proud of all of you serving in our Navy, thank you!
My son was in Navy Cadets on the Atlantic coast, we met some of the most organized people I have ever seen. Reliable day in and day out despite bureaucratic delays and political lacunae from Ottawa. (my impression as a civilian father, I am not in the CF)
Thank you Matt as usual.
Thanks for the shout out, we were happy to have you aboard!
They need to retain the Halifax class (Reserve status) in order to have additional lethality and to improve upon the RCN operations tempo. Having a few LPD’s or MPSS built by Damien will add value to the RCN’s Expeditionary capability. The MPSS is an ideal design for those maritime services that have small to medium budgets but want quality and affordability. The RCDF deserves better than what they are getting currently.
We should probably be aiming for 20 surface combatants instead of 15 but the don't all need to be top of the line like the type 26. We should looking at the mix that the Brits and Aussies are planning for inspiration.
@@DJC-it2sw 15 CSC's for NATO commitments and long distance patrols..we can agument that with actual frigates for territorial/ littoral work.
While it's good to see the AOPS operating, it's sedioualy underarmed compared to what Russia has opersting in the Arctic. We need an armed vessel capable of opereting year round in the Arctic.
@@gryph01 I don't have a problem with AOPS armament or icebreaking capability. Our navy has responsibility for sovereignty patrols and these ships are well enough armed for that purpose. If you look around the world, OPVs are not armed for peer level combat. Also, no one is running destroyers through the NWP in the coming decades so getting up there late spring to late fall to show a presence is 90% of our immediate requirement. The CCG cand handle the winters.
My problems with AOPS are cost (8x what they should cost), numbers (probably only need 3-4) and stated role (these are medium icebreakers with top speed of 17knots so why are we pretending they are appropriate for global patrols?)
Everyone worries about China and Russia in the NWP but I see that as paranoia. They have their own challenging claims for territorial waters to defend so violating our claims is counter-productive. The US is our main adversary here and no military capabilities will solve that issue.
@DJC-it2sw I agree, especially with the cost. It was a poor choice relying on one or two yards to build both the AOPS and the CSC. More yards should have been engaged or developed to reduce lead times and increase a skilled workforce
I wouldn't call it paranoia about the increased presence of China and Russia in the Arctic. And I don't think Russia is crazy enough to play around in the NWP. They have plenty of open water alomg their shore. It's the North Shore of our islands up their I'm concerned about. If we want to protect or EEZ on the North Shore, we need more of a presence and that presence needs to be better armed. I recognize what the AOPS is... it's a patrol vessel and not expected to engage warships. But we need a stronger presence up North.
Onenof the ressons we have a "dispute" with the U.S. claim that the NWP is international waters is the fact we don't have a strong enough presence up North.
Since the late 80's, I have advocated for a larger Navy which should include nuclear powered submarinces. And if we want more of an armed presence up North, we will need more than 15 CSC's. We have a lot water to cover.
@gryph01 We don't have more yards to engage. There are only 3 yards in the country that have build ships over about 2000 tons in the last 30 years, and all are building NSS ships.
Thank you for this video! As a former commissioned infantry officer (commissioned in 1981) in the CAF, I've enjoyed this content and have been educated as to the future plans for our Navy. Good work. I look forward to your next videos.
These new ships will have a serious upgrade in terms of firepower, from a 57mm borors and 20 mm CIWS to a 5in (127mm) main gun and two 30mm autocannoms amd also going from what i understand as two types of missiles up to 5 types, and still retaining the torpedos and helicopter. These will be proper destroyers for the RCN. "In God we trust, all others we trsck"
Totally agree with you about the high quality of the RCN videos and would never have seen them if it wasn't for you Matt.
Great video and it looks as if you really enjoyed yourself there.
Thanks 👍
Great video Matsimus. As usual!
You are the reason I joined the CAF :)
Glad to hear it!
I hope that more then 3 River-class destroyers are built. You will need at least 2 on the Atlantic coast and 3 on the Pacific coast imo.
The intention is to build 15.
Canada needs at least 3 on both coasts, that is if Canada desires to deploy any abroad annually for exercises with NATO and RIMPAC... Frankly I would prefer at least another one on both coasts for a minimum of 8 providing cover for mid-life refits or loss of ships for any number of reasons... The train, deploy, and maintenance cycle, plus a extra for cover...
Hovercraft for icy areas are something to consider.
I spent a number of years working on SRN6 Hovercraft, while the AP1-88 would be useful in the Arctic, they would require a fair bit of shoreside infrastructure, for a vessel that would have a patrol area of about 200nm in either direction,
@@Colinpark I have always thought that hovercraft can perform many missions, both combat and logistics, and that any modern navy must have them. Greetings.
@@arbelico2 Hovercraft do very well in certain niches. Hovercraft have been extensively used in the Arctic, but there is a lot of upkeep to keep them going. Several of my Captains had previously run hovercraft in the arctic and Caspian sea.
I really would love to see one or two of the Halifax Class as they get decommisoned become museum ships. Spesifically HMCS Fredericton, have her set up as a museum in Saint John where she was built.
Dang I hope this comes to pass! Exciting video for sure. Personally I am thrilled but say about time. To the men and women who serve so professionally and so courageously, my family and I thank you. You deserve the best. To us, YOU are one of Canada's most precious resources. Stay safe.
Good to see you doing content again.
The Type 26 is the new River class, the Type 26 has been upgraded to be a destroyer with increased weight and increased capacity over the original T26
I’ve always been doing content, TH-cam just isn’t showing it to you lol
less missiles than the Brits or Aussies tho
Hey Matt, you should also do the future Australian Navy, it'll be the largest fleet ever operated by Australia.
Australia is not under any illusions America will come to their rescue unless they invest significantly arming themselves unlike Canada. America is not adjacent to Australia, as Australia is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean...
It's hilarious to see that a replemishment ship is better arm then the Articic "Patrol" Ship.
Hear, hear. I am actually impressed that they put two CWIS on the replenishment ship, a smart move in my opinion. The River-class FRIGATE on the other hand will make a fine coast guard vessel that should keep merchantmen honest. It is utterly unsuited for anything else. Way to go Canada. (I am ashamed to be Canadian frankly.)
@@panpiperya well Canadians who have served aren't too proud of people like you either so I guess it's a wash. 🤔
Canada just recently launched the first Protecteur class ship, the last ship with that name suffered a engine room fire a DECADE ago... In that time Australia has ordered and received two Spanish built AORs, and the South Koreans have delivered four AORs to the British... Come on Canada, pull the dildo out...
For a real take on the Canadian navy have a look at Perun’s videos. Canada spends too much for too little and underfunds to an unbelievable level. All political parties in Canada do not support our military.
Nothing new there, unfortunately. We entered WW1 without an army and an over glorified Fishing Protection Service with 2 crappy rust bucket cruisers (both scrapped almost immediately), a couple of similar rust bucket subs (also scrapped within a couple of years), and a bunch of boats. Ended it with a few destroyers, which by WW2 had been replaced. With slightly more modern rust buckets. Ended WW2 with the third largest navy by # of active ships and personal. Admittedly, helped somewhat by the previous #3 (Japan), 4 (France), and 5 (Italy) being much reduced. Only had 1 escort carrier and a handful of cruisers, the rest were destroyers and corvettes.
@@hanzzel6086 With both those cruisers and a good chunk of that fleet laid up and eventually scrapped soon after the war...Canada had one of the most unbalanced navies in the western world...
@ronclark9724 Nobody wanted to give us a battleship for some reason, probably didn't even want to think about how much more we would add to the Geneva Suggestion with one.
How would you comment on Perun's recent video regarding Canadian spending on defence? If I was Canadian I would be worried, if he's right. As a Norwegian I noticed the work on ships of the Svalbard class, where the project development cost way more than we paid for a complete ship, everything included. And building ships for our navy is seldom considered cheap as we have expensive ways to do it.
Perun does a good job looking at cost overruns in that video, but not a very good job at looking at the "why" of those costs (particularly in regard to the Harry Dewolf. Other criticisms in the video are entirely justified). In part, because information is very limited.
The Harry DeWolf has to patrol much further distances than the Svalbard (only resupply is in Southern ports, and it needs to be able to transit the entire N-W passage, meaning more food, fuel, and general independence), be able to self-dock in rough terrain to reach remote communities (as I understand, the Svalbard requires port facilities) (which is also why the "no tug boats" is mentioned in the promo video), and carry a more broad array of mission items to complete tasks in the artic (as its essentially an independent base of operations rather than just a patrol boat).
The need to be completely independent much further distances away than Norway might deal with cost money. In some ways that's just the cost of making the ship you need. Its absolutely overcosted when you look at it in pure military value terms (guns and tonnage), but as a unique design that fulfills canada's need; its harder to say. Not a lot of ships can operate independently in the North the way it does. Other side of the coin; in an actual conflict its a lot of money for not a lot of value. Its the sort of ship you need to enable search and rescue operations and otherwise open up the N-W passage to trade. For pure patrol boat purposes we could achieve something similar a lot cheaper. Whether or not it was worth the added cost will depend entirely on how Canada is able to use it and if we can benefit from the artic because of it going forward.
@@yellowgreyandsinister Svalbard has Svalbard to go to, so no need to travel huge distances on its own. About Peruns comments, I think it was more about the huge cost of planning, and not so much the actual ships. The cost of planning alone cost many times the cost of the Svalbard all included. And it was an example of many, where Canadian purchases seem to end up costing way more than similar projects in other countries. All this is new to me, so my only source at the moment is Perun. He's pretty good at this stuff, and I've found him to do good work most of the time.
@@mortarboss Well, so, that's sort of my point. Svalbard has the port to go to. It was designed with that in mind; and its capabilities reflect that. Its well suited to its task.
We don't have the ports in the far North, so the design team had to pack even more capability for distance and sustainment into the same general platform (along with several other things). Was that worth the design cost involved? Debatable. I think they were still atrociously expensive. But there is at least some reason behind the cost more than "Canadian Procurement Bad." I feel Perun missed that.
And to be clear; Perun is broadly very good and I look forward to his upload tomorrow. This isn't trying to knock him in any way.
@@yellowgreyandsinister I totally agree with your points. What we have learnt over here the last 2-3 years is that in order to get what we need, we will stop making all kinds of small idiotic and often unnecessary changes to stuff we buy, and from now on will try to buy off the shelf instead. Delivery times are reduced by a lot, and prices go way down. We also will do joint purchases. The frigate you have picked, the British 26, that might be our new one as well. It's a strong contender. But we will buy it as is. And we will build it in Norway. All our recent ships have been built outside Norway, despite a very strong ship building industry here, and the result have been huge delays, huge extra costs, and crap quality.
Also looking forward to Perun's new video today. I never miss any of them.
Thanks for the video on the Canadian Navy. I pulled into CFB Shearwater (near Halifax) three times while in the US Navy. I enjoyed every visit. The Canadians always treated us very well. The RCN deserves so much respect.
They have no choice but to treat Uncle Sugar well.
(Props for your service.)
hey Matsimus, as an RCN sailor, its nice to finally see some screen time for our navy. a lot of those "B-roll" clips you had in your video for the halifax class were taken on my ship during our deployment in the black sea back in 2019 on HMCS Toronto ^_^.
just some friendly corrections for you: the river class destroyers are canada's version of the type 26s. they aren't two different ships. an easy mistake to make seeing as they kept calling them frigates right up until last year when they reveled the class name.
also, the moto is ready aye ready, not aye ready aye.
cheers ^_^
Thank you, bro, for giving the navy a little bit of your spotlight
Greetings from Spain. The Canadian Navy has a big task ahead of it, both because it is the largest country on the planet and because of the number of new challenges it faces.
Apart from the new ships, drones of all kinds, SOUS networks, the future of the SKS and DSV submarine weapons, and over-the-horizon radars are systems to be acquired.
Another area is the marine corps and its resources.
Canada does not have a Marine Corps. Concetration in addition to what was mentionsed will be buying between 8 and 12 conventional subs possibly the KSS 3 from Korea and the building of 15 Vigelence class patrol vessels of about 2500 tons. Also in development are new radars for the north, and under water detection systems along with buying 88 Block 4 extended bay F35s. Great to hear from Spain who Canada works with in Latvia.
@@jonmce1 I'm surprised they don't have marines and that they don't plan an LHD ship with F-35B.
*second largest with the largest coastline.
AWESOME VIDEO AND ONE BEST VIDEOS OUT THERE FOR ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY I HAVE SEEN IN YEARS AND ITS ABOUT TIME FOR NEW VESSEL FOR RCN AND I HAVE SOFT SPOT FOR RCN EVER SINCE MY GRANDFATHEER SERVED FROM 1940 - 1964 AND I GREW IN MILITARY FAMILY MY YOUNGER BROTHER IS CANADIAN ARMY AS WELL AND THANKS FOR HONEST UPDATE OF RCN NEW VESSELS THAT ARE IN PROGRESS
Another great video, thanks and THANK-YOU for your service!
Much appreciated!
Canada needs to encourage patriotism and a desire to protect and defend this country. The last few generations have been allowed to feel safe because of our giant neighbor to the south. If we cant get people then we need to get tech. If we can buy/build enough ships and man them then we need to figure out unmanned in my own opinion. Deleveoping a culture of pride and willingness to defend this country should come first
yes but the completely negative bs from certain political people is having the opposite affect unfortunately the next government has a very poor history of buying or building the military conservatives will not spend the necessary dollars.
@@alpearson9158conservatives are not the issue, your uniparty is the issue.
@@alpearson9158 As if the Liberal government has... NOT... It was a Liberal PM Jean Chretien that said Canada was fortunate to be in the position to NOT spend MORE on defense being adjacent to America, so we won't... This has been Canada's defense policy since the Second World War... Canada's submarines will be forty years old before they are replaced, if then. Canada's polar icebreaker is over fifty years old, and the keel for a new polar icebreaker has yet to be laid down. While the DeWolf class ships will help patrol the far north archipelago, Canada does not have a large sea lift ship to supply and sustain a significant army unit to defend two of the more populous islands, Vancouver or Newfoundland. Presumably the Canadian government won't be alarmed concerning defense until the enemy if within artillery range of Ottawa...
I think Canada's security needs would be better served by 8-10 subs of either Swedish or German manufacturing. Surface ships are good for waving the flag and chasing drug runners, but to give the enemy pause, subs are the tool that have the potential to harm the enemies fleets.
already in the plan and I suspect may be ordered before the next election to help meet the 2% but remember as Canada's 2% is far far bigger than most European nations ( by actual gdp ) you will have to be prepared to actually pay for them
lol what? the off gassing sinking fire laden always dry dock ones we bought near full price second hand and HARD USED aren’t good enuf? lol sarcasm.
Yup. If you really want to kill ships, you need subs. Type 212CD or something like it would be great, considering the way Germany designed the CD for Norway's needs. (And hydrogen fuel cells? Canada has an edge in clean H2 production if we ever want to get serious about building the facilities.) However, the South Koreans are making a strong case for their subs, and it looks like the Navy brass is interested in those too.
Why can't the Canadian political parties agree, that the Canadian Navy needs a new vessel every two years.
Agreed but defence has never been a priority for Canadian governments outside of active wartime. There's always something more pressing and more local for the government to spend money on and the threats are far away.
hmm... I was under the impression that Arctic ship lost its front gun and now is down to the 2x.50 Cal machine guns.
Also, CSC/Type26 is the same thing than River class destroyer. This new naming was created in the last 6 months. Hope everyone is armed with patience to see that ship.
Also the replacement of the Kingston class should have been showcased, but that too is way too early to see definite designs.
The six RCN ships will have a 25-mm Bushmaster chain gun, whereas the two Coast Guard ships won't...
Matsimus for Honorary Sea Sergeant
PS, I've painted that exact turret deck on the FRE back in 2022/2023 lol... We went ham chipping the rust off and then going with paint rollers with ship side and water way grey.
Thank you for your service sir, been watching your production for awhile, and have liked and subscribed. Just my two bits, our destroyers will be the most heavily armed of the type 26.
Much appreciated
Great video , thank You fellow proud Canadian!
Thanks for watching!
Thank you Matt. It's great to see you back on Yuotube.
I haven’t actually gone anywhere lol. TH-cam just doesn’t show my content to anyone anymore
@@_Matsimus_they don’t allow many responses either. MANY of mine erased.
Great coverage, I'm certainly no expert on naval issues but can't help but feel the Arctic patrol ships are quite under armed. One 25mm canon isn't going to strike fear into an adversary. Shouldn't she have more missile capabilities and counter missile capabilities ?
Remember the AOPS was a Harper-era project; if it were designed in the 2020's not in the 2000's, it would likely have more emphasis on peer-level combat, and more measures to deal with relatively new threats like air & sea drones. As @yellowgreyandsinister points out in his comments, the AOPS is not like a normal patrol ship; it is meant for mostly solo operations in a very isolated and huge region with punishing conditions, so it no doubt has self-sustainment and shore sustainment as a major feature, but designing with that in mind comes with compromises in terms of what sort of weapons it can carry. Upping the gun size for example would not likely make much difference, considering the kind of encounters it was considered likely to have, particularly in its intended region of operation (the Canadian arctic). You can game out various scenarios, but a weapon-to-weapon "gunslinger face-off" scenarios, are probably the least likely way that any incident would play out.
@wyldhowl2821
Thanks for the information. We are always 20 years late and many dollars short 😁
I really like the Harry DeWolf patrol ship, I just wish it was better armed. A single 25mm gun and two 50cal open mount machine guns, That is great for a armored fighting vehicle, but a bit weak for a ship. Have you seen the Chines "coastguard" ships that are causing trouble near the Philippians?
We should sail one of these to the Phillipines, and see if the Chinese coast guard likes getting into the mosh pit with a vessel that has an ice-strengthened hull. 😅
The Harry DeWolf class is a platform. The ship has a full combat management system on board. While the current state isn't heavily armed that doesn't mean that can't add to it if required. Today the Harry DeWolf class is more about logistics than combat.
@@erikstephens34 ok, that does sound like a Canadian thing to do.
Well done Matt! Bravo Zulu. Great video.
Love the hat, where may I get one? You really made me look closer at my choices, for our troops
Thank you.
CA,RCN, RCAF are all one heck of a punch.
🇨🇦 Vet
Love you, Canada. You have great armed forces that i respect. But i heard from a member of the Canadian armed forces, and i believe it's true. The primary part of Canada's defense strategy is hope the US likes us for a long time
I mean, realistically speaking, the U.S. is the only real military threat to Canadian sovereignty. And they outnumber us more than 10 to one. If they ever decide they don't like us, we are boned.
Though I'm certainly proud of our sailors, I'm questioning designs like the Harry DeWolf class. Like the narrator said, with its paltry cannon and two machine guns: "It has enough firepower to easily enforce domestic laws"...so, basically a coastguard ship by most countries' standards. It's not, however, equipped to go up against Chinese or Russian icebreakers that are more heavily armed than it, and can handle thicker ice.
LOL...first...chinese ice breakers aren't armed nor do they have many as being in south east asia, they don't have to deal with iced over waters. Russia BARELY has any operational armed ice breakers and as Ukraine has demonstrated, their navy is a total joke and they're not about to do an expeditionary warfare across the arctic with the few ships they have. What exactly would they accomplish other than becomming a torpedo target for the USN Virginia class submarine that will undoubtedly be following them from beneath the ice pack.
The River Class Destroyers are in fact based upon the British Type 21 Frigate ... we are not getting both of them as apparently misrepresented in the video.
In dry dock, i worked on the winnipeg, calgary, edmonton, vancouver, and the old protectuer before she burned.
awwww we are only buying 15, when we should be buying 50.....but this is typical of us since we do not spend anywhere near the money we should be spending on defense, and the worst part about that is the incredibly low wages we pay ppl in our military.
Isnt the UKs type 26 frigate referred to at the start known in Canada as the River-class destroyer, which was formerly the Canadian Surface Combatant ( eg type 26)‽?
Yep.
Now how do we build our ships faster? They are taking forever.
You need more than one shipyard to build frigates quicker. Two shipyards should build the ships twice as quickly... Davie is available...
Sadly Irving got the exclusive contract. Davie would have made the ships cheaper and faster, but its not about doing that, its about drawing production out as long as possible to milk as much out of the Canadian Taxpayers as they can. What was originally to cost 18 billion is now going to cost 77 Billion. The contract needs to be reduced to 8 and then the savings need to be used to do what the UK is doing and purchase 10 Iver Huitveldt Frigates as a cheaper and more flexible alternative. Build them in Denmark by Odense and by Davie in Quebec in half the time for less than half the cost of the CSC. Use the prepurchased systems for the CSC for the Iver Huitfeldt's. They can be maintained by Davie, Seaspan and Irving, spread the love, no monopolies.
Because it takes two days to build thousands of tons, y'all complain too much
@@ronclark9724 Davie has current contracts so not available and St. John closed due to lack of work
@@alpearson9158 Maybe the Canadian government should get a clue and open up the shipyard in St. John...
I like that the Freddy still has the Queens portrait photo.
Okay cool, so with what money are they gonna be built with, and what crews are they gonna be manned with?
I remember seeing a TV documentary about Submarines it was from the late 80s early 90s and had some info on the then Upholder Class SSK of the RN and had some trash talk about the USN having just by 89? Gone all nuclear as the RN had just gotten a new SSK only a few years later they were RCN Victoria Class SSK and the RN all Nuclear thanks for reminding me of when I was a kid the Upholder /Victoria Class still looks cool
and unlike the politicians would have you know, quite useful
I hope the RCN Type 26 Frigates are better than the lumps of lard the Australian Navy (RAN) is getting (Hunter Class Type 26's) but I do note the "Harry DeWolf" patrol boats, like the RAN patrol boats are very under gunned. A ship if the "Harry DeWolf" class size should have multi role 30-40mm gun capable of air defence, ie Typhon Mk30C or Bofors 40mm. Also given the conditions the 2 x 50cal guns need to be remote weapons stations so personal do not need to brave the elements. The Protector Class support ships seem well equipped and well protected, WELL DONE Canada. Please send the plans to Australia to show our Government and the RAN you can have a capable ship that can protect itself ...ie can shoot ! You failed however to provide any details of the River Class vessels so I can not comment (would love to see a video on them and the details of the RCN Type 26 Frigates). Its all about the details.
To call the arctic patrol ships naval vessels is an absolute travesty. Most coast guards have higher armament than the De Wolf class. One, singular 25 mm gun and a couple Ma Deuces on the rails? I could put a 50 cal on our 17 foot runabout, for goodness sake. How toothless can you possibly be? Zero air defence, zero vertical launch tubes, zero torpedoes. Not even a 3 incher on the bow. If they had at least put in some VLS cells they could have had a few torpedoes and a few air defense missiles these. are arguably the least-armed "naval" ships we have ever put to sea. They should have just called them Coast Guard and been done with it, instead of embarrassing Canada.
Torpedoes will work really well in the Artic ice
@@georgefox4982 Virginia and Los Angeles Class have sharks with laser beams on their foreheads?
Great video. :) yes "technically" we have a navy but it is not anywhere near the size it should actually be given our amount of coastline and our almost complete lack of a presence in our northern waters.
Every time I drive along the NCSM Onondaga near Pointe-aux-Père, laying on the beach with a Tim Horton's plastic lid covering one of her torpedo tube I cry internally. A mari usque ad mare my arse.
Thanks mate!
Awesome video man! I went from an army boi to a sailor boi and I am having an amazing time!
Oh good they gonna get some new canoes??
As always great video Matsimus! If you or anyone else wants to see how bad Canadas procurement and cost production for our navy, watch Perun’s video on the Canadian military.
Bad news those ships will be ready by 2065. By that time we will be even further behind. Good times lads.
We should also buy 20 type 31 patrol boats to replace Kingston-class coastal defence vessels
Are you referring to the type 31 being built by the Royal Navy? Those are 6,000 ton frigates not patrol boats. We should have some to supplement the CSC but they are nothing like the Kingstons.
@@DJC-it2sw But are way more useful
@@lloydkuepfer1599 true but if we're going to imagine hypothetical fleets, you need to consider a mix of capabilities and be realistic about what we can afford (even assuming 2-2.5% spending) as well as what we could eventually crew. 20 type 31 means about $20B (canadian build) and about 2,500 crew.
We can probably use a mix of 20 surface combatants (type 26, type 31 and AAW destroyers) in the image of the Brits and Aussies. Patrol boats (like UK River class) also play a role so the mix of capabilities is what you want to useful.
@DJC-it2sw sure sounds good to me. I think we could at least 25 mix fleet
The Kingstons are slated for replacement rpretty soon - most likely by the Vard "Vigilance" design for multi-role patrol / coastal defense vessels. As far as I know that's not written in stone just yet, but the pitch was made, and I have yet to read about any competing proposals or ideas.
Someone else touched on this but the 26 Frigate started out as the Canadian Surface Combatant because the original plan under the Harper government was to have 15 hulls have between 10 and 12 of them be the general purpose frigate with limited air defence capabilities and have 3 to 5 of the same design of hulls be kitted out to be the full fledged Air Defence Destroyers. I had wondered if the air defence gear would be transferable from one hull to another so we could always have the four or five destroyer functions available regardless of how many of the class was ready for sea at any time. I never really got that answer. When the Trudeau government took over they must have done a deal with the RCN similar to what they did with the RCAF where after a strategic review Trudeau committed to buying more F35s than Harper had signed up for. The RCN must have done their own Strategic Review and decided that the way ahead needed to be Destroyers so the next thing we know is that Trudeau committed to making all 15 hulls into the full destroyer package.
It’s a little weird to keep up with. What one navy calls a Frigate an other navy will call a Destroyer. Before and during WW2 it was pretty easy to tell the difference, Destroyers were bigger and had more fire power than frigates. In the modern era, the frigates and destroyers are about the same size as each other and both have grown to the size of pre WW2 Cruisers. The difference today seems to be in capability and therefore price. The Frigate is more general purpose with an emphasis on anti submarine warfare. While the destroyer can do those things plus fleet air defence and ship to ship combat being able to engage a hundred targets of all shapes and sizes at once with this AGEIS weapons system this type of weapons system is what makes the destroyer so much more expensive than the frigate.
So you will see more and more that the term CSC will be giving away to the term destroyer when describing these new ships.
There isn't any specific rule for naming conventions. The US Ticonderoga cruiser was slightly smaller than the latest Arleigh Burke destroyers and both are much smaller than the Zumwalt destroyers. Typically they've been designated by role more than size, but again, there's no rule.
@ yeah, you’re right. The Type 26 Frigate is a good example of that. The British designed it for the RN and are calling it a frigate but I think they are replacing a class of destroyers with it. The Australians are buying it as well. I believe the RAN is replacing a class of frigates with it. Because Canada was replacing 2 classes of warships ( 4 Destroyers and 12 frigates) with 1 class of 15 vessels. The original plan was to have 10 to 12 be a more general purpose (cheaper) version of the vessel to replace the frigates and 3 to 5 of the vessels to be the more capable ( expensive) version of the vessel replace the Destroyers. That was why they were originally going to call them the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) But recently something has changed and Trudeau seems to have signed off on all 15 vessels having the fully capable “Destroyer” function. This is a major shift. That AGIES defence system (or equivalent) makes each vessel 2 to 3 times more expensive. This is why I believe Trudeau got the RCN to do a similar Strategic Review that he required of the RCAF before buying new fighters. When the review was done Trudeau agreed to buy more of the F35s than what Harper committed to. I think the Navy did that same type of review and decided they had more need for a destroyer than a frigate. Much like the Canadian Army the RCN does not just contribute to an operation it seeks out and accepts leadership roles as part of its commitments. Right now the Canadian Army is commanding the international brigade in Latvia as well as contributing a battalion sized force. In the same way the history of the navy is to look for and accept positions like commander of the Escort Group or Protection Group what have you. My interpretation of developments is the RCN feels it can do that function in a Destroyer better than in a Frigate.
I mean, first of all, this isn't the kind of decision the PM of any political stripe is going to be making. It's DND/RCN driven planning and procurement that makes these calls, the pols only really care when money gets involved and you can't sell it. I suspect the designation largely comes from the fact that it'll be the first Aegis equipped ship class Canada operates, something usually (but not always - the Aussie ones will also have Aegis but are still classified as frigates, for example) associated with destroyers, and that the Type 26s are already in destroyer territory size-wise. Also, the Kingston-class replacements are next up after the submarine replacements, and while the initial assumption was that they'd be fairly capable OPVs, the RCN is hinting that they want something more like a full-fledged corvette to replace them, so taking up some of that traditional frigate space.
As for the F-35s, that one WAS political for the aforementioned reasons. The initial deal was cancelled because there were a lot of hidden costs, or not fully costed (one of the foibles of our procurement system as a whole), or other items (like the deal being for only 66 fighters which was a less than 1:1 replacement and would have only been enough to meet NORAD and training requirements without much left over for international deployments or attrition) that kept bubbling up, and coupled with the F-35's teething issues (which it still has, but these would have been LRIPs and required frequent downtime to upgrade and fix), it was creating a lot of bad PR. So the call was to cancel the deal and hold a traditional, open competition. We WERE on the way to buying Super Hornets (first as an 'interim' fighter, but it would have made it easier to rationalize/cheaper to make them the preferred replacement) before Boeing got themselves blacklisted for going after Bombardier for stupid, anti-competitive reasons. The European jets were a non-starter (NORAD) and mostly pulled out early when they realized it was always going to be an American fighter. Saab offered a really sweet deal that would have been good for the whole domestic industry and being able to self-support, but... not American. Also, the new deal was a 1:1 replacement for the current inventory at 88 F-35s (actually slightly better since there are only 85 CF-188s left).
@@ArmouredPhalanx you’re right PM don’t decide what to call something they just pay the bills. This is why the strategic review is important. The Government tells (in this case) the RCN what it needs to be able to do. “Guard the Arctic Ocean”, “maintain our NATO Naval commitments”, etc . The RCN comes back with a shopping list it needs to do the jobs the government want them to do. The government decides on how much of the list they are going to pay for.
As to the Destroyer - Frigate debate it’s a bit strange. Destroyers were always bigger, faster and more capable than frigates. Cruisers were even bigger than destroyers. Now most frigates on the market today have the displacement of pre WW2 light cruisers.
This purchase is different in that the RCN has always been (for lack of a better description) a Frigate Navy. We have had mostly small general purpose ships with a few larger, more capable vessels sprinkled in from time to time and our war experience in two world wars was convoy escort. This was followed up by a NATO commitment of being able to do convoy escort during the Cold War. Supply convoys run from danger so they only need an escort to stand between them and the threat while it runs away so in most cases a frigate will do. A combat fleet is different not only does it not run away from danger in most cases it’s looking for danger. So a Combat Fleet’s escorts have to be able to stand and fight in a prolonged battle. It has to defend the capital ships from a variety of threats (air threats in particular) while those capital ships go about doing what it is they were built to do.
The fact that the RCN has convinced the government to spend the extra money to give all 15 of the new ships the full Destroyer function tells me that their Strategic Review tells them that convoy escort is no longer the RCN’s primary mission. Some version of “Standing and Fighting” is.
@@rickcosman9670 during both ways the majority of the fleet were corvettes. Small sub hunters. Post WWII they were typically destroyers. Either classes as DE destroyer escort or DDH helo carrying destroyer escort.
The Halifax class is really the only frigate in general use by the RCN, although like before, the naming conventions are really up to the individual nation and those earlier ships were frigates in all but name.
The biggest difference with the new ship is they are the first with an area air defense system designed in from the get go. There's not a lot of aircraft mid-Atlantic. The Iroquois were not purpose built for it and the Halifax is basically self defense only.
This is going off memory, so don't take any of this as gospel.
Long overdue, stand proud Canada.
😂🤡💩
Are the American Arliegh Burke destroyers able to carry a pick up truck
America's new Constellation frigates can, and the present LCS ships can... Not to mention ALL of those amphibious ships of the US Navy...
Replace our subs with the Gotland class.
I have heard that the Sea Ceptor missile will not be installed. Can anyone confirm?
can't confirm anything until we see the ships hitting the water, but everything i have read suggests that you are correct. the last update that was put out by the government of Canada listed the RIM-116 as replacing the Sea Ceptor missiles.
Thanks for the insight and love the navy, as for myself it’s been 3 years for my service with the navy and I do know of that ship
Glad you found this interesting!
What about the future of Canadian unmanned systems?
If you guys get "disbanded" and have an oppurtunity to enlist ine the U.S. Army National Guard?
Future and Canada made me laugh.
Sorry but with the budget being less than the NATO requirement every year means at this rate there is no future, there is only wishes.
Now if funding increases, then I'd say there's a chance, but thing have to CHANGE!
why?
Our budget is about 27 bill, and thast 1.3% of our GDP
only Germany France, the US and UK spend more than us, so many NATO states have 2% or more and don't even spend close to 10billion
Y'all should stop complaining and start doing, the CAF is changing and change would come, stop this whining attitude, we didn't win both world wars with whining
@@Drexler638Canada did not win either world war, the allies did.
@shocktnc and we played decisive roles, the trench raids, juno beach
We made a big difference, the battles for Britain.
We helped a lot, and we were feared
@@Drexler638No, compared to the contributions of other countries Canada was not special. I'm glad they supported the other allies, but don't pretend they won the war for them.
I'd be curious to hear what Royal Canadian Navy Personel would like to have? Types of ships? And #'s of them? CSC would be a good baseline, but what else do we need? Ignore the AOPS, they are not combat vessel's.
Canada need new 16 Frigate, new 12 submarine, new 12 coastal defence vessels new 2 ship replenishment oiler and 2 Helicopter carrier. Canada need Modernizing the Coast Guard's too.
Your videos would pop up time to time on my feed, but after seeing this earned a sub from me. All I see recently is people disparaging our nation, Canadians none the less, and frankly I'm sick of it as it seems it's all these people can do. They even go so far as to say they're not proud to be Canadian anymore and have written the country off.
But having someone who is still proud of our nation, and to be proudly serving in our military is a sign of hope that all these people complaining and disparaging are merely the loudest ones.
Thank you.
I dont disparage our nation I disparage the successive governments that driven out Military and its morale into the ground.
It seems to be a Canadian thing to eat their own
They call them frigates but the role is more like a destroyer and are the size of a WWII cruiser. It seems to be the way most navies are going but I am concerned about the price. $60 billion for 15 ships is insane. If Canada can't build ships for a decent price we should be buying overseas. Enough subsidies for the Irving family.
hmmm politics instead of need funny that!
77 Billion and it will take 20 years to get them. The first 3 ships will be getting their mid-service upgrade as the last one comes off the line
Surprised they let you film the inside especially the OPs room.
That’s not my footage
I doubt these ships have virtually no weapon systems compared to their British counterparts. Why have the weapon systems been so drastically eliminated?
The Weapons systems haven't been gutted, they are actually about the same. Canada just used different weapons in the CSC vs the UK's Type 26
What British counter part they have no patrol ships that are capable of breaking 4 feet of ice and supplying northern communities with food and fuel
Okay, now I'm really confused about what they're doing with the Type 26. Are they splitting them into River DDGs and frigates? Because the announced armament for the River class is already significantly lighter than the RN/RAN Type 26
Same ship
canada is using the design of the type 26 to build destroyers. and truth be told, as far as armament is concerned, based on the last update i read, the river class destroyers will be packed with more fire power. yes, there is just a 24 cell VLS up forward, but there is also a 6 cell VLS just aft of the mast which can hold 24 ESSMs (each cell can hold 4 missiles), with two RIM-116 missiles launchers, one on the port side and one on the starboard side (each of those housing 21 missiles). which brings the total on board missile count to a potential 90 anti air missiles, plus the 8 anti surface missiles.
contrast that with the british type 26 frigates with "just" 72 possible anti air missiles. as far as the main gun goes, they are the same (just different brands), they both have two 30mm auto cannons on top of the hanger top. and they both carry the same amount of anti surface missiles, and while i don't know if the British ship has torpedo tubes, the river class destroyer will.
hope that helped clear things up a bit
cheers
@Pvtduck The RIM-116 is a point defense missile replacing the Phalanx CIWS. That hardly counts. The 24 cell mk41 leaves them with four *fewer* than the Iroquois class, which was already seen on the light end by destroyer standards. The VLS amidships doesn't seem to show up in the most recent update of the ship.
Now you're right, it seems the Brits and Aussies have lost a few missiles too, since the original announcements. But then, they're still calling them frigates, and they aren't the *sole* class of warship for their respective navies.
Counting capacity using ESSM is disingenuous. But let's do that. A flight I Arleigh Burke, which displaces 8400 metric tons, would house 360 in its VLS. Australia's 7000t Hobart class DDG would fit 192.
My main problem is that this once again smacks of our idiot government playing name games to look better. They're calling them destroyers so they can sound tough for the people who don't know better.
@@JBob-qv2fd you are correct, that the RIM-116 is point defense, but our ships were going to be using the Sea Cepter and ESSM as point defense missiles. and had decided early on that they wouldn't go with any phalanx CIWS.
also, correct that there isn't any mention of the silos after of the mast, but in the diagrams its still there (yes, that was an assumption on my part based on what i see)
being an EW and air defense guy i still consider the RIM-116 in that equation, because the frigates only carried 1800 rounds in the CIWS before it needed to be reloaded which takes a crazy long time, and 16 ESSMs, compared to that, the new ships are insanely superior in air defense. now, do i wish they had more strike length VLS cells ? 100% i do.
and i agree with you on your last point, but also acknowledge that weight distribution is a thing. and for their length, that is the most we can stuff on these ships once you factor the on the weight of the components for the aegis combat system, and the spy 7 radar. if they wanted to put more missile cells on the ships, they would need to lengthen the ships, or take out the mission bay. also, based on their length and tonnage, they do class as destroyers.... its a technicality, and a bit of splitting hairs, but you know how the government is :P
my own personal opinion on this matter, I would like to see them take that mission bay off and replace it with an addition strike length VLS in at least 4 of the river class. it would give the navy more options, while still sticking to the single class model the government wants to stick to.
I don't think the river class is going with Sea Ceptor, but has opted for RAM.
are the canadian type 26s gonna be the evolved version or the standard one?
theoretically yes including l;onger and thus heavier
It's criminal that the previous government let the Navy rust out - their focus should have been on replacing the DDHs and AORs not building the AOPVs. However, because the previous PM promised 'armed icebreakers' in a campaign, we got the AOPVs instead of AORs and DDGHs. Sadly, no government in the last 50 years has given much thought or care to the CAF.
Could have paid half price for American product.
Bring me the reasons why we are ripped off so badly.
Please.
So you prefer cheap equipment over quality?
If your paying for a ship you better pay big money.
Also why TF are y'all acting as if we would stand a chance without our allies ina ww3 event, we don't even have nukes, the job of the CAF is not to compete with china and Russia, it's to defend our borders.
Stop this bs
What about submarines?
@@charonboat6394 nothing to go on right now
Shouldn't you have opened with "Ready Aye Ready," not "Aye Ready Aye," only one of those is the motto of the RCN.
@@Lemurion287 yes sorry my bad
Nice to see, but the arctic ships don't look like much, shouldn't there be more armaments? Some SAMs and stuff? a 25mm main gun - not a 95mm? her even a 57mm would at least be more impressive, it just seems like a floating LAV III, the arctic needs more defence than that
Literally russian ivan papanin military icbreaker class patrol vessel which fills the same role has more armaments. He atleast has rockets.
River Class Destroyer
There is a size or class of ship that is missing in the current plan. There is no real replacement ... "Corvette sized" that would replace the Kingston Class.
I'm aware that Heddle in Hamilton, Ont. has developed such a craft Vigilance Class) and plenty of others would be available from all over the World now. Irving, Seaspan and probably Davie are full up so, in the great tradition of past Corvettes, they will need to be built in smaller yards. Of course, those yards would have to be in Liberal ridings badda-boom-badda-bing.
❤ Absolutely Awesome show❤
The Harry de wolf class IS an incredible waste unless it’s to support a northern base of operations. What we need are modern AIP drive submarines.
The protector class is missing the boat on a lot of things. We could use it to transport an infantry battalion to trouble spots around the world as well as refuel ships. The mistral helicopter carriers built for Russia would have been a huge boon.
The river class is greatly needed but you didn’t have much as to when it will be in service, cost, who’s design ect ect.
The Harry de Wolf class ships were designed for multiple purposes such as an ice breaker up to 3.2 meters or 4 ft of ice at 3.5 knots a supply ship for northern communities, research vessel, ocean floor mapping a scientific research vessel and of course a patrol ship
well the Harry DeWolf class isnt a great example for good military procuring. You should have just bought the Svalbard
you know a channel named Perun?
Svalbad not big enough to handle Canadian needs thus a bigger ship
Why would you "not be at liberty to discuss government policies or defense politics" ???
1:20
@@DinoNucci I follow a social media policy as an active duty member. Im not permitted to
@_Matsimus_ OH you're still active?!
Carry on.
I have no confidence what so ever for the new ship River Class coming in on time or on cost. Shame on Irving. It's already over budget. ...that said, I sincerely hope I am wrong. Looking at the fiasco of the Harry DeWolf Class I am not holding my breath. The Harry de Wolf is WAY TOO OVER PRICED and not to mention under gunned. The one they sent to Cuba that was all over the news a couple months back looked from the photo's to be covered in rust.
Yep. Not a fan of Irving ship yards. Like Davie yard. Yes way to expensive. Cheaper to build in Japan or S. Korea
@@lloydkuepfer1599 or Denmark or even the UK. I've heard some negative stories of irving Shipbuilding over the years.
We should also keep the Halifax operational on our coasts
canada should have 30 frigates 12 destroyers and 30 subs what i think ??
Shouldn't you pronounce HMS as 'His' Majesty's Ship in stead of 'Her', since there is a king on the throne? Just asking, I'm not British
force of habit no doubt