I have been serving aboard Canadian Frigates for almost 10 years now as an Marine Electrician. I am posted to the Harry DeWolf in April. I am looking forward to sailing this new platform and learning everything about it!
@@Multheman01 It's still a ship, the platform refers to which ships design it was based upon. In this case, the platform is Halifax class. You just worry about checking ID's.
Canadian soldier here, This platform needs more firepower, everyone stop making excuses and just add more things that go boom. - Retired Infantry 1 RCR.
@Peter Lorimer I did one Op Nanook on the Frigates, did not get to go all the way up to the Arctic. Will be interesting to see. And the size of the Gun doesn't worry me. I wouldn't care even if we had no gun at all!
@@rwilletts1968 Yeah tough, if current specs are actually used its gonna be a hell of a ship. Probably one of the best warship for its size( Aircraft carriers are a tad more powerfull haha)
@Peter Lorimer I am anxious to see the New Surface Combatants, but I am not holding my breath. Chances are I will be retired before the first one comes out.
What Canada needs (to enforce it's arctic sovereignty) is a minimum of 3 Heavy (Nuclear Powered) and Armed Ice Breakers that can operate during Winter Time and can Break winter ice (which canada don't have and must rely on US nuclear ice breakers to clear a passage) ... and not waste money on Slushie Breaking Pea Shooters. And to Build northern Deep Water ports and infrastructure to support it.
If things go bad(hostilities) these ships will be basically expensive sacrificial lambs. The Canadian spirit can not defend against an anti-ship missile. We got hosed on the design costs. (compared to the same style built by Norway and Ireland) I wish we(tax payers) would stop getting screwed by the politicians/government when they go looking for tools for the military. I hope these ships sail well, protect their crews and our interests and last a long long time.
Sadly they will be used as Navy cargo delivery for northern communities that want new skidoos, trucks and construction equipment in the dead of winter.
A metre of new ice in arctic terms is like being able to push slush. The "arctic" was dropped from the name early on in development and this vessel needs to be accompanied by a icebreaker to truly operate in the north. The deck gun is a pop gun in naval terms and the ship is configured as a research vessel. Not a warship. A ship designed by committee and compromise.
This isn't a warship, it is a patrol vessel, it is not a research ship, it is a patrol vessel. the patrol vessel is adequately armed for patrolling. alot of combatant vessels cannot operate in arctic conditions, especially the "big navies" they are not equipped with such capabilities. Yes you hear russia or US operating up in the arctic, but during the summer and clear water months, this class can still operate where most other ships/vessels/boats cannot. How is it compromised? it was not intended to fight world war 3, it is intended to patrol and assist in disasters.
When you run up against a biligerant Chinese ship or Russian air craft what are you going to do with those pea shooters? Canada needs a minimum of 4-5 cruiser class nuclear powered 2nd year ice capable ballistic missile ships. With 2 anti missile close in gun systems. They need to be fast ships to chase down illegal fishing fleets. They also need to be powerful enough to project Canadian soverenty for at least the next 50 years. A minimum of 3 should be deployed at any time. It's should also probably have torpedoes and anti submarine abilities.
@@edkrach8891 My preference as well, however our surface ships are currently equipped with 57mm, and it would likley be an easier sell for commonality reasons, plus less effect of stability and impact on the spaces below.
Always happy to see the navy get a little more love. Seems there's a mismatch between what people expect this ship to be able to do and what it prob will end up doing. Money and manpower are very finite resources in Canada, even if we tried to increase our defense spending, there is always going to be a need to make more out of it. Now that could mean fewer but better quality, more but less impressive, more specialists, etc... With the airforce and army also fighting for budget, people need to be a bit more realistic about Canada's role and what it can afford and what makes sense to create. I personally think we need to cut our losses on the air force front and just get grippens and focus more effort at modernizing/expanding the navy with a special focus on arctic and anti submarine warfare... What do you folks think?
There's no reason why the Grippen wouldn't be suitable. It's rated for Arctic conditions even with one engine and a proven platform. The HDW is clearly something that should be given to the Coast Guard. Russia has 26 ships in it's Northen CG fleet of varrying sizes, but even the smallest seem to have guns larger that the HDW, ranging from 30 to 75mm. The Russian Navy itself has around 40 surface ships and dozens of submarines. The HDW will be expensive sitting ducks.
I think the government needs to stop spending money wastefully (which was done to a scary level even before covid) so we can afford 130 F-35s or F-15EXs, get 10 new submarines (at least), a dozen new destroyers, 1 capital ship cruiser, and 1 non-super carrier as a second capital ship. The carrier and cruiser should be nuclear (maybe we can build a more modern version of the Charles De Gaulle that France fields). And expand the armed forces with better equipment and a few thousand more people. We could also do with some anti-satellite weapons, which the F-15 does have. I mean, we have a larger economy than Russia, and they field 72 winter ice breakers (some nuclear), a lot of destroyers and cruisers (some nuclear), and a lot of submarines (all nuclear, iirc)... as well as the third largest air wing of any country (because technically the US has both the largest and second largest air forces in the world, and China is third place, I think)... and a standing army of 350k plus troops (close to half of which are stationed on the Ukraine border as I type this). And they develop their own 5th gen stealth fighters, and new missile systems, and infrastructure. And new tanks/artillery. I'm not saying we have to match them (they spend an unhealthy amount of their GDP% on military compared to the US, which only spends 3.5% of its GDP on military - for reference, all UN nations are required to spend 2% of their GDP on military), but there are small middle-eastern countries that embarrass us in terms of military numbers. The J-39E is a great 4.5 gen fighter, but there are glaring issues that include: Barely enough fuel with drop tanks to meet an enemy at our northern border, which means no real fighting potential unless we build and field several new airbases much further north or get more tankers for air to air refueling. A radar cross-section and heat signature that will get it shot down against any stealthy opponent or opponent with a longer detection range. Weapons integration that doesn't exactly fit with the US and other NATO countries.
@@joeybattlefieldv2641 True, but the Canadian Coast Guard dont have mounted weapons on they ship.. except for two of them. But for now it's enough. This ship is good for what he have to do.
Sorry, it’s a fishing patrol vehicle at best. It isn’t a warship. It may be able to patrol the Arctic but can’t do much once it gets there (no air defence, no anti missile defence, no anti sub defence, no over the horizon defence).
Navy PR people, do you see the reaction to the underwhelming armament? My fellow Canadians need to feel safe, perception of a big gun helps us sleep at night, not a chain gun.
Two major changes need to be made . 1: at least a 40mm (preferably 57mm if the navy is dead set on only 1 gun , otherwise a twin 40mm mount would be nice) 2: a roll on / roll off capacity aft opposed to relying on two cranes ... in the event of a rapid action / response wasting time with cranes is purely nonsensical & if you try the (why would it be involved in rapid response your simply not thinking .) Otherwise the hull has promise ... now if we could get serious about a sustained building program that is separate from parliamentary scrutiny we'll actually be able to rebuild our navy .
your mistaking the Dewolf for the CSC project, this is a patrol boat, it's purpose is to politely tell the next wannabe Polar Sea to fuck off, not go toe-to-toe with VMF Pyotr Velikiy.
Why a bigger cannon? A 25mm auto cannon can disable any unarmored ship, and it’s fucked if it has to rely on a cannon of any size to take on a foreign warship capable of transiting to the Canadian Arctic waters, ie a frigate or destroyer. So a bigger more expensive gun with more expensive ammo doesn’t expand its mission. If it needs to fuck shit up it can call the RCAF.
Larger main gun for a a more rounded vessel. A 25 is okay but lacks the range & dp use of something like a 40 or a 75. I know she's not ment to go toe to toe with pytor velikiy but having more a peas shooter would be nice.
@@Stevgar2 When I first saw it I thought it would at least be 35mm to use programmable fuse ammunition. But when I thought it through it really is as simple as just acknowledging that this ship is never intended to take on armed enemy forces, but could host a helicopter if it needed more punch.
@@Stevgar2 And BAE makes a 40mm mount which doesn't penetrate the hull but still holds 80 rounds on the mount itself. Move the 25mm guns (2 mounts) over top of the left and right side of the hanger with a rolling airframe missile launcher over the hanger door so it can at least defend itself against any attack the Russians could launch.
It's actually going to be a very good ship in many ways, with icebreaking capability similar to the CCG 1100 Class and it give the RCN the chance to operate in a region they have neglected for to long. I disagree on their armament choices but like almost everything else about it. It's not going to be that good of a ship for what the CCG needs, as it does not have a real well deck and hold to carry a lot of buoys. The CCG need a replacement for the 1100's and a improved version of the existing design would be a good choice.
But what threat other than an enemy warship would you face in arctic waters? It would only make sense to arm them more? If you’re only gonna put that platform on them just build coast guard ships instead?
The Canadian coast guard does not enforce laws, they’re a scientific and research organization. If they need to enforce laws then RCMP officers will embark on the vessel. They have no ship weapons or small arms on board.
@@ThrustingLeg While true their primary role is not that of an enforcement agency, they are a Special Operating Agency of the federal government providing logistical support for various policing operations in the enforcement of maritime law. The OP's assertion is that it's not the role of the military in Canada to be involved in domestic law enforcement.
@@TheJhn924 Yeah that would be a different tune for the navy definitely, the only policing the navy has done recently is international which was involving the drug trade in the Caribbean. I would like the Canadian coast guard to have a more direct role in policing in Canadian waters without relying on other organizations especially as the northern passage way opens up.
Not enough armanment on these things. With China becoming increasingly interested in the Artic going as far as calling itself a near Artic power, Canada will be hard pressed to stop serious intrusions.
The more I read and see what this ship is about, the more fitting for it's roll is for it's job. Clearly the ship was built with never encountering an enemy combatant but the extreme brutality that the high arctic will dish out. We need at least 5 of these vessels just to patrol in and around the Canadian high arctic.
So why is the navy operating cargo ice breakers?! I have a suspicion that these will be used primarily for commercial cargo to northern communities. This is not why we pay taxes, let them pay for commercial freight, and if they go into ice they can't handle, fuck 'em.
@@masaharumorimoto4761 when the ice starts melting the Northwest Passage is going to start looking a whole lot more attractive to ships going from Asia to the East Coast and Europe, instead of the usual resupply ships now. Those ships need to be policed and protected, or else the US is going to declare them as international waters. That opens a can of worms for the Russians and Chinese who are looking into Arctic oil long and hard. If we don't make a presence and a stand now, we will get run over in the future.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 Now that is the most concise and well reasoned argument for them!! You and I could easily come to an agreement on this because you're logical and calm, most people start retorting with nonsense.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 The Dewolf hold is needed for large ready quantities of emergency and rescue supplies. Do you realize, Canada has no proper arctic disaster response ship in event of an airliner crash or large foreign ship environmental spill. Does not matter if the waters are international or national waters the North West Passage needs a ship that can do large scale rescues or emergency cleanup of an oil/chemical spill. Untill, more high arctic infrastructure is built, this ship is that emergency infrastructure.
@@ph11p3540 I do agree with this point, and this ship is well designed for such a task. Your point, however, fits well with mine. If other countries do not believe that we have the proper support infrastructure like the DeWolf in the high arctic, then they will assume that we have no right to exert sovereignty over said high arctic.
All the critical comments on this class from Canada... All fair. A few points though: The USN has exactly 0 icebreakers, the USCG just 2, and can barely keep one in the water. You need icebreakers if you want to navigate the Arctic Ocean or move troops, supplies or equipment around, The RCN now has four Harry DeWolf ships commissioned, four more are on the way two for the navy and 2 for the Coast Guard. These are not tiny ships, they can carry a lot and we can add more weapons systems anytime we want. FYI: The Russians have 40 icebreakers in their navy. The Americans are happy to see these ships deployed.
It sounded like a comedy when the serious voice announced: 25mm chain gun, "in combination with 2 mounted .50 calibre machine guns, the Harry DeWolf class has enough firepower to EASILY enforce domestic laws from coast to coast to coast." HAHAHAHAHA.... They should've taken Canadian lives more seriously.
@@TofuBoi_ The Coast guard doesn't have an enforcement mandate and all their ships are unarmed. The Navy basically has to the job of a US Coast guard and still be a regular navy. These are essential cutters.
Built like a brick $#!& house. Able to carry trucks, snowmobiles, rescue boats and choppers. It sounds very capable, Gun-wise it sounds a bit light, but probably enough for the missions it was designed to meet.
I’m liking how those without knowledge or insight have such strong opinions of a ship they will never serve on, let alone cross the Brow. Nether do they know or understand the requirements the Navy have for this ship. Hint: it meets them all. The HDW Class replaces the MCDV as a littoral vessel. You want firepower? The Canadian Surface Combatant, the replacement for the Halifax and Tribal classes, will have it. ESSM SM-2 Tomahawk 5” gun CIADS MK54 LWT 2 x 30mm RWS FP Yep.
In 10 years so 2030 for the first ones at best. Assuming they get built at all since the metal for the first ship hasn't even been cut yet. Thanks for missing the point though since it doesn't matter what they have for systems if they aren't operating in that area. The Dewolf class will be in that area so yeah if it was just a Coast Guard ship no one would be complaining. It is a research ship with very light weapons and limited ice breaking capacity to one year ice. Were you ignorant of those issues or something? Also what gives you anymore clout to comment than everyone else here?
@@razorburn645 as most sea ice appears to be only one year ice these days they are entirely appropriate as for the type 26 I can't see them being cancelled unless the NDP gets in power
@@TofuBoi_ A patrol vessels is designed for coastal defense, border protection, immigration and law-enforcement, search and rescue duties, including anti-smuggling, anti-piracy, fisheries patrols. Using larger ships or more firepower for these duties is a waste of resources and not necessary.
That's the job definition of Coast Guard. (By the way Canadian Coast Guard seems more like search and rescue units, or Diet Coast Guard, because their ships are not armed)
These ships need, atleast a set of torpedos. Theres next to no air threat, so it doesnt need a SAM system, but could use a phalanx, just incase above the hanger. No point in shipping SSM harpoon, as the frigates have that, but should have a big gun or a triple set of torpedos case incase. Most of the time polar bears are going to be the biggest threat, beside maybe the odd submarine.
Not really the point of the AOPS, since they only need serve a domestic constabulary role. Although I agree, they need more teeth. However, a Phalanx CIWS may not be the best idea considering how long this ship will be in service. There's a reason the new Type 26 CSCs won't feature them. Modern antiship missiles are surpassing supersonic speeds. A CIWS may shoot them down, but their momentum means that shrapnel will still hit. I think the best option is to get them some old 57mm Bofors from the Halifax class when they retire and install them on the half-life refit. The Cyclone that the Harry DeWolf Class can embark can be fitted with torpedoes, so the ASW capability is kinda there already. Maybe Sea Ceptors if they're feeling ambitious. I just think that if the RCN ever hopes to use this anywhere other than the Arctic (ie NATO SMG, anti-piracy) they are woefully outgunned.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 the phalanx ciws can be used for more then against /counter SSM attack. Other uses are for against Fast boat, attack helicopters, light subsonic attack aircraft etc. So l think it would be a cheap addition, and its bolt on, only needs dirty 480volt power, to mount. I disagree with the 57mm guns, they were fitted to the city class because one a trump iroquois would be close and two to keep Soviet bear bombers at bay, without expending the sea sparrows SAMs
@@rpm1796 maybe RAN or RN, but according to CAF details (they released info and official infographic) the closest thing is a 30mm stabilized BAE systems chain gun, which isn't a ciws.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 Evening JT, I just went over to December's ''War Zone'' online and you're absolutely right. The RCN is indeed going full hog with an emphasis on ''a few more'' extra-point area defence assets, instead of the two Phalanx, with the (Norwegian) ESSMs. Check 6 with the Royal Navy sites.. and the just-released reports, The QE, R08, and her cover are now ramping up to go into the South China Sea this spring with Phalanx & enhanced DS30Ms...where the '30s are now mounting the 'Martlet' LMMs in conjunction. In the meantime, someone in our Capitals might want to google the People's Liberation Army Navy and compare building programs.. to catch a flipping clue. Slain te'🍻
Its arsenal is underwhelming. Chinese ice breakers are more heavy armed, and capable. Not good. Hell even some Chinese Coast Guard ships have a more impressive offensive capability. Remember what that Chinese Admiral said, back in the early 2010s. At the commissioning ceremony for China's first ice breaker. He said, "China has 1/5 the world's population. Why shouldn't we have 1/5 the world's resources!?." During the life of this class of ship, it may be up against more than just illegal fishing trawlers.
That not good .we have to be more prepared,things are not always going to be peaceful in the future the least we can do is be able to protect ourselves .
Canada VS Russia arctic face off. Canada: 1 Harry DeWolf class ship 11 frigates all at the end of or beyond their usable life. 4 cold war era subs.... Russia: 1 Aircraft Carrier 2 Battle cruisers 3 Cruisers 12 Destroyers 11 Frigates 84 Corvettes 37 Landing craft 21 Missile sub 35 attack subs We are so screwed....
Shits weak! but seriously though, a single 25mm cannon and 2 man-operated 50.cals? Sure; enough enforcement . . . against a hungry polar bear. Maybe! The USCG that patrols the same waters has more firepower onboard.
The USCG has two icebreakers, neither of which are armed. For the record though, the polar security cutter being developed by the USCG will be armed with the exact same main gun as the Harry Dewolf Class.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 What is it patrolling? I lived Resolute Bay, and there's not a lot up there worth patrolling for especially since Canada's Dear Leader stated a few years back, is a "Post National State". So expect to see a UN flag on its mast shortly after it becomes operational.
@@daviator4720 I have no idea what you are talking about for "post national state" and regardless of what he says it was Harper's administration who ordered the vessels. As for patrolling, it's more the fact that with an active patrol Canada shuts down any attempts at claims of "international waters" for areas like the Northwest Passage through Buracratic technicalities rather than force (and shutting down such claims with Buracratic technicalities is so much cheaper than trying to do it through brute force).
@@ariesrcn you don't understand, this thing is meant to, at most, diplomatically deal with the next wannabe USCG Polar Seas, not slug it out with VMF Pytor Velikiy.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Then why have it? The Navy is needed to defend our coast line and we need new Frigates, and anti air destroyers, so why waste the money on useless ships.
@@ariesrcn I just explained, its existence and patrol routes put an Automatic end (or at least, significant roadblock) in US attempts to have the Northwest Passage declared to be international waters, and it is able to police any merchants, and it does this relatively cheaply. it's far from useless.
I really enjoyed the video and seeing the capabilities. I understand these ships have many of the same sensors and communication systems of the other RCN SHIPS. They could have more armaments added if needed. I bet it could embark a large air contingent of drones and helps.
I know more firepower isn't the answer to everything. But when the rest of the world is telling us that the Northwest passage is not our territory, I was kinda hoping for something abit more scarier than this.
This is to ensure we have capacity to deal with rapid emergency responses. If we cant deal with a crashed plane over the arctic or a sinking ship in the north-west passage then the grounds for that not being our soverign territory become justified if we dont have the capacity to exert at least humanitarian aid and smuggling patrols, which this ship is perfect for. Besides the helipad can easily accommodate recon and antisubmarine warfare parameters
It should have three cannon minmum as well as two heavy machine guns. Two 25 mil forward and a 20mm Phalanx CIWS in the rear. That's security when your computer CIWS is always awake as air sentry.
An incredibly beautiful ship. In 2023-25, four similar Russian patrol ships of Project 23550 will join it. And I want to believe that our countries will cooperate in the development of the Arctic, and not develop another conflict.
Enemy Submarine, it has the on board helicopter with anti sub torpedos, enemy surface vessel? It's stuck 1500mi back because it doesn't have an ice breaking bow like the Harry dewolf so it's not even a threat.
@@tyniria The "enemy" surface vessel this glorified pleasure craft is supposedly built to counter, according to Canada's own press, is the Russian Project 23550. An armed icebreaking patrol ship that in addition to a helicopter flight deck of its own, sports a 76mm main gun, CIWS, and 8x Kalibr Cruise Missiles! How the hell is this ship going to deal with that with just an anemic 25mm bow gun?
Why these ships are in the Navy is beyond me. One 25 mm bow gun which is mounted so deep that at its lowest depression likely couldn't hit a "fast mover" that is any closer than 300 m is ridiculous! The gun isn't large enough to effectively engage targets at range, certainly if the ship it's firing at had a larger gun. Then it's backed up with two 50 cal machine guns. To compare, the tribal class destroyers had 6, along with a lot of other weapons. This should be in the coast guard.
the Tribal class were not really Destroyers as they were modelled on "Design V" light cruisers (another varrient of this design became the Dido class), besides, Destroyers are more powerful than Post age-of-sail Frigates. this is a patrol ship meant for policing civilian vessels, maybe foreign coast guards that get too close (AKA the next wannabe USCG Polar Seas), it is NOT meant to fight warships.
Meanwhile Russia has well-armed nuclear-powered icebreakers. Canada has almost the same length of Arctic Coast as Russia, and we have these little dinky toys, what a joke, good thing we rely on Uncle Sam because we ain't going to do anything with that ship 😂
so tell me, how does this boat protect us agaisnt Russia or China? Can it deter a submarine? Heck, Im not even sure if it could deter a whaling boat... >.
Hmmm...looks like a Coast Guard buoy tender...The project was to build five ships, each at $400 million...and proceed with a sixth if Irving Shipbuilding could find savings within the existing budget....Guess what? That didn't happen- The purpose of the program was to provide employment and secure votes....
Yes Bofors makes wonderful modern 40mm cannons. Good for engaging air targets and light surface targets. It would make sense, too, slotting underneath the Halifax's. The 25mm is more belonging on a Kingston. The targetting systems on a 25mm probably won't be too difficult to implement on a Kingston.
this ship is a ice breaker , coastguard navy ship , its not ment to trAVEL all over the word as a destroyer, but they can add air to air missle systems and submaine attack torpedoes , right now its running sea trials , after that they can add more weapons aboard the ship
Good advertising must have hired IRVING marketing to pat themselves at the back while squandering Canada's Revenue, There's literally developing countries now with bigger firepower than Canada....
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 No armament will stop your average modern anti-ship missile. The idea is to be able to stand off and deliver from a distance. a 25mm gun isn't going to cut it.
@@TheLunacyofOurTimes you're missing the point, It's never supposed to ever be facing down something armed with anti-ship missiles. that's the CSC's job.
Looks like some great ships! I'm excited on what they can contribute to Canada. For those who are concerned about its weapons, the ship does not have a combat role. As a patrol boat its job is to go to harsher environments and be our eyes an ears. It can enforce our laws as its weaponry is more than enough to make it suicide for any non-military ship to challenge it. However, if things turned hot for some reason I would suspect its role is to scout and find targets without engaging them. I also believe I heard they can be up-gunned and fitted with more weapons if required. Though it would be completely un-necessary for their current mission. Those ships will just make sure that people need to check in with us when moving through our waters, provide rescue to distressed ships in the region, inteligence for the artic area, and also it will likely play a role in exploration and scientific expeditions to the north from time to time. That ship looks VERY desirable for such missions since it would be quite confortable compared to other options and has long reach with its helipads, and viechle storage.
It is in trial still. They have to make sure it can work without breaking and it can do what the RCN/Canadian Government had in the contract which is ???? Irving!!!
the new frigates are almost as big as the TYPE 45's and intended for anti-submarine warfare essentially.at 9000 tons they will be as big as some light ww2 cruisers, the word frigate seems to have many confused
I have been serving aboard Canadian Frigates for almost 10 years now as an Marine Electrician. I am posted to the Harry DeWolf in April. I am looking forward to sailing this new platform and learning everything about it!
From an old salt to a younger one, it’s a ship not a “ platform” or is this the new navy?
@@Multheman01 We most definitely call it a platform, in the new age.
@@Broxty so it’s no longer HMCS but HMCP now?
@@Multheman01 It's still a ship, the platform refers to which ships design it was based upon. In this case, the platform is Halifax class. You just worry about checking ID's.
@@Broxty Don’t have to do that anymore, retired, good luck to you in the future.
Canadian soldier here, This platform needs more firepower, everyone stop making excuses and just add more things that go boom. - Retired Infantry 1 RCR.
These ships are not about firepower.
@Peter Lorimer I am posted to this ship in April. I am looking forward to sailing this new platform after almost 10 years of sailing on the Frigates!
@Peter Lorimer I did one Op Nanook on the Frigates, did not get to go all the way up to the Arctic. Will be interesting to see. And the size of the Gun doesn't worry me. I wouldn't care even if we had no gun at all!
@Peter Lorimer No one is asking for Dreadnought level firepower, but a fucking chaingun is pathetic, My platoon carried more firepower.
For firepower Canada will rely on the 15 CSC which will be heavily and I mean HEAVILY with some of the absolute best missile in the world.
Can't wait to see such a video for the Canadian Surface Combatant ! keep up the good work !
You read our minds :)
Unfortunately, it is going to be quite a while before we see the first new Canadian Surface Combatant!
@@rwilletts1968 Yeah tough, if current specs are actually used its gonna be a hell of a ship. Probably one of the best warship for its size( Aircraft carriers are a tad more powerfull haha)
@Peter Lorimer I am anxious to see the New Surface Combatants, but I am not holding my breath. Chances are I will be retired before the first one comes out.
@@NBeaver-bx4yl Yep, I have seen the design and specs, and they will certainly be on par with other modern Navy ships around the world.
What Canada needs (to enforce it's arctic sovereignty) is a minimum of 3 Heavy (Nuclear Powered) and Armed Ice Breakers that can operate during Winter Time and can Break winter ice (which canada don't have and must rely on US nuclear ice breakers to clear a passage) ... and not waste money on Slushie Breaking Pea Shooters. And to Build northern Deep Water ports and infrastructure to support it.
By the way for your information.... the U.S. only has 2 Icebreakers and no Nuclear powered and Canada had 18 Icebreakers.
Your information is so wrong it's not even funny, Lmao if anything America relys on us to create them pathways.
@@michaelbrisson1067 Since NEVER. We have the Polar Star and the Polar Sea as LONG RANGE icebreakers. The others operate on the great lakes.
I heard Russia had the nuclear powered ice breakers
@@athrunzala6919 This is true.
If things go bad(hostilities) these ships will be basically expensive sacrificial lambs.
The Canadian spirit can not defend against an anti-ship missile.
We got hosed on the design costs. (compared to the same style built by Norway and Ireland)
I wish we(tax payers) would stop getting screwed by the politicians/government when they go looking for tools for the military.
I hope these ships sail well, protect their crews and our interests and last a long long time.
Sadly they will be used as Navy cargo delivery for northern communities that want new skidoos, trucks and construction equipment in the dead of winter.
@@noele6588
Problem is I don't live there and didn't vote for those idiots.
she's a patrol boat, not a battleship.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Really?
All that frontal space and an itty bitty turret and machine gun.
Yeah, not even torps or missiles...
or even a phalanx.
@@twogooddogs It's not designed to be a battleship but to transport things.
It's a patrol vessel, they don't usually have large guns on them.
@Fort Halderman It's a coast guard ship. Of course it won't face off against any Russian attack vessel. You Armchair warhawks are weird.
And it came in on time and ridiculously under budget. I can dream, can't I?
A metre of new ice in arctic terms is like being able to push slush. The "arctic" was dropped from the name early on in development and this vessel needs to be accompanied by a icebreaker to truly operate in the north. The deck gun is a pop gun in naval terms and the ship is configured as a research vessel. Not a warship. A ship designed by committee and compromise.
The AOP's is Polar 5 hull with a Polar 4 bow, which puts them on par with the CCG 1100 class icebreakers.
This isn't a warship, it is a patrol vessel, it is not a research ship, it is a patrol vessel. the patrol vessel is adequately armed for patrolling. alot of combatant vessels cannot operate in arctic conditions, especially the "big navies" they are not equipped with such capabilities. Yes you hear russia or US operating up in the arctic, but during the summer and clear water months, this class can still operate where most other ships/vessels/boats cannot. How is it compromised? it was not intended to fight world war 3, it is intended to patrol and assist in disasters.
@@chrisl.9845 Maybe it can "patrol" by following Russian Nuclear powered icebreakers that can reach any spot in the arctic.
I have no problem with all the various roles it can perform, except that it's actually fighting it is clearly incapable of
When you run up against a biligerant Chinese ship or Russian air craft what are you going to do with those pea shooters? Canada needs a minimum of 4-5 cruiser class nuclear powered 2nd year ice capable ballistic missile ships. With 2 anti missile close in gun systems. They need to be fast ships to chase down illegal fishing fleets. They also need to be powerful enough to project Canadian soverenty for at least the next 50 years. A minimum of 3 should be deployed at any time. It's should also probably have torpedoes and anti submarine abilities.
not a warship it is a close in ,ice capable patrol vessel
Even a ww2 corvette could out gun this thing!
@@ivorholtskog5506 thats because its primary designation is not a combat ship genius
Today's ships are build to run from the enemy should we ever go to war.
It should have a more powerful gun than the 25mm.
True the 25mm RWS system is great, but a 76mm gun or even the 57mm as used on the Halifax should be fitted to extend it's reach.
@@Colinpark I would go with the 76mm Oto Melara Super Rapid. Powerful punch and great range.
@@edkrach8891 My preference as well, however our surface ships are currently equipped with 57mm, and it would likley be an easier sell for commonality reasons, plus less effect of stability and impact on the spaces below.
@@Colinpark Look at the placement too. Can it actually depress enough to engage anything close up?
But to be fair, it's not really meant to see any direct combat, it IS a patrol vessel
Better than nothing I guess... I see we're back to drinking Canada Light.
Gotta at least appreciate the cinematography. Thought you guys got a Drone camera til I realized it was all CG
Always happy to see the navy get a little more love. Seems there's a mismatch between what people expect this ship to be able to do and what it prob will end up doing. Money and manpower are very finite resources in Canada, even if we tried to increase our defense spending, there is always going to be a need to make more out of it. Now that could mean fewer but better quality, more but less impressive, more specialists, etc... With the airforce and army also fighting for budget, people need to be a bit more realistic about Canada's role and what it can afford and what makes sense to create. I personally think we need to cut our losses on the air force front and just get grippens and focus more effort at modernizing/expanding the navy with a special focus on arctic and anti submarine warfare... What do you folks think?
There's no reason why the Grippen wouldn't be suitable. It's rated for Arctic conditions even with one engine and a proven platform. The HDW is clearly something that should be given to the Coast Guard. Russia has 26 ships in it's Northen CG fleet of varrying sizes, but even the smallest seem to have guns larger that the HDW, ranging from 30 to 75mm. The Russian Navy itself has around 40 surface ships and dozens of submarines. The HDW will be expensive sitting ducks.
Employing Canadians to "Build it Back Better". Speaking of that, where are they being built?
@@daviator4720 These ships are being built in Halifax, Nova Scotia by Irving.
I think the government needs to stop spending money wastefully (which was done to a scary level even before covid) so we can afford 130 F-35s or F-15EXs, get 10 new submarines (at least), a dozen new destroyers, 1 capital ship cruiser, and 1 non-super carrier as a second capital ship. The carrier and cruiser should be nuclear (maybe we can build a more modern version of the Charles De Gaulle that France fields). And expand the armed forces with better equipment and a few thousand more people.
We could also do with some anti-satellite weapons, which the F-15 does have.
I mean, we have a larger economy than Russia, and they field 72 winter ice breakers (some nuclear), a lot of destroyers and cruisers (some nuclear), and a lot of submarines (all nuclear, iirc)... as well as the third largest air wing of any country (because technically the US has both the largest and second largest air forces in the world, and China is third place, I think)... and a standing army of 350k plus troops (close to half of which are stationed on the Ukraine border as I type this).
And they develop their own 5th gen stealth fighters, and new missile systems, and infrastructure. And new tanks/artillery.
I'm not saying we have to match them (they spend an unhealthy amount of their GDP% on military compared to the US, which only spends 3.5% of its GDP on military - for reference, all UN nations are required to spend 2% of their GDP on military), but there are small middle-eastern countries that embarrass us in terms of military numbers.
The J-39E is a great 4.5 gen fighter, but there are glaring issues that include:
Barely enough fuel with drop tanks to meet an enemy at our northern border, which means no real fighting potential unless we build and field several new airbases much further north or get more tankers for air to air refueling.
A radar cross-section and heat signature that will get it shot down against any stealthy opponent or opponent with a longer detection range.
Weapons integration that doesn't exactly fit with the US and other NATO countries.
@@TheLunacyofOurTimes we already paid into the f-35program and it is much better in regards to a multi-role stealth fighter
We need some actual weapons on this piece.
I don’t think it’s meant for that
@@6179643666 Apparently it's not yet, it should be. This is the Navy not the Coast Guard.
@@joeybattlefieldv2641 True, but the Canadian Coast Guard dont have mounted weapons on they ship.. except for two of them. But for now it's enough. This ship is good for what he have to do.
The current government is banning weapons. Canada is a nice country where all are welcome.
It's fine the way it is.
Sorry, it’s a fishing patrol vehicle at best. It isn’t a warship. It may be able to patrol the Arctic but can’t do much once it gets there (no air defence, no anti missile defence, no anti sub defence, no over the horizon defence).
Navy PR people, do you see the reaction to the underwhelming armament? My fellow Canadians need to feel safe, perception of a big gun helps us sleep at night, not a chain gun.
It is a Patrol vessel. Not a destroyer.
@@kevin_1230 These people can't tell the difference. They play RTS games and war thunder and suddenly think they're experts.
@@coryfice1881 The RADAR is what matters in a patrol vessel, not so much its armament
Idk.. Helicopters basically took out iraqs navy in the 1st gulf War.
Tech has progressed... so would have to say capability has as well.
It’s not the size of the gun that matters . . . It’s how you use it
Two major changes need to be made . 1: at least a 40mm (preferably 57mm if the navy is dead set on only 1 gun , otherwise a twin 40mm mount would be nice) 2: a roll on / roll off capacity aft opposed to relying on two cranes ... in the event of a rapid action / response wasting time with cranes is purely nonsensical & if you try the (why would it be involved in rapid response your simply not thinking .) Otherwise the hull has promise ... now if we could get serious about a sustained building program that is separate from parliamentary scrutiny we'll actually be able to rebuild our navy .
your mistaking the Dewolf for the CSC project, this is a patrol boat, it's purpose is to politely tell the next wannabe Polar Sea to fuck off, not go toe-to-toe with VMF Pyotr Velikiy.
Why a bigger cannon? A 25mm auto cannon can disable any unarmored ship, and it’s fucked if it has to rely on a cannon of any size to take on a foreign warship capable of transiting to the Canadian Arctic waters, ie a frigate or destroyer.
So a bigger more expensive gun with more expensive ammo doesn’t expand its mission. If it needs to fuck shit up it can call the RCAF.
Larger main gun for a a more rounded vessel. A 25 is okay but lacks the range & dp use of something like a 40 or a 75. I know she's not ment to go toe to toe with pytor velikiy but having more a peas shooter would be nice.
@@Stevgar2 When I first saw it I thought it would at least be 35mm to use programmable fuse ammunition. But when I thought it through it really is as simple as just acknowledging that this ship is never intended to take on armed enemy forces, but could host a helicopter if it needed more punch.
@@Stevgar2 And BAE makes a 40mm mount which doesn't penetrate the hull but still holds 80 rounds on the mount itself. Move the 25mm guns (2 mounts) over top of the left and right side of the hanger with a rolling airframe missile launcher over the hanger door so it can at least defend itself against any attack the Russians could launch.
So it's a lightly armed cost guard ship?
its a arctic patrol vessel yes, its not a type-26 frigate which we are building 15 of?
@@hobmaniac Is that a British design? Haven't heard of that yet.
No it's Canada's commitment to fight for your freedom.
@@Jonahch2v9 Yes, it's a British design that we going to use a bigger version of. The Australians are also getting a version of it.
@@Jonahch2v9 From wikipedia ''The vessels are modelled on the Norwegian NoCGV Svalbard ...''
Where are the guns? The missiles? The capability to be...A warship? I hate my own navy.
a coastal patrol boat of a polar class 5 . not a frigate
Don’t understand a cannon fore mounted. Wouldn’t it be a greater advantage up top with 360 degree capability? Maybe Phalanx up top top too?
Glorified Coast Guard ship, well atleast the Coast Guard will be happy when they get theres, Harry Dewolf deserves better than this class
It's actually going to be a very good ship in many ways, with icebreaking capability similar to the CCG 1100 Class and it give the RCN the chance to operate in a region they have neglected for to long. I disagree on their armament choices but like almost everything else about it. It's not going to be that good of a ship for what the CCG needs, as it does not have a real well deck and hold to carry a lot of buoys. The CCG need a replacement for the 1100's and a improved version of the existing design would be a good choice.
@@Colinpark Whos knows, they might eventually get refit with bigger guns if the need is.
But what threat other than an enemy warship would you face in arctic waters? It would only make sense to arm them more? If you’re only gonna put that platform on them just build coast guard ships instead?
remember those Chinese poachers that Brazil or some other nation's navy encountered a few months ago? that's the worst this thing would ever face.
It's for shooting at icebergs when you want a G&T.
trawlers and deep water fishing boats essentially
"Enforce domestic laws"... Isnt that what the Canadian Coast Guard is for????
The times they are a'changing...
The Canadian coast guard does not enforce laws, they’re a scientific and research organization. If they need to enforce laws then RCMP officers will embark on the vessel. They have no ship weapons or small arms on board.
@@ThrustingLeg While true their primary role is not that of an enforcement agency, they are a Special Operating Agency of the federal government providing logistical support for various policing operations in the enforcement of maritime law. The OP's assertion is that it's not the role of the military in Canada to be involved in domestic law enforcement.
@@TheJhn924 Yeah that would be a different tune for the navy definitely, the only policing the navy has done recently is international which was involving the drug trade in the Caribbean.
I would like the Canadian coast guard to have a more direct role in policing in Canadian waters without relying on other organizations especially as the northern passage way opens up.
@@ThrustingLeg True... but important also for "scoff law" Americans traversing BC waters to and from Alaska.
Not enough armanment on these things. With China becoming increasingly interested in the Artic going as far as calling itself a near Artic power, Canada will be hard pressed to stop serious intrusions.
The more I read and see what this ship is about, the more fitting for it's roll is for it's job. Clearly the ship was built with never encountering an enemy combatant but the extreme brutality that the high arctic will dish out. We need at least 5 of these vessels just to patrol in and around the Canadian high arctic.
So why is the navy operating cargo ice breakers?! I have a suspicion that these will be used primarily for commercial cargo to northern communities. This is not why we pay taxes, let them pay for commercial freight, and if they go into ice they can't handle, fuck 'em.
@@masaharumorimoto4761 when the ice starts melting the Northwest Passage is going to start looking a whole lot more attractive to ships going from Asia to the East Coast and Europe, instead of the usual resupply ships now. Those ships need to be policed and protected, or else the US is going to declare them as international waters. That opens a can of worms for the Russians and Chinese who are looking into Arctic oil long and hard. If we don't make a presence and a stand now, we will get run over in the future.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 Now that is the most concise and well reasoned argument for them!! You and I could easily come to an agreement on this because you're logical and calm, most people start retorting with nonsense.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 The Dewolf hold is needed for large ready quantities of emergency and rescue supplies. Do you realize, Canada has no proper arctic disaster response ship in event of an airliner crash or large foreign ship environmental spill. Does not matter if the waters are international or national waters the North West Passage needs a ship that can do large scale rescues or emergency cleanup of an oil/chemical spill. Untill, more high arctic infrastructure is built, this ship is that emergency infrastructure.
@@ph11p3540 I do agree with this point, and this ship is well designed for such a task. Your point, however, fits well with mine. If other countries do not believe that we have the proper support infrastructure like the DeWolf in the high arctic, then they will assume that we have no right to exert sovereignty over said high arctic.
All the critical comments on this class from Canada... All fair. A few points though:
The USN has exactly 0 icebreakers, the USCG just 2, and can barely keep one in the water. You need icebreakers if you want to navigate the Arctic Ocean or move troops, supplies or equipment around, The RCN now has four Harry DeWolf ships commissioned, four more are on the way two for the navy and 2 for the Coast Guard. These are not tiny ships, they can carry a lot and we can add more weapons systems anytime we want. FYI: The Russians have 40 icebreakers in their navy. The Americans are happy to see these ships deployed.
It sounded like a comedy when the serious voice announced: 25mm chain gun, "in combination with 2 mounted .50 calibre machine guns, the Harry DeWolf class has enough firepower to EASILY enforce domestic laws from coast to coast to coast." HAHAHAHAHA.... They should've taken Canadian lives more seriously.
25mm and 2 .50s is a reasonable armament for dealing with civilian vessels.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 There are adequate for coast guard ships, but not enough for a navy, unless they are building a "diet navy."
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 exactly civilian vessels ... Not a real military encounter.
@@TofuBoi_ The Coast guard doesn't have an enforcement mandate and all their ships are unarmed. The Navy basically has to the job of a US Coast guard and still be a regular navy. These are essential cutters.
Built like a brick $#!& house. Able to carry trucks, snowmobiles, rescue boats and choppers. It sounds very capable, Gun-wise it sounds a bit light, but probably enough for the missions it was designed to meet.
basically it’s a transport ship with a machine gun or a big 🎯
Absolutely euphoric video! BZ!
I’m liking how those without knowledge or insight have such strong opinions of a ship they will never serve on, let alone cross the Brow.
Nether do they know or understand the requirements the Navy have for this ship. Hint: it meets them all.
The HDW Class replaces the MCDV as a littoral vessel.
You want firepower? The Canadian Surface Combatant, the replacement for the Halifax and Tribal classes, will have it.
ESSM
SM-2
Tomahawk
5” gun
CIADS
MK54 LWT
2 x 30mm RWS
FP
Yep.
In 10 years so 2030 for the first ones at best. Assuming they get built at all since the metal for the first ship hasn't even been cut yet. Thanks for missing the point though since it doesn't matter what they have for systems if they aren't operating in that area. The Dewolf class will be in that area so yeah if it was just a Coast Guard ship no one would be complaining. It is a research ship with very light weapons and limited ice breaking capacity to one year ice.
Were you ignorant of those issues or something? Also what gives you anymore clout to comment than everyone else here?
@@razorburn645 as most sea ice appears to be only one year ice these days they are entirely appropriate as for the type 26 I can't see them being cancelled unless the NDP gets in power
with this, we can finally assert sovereignty ... like a boss!!!
perfect ship for canada , good for search and rescue along canada boarder
Need more guns, bigger guns; not only guns, but also missiles. It is not WWII anymore god dang it!
It is a patrol vessel not a destroyer.
RCN is too small to waste resource on huge patrol ships that can't do much. We need more combat ships to meet the growing international treats.
@@TofuBoi_ A patrol vessels is designed for coastal defense, border protection, immigration and law-enforcement, search and rescue duties, including anti-smuggling, anti-piracy, fisheries patrols. Using larger ships or more firepower for these duties is a waste of resources and not necessary.
@@TofuBoi_ And Canada will be getting more combat ships as well.
That's the job definition of Coast Guard. (By the way Canadian Coast Guard seems more like search and rescue units, or Diet Coast Guard, because their ships are not armed)
Cool new ship.... needs more guns though
It will only faching illegal fishing trawlers. You don't need the Bismarck.
These ships need, atleast a set of torpedos. Theres next to no air threat, so it doesnt need a SAM system, but could use a phalanx, just incase above the hanger. No point in shipping SSM harpoon, as the frigates have that, but should have a big gun or a triple set of torpedos case incase. Most of the time polar bears are going to be the biggest threat, beside maybe the odd submarine.
Not really the point of the AOPS, since they only need serve a domestic constabulary role. Although I agree, they need more teeth. However, a Phalanx CIWS may not be the best idea considering how long this ship will be in service. There's a reason the new Type 26 CSCs won't feature them. Modern antiship missiles are surpassing supersonic speeds. A CIWS may shoot them down, but their momentum means that shrapnel will still hit.
I think the best option is to get them some old 57mm Bofors from the Halifax class when they retire and install them on the half-life refit. The Cyclone that the Harry DeWolf Class can embark can be fitted with torpedoes, so the ASW capability is kinda there already. Maybe Sea Ceptors if they're feeling ambitious. I just think that if the RCN ever hopes to use this anywhere other than the Arctic (ie NATO SMG, anti-piracy) they are woefully outgunned.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 the phalanx ciws can be used for more then against /counter SSM attack. Other uses are for against Fast boat, attack helicopters, light subsonic attack aircraft etc. So l think it would be a cheap addition, and its bolt on, only needs dirty 480volt power, to mount. I disagree with the 57mm guns, they were fitted to the city class because one a trump iroquois would be close and two to keep Soviet bear bombers at bay, without expending the sea sparrows SAMs
@@chloetangpongprush3519
TYPE 26 has 2 X Phalanx.
@@rpm1796 maybe RAN or RN, but according to CAF details (they released info and official infographic) the closest thing is a 30mm stabilized BAE systems chain gun, which isn't a ciws.
@@chloetangpongprush3519
Evening JT,
I just went over to December's ''War Zone'' online and you're absolutely right.
The RCN is indeed going full hog with an emphasis on ''a few more'' extra-point area defence assets, instead of the two Phalanx, with the (Norwegian) ESSMs.
Check 6 with the Royal Navy sites.. and the just-released reports, The QE, R08, and her cover are now ramping up to go into the South China Sea this spring with Phalanx & enhanced DS30Ms...where the '30s are now mounting the 'Martlet' LMMs in conjunction.
In the meantime, someone in our Capitals might want to google the People's Liberation Army Navy and compare building programs.. to catch a flipping clue.
Slain te'🍻
Its arsenal is underwhelming. Chinese ice breakers are more heavy armed, and capable. Not good. Hell even some Chinese Coast Guard ships have a more impressive offensive capability.
Remember what that Chinese Admiral said, back in the early 2010s. At the commissioning ceremony for China's first ice breaker. He said,
"China has 1/5 the world's population. Why shouldn't we have 1/5 the world's resources!?."
During the life of this class of ship, it may be up against more than just illegal fishing trawlers.
That not good .we have to be more prepared,things are not always going to be peaceful in the future the least we can do is be able to protect ourselves .
China has two ice breakers, neither are armed.
Nice OPV.
700 million for a ship that the Danes and Irish built for 50-65 million a pop. Bravo Irving. Some value for Canada’s slim defence budget.
World's Angriest Supply Boat?
Memes aside, the AOPS seem to be good multi role vessels for supporting the rest of the fleet.
4 F 35's and some tomahawk cruise missles cells blocks and that ship really would be something
Love you Canada
Canada VS Russia arctic face off.
Canada:
1 Harry DeWolf class ship
11 frigates all at the end of or beyond their usable life.
4 cold war era subs....
Russia:
1 Aircraft Carrier
2 Battle cruisers
3 Cruisers
12 Destroyers
11 Frigates
84 Corvettes
37 Landing craft
21 Missile sub
35 attack subs
We are so screwed....
Russians are friendly.
Very cool video id love to see one for the Canadian surface combatant
Shits weak!
but seriously though, a single 25mm cannon and 2 man-operated 50.cals? Sure; enough enforcement . . . against a hungry polar bear. Maybe!
The USCG that patrols the same waters has more firepower onboard.
it's a patrol boat, not a battleship.
The USCG has two icebreakers, neither of which are armed. For the record though, the polar security cutter being developed by the USCG will be armed with the exact same main gun as the Harry Dewolf Class.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Icebreakers aren’t Patrol Boats, and Battleships are an outdated class that don’t even exist anymore.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 What is it patrolling? I lived Resolute Bay, and there's not a lot up there worth patrolling for especially since Canada's Dear Leader stated a few years back, is a "Post National State". So expect to see a UN flag on its mast shortly after it becomes operational.
@@daviator4720 I have no idea what you are talking about for "post national state" and regardless of what he says it was Harper's administration who ordered the vessels. As for patrolling, it's more the fact that with an active patrol Canada shuts down any attempts at claims of "international waters" for areas like the Northwest Passage through Buracratic technicalities rather than force (and shutting down such claims with Buracratic technicalities is so much cheaper than trying to do it through brute force).
No bear trap system for the helo's?
It has the space and mounting spot for one, they just didn't put it on the CGI model used in this video.
As a retired NESOP i can say I hate this ship as it is unable to engage anything. We need warships not arctic cruise ships.
it's perfectly capable of policing both forign and domestic Merchant Marine just as designed.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 we don’t need a police boat, we need a patrol ship capable of defending herself against aircraft, missiles and ships.
@@ariesrcn you don't understand, this thing is meant to, at most, diplomatically deal with the next wannabe USCG Polar Seas, not slug it out with VMF Pytor Velikiy.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Then why have it? The Navy is needed to defend our coast line and we need new Frigates, and anti air destroyers, so why waste the money on useless ships.
@@ariesrcn I just explained, its existence and patrol routes put an Automatic end (or at least, significant roadblock) in US attempts to have the Northwest Passage declared to be international waters, and it is able to police any merchants, and it does this relatively cheaply. it's far from useless.
So now we have the life raft, can't wait for the actual ship to be build that holds it.
Enlist or shaddap.
I really enjoyed the video and seeing the capabilities. I understand these ships have many of the same sensors and communication systems of the other RCN SHIPS. They could have more armaments added if needed. I bet it could embark a large air contingent of drones and helps.
I know more firepower isn't the answer to everything. But when the rest of the world is telling us that the Northwest passage is not our territory, I was kinda hoping for something abit more scarier than this.
This is to ensure we have capacity to deal with rapid emergency responses. If we cant deal with a crashed plane over the arctic or a sinking ship in the north-west passage then the grounds for that not being our soverign territory become justified if we dont have the capacity to exert at least humanitarian aid and smuggling patrols, which this ship is perfect for. Besides the helipad can easily accommodate recon and antisubmarine warfare parameters
4 words...WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED !
Nice!
My old Infantry platoon back in the 90's had more firepower than this thing
your confusing a warship with an arctic patrol ship, no relativity
@@alpearson9158 no I'm not.
@@alpearson9158 The US coast guard puts 25mm Guns on 100ft hulls. This thing is 3 times that size.
It should have three cannon minmum as well as two heavy machine guns. Two 25 mil forward and a 20mm Phalanx CIWS in the rear. That's security when your computer CIWS is always awake as air sentry.
A great video, really well done. Love seeing the latest developments with Harry DeWolf Class!
An incredibly beautiful ship. In 2023-25, four similar Russian patrol ships of Project 23550 will join it. And I want to believe that our countries will cooperate in the development of the Arctic, and not develop another conflict.
too late
Is it sufficiently equipped to defend itself in the event of attack by a submarine or a foreign military ship?
No.
Enemy Submarine, it has the on board helicopter with anti sub torpedos, enemy surface vessel? It's stuck 1500mi back because it doesn't have an ice breaking bow like the Harry dewolf so it's not even a threat.
@@tyniria The "enemy" surface vessel this glorified pleasure craft is supposedly built to counter, according to Canada's own press, is the Russian Project 23550. An armed icebreaking patrol ship that in addition to a helicopter flight deck of its own, sports a 76mm main gun, CIWS, and 8x Kalibr Cruise Missiles! How the hell is this ship going to deal with that with just an anemic 25mm bow gun?
It's not a military boat of course, but Lockeed is building new ships for Canada. They will patrol this area.
Like Russia's primitive fleet is going to do anything now that Ukraine sank them all.
Why these ships are in the Navy is beyond me. One 25 mm bow gun which is mounted so deep that at its lowest depression likely couldn't hit a "fast mover" that is any closer than 300 m is ridiculous! The gun isn't large enough to effectively engage targets at range, certainly if the ship it's firing at had a larger gun. Then it's backed up with two 50 cal machine guns. To compare, the tribal class destroyers had 6, along with a lot of other weapons. This should be in the coast guard.
the Tribal class were not really Destroyers as they were modelled on "Design V" light cruisers (another varrient of this design became the Dido class), besides, Destroyers are more powerful than Post age-of-sail Frigates. this is a patrol ship meant for policing civilian vessels, maybe foreign coast guards that get too close (AKA the next wannabe USCG Polar Seas), it is NOT meant to fight warships.
Ice and water aren't the only thing in the Canadian north, oh no. Now there is an unarmed Navy Vessel there as well. How Canadian.
Nice shot of it hiding behind a piece of ice. I hope it has some drones or uav's to look around corners. Cheers.
Ya, so there is no way EVER anyone will attack Canada after this message
This ship has not much more armament than a single LAV6.
not expected to
With that storage bay you could use an actual LAV6 to fire from it lol
@@tonyl4571 perhaps that is the plan
Awesome thanks for producing and publishing this. Interesting stuff.
So what exactly will its role be. Is it a navy ship , research ship or a yacht. If its a navy ship its underpowered & armed.
So is this a coast guard vessel or a navy surface combatant, because if it's the latter then the Canadian MoD is a joke
both, it's designed to engage with civilian vessels (maybe the odd cost guard once in a while) not navy vessels.
try paying attention the new CSC is in the 9000 ton range not 950
The firepower on this is just sad.
not intended as a warship.
Looks awesome, I wish somebody would make a game or a sim where I could experience it myself.
Ex NESOP here. Needs bigger gun.
lol.
She's a good looking ship, I'll give her that.
Wtf slap some more canons on this beezy
Can’t wait to see this added to the Canadian coast guard! Especially since it’s, yknow, weak and an embarrassment to the RCN and all it stands for.
as usual uninformed
LoL Why is this a graphic generated video? Is it because the ship is already in drydock?
Maybe we should send this ship to China. That'll show them.
this thing would indeed be capable of "showing" it to the Chinese merchant marine, and that is it's purpose.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Argentina just sank a illegal Chinese fishing trawler.
@@Crashed131963 exactly, that's the situation the Dewolf is designed for, not fighting the entire Chinese navy.
Meanwhile Russia has well-armed nuclear-powered icebreakers. Canada has almost the same length of Arctic Coast as Russia, and we have these little dinky toys, what a joke, good thing we rely on Uncle Sam because we ain't going to do anything with that ship 😂
None of the Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers have any armament except for their on-board helicopters.
This shit could sink a nuclear powered russian ice break you idiot LOL. Those have no guns.
@@randomassname445 just grow up
Very cool and something to be proud of! Thanks for posting.
Nice ship 😀But the question that remains is why we decided to build 6 arctic patrol ships instead of 6 submarine to patrol the said arctic region?
Because the cost of 1 patrol ship is not equivalent to 1 submarine
Thank God she's all metric!
you mean like all navies pssst including the US
How many of these ships is Canada building? It’s a large area up north.
I know we need to patrol it, but why can't it drop torpedoes' ? If you are comparing it to the Halifax class.
The Cyclones can do that, but you're right, what happens if there isn't enough time to arm and launch one?
@@chloetangpongprush3519 What happens if cyclones drops a torpedo on the ice? We need some experts and the AG report to figure this out.
@@eanerickson8915 if you drop it on ice, it becomes a very expensive hockey puck.
Make us proud
What a cinematic masterpiece! Great job folks
This should have been the replacement for kingston class, 12-16 Harry DeWolf.
in addition too
so tell me, how does this boat protect us agaisnt Russia or China? Can it deter a submarine? Heck, Im not even sure if it could deter a whaling boat... >.
Way over priced. Billions to build! Billions! Good old irving.
Corporate Welfare. No way this should be more than 200 million.
RED TAPE it is the French way.....
$3.5 Billion to design and build six of them from a quick search. $2.3 B excluding design, meaning it's ~$383M each.
as soon as ice breaking is added, the price goes up dramatically
The Canadian armies TAPV has a 40 mm gun.
Cool looking vessel, but under-armed.
We Canadian’s have a world class Navy.....but it’s starved of training and operational funds.......Aye, ready Aye.....!
A warship that can't fight. How typically Canadian. Who's the commander? Captain Tuna, the chicken of the sea?
I had a fishing boat that was more threatening than this...they should have called it the HMCS Sitting Duck.
Hmmm...looks like a Coast Guard buoy tender...The project was to build five ships, each at $400 million...and proceed with a sixth if Irving Shipbuilding could find savings within the existing budget....Guess what? That didn't happen- The purpose of the program was to provide employment and secure votes....
That's about 10000 dollars worth of blender. Military really knows how to waste money.
i'm impressed but feel an upgrade to a 40mm bofors gun would give much better range and hitting power especially with the 3p ammo...........
Yes Bofors makes wonderful modern 40mm cannons. Good for engaging air targets and light surface targets. It would make sense, too, slotting underneath the Halifax's. The 25mm is more belonging on a Kingston. The targetting systems on a 25mm probably won't be too difficult to implement on a Kingston.
@@chloetangpongprush3519 ...most of the comments seem to agree with us about up gunning the vessel....
this ship is a ice breaker , coastguard navy ship , its not ment to trAVEL all over the word as a destroyer, but they can add air to air missle systems and submaine attack torpedoes , right now its running sea trials , after that they can add more weapons aboard the ship
Being Arctic, do they have any extra icebreaking ability ?
I think they do Norm. Check the start of the video for confirmation.
We have Global Warming . Can,t beat that icebreaker.
@@danamacinnis3065 Ah yes, don't know how I missed that, up to 1 meter of ice. Thanks.
A Navy ship with 1 25 cal gun isn't going to scare anyone , and I mean no one ....
Good advertising must have hired IRVING marketing to pat themselves at the back while squandering Canada's Revenue, There's literally developing countries now with bigger firepower than Canada....
it's a patrol boat, if this thing ever ends up in a warzone then it's lack of armament would be the least of the Navy's issues.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 No armament will stop your average modern anti-ship missile. The idea is to be able to stand off and deliver from a distance. a 25mm gun isn't going to cut it.
@@TheLunacyofOurTimes you're missing the point, It's never supposed to ever be facing down something armed with anti-ship missiles. that's the CSC's job.
It's a patrol boat to chase away enemy boats close to Canada's international waters. It is meant to be fast and nimble.
Did my heart good to see this!
I've seen superyachts with more firepower
Yep. Trying to assert sovereignty with the naval equivalent of a sidearm
@@waynevanhardeveld4707 well that is the point please get an education
i would swap the 25mm for a 35mm Oerlikon Millennium Gun
Looks like some great ships! I'm excited on what they can contribute to Canada. For those who are concerned about its weapons, the ship does not have a combat role. As a patrol boat its job is to go to harsher environments and be our eyes an ears. It can enforce our laws as its weaponry is more than enough to make it suicide for any non-military ship to challenge it.
However, if things turned hot for some reason I would suspect its role is to scout and find targets without engaging them. I also believe I heard they can be up-gunned and fitted with more weapons if required. Though it would be completely un-necessary for their current mission.
Those ships will just make sure that people need to check in with us when moving through our waters, provide rescue to distressed ships in the region, inteligence for the artic area, and also it will likely play a role in exploration and scientific expeditions to the north from time to time. That ship looks VERY desirable for such missions since it would be quite confortable compared to other options and has long reach with its helipads, and viechle storage.
A little RCN propaganda and CGI since I doubt the ship has made it north of Labrador yet.
It is in trial still. They have to make sure it can work without breaking and it can do what the RCN/Canadian Government had in the contract which is ???? Irving!!!
Great. Now the new frigates and SHOULD tack on some type 45 destroyers so we aren’t laughed at anymore
the new frigates are almost as big as the TYPE 45's and intended for anti-submarine warfare essentially.at 9000 tons they will be as big as some light ww2 cruisers, the word frigate seems to have many confused