Few things, These are patrol ships not warships, Canadian coast guard ships are not armed in the same way that the US coast guard ships are. These ships basically would have the same mandate as the US coastguard. The main armament of the ships are not the gun, its the helicopter, which can fit both torpedo's for ASW (together with the Ship's towed array sonar), or harpoon missiles for anti ship. The AOPS itself is not supposed to get close enough to be a threat to an enemy. The crew compliment is 65 but it has accommodations for almost 90, and also has a full land vehicle bay and Fab shop for machinery repair. Together with the cranes on the quarter deck, these things could be used to launch landing craft, making them a pseudo amphibious assault ship if necessary. Hell, put a fuel storage in the internal bay, and together with those cranes, this thing could also probably refuel our frigates if needed. The point is that the strength of these ships isnt what it can do at the moment, its how they can be used for if the need were to ever arise. Best part is that all of this comes at a unit cost of 100M CAD, or just over the price of one F35, each one of these takes 8 months to build so they can be pumped out in massive numbers if necessary. (Making them functionally the same as the ASW corvettes during WW2) That being said, it would be really cool if you could take one of the Mk.48 Mod.0 Vertical Launching System modules from the halifax class frigates after the new destroyers come online, and integrate it with these AOPs for some extra punch. (Or even one of those top mounted harpoon launchers)
The Canadian Coast Guard isn't armed at all. Where the USCG is part of Homeland Security/military, the CCG belongs to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's a civilian organization.
These were built to safeguard NorthWest Passage ship traffic and assert Canada's control over that future strategic waterway. They aren't there to sink ships in fragile waters but they are there to forcibly stop and board when necessary. The fact that they can fully support a large ASW/ASUW air asset and launch and retrieve autonomous craft both underwater and above makes them very useful in times of crisis up there in the high north. A Cyclone has yet to fully deploy with a AOPS, but that will probably change when these ships go on South American drug interdiction patrols which is another mission suite tasking. A 7,000 ton ship can also navigate through more ice choked island channels than a 26,000 ton Polar Class 8 ice breaker can. Canada is also presently building two of these massive flagship Class 8 Ice Breakers. Add the 3 commercial Icebreakers that were already bought and fully converted for CCG use, and the refits and upgrades on the existing CCG icebreaking fleet means Canada has a lot more cold weather skin in the game than the USA at the moment when you add up both RCN and CCG assets together. The current CCG fleet stands at well over 100 vessels of all types and is part of the National Ship Building strategy too. They are to receive 16 new major hulls of their own, two being unarmed versions of this AOPS Ice Breaking Class shown here. These were purchased for the CCG as an ongoing strategy to retain skilled labour in the Irving Shipyard until the first of fifteen Type 26 Frigates for the RCN was ready to cut steel Of interesting note the Canadian Coast Guard fleet doesn't count when adding up annual National Defence spending so does not contribute to the 2% level commitment that NATO is so fixated on lately.
@scottmccambley764 Finally someone gets it! The are patrol ships! Yes they don’t have much fixed armament but put an armed Cyclone on the back and some drones and that changes real fast. They were built to enforce Canadian laws as shipping through the Northwest Passage is going to increase as the ice gets thinner and thinner each year. You will see more and more commercial traffic, and some cruise ships I’m sure, start to use the shipping route. Will be great to see them on drug patrol with the US Coast Guard too. Great training opportunity!
Yes because it’s a different department the coast guard is under the department of fisheries and oceans not department of national defence and all coast guard vessels are unarmed they don’t contribute to defence that would be like adding the US department of transport to there defence spending, also we paid approximately 830million cad per ship if we take the 2023 estimate of 4.6 billion for for the six naval vessels and divide that by 6 for reference the Norwegian Svalbard class is the same size more heavily armed cost 575 million Norwegian Kroner per ship in 2001 so converting to CAD and adjusting for inflation that’s about 119 million dollars today why are we paying 8x as much for a ship with similar capabilities.
@@jameson1239 most US Coast Guard ships are armed and have even patrolled in the Persian Gulf area. No way Norway could build those ships today for $119 million each. Would never happen. Also, the cost of our ships were always going to be much higher built in Canada. It’s the cost for being able to have the capability to build and repair our own vessels. During wartime you’d want to send a ship to Europe or Korea to be repaired or refit? These ships were built first to give Irving shipyard the ability to train employees so they can now build the new frigates. And one thing people forget the money spent on those ships goes almost entirely right back into the Canadian economy AND includes the price of maintaining the ships over their lifespan. The government does it this way to make it look like the are spending more. I wish they would post the costs of just the ship itself. It would still be higher but not near as much. Gotta love the accounting tricks.
They are big enough to put more armaments on them in a war time situation. They also can relay enemy position info to the frigates at long ranges. The new F35s can also benefit from its radar info.
Aside from the actual Northwest Passage route, not much if any of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is well charted, so larger ships would be gambling to go for a cruise down any other channels. A foreign navy would need to have an ice breaker in their fleet, but at the speed icebreakers function at, an invasion fleet would be a sitting duck to air attack. But the Russian navy has no record of being a real threat in all of its' history anyway.
Forgot to mention that the bow deck is completely enclosed, so the sailors working on it won't be freezing their asses off under the arctic conditions they will be operating under, including during storms.
I personally believe the RCN should arm the Halifax frigates with the Oto Melara compact 76 super rapide guns and transfer the Bofors 57mm to the AOPS if that swap is even possible and a removable bank of Sea Hellfire missiles would turn the AOPS into a potent patroller if the need arises, you don't always need the missiles but the gun should be a permanent part of the ships armament, again if that is even possible
My understanding is the RCN will be decommissioning the Halifax class by late 2030's for a new fleet of Frigates. Type 36 or something that the British and Australians are building as well. They probably don't want to invent in the aging Halifax class when new ships are on the horizon.
The upcoming Surface Combatant Type 26 Frigates will carry the Otobreda 127/64 ... five inch gun. These will be large enough diameter to fire guided munitions. There is no point in re-fitting the Halifax Class one more time after FELEX as the ships themselves are getting tired. They were built with "25 year steel" by optimistic people in the past who never dreamt it would take two decades just to agree on a replacement for them.
Svalbard of Norwegian navy: 57mil Bofors, a 12.7 HMG, a SIMBAD anti aircraft missile launcher & ability to launch two maritime helicopters. See the difference here ?????
So..That makes the 25 A-ok?? 57 mil has more range. More range equals one opportunity to engage multiple targets with mere seconds to act. Equals a chance to survive several aerial hostiles for another day floating on the surface rather than under it. It's logical.
@@mac2626 To understand why the down-scaled/simple weapons on KV Svalbard, you need to look at the whole picture: KV Svalbard has its permanent harbour in Longyearbyen, Svalbard. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 does not permit militarization of the Svalbard archipelago. Norway wants to respect the treaty. The down-scaled armament of KV Svalbard has not been an issue with the Russian Federation, who has mining/tourist settlements on Svalbard. In these modern times there is no "one-ship-navy", but a coordinated network of a wide range of assets. Since you mentioned the 57mm: this is of course not the main weapon to use. If times changes, you can quickly add anything - e.g, mobile launchers of the Norwegian-made Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) on the aft deck, which adds long-range, precision strike capability that seeks and destroys enemy ships at distances greater than 100 nautical miles - this is also the choice of weapon for the US Navy. Same system can be put on the new and much larger three ship KV Jan Mayen class (length 136 metres, displacement 10,400 tonnes, Polar Class 6, and 8 weeks endurance) arctic patrol vessels, all three in operation from 2022-2024. The Hensoldt TRS-3D-MSSR-2000-IFF main radar and Kongsberg SS 1221 hull-mounted sonar are some highly advanced sensors. Next to be built are the (none ice classed, though) 6 new frigates and 20 other vessels, including 12 Coast Guard ships (6 blue-ocean and 6 littoral), in plan. Most of Norwegian waters are ice-free, so that's more important for the North-West Passage. All larger vessels will have helicopter(s), including anti-submarine capacities, etc. In addition, Norway has signed contract with Northrop Grumman and will become the third country, after USA and Australia, to operate the world's most advanced ISR & targeting UAS, the MQ-4C Triton, for maritime patrol of Norwegian waters around Norway Mainland, Jan Mayen, Bjørnøya, Svalbard and east to the Russian border. The MQ-4C Triton is designed to work in tandem with the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircrafts, of which Norway also have a fleet based in the north. All are interlinked with NATO Link 16, including the Norwegian F-35As also used in patrol operations. It's a system of systems. Through the last 80 decades, Norway has been equipped (got a huge kick-start from US WW2 surplus donations), and will be even better equipped. The Norwegian LTP (defence investment plan for land, air, sea and cyber) has been ratified by parliament with a record high NOK 1.6 trillion in total cost for the coming years - because times are changing.
If these Harry Dewolf class ships are anything to go on. I have very little expectations for their Type 26 frigates. Hopefully they manage to not get lead tainted fittings this time. So we aren't poisoning our sailors with leaded drinking water. But all Navy vessels in a time of war are warships. Your enemy doesn't just go oh hey don't shoot that, it's just a patrol ship. Or hey that's just a cargo ship don't fire on it. There is a very real possibility we are in an actual war with Russia, or China within this century and these ships can not defend themselves against even the oldest of anti ship weapons, aircraft or drones. Not only that, they aren't designed to watch our skies, as their radar is extremely close range. And at this time they can't look for submarines though that may change in the near future with the introduction of helicopter based torpedo's and sonar. So they are really just stuck doing logistics, goods delivery, science missions, and personnel transport. Only in Canada would we build a logistics ship then call it a patrol vessel. That's slower then the ships it's meant to patrol for, and can't even properly search for hostile entities like Russian or Chinese air assets or submarines. Hell it couldn't even detect a Chinese spy balloon as it's max radar height is 6000f.
@@canadianguy1955 The Type 26 CSC will probably be fine, the Harry DeWolf Class AOPS are the first large surface vessels that we have built in Canada since the mid 90s and were inevitably going to have serious teething issues.
@@canadianguy1955 there is a towed sonar array modular container that they can carry/use. They had one on the first deployment of the Harry Dewolf as it circled North America.
I am a proud Canadian and love our armed forces members who perform awesome with what they have. Having said that, let me talk politics. These ships are ill equipped to do much of anything. There are basically no arctic ports in Canada like Russia has, and Russia is building more. To truly defend our sovereignty, Canada needs several nuclear powered subs, and a few all purpose bases in the arctic complete with long range radar, UAV's , and just a slew of arctic capability that Canada has almost zero experience in procuring. The best bet would be to start off with a "quick base", and put much emphasis on subs, detection, and NATO sharing/interaction with Sweden , Norway, and Finland. If war were to come, Canada cant do much except provide a long way to travel to the USA for an invading force. Our resources and such are up for grabs to countries like China and Russia who dont play by international rules or laws. Time is up. Start investing at LEAST 2% GP on military as per NATO agreements.
My Uncle William St John RCN Radio Officer, on loan to the Norwegians before and during WW2, would approve your comment. Passed in 2005, was on the DEW line when the St Rock came through in 1947. A great guy forever.
The question may be, should the US Navy have a few similar ice classed ships? May be better patrol craft than the USCGC Bouy Tenders / light icebreakers // I think These are one of the more interesting ships in Canadian production.
Canada will have eight polar class 5 icebreakers once all of the AOPS are launched and commissioned with plans for an additional sixteen polar class 4 and 5 MPVs to be built and two polar class 2 icebreakers for a total of 26 icebreakers operational by the 2040s.
Don't really need them. For better or worst, Canada and USA are tied together. But it could be useful around Alaska. Maybe we build ya a couple and we can trade them for a nuclear powered sub... I'm sure we can work something out.
Canada does an outstanding job in this area. They are literally our closest ally so there's no need to go to the extreme expense of duplicating their functions. Ice breaking vessels are among the most costly per ton to build.
*Armed Barely. But glad we are finally getting them out there. Now we need to speed up the replacement frigate/destroyer program and get someone else to build us some decent subs.
Ice breaking hulls are extremely heavy, thick & tough. The power plants & other gear will easily take up the rest of the tonnage. These types of vessels are not combat ships. They are slow, tough & resilient but not fightable beyond fishery & contraband patrols.
It's a good start but there's a lot more to be done. We Canadians need to get to AT LEAST 2% both to respect our allies but also to actually protect our own territory. We have a lot of territory to protect. We can do better with out defence spending. A lot better.
We're spending all that money to have three and eventually five 25mm cannons in the arctic. Not even artillery, AAA guns to protect the Ships. And only one, so you come from both sides and one gets through. I read the comments, the Helicopter is the offensive weapon, but that only works in certain weather conditions. Occupying the arctic is easy enough, just develop a CanAmerican Moon Base Training Facility, these guys need to always have their suits on when outside. Develop vehicles that work well in that environment.... Show the Russians and Chinese you don't need to be aggressive or defensive all the time.
The irony. In the 1990s the DND proposed the creation of an Arctic fleet with submarines that could patrol the arctic by sailing underneath the arctic ice, this was slashed by Brian Mulroney as too expensive and unnecessary. Here we are in 2020s and now they agree there's a requirement for a fleet of ships to patrol the arctic but they still don't how to get it right.
Everyone is bitching that these things don’t have enough firepower not realizing that they are supposed to be lightly armed. These are patrol vessels, not warships. Canada isn’t a major power and isn’t gonna act like it. These are to patrol the arctic and northwest passage as it opens up more and more because of climate change. Think of them like police cars. Are police cars heavily armoured? Do they carry a heavy machine gun? Do they have bullet proof glass? Are they explosive resistant? No. They do light work and if they get into trouble, they call for help. If any country attacks any of these vessels, they will enact the wrath of the United States military and the rest of NATO. These are untouchable to Russia and China in the arctic. They will do their job which is to operate in freezing conditions and keep an eye on Canadian territory and show that there is a Canadian military presence in the area.
It just goes to prove that social media is a magnet to the ill informed; it is the only place that they can demonstrate their level of comprehension on matters.
I'm not a Nautical Ned , but is it me or all modern ( post Cold War ) Western Naval vessels horribly undergunned / missiled ? I don't think there's going to be time for a return to the shipyard for upgunning once the fit hits the shan , as they say . I hope our marine engineers and ship designers aren't selling our sailors short . it'll be too late when the balloon goes up .
They could be "up-gunned" very rapidly by putting one or two attack helicopters on that great. big flight deck. Canada doesn't have any of those but if the World's situation heats up much more, a small squadron of say, Wildcats for the Canadian Navy wouldn't be a crazy addition for these ships.
No anti air assets is a big issue. Can't intercept missiles or planes. Even a small 4 or 6 cell VLS system would have given lots of options. Russia's corvettes have 8 VLSs which can launch ballistic and cruise missiles. These corvettes are half the size of this ship.
While I am enthusiastic about Canadian Navy vessels for northern patrol, I would be reluctant the challenge a Russian vessel which would be heavily armed compared to the Canadian vessels, even with two languages the Canadians would be under whelmed to cuss them off Canadian territory.
In the near future, it's not unforeseeable that NATO leaders ask Canada for naval support of technically non combatant naval vessels in carrier support role, Horn of Africa. If this occurs they are going to need a superior self defense suite merely to survive in African off shore picket stations. Maybe start with Sea Hellfire VL and Stinger MANPADS off that empty flight deck? And another 25 mil aft, four more MGs midships. Read: Somali swift boat attacks, UAVs and Houti missiles-rockets.
The Russian Navy is a bit of a joke, the PLAN is a bigger concern but they have only sent civilian fishing and research ships to harass us so far so the 25mm gun is probably sufficient.
I really don't understand even if they are Patrol ships why not just add some defense Capability and a Bit more Firepower. Canada has no Bases up North don't know even if The Artic port was ever built. how long would it take to get some airpower up there from Cold Lake or help from our friends in NORAD and Alaska I just don't get it. New warships are at least 2 decades Away.
This article does not describe how these vessels will 'secure' the Northern Frontier. During the summer they will show a presence, but a limited one. If another nation (take your pick) wished to 'occupy' an Arctic Island, the AOPS will not normally carry ground troops to counter other ground troops and hold ground. Since Canada does not have any airborne troops, we would have to depend on other nations (if they wish to help) for a quick response. In the dead of winter the AOPs will not have any impact whatsoever!! They could not get through the ice (typically 2 to 3 meters thick). Canada would have to depend on the Canadian Rangers (armed with one C-19 rifle and 200 rounds each) to defend the Arctic. Given the size of the Arctic, that's about 1 Ranger for every 280 sq. Km. Yes the AOPs can carry the Cyclone helicopter. Its armament is ASW torpedoes and a light machinegun - not very lethal against a well armed ground opponent. As for a rapid re-armament for the AOPS with drones and upgraded guns/missiles during times of potential conflict, unless the Canadian military has them currently in stock (which they don't), then they are a pipe dream. The acquisition system is too cumbersome and bloated to be so responsive. These ships look good, show the flag in peacetime and don't do much of anything else.
Every regiment has an paratrooper contingent and then there are the Special Forces like JTF2 all airborne capable.@@edp8592 Time to review the CF website.
Canada does have airborne and air assault troops, the 3rd battalion of each of the 3 regular infantry regiments (Royal Canadian, Princess Patricia’s, and Royal 22e) all are airborne and air assault, plus each have a platoon of patrol pathfinders.
We are talking about the arctic you do not have destroyers or anything as such armed ships patroling the arctic that includes Rusdian or Chinesse plus i dont see any American destroyers patroling alaska 15 new frigates and the possible purchase of 12 subs are to be added to the navy.
With the cost over runs Canada will be lucky to afford 12 frigats. Shouldn't have picked up the optionon the Harry deville & used that money to make sure 15 frigats were built. 12 subs ! you got to be kidding. More likely 4. With Canada's procurement system they might have a secured contract by 2050 for any of this wishful thinking fleet.
What nonsense. 4x25mm guns and 8xM2 browning MG's (the total armament on all 4 of these ships combined) PLUS 4 helicopters are going to secure the entire 'Northern Frontier'? Suuuuure they are. ☮
It should have minmum two 25 mil in fore and aft turrets. And six .50 BMG in below deck firing turrets in arctic weather. And more importantly, never leave port without torpedo armed Cyclone.
These ships do not at this time carry a helicopter. They technically could but the navy is cheap and we can't find people to even run the boats let alone a helicopter.
Canada should have heavy idea breaker class destroyers, which is what Harper promised us and then never delivered on in the early 2000’s when he came to power Ffs
Yes money well spent, a budget of $6 billion for 8 ships armed with a single 25mm cannon and 2 machine guns. In the 90s the navy suggested patrolling the arctic with submarines that could sail under the ice. The DND could have just purchased a fleet of 12 brand new German built type 212 Submarines for $700 million a piece that also fire horizontal launched cruise missile and have other capabilities which can be used outside of the arctic then these peashooter patrol boats.
hey clueless all military's maintain upper ranks for a damn good reason. That is how you can create a much larger army, navy ,or air force if urgently needed has worked well in all military's since the 1800's
alpearson, you are wrong. Other Navies actually have warships. We have way too many admirals, very few true warships. Sometimes only two operational frigates, 0 submarines, plus zero replenishment ships. Not a way to run a Navy but hey, our country has been bankrupted.
computer generated wonky syntax is annoying. not sure what a single 25mm auto gun plans on going against, but it won't be a russian or chinese warship for sure.
Secured is still correct in a normal context. They are not combat ships so there are limits to the security they offer. They provide security for most situations by enforcing our laws in the north. It is armed enough to use force against unarmed ships like smugglers or any other ship that might be doing things illegal. It’s basically a police and search and rescue presence.
No other arctic nation put thier northern littoral fleet to sea with such a tiny cannon. Norway uses 57mm, same as Finland. Danish Thetis class sport a 76mm Oto Melara and Russians mount a 100mm gun. Only in Canada, do we stupid people accept this disparity in our littoral navy fleet. If this vessel can carry 2 semi rigid boats, two MRI machines, a landing vessel, an ability carry a Cyclone, why doesn't it have an anti-air attack weapon aft? Quite obviously it's Not a Typical patrol vessel now is it?? Should have a 20mm autocannon or SAM system alongside its present self protection suite. Two HMGs aft wouldn't hurt either to take on pesky hostile UAVs full circle, without the need of changing ships heading in pan ice. We are stupid sheep & this expensive vessel represents perfectly Canada's fluffy & nice peacenik attitude. "Look at me! I'm in danger! HAHA!!"
@santaclause7676 wouldn't hurt sporting a bigger deck gun. But the littoral navy set a standard in 2014. Removing twelve 40mm Bofors from Kingston vessels. Replaced with NOTHING. We must change our weaknesses by degrees. Six tiny 25mm and while scrapping twelve 40mm is hardly comforting home coastal patrol taskings.
@@Joe3pops most patrol vessels do not have more than a small gun. They are also not designed to tank battle damage. While they can and do go to littoral waters they are not considered littoral combat ships. Other countries made ships that can go to the arctic but they don’t have many. The purpose of the Henry DeWolf class is the to have a constant capability in the region. They also were designed with an archipelago and rescue in mind for research along with search and rescue services to cater to the northwest passage. This is a big difference because they enclosed more of the ship to protect it from the elements and created a larger operating space with better sensors so it can act as a command centre for such operations. It also has an upgraded ice breaking capability compared to the ship from which it’s design was based.
Hahaha, love the title. Canada will sail these committee designed half-measure ships while the US And Russian sails nuke subs in the arctic. The 38mm is adequate to shoot Polar bears.
I do not understand how they can secure the Northern Frontier. They have a 20 mm chain gun and a couple of machine guns. Even at 50 cal level the machine guns are not very impressive. Their range is a haif nautical mile and the 20mm chain gun's range is maybe 0.75 of a nautical mile. Thier foe could probably neutralize them at a far greater distance than that. Maybe if they have a super radar set they could see them before being seen themselves and run like scare rabbits. Maybe if Canada had more helicopters they could equip the pratrol ships with them to help them run away. To be honest, I was shocked to see that their main armament was the 20 mm chain gun. I really was expecting a little more.
These ships are patrol boats… created to patrol. In addition to Canadas already existing Navy, the plan to secure the Northwest passage has been rapidly expanding. Canada has recently invested several billion dollars into the Canadian Surface Combatant project which will build more than a dozen vessels based on the BAE Type 26 Frigate. Additionally they are constructing over 30 “Large vessels” that will join the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy over the next decade and have purchased a bunch of F-35’s. The AOPS is not and will not be the only thing securing the Canadian North.
I have served with the Navy and I understand how it works. They always expect you to do more with what you have than what they originally said. It has been that way long before I was born and it will not end after I am dead. I am sure I am older than you, I also speak from experience. When you are in the military you are not allowed to criticize the military's equipment, or you are gone. Just like when Paul Tracy drove for the Penske Indy team. He criticized the cars and he was gone. When the team lost the advantage of the fuel. It was revealed to the world. The Penske cars were crap. So if the truth hurts, but that is life. I always say, live reality and if the dream becomes reality you can live that and not until then. It saves you from waking up to a lot of nightmares.
@@Tomkinsbc these patrol ships have serious electronic warfare capability, they can do damage to subs and down incoming missiles if needed but that is NORAD's job.
@@darb4091 Actually I was and what I refer to as my heavy was the HMCS Chaudière. There were others but the best time spent was on the Minesweepers and HMCS Fundy by best experience. Before a ship is put in an area they look at what the potencial enemy has. For instance if shore bombardment is a possiblity then the ship must have that capablity. If a particular target was to be engaged and your ship had a small caliber weapon it is possible you could hit it without getting in range of it 's weapon system. Now for instance when they were using one of our Tribals as target practice, it was found that a 57 mm gun could not sink her, even though she had been stripped and did not have the extra equipment that would have helped protect her. They did hit her with a missle dilvered by another Tribal. Though if she had her silos loaded with missles she probably would have blown up, but because she was not the damage was above the waterline and she floated after that. It was when the Tribal hit he with repeated 3" shells from her 3"70 gun. After a couple of hits she began to sink. I always thought the 57mm was a good gun, but would shine better as a defensive weapon that an offensive weapon. It was capable of defending the ship from a missle attack and it may have been designed that way for that purpose. The City class Frigate had some offensive power, but I do not think it was it's strong point. Most Frigate have weapons designed for offensive power now. The Type 26 will have the capablity to project and protect the army while ashore and they will have the capablity to carry the long range Tomahawk cruise missle which has a range of about 1,000 nmi. The Patrol ships have no capablity to project force, so they will need to factor that in to any operations it may be sent on. I believe the gun is capable of 2 nmi and the machine guns are good maybe 1 nmi. If I remember correctly 30 mm is go to 3 nmi, 20 mm is good to 2 nmi and a 50 cal starts going sub supersonic at just over 1 mi. They may have extended those ranges now, but those were the ranges.
What sort of Arctic Jutland do you have in your head with dreadnoughts blasting broadsides at each within the Canadian Arctic archipelago that makes up our Northwest Passage?
Hate to break it to you. Navies go to war. Wait until Trudeau sends our cannon fodder sailors to the red sea for the next American war. You will then understand. @@abrahamdozer6273
@@abrahamdozer6273 When times of war are upon us. Calling your ship an ice breaking patrol vessel will not stop an enemy vessel or airplane from attacking it. In a war time situation, these arctic patrol vessels will not have time to call one of our very limited in numbers frigates to help them. Or even our aging CF-18 fleet. Anyone claiming other wise hasn't payed attention to naval warfare, both in the past and current day and doesn't know what they are talking about. It's funny you bring broadside attacks up. The 25mm Cannon is literally on that ship for use on vessels that threaten the ship in close up encounters. So it's use is literally visual range broadside like attacks as the effective range of the gun is only 2.9km's with a max range of 6.7 Km's. The two 50 cal man operated machine guns are also there for that very reason. So while you joke about dreadnoughts and broadsides our military is literally making ships that are actually worse off then the dreadnought era of defense and attack mind set as at least back then ships could engage past visual range/horizon. The Harry de-wolf can literally only shoot a 25mm cannon and two 50cal machine guns at things that can be seen by the naked eye. If you want an example of modern day warfare at sea we have the current Russia/Ukraine conflict to look for examples. A country without a navy, has decimated the Russian black sea fleet. All it took was a few anti ship cruise missiles, a handful of air based drones. And a few dozen sea based suicide drones. All of those systems cost a fraction of the cost of the ships sunk or damaged. The black sea fleet has had to retreat from Crimea, and is now functionally out of the fight while 1/3rd of it is sunk or too damaged to use. The Harry dewolf is less armed and less defended then even the lightest armed Russian ship in that region, meaning it's a defenseless and expensive coffin for our sailors if war is ever thrust upon us again.
Does it have sonar and anti submarine and anti ship capability? If not it isn’t worth a hill of beans in protection of the north . What is needed is ice capable frigates!
What the heck are you talking about, haven't you heard of the Ice breaker gap, this carries the largest most modern naval ASW helicopter in the west and its own fleet of large boats. Their is no shortage of ASW capability but its all worthless if ya cant navigate all the free flowing sheet ice that is melting and breaking off. An ice capable frigates is silly Ya cant put a sonar on ya reinforced ice breaker hull it would get destroyed first day of the season and what kinda support do you think Canada's frigates and SSKs (the real ASW defense) are gonna need so they can operate up their??? This is the LCS JSF hate hype train BS and its all armature hour pop science internet military experts. That large boat-crane they are bragging about at 2:16 that is the most powerful weapon on there because that is how you do ASW NOW, with remote or autonomous unmanned assets launch from the manned mother ship standing off out of the threat zone. Something something about you talking tactics when ya don't get the logistics.
@@logicbomb5511except how is a helicopter going to do anything if the submarine is under an ice sheet the helicopter has to drop sonar bouys and such within roughly 5km and while dipping sonar has much longer range the torpedoes have a range of about 11lm? also none of the RHIB’s this ship carry’s can do ASW unless you count throwing hand grenades blindly over the side and while a bow mounted sonar wouldn’t work a towed array would. It was designed to do the missions of a coast guard ship and it’s pretty much screwed if someone tried to sink it. Also the LCS’s are being retired because they built the hulls so terribly they are already falling apart don’t bring it up as an example of amateurs hating modern equipment for no reason
Yes. Retired Admiral Norman agrees with you. It has a dismal self defence suite for an arctic vessel operating far from home port. Harper's been gone since 2015. And this nation just gave away 11,000 rifles to Ukraine. It's within thier purview to upgrade its armaments. Governments can do that if there's a will to do so.
That's NOT their purpose, they perform one task PERIOD, they are little chunks of Canadian soil that remind the enemy that if you shoot them you will have to answer to NATO
@@karlaalders644 So, these are AOPVs ... Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels. The British Royal Navy operate 8 River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels and they are deploying them all over the World. They have the same armament suite as the AOPVs except that the main gun is a mighty 30mm Bushmaster chain gun instead of the 25mm. The only difference in their missions is that the British ones can't go into the Arctic but the British seem to have enough confidence in them to deploy two of them to the far Pacific. The Royal Canadian Navy currently operates 20 vessels with less ability to defend themselves than the AOPVs ... 8 x Orca Class and 12 x Kingston Class and it would not be appropriate to turn any of those over to a Canadian Coast Guard that is part of Transport Canada and is there to maintain safe navigation, not sovereignty.
@@proudcanadian67 Kingston Class started out with and continued with a 40mm single Bofors on the foredeck until fairly recently when they were removed. The Orca Class is fitted for a 650 Cal. mount and they are in storage, somewhere. Either you are young or you've never been in the navy. BTW, Those British Offshore Patrol Ships are not armed with missiles although those nifty little Martlets can be mounted any time (... would be a great addition to the AOPV in my mind).
instead of sending money to ukraine, canada should focus more on building a arctic ready fleet. 25mm gun is not enough. A good foundation but more a formidable ice breaker class to enforce a stronger presences is essential. especially in the future.
The "Arctic Ready Fleet" has already been built and four of the six specialist naval ships are already in the water with two more being assembled. Coast Guard breakers are also being built and refurbished and it has zero/sip/nada/nothing to do with Ukraine, Ivan.
@@proudcanadian67 They copied the British practice of putting a chain gun up front for patrol ships. The 25 mm was likely chosen because that is the munition used by hundreds of LAVs 3 to 6 around the country. There is lots of ammo and it's relatively available.
What's the point if the ships have no fight?? After all they aren't patrolling for pirates on small boats In the arctic. A 25mm cannon is a bb gun compared to the armaments on the Russian ships that get sent to the arctic. Useless waste of money.
Total waste of taxpayers money. These ships need to be armed to the teeth. Take a look at world today. If attacked, these ships are sitting ducks. Bring them back in, and give them the proper armament to do the job.
5 місяців тому
Considering that Canada is geographically larger than the United States with a population that is the size of California they do a pretty good job of punching above their weight in tax dollars
These ships cost more then anyone else's versions of the exact same ship. They can't defend themselves against modern naval or air threats. And can't even be manned because they lack sailors to even put on them. Canada does not hit above it's weight. If any conflict were to actually break out, we would be defeated in hours to days. Our only hope as a nation in a time of war is that Nato still considers us worth defending or being in the alliance. Or the USA takes an interest in our resources and essentially turns us into a vassal state more then we all ready are with a defense deal. Because as it currently stands we don't have the men, equipment, or ammunition to actually fight anyone in any serious way. It's a sad state of affairs when ones country's own institutionalized incompetence finally destroys it's capability to defend itself, Sadly that day has come for Canada.
@@string-bag @dudeonyoutube Are you all bots???? Like you know ice breakers are one of the most strategic and contentious aspects of the current naval arms race right? Go open a book and read some USNI before ya troll the comment section ya goofs.
Few things,
These are patrol ships not warships, Canadian coast guard ships are not armed in the same way that the US coast guard ships are. These ships basically would have the same mandate as the US coastguard.
The main armament of the ships are not the gun, its the helicopter, which can fit both torpedo's for ASW (together with the Ship's towed array sonar), or harpoon missiles for anti ship. The AOPS itself is not supposed to get close enough to be a threat to an enemy.
The crew compliment is 65 but it has accommodations for almost 90, and also has a full land vehicle bay and Fab shop for machinery repair. Together with the cranes on the quarter deck, these things could be used to launch landing craft, making them a pseudo amphibious assault ship if necessary.
Hell, put a fuel storage in the internal bay, and together with those cranes, this thing could also probably refuel our frigates if needed.
The point is that the strength of these ships isnt what it can do at the moment, its how they can be used for if the need were to ever arise.
Best part is that all of this comes at a unit cost of 100M CAD, or just over the price of one F35, each one of these takes 8 months to build so they can be pumped out in massive numbers if necessary. (Making them functionally the same as the ASW corvettes during WW2)
That being said, it would be really cool if you could take one of the Mk.48 Mod.0 Vertical Launching System modules from the halifax class frigates after the new destroyers come online, and integrate it with these AOPs for some extra punch. (Or even one of those top mounted harpoon launchers)
I would venture to say that their main offense/defense capability is in surveillance and communications, then get the hell out of there.
The Canadian Coast Guard isn't armed at all. Where the USCG is part of Homeland Security/military, the CCG belongs to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's a civilian organization.
Considering the problems with the Midshore Patrol vessels that started to roll out in 2012, I’m not overly confident in these. Hopefully I am wrong
These were built to safeguard NorthWest Passage ship traffic and assert Canada's control over that future strategic waterway. They aren't there to sink ships in fragile waters but they are there to forcibly stop and board when necessary. The fact that they can fully support a large ASW/ASUW air asset and launch and retrieve autonomous craft both underwater and above makes them very useful in times of crisis up there in the high north. A Cyclone has yet to fully deploy with a AOPS, but that will probably change when these ships go on South American drug interdiction patrols which is another mission suite tasking.
A 7,000 ton ship can also navigate through more ice choked island channels than a 26,000 ton Polar Class 8 ice breaker can. Canada is also presently building two of these massive flagship Class 8 Ice Breakers. Add the 3 commercial Icebreakers that were already bought and fully converted for CCG use, and the refits and upgrades on the existing CCG icebreaking fleet means Canada has a lot more cold weather skin in the game than the USA at the moment when you add up both RCN and CCG assets together. The current CCG fleet stands at well over 100 vessels of all types and is part of the National Ship Building strategy too. They are to receive 16 new major hulls of their own, two being unarmed versions of this AOPS Ice Breaking Class shown here. These were purchased for the CCG as an ongoing strategy to retain skilled labour in the Irving Shipyard until the first of fifteen Type 26 Frigates for the RCN was ready to cut steel
Of interesting note the Canadian Coast Guard fleet doesn't count when adding up annual National Defence spending so does not contribute to the 2% level commitment that NATO is so fixated on lately.
@scottmccambley764 Finally someone gets it! The are patrol ships! Yes they don’t have much fixed armament but put an armed Cyclone on the back and some drones and that changes real fast. They were built to enforce Canadian laws as shipping through the Northwest Passage is going to increase as the ice gets thinner and thinner each year. You will see more and more commercial traffic, and some cruise ships I’m sure, start to use the shipping route. Will be great to see them on drug patrol with the US Coast Guard too. Great training opportunity!
Yes because it’s a different department the coast guard is under the department of fisheries and oceans not department of national defence and all coast guard vessels are unarmed they don’t contribute to defence that would be like adding the US department of transport to there defence spending, also we paid approximately 830million cad per ship if we take the 2023 estimate of 4.6 billion for for the six naval vessels and divide that by 6 for reference the Norwegian Svalbard class is the same size more heavily armed cost 575 million Norwegian Kroner per ship in 2001 so converting to CAD and adjusting for inflation that’s about 119 million dollars today why are we paying 8x as much for a ship with similar capabilities.
@@jameson1239 most US Coast Guard ships are armed and have even patrolled in the Persian Gulf area. No way Norway could build those ships today for $119 million each. Would never happen. Also, the cost of our ships were always going to be much higher built in Canada. It’s the cost for being able to have the capability to build and repair our own vessels. During wartime you’d want to send a ship to Europe or Korea to be repaired or refit? These ships were built first to give Irving shipyard the ability to train employees so they can now build the new frigates. And one thing people forget the money spent on those ships goes almost entirely right back into the Canadian economy AND includes the price of maintaining the ships over their lifespan. The government does it this way to make it look like the are spending more. I wish they would post the costs of just the ship itself. It would still be higher but not near as much. Gotta love the accounting tricks.
They are big enough to put more armaments on them in a war time situation. They also can relay enemy position info to the frigates at long ranges. The new F35s can also benefit from its radar info.
Well said
Aside from the actual Northwest Passage route, not much if any of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is well charted, so larger ships would be gambling to go for a cruise down any other channels.
A foreign navy would need to have an ice breaker in their fleet, but at the speed icebreakers function at, an invasion fleet would be a sitting duck to air attack.
But the Russian navy has no record of being a real threat in all of its' history anyway.
In the 70's and 80's the Russians operation nuclear ballistic submarine in the North West passage.
Much good it did them.@@sammydsouza4379
Yeah as long as there is no conflict. As close as possible to having zero offensive or defensive weapons. 1 25mm and 2 x 50 cal.
Hey! Don't sell it short. I'm sure they'll have a couple Canadian Rangers on board with their enfields in case polar bears want to touch their boat.
Forgot to mention that the bow deck is completely enclosed, so the sailors working on it won't be freezing their asses off under the arctic conditions they will be operating under, including during storms.
I personally believe the RCN should arm the Halifax frigates with the Oto Melara compact 76 super rapide guns and transfer the Bofors 57mm to the AOPS if that swap is even possible and a removable bank of Sea Hellfire missiles would turn the AOPS into a potent patroller if the need arises, you don't always need the missiles but the gun should be a permanent part of the ships armament, again if that is even possible
My understanding is the RCN will be decommissioning the Halifax class by late 2030's for a new fleet of Frigates. Type 36 or something that the British and Australians are building as well. They probably don't want to invent in the aging Halifax class when new ships are on the horizon.
The upcoming Surface Combatant Type 26 Frigates will carry the Otobreda 127/64 ... five inch gun. These will be large enough diameter to fire guided munitions. There is no point in re-fitting the Halifax Class one more time after FELEX as the ships themselves are getting tired. They were built with "25 year steel" by optimistic people in the past who never dreamt it would take two decades just to agree on a replacement for them.
great idea. Plus hellfire for the Cyclone.
Sea Hellfires are viscous.
@@thomasstuart6861 VISCOUS means sticky. How about VICIOUS which means violent, cruel or malicious? And not needed in this role.
Good luck and success !
Svalbard of Norwegian navy: 57mil Bofors, a 12.7 HMG, a SIMBAD anti aircraft missile launcher & ability to launch two maritime helicopters.
See the difference here ?????
57mm is a pea shooter, and the Svalbard is only one ship.
So..That makes the 25 A-ok?? 57 mil has more range. More range equals one opportunity to engage multiple targets with mere seconds to act. Equals a chance to survive several aerial hostiles for another day floating on the surface rather than under it. It's logical.
@@mac2626 To understand why the down-scaled/simple weapons on KV Svalbard, you need to look at the whole picture: KV Svalbard has its permanent harbour in Longyearbyen, Svalbard. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 does not permit militarization of the Svalbard archipelago. Norway wants to respect the treaty. The down-scaled armament of KV Svalbard has not been an issue with the Russian Federation, who has mining/tourist settlements on Svalbard.
In these modern times there is no "one-ship-navy", but a coordinated network of a wide range of assets. Since you mentioned the 57mm: this is of course not the main weapon to use. If times changes, you can quickly add anything - e.g, mobile launchers of the Norwegian-made Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) on the aft deck, which adds long-range, precision strike capability that seeks and destroys enemy ships at distances greater than 100 nautical miles - this is also the choice of weapon for the US Navy. Same system can be put on the new and much larger three ship KV Jan Mayen class (length 136 metres, displacement 10,400 tonnes, Polar Class 6, and 8 weeks endurance) arctic patrol vessels, all three in operation from 2022-2024. The Hensoldt TRS-3D-MSSR-2000-IFF main radar and Kongsberg SS 1221 hull-mounted sonar are some highly advanced sensors. Next to be built are the (none ice classed, though) 6 new frigates and 20 other vessels, including 12 Coast Guard ships (6 blue-ocean and 6 littoral), in plan. Most of Norwegian waters are ice-free, so that's more important for the North-West Passage. All larger vessels will have helicopter(s), including anti-submarine capacities, etc. In addition, Norway has signed contract with Northrop Grumman and will become the third country, after USA and Australia, to operate the world's most advanced ISR & targeting UAS, the MQ-4C Triton, for maritime patrol of Norwegian waters around Norway Mainland, Jan Mayen, Bjørnøya, Svalbard and east to the Russian border. The MQ-4C Triton is designed to work in tandem with the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircrafts, of which Norway also have a fleet based in the north. All are interlinked with NATO Link 16, including the Norwegian F-35As also used in patrol operations. It's a system of systems.
Through the last 80 decades, Norway has been equipped (got a huge kick-start from US WW2 surplus donations), and will be even better equipped. The Norwegian LTP (defence investment plan for land, air, sea and cyber) has been ratified by parliament with a record high NOK 1.6 trillion in total cost for the coming years - because times are changing.
These are patrol ships, not war ships. The next batch are type 26 frigates.
If these Harry Dewolf class ships are anything to go on. I have very little expectations for their Type 26 frigates. Hopefully they manage to not get lead tainted fittings this time. So we aren't poisoning our sailors with leaded drinking water. But all Navy vessels in a time of war are warships. Your enemy doesn't just go oh hey don't shoot that, it's just a patrol ship. Or hey that's just a cargo ship don't fire on it. There is a very real possibility we are in an actual war with Russia, or China within this century and these ships can not defend themselves against even the oldest of anti ship weapons, aircraft or drones. Not only that, they aren't designed to watch our skies, as their radar is extremely close range. And at this time they can't look for submarines though that may change in the near future with the introduction of helicopter based torpedo's and sonar. So they are really just stuck doing logistics, goods delivery, science missions, and personnel transport. Only in Canada would we build a logistics ship then call it a patrol vessel. That's slower then the ships it's meant to patrol for, and can't even properly search for hostile entities like Russian or Chinese air assets or submarines. Hell it couldn't even detect a Chinese spy balloon as it's max radar height is 6000f.
@@canadianguy1955 The Type 26 CSC will probably be fine, the Harry DeWolf Class AOPS are the first large surface vessels that we have built in Canada since the mid 90s and were inevitably going to have serious teething issues.
@@canadianguy1955 there is a towed sonar array modular container that they can carry/use. They had one on the first deployment of the Harry Dewolf as it circled North America.
I am a proud Canadian and love our armed forces members who perform awesome with what they have.
Having said that, let me talk politics.
These ships are ill equipped to do much of anything. There are basically no arctic ports in Canada like Russia has, and Russia is building more. To truly defend our sovereignty, Canada needs several nuclear powered subs, and a few all purpose bases in the arctic complete with long range radar, UAV's , and just a slew of arctic capability that Canada has almost zero experience in procuring.
The best bet would be to start off with a "quick base", and put much emphasis on subs, detection, and NATO sharing/interaction with Sweden , Norway, and Finland.
If war were to come, Canada cant do much except provide a long way to travel to the USA for an invading force. Our resources and such are up for grabs to countries like China and Russia who dont play by international rules or laws.
Time is up. Start investing at LEAST 2% GP on military as per NATO agreements.
My Uncle William St John RCN Radio Officer, on loan to the Norwegians before and during WW2, would approve your comment. Passed in 2005, was on the DEW line when the St Rock came through in 1947. A great guy forever.
The question may be, should the US Navy have a few similar ice classed ships? May be better patrol craft than the USCGC Bouy Tenders / light icebreakers // I think These are one of the more interesting ships in Canadian production.
Canada will have eight polar class 5 icebreakers once all of the AOPS are launched and commissioned with plans for an additional sixteen polar class 4 and 5 MPVs to be built and two polar class 2 icebreakers for a total of 26 icebreakers operational by the 2040s.
Don't really need them. For better or worst, Canada and USA are tied together. But it could be useful around Alaska. Maybe we build ya a couple and we can trade them for a nuclear powered sub... I'm sure we can work something out.
@@craigquann LOLs, maybe trade you a slightly used LCS.
Canada does an outstanding job in this area. They are literally our closest ally so there's no need to go to the extreme expense of duplicating their functions. Ice breaking vessels are among the most costly per ton to build.
*Armed
Barely. But glad we are finally getting them out there. Now we need to speed up the replacement frigate/destroyer program and get someone else to build us some decent subs.
Why are we at war?
Large 6000 tonne hulls.
Lots of space for plug & play weapons systems .
Or plug and play computer games when they get stuck in the ice and waiting for the Russians to come and rescue them.
Ice breaking hulls are extremely heavy, thick & tough. The power plants & other gear will easily take up the rest of the tonnage. These types of vessels are not combat ships. They are slow, tough & resilient but not fightable beyond fishery & contraband patrols.
I said before in another channel they they are too lightly armed. Give them some bite.
They have canadian sailors not to be taken lightly
The Norwegians built theirs for 1/4 the cost...
It's a good start but there's a lot more to be done. We Canadians need to get to AT LEAST 2% both to respect our allies but also to actually protect our own territory. We have a lot of territory to protect. We can do better with out defence spending. A lot better.
We're spending all that money to have three and eventually five 25mm cannons in the arctic. Not even artillery, AAA guns to protect the Ships. And only one, so you come from both sides and one gets through. I read the comments, the Helicopter is the offensive weapon, but that only works in certain weather conditions.
Occupying the arctic is easy enough, just develop a CanAmerican Moon Base Training Facility, these guys need to always have their suits on when outside. Develop vehicles that work well in that environment.... Show the Russians and Chinese you don't need to be aggressive or defensive all the time.
"Not even artillery, AAA guns to protect the Ships" are any of those actually still used in modern naval warfare, I don't think so.
The irony. In the 1990s the DND proposed the creation of an Arctic fleet with submarines that could patrol the arctic by sailing underneath the arctic ice, this was slashed by Brian Mulroney as too expensive and unnecessary. Here we are in 2020s and now they agree there's a requirement for a fleet of ships to patrol the arctic but they still don't how to get it right.
Mulroney called it right. Those vessels were hugely expensive and pointless.
Everyone is bitching that these things don’t have enough firepower not realizing that they are supposed to be lightly armed.
These are patrol vessels, not warships. Canada isn’t a major power and isn’t gonna act like it. These are to patrol the arctic and northwest passage as it opens up more and more because of climate change.
Think of them like police cars. Are police cars heavily armoured? Do they carry a heavy machine gun? Do they have bullet proof glass? Are they explosive resistant? No. They do light work and if they get into trouble, they call for help.
If any country attacks any of these vessels, they will enact the wrath of the United States military and the rest of NATO. These are untouchable to Russia and China in the arctic.
They will do their job which is to operate in freezing conditions and keep an eye on Canadian territory and show that there is a Canadian military presence in the area.
It just goes to prove that social media is a magnet to the ill informed; it is the only place that they can demonstrate their level of comprehension on matters.
As always, a bunch of bros who play World of Warships pretending they know anything about anything. Good, useful ship. Kudos.
🇺🇸🤝🇨🇦
Didn’t trudolfy outlaw anything over 22caliber and single shot?
Weaponless crafts, maybe carrying a big white flag may be usefull in case of ennemy encounter.
go Canada :D
I'm not a Nautical Ned , but is it me or all modern ( post Cold War ) Western Naval vessels horribly undergunned / missiled ? I don't think there's going to be time for a return to the shipyard for upgunning once the fit hits the shan , as they say . I hope our marine engineers and ship designers aren't selling our sailors short . it'll be too late when the balloon goes up .
Thats not their purpose
These are patrol ships
They could be "up-gunned" very rapidly by putting one or two attack helicopters on that great. big flight deck. Canada doesn't have any of those but if the World's situation heats up much more, a small squadron of say, Wildcats for the Canadian Navy wouldn't be a crazy addition for these ships.
No anti air assets is a big issue. Can't intercept missiles or planes. Even a small 4 or 6 cell VLS system would have given lots of options. Russia's corvettes have 8 VLSs which can launch ballistic and cruise missiles. These corvettes are half the size of this ship.
@@MuffHam Martlet
While I am enthusiastic about Canadian Navy vessels for northern patrol, I would be reluctant the challenge a Russian vessel which would be heavily armed compared to the Canadian vessels, even with two languages the Canadians would be under whelmed to cuss them off Canadian territory.
What Russian Navy do you presume is going to make it to Canadian Territory? lol
In the near future, it's not unforeseeable that NATO leaders ask Canada for naval support of technically non combatant naval vessels in carrier support role, Horn of Africa.
If this occurs they are going to need a superior self defense suite merely to survive in African off shore picket stations. Maybe start with Sea Hellfire VL and Stinger MANPADS off that empty flight deck? And another 25 mil aft, four more MGs midships.
Read: Somali swift boat attacks, UAVs and Houti missiles-rockets.
The Russian Navy is a bit of a joke, the PLAN is a bigger concern but they have only sent civilian fishing and research ships to harass us so far so the 25mm gun is probably sufficient.
Weakly armed for patrol operations.... seems to be a waste.
Roger WilCo
What are they to do about Russian subs? Use Harsh language? All that ship with the firepower of 1 LAV 6 personal carrier?
I really don't understand even if they are Patrol ships why not just add some defense Capability and a Bit more Firepower. Canada has no Bases up North don't know even if The Artic port was ever built. how long would it take to get some airpower up there from Cold Lake or help from our friends in NORAD and Alaska I just don't get it. New warships are at least 2 decades Away.
The main reason is to keep the chinese from claiming access to the northwest passage just like they think they own the South "China" sea.
This article does not describe how these vessels will 'secure' the Northern Frontier. During the summer they will show a presence, but a limited one. If another nation (take your pick) wished to 'occupy' an Arctic Island, the AOPS will not normally carry ground troops to counter other ground troops and hold ground. Since Canada does not have any airborne troops, we would have to depend on other nations (if they wish to help) for a quick response. In the dead of winter the AOPs will not have any impact whatsoever!! They could not get through the ice (typically 2 to 3 meters thick). Canada would have to depend on the Canadian Rangers (armed with one C-19 rifle and 200 rounds each) to defend the Arctic. Given the size of the Arctic, that's about 1 Ranger for every 280 sq. Km. Yes the AOPs can carry the Cyclone helicopter. Its armament is ASW torpedoes and a light machinegun - not very lethal against a well armed ground opponent. As for a rapid re-armament for the AOPS with drones and upgraded guns/missiles during times of potential conflict, unless the Canadian military has them currently in stock (which they don't), then they are a pipe dream. The acquisition system is too cumbersome and bloated to be so responsive. These ships look good, show the flag in peacetime and don't do much of anything else.
Canada doesn't have any airborne troops? You lost me right there. Go back to playing War Thunder.
@@jenniferbardot8791. The Airborne Regiment was unfortunately disbanded in 1995 after the Somalia Incident.
Every regiment has an paratrooper contingent and then there are the Special Forces like JTF2 all airborne capable.@@edp8592 Time to review the CF website.
Canada does have airborne and air assault troops, the 3rd battalion of each of the 3 regular infantry regiments (Royal Canadian, Princess Patricia’s, and Royal 22e) all are airborne and air assault, plus each have a platoon of patrol pathfinders.
@@edp8592 Canada does have airborne troops, the 3rd battalion of each infantry division has airborne and air assault troops.
We are talking about the arctic you do not have destroyers or anything as such armed ships patroling the arctic that includes Rusdian or Chinesse plus i dont see any American destroyers patroling alaska 15 new frigates and the possible purchase of 12 subs are to be added to the navy.
With the cost over runs Canada will be lucky to afford 12 frigats. Shouldn't have picked up the optionon the Harry deville & used that money to make sure 15 frigats were built. 12 subs ! you got to be kidding. More likely 4. With Canada's procurement system they might have a secured contract by 2050 for any of this wishful thinking fleet.
C’est tu avec ça que si il y a un conflit que l’on va essayer de faire respecter notre territoire
Ask anyone and they will tell you theses ships have ruined the Canadian navy,nice to look at but that’s about it
They are only patrol ships. We have 15 frigates coming in early 2030s.
The ship are now leaking
What nonsense.
4x25mm guns and 8xM2 browning MG's (the total armament on all 4 of these ships combined) PLUS 4 helicopters are going to secure the entire 'Northern Frontier'?
Suuuuure they are.
☮
It should have minmum two 25 mil in fore and aft turrets. And six .50 BMG in below deck firing turrets in arctic weather. And more importantly, never leave port without torpedo armed Cyclone.
dumb
These ships do not at this time carry a helicopter. They technically could but the navy is cheap and we can't find people to even run the boats let alone a helicopter.
@canadianguy1955 all the more reason to give it some better armaments. Not even a single SAM launcher is just so wrong.
With what it already has.
No real fire power ?
Canada should have heavy idea breaker class destroyers, which is what Harper promised us and then never delivered on in the early 2000’s when he came to power
Ffs
Yes money well spent, a budget of $6 billion for 8 ships armed with a single 25mm cannon and 2 machine guns. In the 90s the navy suggested patrolling the arctic with submarines that could sail under the ice. The DND could have just purchased a fleet of 12 brand new German built type 212 Submarines for $700 million a piece that also fire horizontal launched cruise missile and have other capabilities which can be used outside of the arctic then these peashooter patrol boats.
Rest assured Sleepy Canadians. We have 40 admirals & vice admirals to convince us, this is one great purchase. 🤣
hey clueless all military's maintain upper ranks for a damn good reason. That is how you can create a much larger army, navy ,or air force if urgently needed has worked well in all military's since the 1800's
alpearson, you are wrong. Other Navies actually have warships. We have way too many admirals, very few true warships. Sometimes only two operational frigates, 0 submarines, plus zero replenishment ships. Not a way to run a Navy but hey, our country has been bankrupted.
Not a single point defense system. Surely a Phalanx wouldn't hurt the bottom line.
Canada is phasing out the Phalanx. :(
its gonna need bigger guns than that soon
Lol, Sure it will !!!! 🤭😁😆🤣
All these Canadian ships will be with their big brothers from the USA most of the time and they actually have real weapons on them.😂
computer generated wonky syntax is annoying. not sure what a single 25mm auto gun plans on going against, but it won't be a russian or chinese warship for sure.
6, 25mm cannons are going to defend the frontier?
What do you think is going to attack a aircraft carrier.
Secured is still correct in a normal context. They are not combat ships so there are limits to the security they offer. They provide security for most situations by enforcing our laws in the north. It is armed enough to use force against unarmed ships like smugglers or any other ship that might be doing things illegal. It’s basically a police and search and rescue presence.
No other arctic nation put thier northern littoral fleet to sea with such a tiny cannon. Norway uses 57mm, same as Finland. Danish Thetis class sport a 76mm Oto Melara and Russians mount a 100mm gun. Only in Canada, do we stupid people accept this disparity in our littoral navy fleet.
If this vessel can carry 2 semi rigid boats, two MRI machines, a landing vessel, an ability carry a Cyclone, why doesn't it have an anti-air attack weapon aft? Quite obviously it's Not a Typical patrol vessel now is it?? Should have a 20mm autocannon or SAM system alongside its present self protection suite. Two HMGs aft wouldn't hurt either to take on pesky hostile UAVs full circle, without the need of changing ships heading in pan ice. We are stupid sheep & this expensive vessel represents perfectly Canada's fluffy & nice peacenik attitude. "Look at me! I'm in danger! HAHA!!"
@santaclause7676 wouldn't hurt sporting a bigger deck gun. But the littoral navy set a standard in 2014.
Removing twelve 40mm Bofors from Kingston vessels. Replaced with NOTHING. We must change our weaknesses by degrees.
Six tiny 25mm and while scrapping twelve 40mm is hardly comforting home coastal patrol taskings.
@@Joe3pops most patrol vessels do not have more than a small gun. They are also not designed to tank battle damage. While they can and do go to littoral waters they are not considered littoral combat ships. Other countries made ships that can go to the arctic but they don’t have many. The purpose of the Henry DeWolf class is the to have a constant capability in the region. They also were designed with an archipelago and rescue in mind for research along with search and rescue services to cater to the northwest passage. This is a big difference because they enclosed more of the ship to protect it from the elements and created a larger operating space with better sensors so it can act as a command centre for such operations. It also has an upgraded ice breaking capability compared to the ship from which it’s design was based.
Hahaha, love the title. Canada will sail these committee designed half-measure ships while the US And Russian sails nuke subs in the arctic. The 38mm is adequate to shoot Polar bears.
I do not understand how they can secure the Northern Frontier. They have a 20 mm chain gun and a couple of machine guns. Even at 50 cal level the machine guns are not very impressive. Their range is a haif nautical mile and the 20mm chain gun's range is maybe 0.75 of a nautical mile. Thier foe could probably neutralize them at a far greater distance than that. Maybe if they have a super radar set they could see them before being seen themselves and run like scare rabbits. Maybe if Canada had more helicopters they could equip the pratrol ships with them to help them run away.
To be honest, I was shocked to see that their main armament was the 20 mm chain gun. I really was expecting a little more.
These ships are patrol boats… created to patrol. In addition to Canadas already existing Navy, the plan to secure the Northwest passage has been rapidly expanding. Canada has recently invested several billion dollars into the Canadian Surface Combatant project which will build more than a dozen vessels based on the BAE Type 26 Frigate. Additionally they are constructing over 30 “Large vessels” that will join the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy over the next decade and have purchased a bunch of F-35’s. The AOPS is not and will not be the only thing securing the Canadian North.
I have served with the Navy and I understand how it works. They always expect you to do more with what you have than what they originally said. It has been that way long before I was born and it will not end after I am dead. I am sure I am older than you, I also speak from experience. When you are in the military you are not allowed to criticize the military's equipment, or you are gone. Just like when Paul Tracy drove for the Penske Indy team. He criticized the cars and he was gone. When the team lost the advantage of the fuel. It was revealed to the world. The Penske cars were crap. So if the truth hurts, but that is life. I always say, live reality and if the dream becomes reality you can live that and not until then. It saves you from waking up to a lot of nightmares.
@@Tomkinsbc these patrol ships have serious electronic warfare capability, they can do damage to subs and down incoming missiles if needed but that is NORAD's job.
I challenge that you were actually in the navy because if you think that vessel to vessel combat is done with guns anymore you are uninformed.
@@darb4091 Actually I was and what I refer to as my heavy was the HMCS Chaudière. There were others but the best time spent was on the Minesweepers and HMCS Fundy by best experience. Before a ship is put in an area they look at what the potencial enemy has. For instance if shore bombardment is a possiblity then the ship must have that capablity. If a particular target was to be engaged and your ship had a small caliber weapon it is possible you could hit it without getting in range of it 's weapon system. Now for instance when they were using one of our Tribals as target practice, it was found that a 57 mm gun could not sink her, even though she had been stripped and did not have the extra equipment that would have helped protect her. They did hit her with a missle dilvered by another Tribal. Though if she had her silos loaded with missles she probably would have blown up, but because she was not the damage was above the waterline and she floated after that. It was when the Tribal hit he with repeated 3" shells from her 3"70 gun. After a couple of hits she began to sink.
I always thought the 57mm was a good gun, but would shine better as a defensive weapon that an offensive weapon. It was capable of defending the ship from a missle attack and it may have been designed that way for that purpose. The City class Frigate had some offensive power, but I do not think it was it's strong point. Most Frigate have weapons designed for offensive power now. The Type 26 will have the capablity to project and protect the army while ashore and they will have the capablity to carry the long range Tomahawk cruise missle which has a range of about 1,000 nmi.
The Patrol ships have no capablity to project force, so they will need to factor that in to any operations it may be sent on. I believe the gun is capable of 2 nmi and the machine guns are good maybe 1 nmi. If I remember correctly 30 mm is go to 3 nmi, 20 mm is good to 2 nmi and a 50 cal starts going sub supersonic at just over 1 mi. They may have extended those ranges now, but those were the ranges.
Combat fleets?
What sort of Arctic Jutland do you have in your head with dreadnoughts blasting broadsides at each within the Canadian Arctic archipelago that makes up our Northwest Passage?
Hate to break it to you. Navies go to war. Wait until Trudeau sends our cannon fodder sailors to the red sea for the next American war. You will then understand. @@abrahamdozer6273
@@abrahamdozer6273 When times of war are upon us. Calling your ship an ice breaking patrol vessel will not stop an enemy vessel or airplane from attacking it. In a war time situation, these arctic patrol vessels will not have time to call one of our very limited in numbers frigates to help them. Or even our aging CF-18 fleet. Anyone claiming other wise hasn't payed attention to naval warfare, both in the past and current day and doesn't know what they are talking about. It's funny you bring broadside attacks up. The 25mm Cannon is literally on that ship for use on vessels that threaten the ship in close up encounters. So it's use is literally visual range broadside like attacks as the effective range of the gun is only 2.9km's with a max range of 6.7 Km's. The two 50 cal man operated machine guns are also there for that very reason. So while you joke about dreadnoughts and broadsides our military is literally making ships that are actually worse off then the dreadnought era of defense and attack mind set as at least back then ships could engage past visual range/horizon. The Harry de-wolf can literally only shoot a 25mm cannon and two 50cal machine guns at things that can be seen by the naked eye.
If you want an example of modern day warfare at sea we have the current Russia/Ukraine conflict to look for examples. A country without a navy, has decimated the Russian black sea fleet. All it took was a few anti ship cruise missiles, a handful of air based drones. And a few dozen sea based suicide drones. All of those systems cost a fraction of the cost of the ships sunk or damaged. The black sea fleet has had to retreat from Crimea, and is now functionally out of the fight while 1/3rd of it is sunk or too damaged to use. The Harry dewolf is less armed and less defended then even the lightest armed Russian ship in that region, meaning it's a defenseless and expensive coffin for our sailors if war is ever thrust upon us again.
this ship need better armament eg 57mm gun cwis system rockets for aircraft and chopper equipped with torpedo's
Does it have sonar and anti submarine and anti ship capability? If not it isn’t worth a hill of beans in protection of the north . What is needed is ice capable frigates!
What the heck are you talking about, haven't you heard of the Ice breaker gap, this carries the largest most modern naval ASW helicopter in the west and its own fleet of large boats. Their is no shortage of ASW capability but its all worthless if ya cant navigate all the free flowing sheet ice that is melting and breaking off. An ice capable frigates is silly Ya cant put a sonar on ya reinforced ice breaker hull it would get destroyed first day of the season and what kinda support do you think Canada's frigates and SSKs (the real ASW defense) are gonna need so they can operate up their??? This is the LCS JSF hate hype train BS and its all armature hour pop science internet military experts. That large boat-crane they are bragging about at 2:16 that is the most powerful weapon on there because that is how you do ASW NOW, with remote or autonomous unmanned assets launch from the manned mother ship standing off out of the threat zone. Something something about you talking tactics when ya don't get the logistics.
@@logicbomb5511except how is a helicopter going to do anything if the submarine is under an ice sheet the helicopter has to drop sonar bouys and such within roughly 5km and while dipping sonar has much longer range the torpedoes have a range of about 11lm? also none of the RHIB’s this ship carry’s can do ASW unless you count throwing hand grenades blindly over the side and while a bow mounted sonar wouldn’t work a towed array would. It was designed to do the missions of a coast guard ship and it’s pretty much screwed if someone tried to sink it. Also the LCS’s are being retired because they built the hulls so terribly they are already falling apart don’t bring it up as an example of amateurs hating modern equipment for no reason
@@jameson1239 There is a towed array sonar module they can carry. If they need it, but it would likely only monitor and couldn't engage it.
that's the Type 26 already in construction
These should be called the HMCS Toothless
well than Harper then
lol
Yes. Retired Admiral Norman agrees with you. It has a dismal self defence suite for an arctic vessel operating far from home port. Harper's been gone since 2015. And this nation just gave away 11,000 rifles to Ukraine.
It's within thier purview to upgrade its armaments. Governments can do that if there's a will to do so.
UA-cam comment of the year goes to…😂😂😂
That's NOT their purpose, they perform one task PERIOD, they are little chunks of Canadian soil that remind the enemy that if you shoot them you will have to answer to NATO
😮🫡
Are they crab boats???? Air defence? Anti shipping defence? Detect or attack subs???? Bahhhhh what a waiste
Bahhhh! You must be another gamer geek.
Lol no never had time for game stuff point being allot of money waisted on a ship that cant defend itself should have been a coast guard vessel!
@@karlaalders644 So, these are AOPVs ... Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels. The British Royal Navy operate 8 River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels and they are deploying them all over the World. They have the same armament suite as the AOPVs except that the main gun is a mighty 30mm Bushmaster chain gun instead of the 25mm. The only difference in their missions is that the British ones can't go into the Arctic but the British seem to have enough confidence in them to deploy two of them to the far Pacific. The Royal Canadian Navy currently operates 20 vessels with less ability to defend themselves than the AOPVs ... 8 x Orca Class and 12 x Kingston Class and it would not be appropriate to turn any of those over to a Canadian Coast Guard that is part of Transport Canada and is there to maintain safe navigation, not sovereignty.
Orca and Kingston are not armed. AOPS hardly is. That is the difference between Canadian boats and RN. The RN ones (any) will have SA and SS missiles.
@@proudcanadian67 Kingston Class started out with and continued with a 40mm single Bofors on the foredeck until fairly recently when they were removed. The Orca Class is fitted for a 650 Cal. mount and they are in storage, somewhere. Either you are young or you've never been in the navy. BTW, Those British Offshore Patrol Ships are not armed with missiles although those nifty little Martlets can be mounted any time (... would be a great addition to the AOPV in my mind).
IS THIS THE SAME CANADA THAT ALLOWED CHINESE ARMY TO TRAIN IN THERE COUNTRY....
Long ago debunked as more stupid nonsense from the retarded troll farms.
That would be "their country" and that sounds a bit absurd. Source?
@@timothyirwin8974 Dec 11, 2020
Why was the Chinese military invited to train in Canada? POST MILLENNIAL
oh you mean just as the US and UK have done . Try a thought process
@@alpearson9158the US and UK don’t have a diametrically opposed political and cultural stance towards individuals rights the way the PRC does
instead of sending money to ukraine, canada should focus more on building a arctic ready fleet. 25mm gun is not enough. A good foundation but more a formidable ice breaker class to enforce a stronger presences is essential. especially in the future.
The "Arctic Ready Fleet" has already been built and four of the six specialist naval ships are already in the water with two more being assembled. Coast Guard breakers are also being built and refurbished and it has zero/sip/nada/nothing to do with Ukraine, Ivan.
Give it to Ukraine. They are working hard.
@@eanerickson8915 Riiiiiight.
Good to see that you support the Canadian Forces.
the original design Svalvard (Norway) has a 76mm. AOPS sure was Canadianized...
@@proudcanadian67 They copied the British practice of putting a chain gun up front for patrol ships. The 25 mm was likely chosen because that is the munition used by hundreds of LAVs 3 to 6 around the country. There is lots of ammo and it's relatively available.
HAHA no they wont. They lack full year arctic capabilities. there also task loaded to begin taking on operations from ships going down.
What's the point if the ships have no fight?? After all they aren't patrolling for pirates on small boats In the arctic. A 25mm cannon is a bb gun compared to the armaments on the Russian ships that get sent to the arctic. Useless waste of money.
These ships are just as useless as a submarine made out of toilet paper 🧻
Bahahahaha! ! ! ! They can't secure their tampons. lol
Total waste of taxpayers money. These ships need to be armed to the teeth. Take a look at world today. If attacked, these ships are sitting ducks. Bring them back in, and give them the proper armament to do the job.
Considering that Canada is geographically larger than the United States with a population that is the size of California they do a pretty good job of punching above their weight in tax dollars
These ships cost more then anyone else's versions of the exact same ship. They can't defend themselves against modern naval or air threats. And can't even be manned because they lack sailors to even put on them. Canada does not hit above it's weight. If any conflict were to actually break out, we would be defeated in hours to days. Our only hope as a nation in a time of war is that Nato still considers us worth defending or being in the alliance. Or the USA takes an interest in our resources and essentially turns us into a vassal state more then we all ready are with a defense deal. Because as it currently stands we don't have the men, equipment, or ammunition to actually fight anyone in any serious way. It's a sad state of affairs when ones country's own institutionalized incompetence finally destroys it's capability to defend itself, Sadly that day has come for Canada.
Tiktok voice
I agree smile see no teeth
What a waste of money
🤣
No. No they won't.
LOL Are you people serious?
Yes my government is, sadly. They don't want to hurt anyone's feelings let alone point a gun at them.
Turdeau prefers to spend taxpayer dollars on himself and his huge fanclub in Pakistan. He has nothing but contempt for the military.
@@string-bag @dudeonyoutube Are you all bots???? Like you know ice breakers are one of the most strategic and contentious aspects of the current naval arms race right? Go open a book and read some USNI before ya troll the comment section ya goofs.
@@dudeonyoutube These were approved under the Harper Govt but dont let that stop you from spewing nonsense on the internet.
Looks like The Easily Offended Ladies Club has entered the chat.
Not fit for ice and no relevant weapons. A joke.
I don't get this!.these ships should be armed to the teeth...the northwest passage is going to be a problem for canada in the near future
Well thankfully you not getting this is even less than irrelevant.