@Alfred Churchill This is a Canadian ship for Christ's sake. There is an ample supply of frozen pucks and lots of sticks, then we board the guy, take then into the corner and jersey 'em. Honestly!!!
Billions for the program, not the ship ... Better than kissing our Arctic Archipelago goodbye. Mostly, Canada has had a free ride defending our borders. This is the first time in 80 years that we're opening up our pocketbooks a little crack and shelling out to define Canada's borders.
@@FrontlinePros No argument from me! I had to serve in Mr. Trudeau (Senior's) 1970s Navy, making bricks without straws. I think that circumstances are going to focus the 2% pretty soon but the focus will not be towards the Atlantic. It's 1933 all over again.
@@abrahamdozer6273 well my friend. I work on a naval base now and unfortunately I think we're still using a lot of the old naval equipment that you would remember. I'll look for your name carved into the side of the buildings ;)
@@FrontlinePros Did they ever remove my joke from the stall in Stadacona? (Just kidding) If they ever consider mounting an old twin 3"-50 on an AOPS, I'll know that something has gone horribly wrong out there.
A 6000-ton ship carrying roughly the same armament as a 15-ton light armored recon vehicle? Not sure the logic behind that. At least give it the 57mm MK110 so it can pretend to be well armed.
We don't really need it to be armed any more then that. Fact is unless if we're ready to spend tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars we're not going to be creating an effective fleet against our Russian neighbours. Thats why we have a defence pact with America after all. This ship will be very good for what its designed to do, I'd love if we had a strong navy but there just isn't enough of a reason.
@@Megabean As part of NATO you do have a strong navy. That is the beauty of the alliance. Also, as part of the anglosphere and the "five eyes." Canada can hold it's own in many ways. I'd love to see even closer cooperation between CA, AU, NZ (if they regain their senses) and GB when it comes to commonality of military procurement and interoperability. Although each of us has our own specific needs based on geographical location. When it comes to Frigates, destroyers and subs, there is a good argument for a one size fits all approach. With the military industrial complex of each member country, being capable of building and repairing vessels from all the others. Splitting the costs of R&D and benefitting from the price reduction resulting from larger orders. It could be a win x win for all concerned, if the politicians could do their jobs properly and learn to "play nice."
I agree, we should put the 57mm of the Halifax class on the DeWolf when they retire. Also some MANPADS (Man-portable air-defense system) will be a good and cheap addition too.
For Russian, Chinese, and US warships sailing in our waters without permission, these boats can sail up and demand they leave Canadian waters just as well as a ship 10 times their size. It is not as if they or we are going to sink the other nation's ship and start WWIII. What is more important than size and armament are surveillance electronics, speed, ability to handle thick old ice, and the type and number (one or two) of the helicopters it can carry. But these are not built to handle old ice. These vessels are polar class 5 (year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions), with the front hull strengthened to polar class 4 (year-round operation in thick first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions).
Why don't we just send them a strongly worded letter then? It would save us the trouble of operating these tugs. I think Global Hawks with Harpoons would do a better job of monitoring and carrying a stick.
Actually, for just sailing up, and asking other vessels to leave, aren't they pretty large? The Danes built the much smaller Knud Rasmussen class, for patrolling around Greenland, that could do that. No, they didn't carry their own chopper, but they have a flight deck, so helicopters can visit them. And, presumably, it could carry a couple of UAVs,
You can thank their soldier directly. He lives on Base Borden, just west of Barrie, Ontario. Ask the local operator and she will connect you, if he is not sleeping.
@@randlerobbertson8792 Well, it's far, far more complicated than that. To start with, the Arrow was 30% more expensive than US offerings that got about 90% of the way there: 10 million dollars per unit back then (which converts to 98 or so millions today... an F-35 is down to about 85 million per unit now). Then there was the issue that all the weapons (missiles/bombs) it was going to use were proprietary and inferior to the US offerings. A total redesign of part of the fuselage was needed to modernize that part, which helped to continue putting off foreign purchase interest. Foreign purchase interest consisted of countries that were either too poor or were trying to build their own because they didn't want to lose their own industries. Then the USSR developed the first successful version of a weapon that could bypass the need for bombers to deliver their nuclear payload by first going into low orbit territory (higher than any aircraft could go), so interceptors kind of lost their main job at that point in time, which put off even the Canadian military from purchasing it. The US gave up on its own pure interceptor designs in favour of the ICBM, so even the US aeroplane industry got screwed there. Then it still needed a lot of money to develop the Iroquois engines so it didn't limp into combat. And Avro had concerns there was a USSR mole in the company... which would be verified as completely justified decades later when it was revealed that, yes, there was a USSR spy in the Avro corporation. Add that to a government that was desperately trying to fix the runaway budget the previous several governments had left behind and it was no wonder why the Arrow was cancelled. Still hurts though. It was a cool jet and we lost so much capability in the brain drain that followed that you wonder if it would have been better to bite the bullet and actually arm our air force with them. But, truly, we'll never know.
If you've ever served in the Navy you would know that when you're often four months or more at sea it's these types of cruises that help with retention especially in these days of severe manpower shortages. It's the main reason I chose to serve in the Navy.
If I was the Minister of National Defense right now this is how I would envision the Royal Canadian Navy fleet by 2050. The Harry DeWolf-class would still consist of the 8 planned ships (6 for RCN and 2 for the CCG.) The RCN would have 3 stationed at CFB Esquimalt and 3 at CFB Halifax. The Canadian Surface Combatant ships (which I would name the Prime minister-class) would be reduced from the currently planned 15 ships down to 12. 6 would be stationed at CFB Esquimalt and 6 at CFB Halifax. I would then also order the production of two Helicopter Carriers. (One would be named HMCS Steller's jay which would be stationed at CFB Esquimalt and the other would be named HMCS Osprey which would be stationed at CFB Halifax.) After that I would order the production of 2 Guided Missile Destroyers which would be based on the Royal Navy's upcoming Type 83 destroyers (I would name one HMCS Haida and the other after another former RCN Tribal-class destroyer) Last but not least I would also make sure the Navy finally got rid of those cursed Victoria class submarines and I would order between 4 and 8 Nuclear powered and nuclear missile capable launching Submarines based on whatever future design the Royal Australian Navy has in the future and the class would be evenly divided between CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax. I would probably also have some of the warships built in the United States simply because Canadian ship yards just could not keep up with this kind of demand, though I would make sure that all lead ships we're built in Canada and that the majority of the ships we're built in Canada.
Yeah same here. New subs, 2 new helicopter carriers, but still the 15 CSC. These ships are basically destroyers, briming with anti-air missiles, tommohawk cruise missiles, NSM anti-ship missiles and a multitude of others. These ships are able to kill literally anything and able to deploy special forces easily due to the mission bays. With that we would be able to send a pretty powerfull strike group to a hot zone. Consisting of 8 CSC, 2 LHD, 3 submarines, 2 harry de wolf for support and a tanker. Thats a lot of firepower. Even with the current plans, we would be able to send 8 CSC and 2 submarines to a conflict zone. Which is pretty powerfull when combined with our allies.
It’s fun to envision what the Canadian military could be if there was money for procurement. Those type 26 frigates, as Canada wants to arm them, are very capable and more like destroyers. I think we just keep building those indefinitely (at 1 every 2 years by the time we get to 15 it will be time to retire the first in class). The political will to fund that program is questionable unfortunately, so we certainly don’t have the budget for nuclear submarines. We could easily enough buy some good diesel submarines from Japan or Germany or Sweden, but I would prefer to enter into an arrangement with the UK where we agree to deploy a type 26 frigate to their carrier group, and also a dozen F35B, and in exchange the UK will run patrols for us with their astute class subs. If we ordered 36 F35B, that would be cheaper than subs, keep us in the manufacturing supply chain and give us some diplomatic advantages by deploying those to exercise from allied carriers, like the US, UK, Japan, Italy etc. I don’t think anything else for the navy is in our budget.
what a load of politically driven garbage as for subs many might not like them, as a political toy they seem to be, but Jane's has a very different view. Nuclear submarines are so damn noisy that many navies build diesel boats that are nearly silent submerged. The Halifax class were designed and built in Canada and served us very well as they will continue to do for about 8 more years. Why buy destroyers when the ( so called ) frigates are bigger and better equipped, but then you probably have no clue about the Type 26's. A tribal class (Canadian) destroyer circa 1970+ had a displacement of 4900 tons the type 26 weighs in at about 9000 laden and has room for modulation. Canada has a problem with insufficient numbers to actually man a larger navy. Thus a smaller proficient one is advisable. Oh and our next subs should be diesel as well as it's pointless to buy expensive noisy nukes
@@NBeaver-bx4yl Maybe it's because I have an outdated perception of warships but I was under the impression that Frigates are a sort of jack of all trade vessels that can do a little bit of everything where as destroyers are more anti-ship and anti-air vessels.
A long time friend works at the Halifax shipyard, helping build these ships. Eventually 5 for the navy, and 2 for the coast guard. Proud of his involvement in the program to modernize the Navy's ships.
@@TheRealCartman1 That is the point, the government pays them an agreed amount of money, and they build the ship. They don't receive supplements to keep the job going, all of it is agreed on in the contract.
I'm not. Every government for the last 40 years has done the same thing. The problem is that Canadian taxpayers let them get away with it. Too much meh in this country.
We should be looking at armed drones, both flying, and submersible. With one of the worlds largest coast lines, on three oceans, Canada has a lot to keep an eye on. If it were not for the fact the Ocean freezes over, and equipment failure in winter means death, we would barely hold sovereignty over the arctic.
Oh yes, great CANADA who scrapped the Avroe Arrow and sole CANDOO reactor for 2 million. No manufacturing up there.Just lots of lumber and fish and wheat. Try again.😍
@@miamicakes1830 Plenty of talent, not much $$ to get it off the ground. The Canadian public has been fleeced by cost overruns. Probably just as cheap to buy American hardware.
@@7Trident3 Cost overruns are another bit of American culture that we've inherited. You want cost-effective... maybe S.Korea or something. Somewhere the concept of 'budget' doesn't evoke laughter. But hey... by doing it ourselves we've at least bought a little bit of ship-building capability that we might not immediately throw away, again.
@@4Fixerdave You know that it was a "no bid contract" right? And that Irving is a huge donor to the LPC, right? This may explain why Canadian Navy ships cost so much more than our allies.
We are not paying to much for them (my opinion), we are making a good compromise between having more north Canada coverage and submarine cost. Having 12 harry dewolf ships makes more sense to me than having 12 1990's kingston ships. For every ship we add, the stress on tankers gets higher. When the resolve class tanker project will be done, we will have 2 main tankers and 1 semi military tanker (MV Asterix). To maintain a permanent fleet in north canada, one of those tanker might need to stay there permanently (permanent mission), it sounds a good job for the Asterix.
You have no idea why the MCDVs were built. They were NEVER meant to be front-line ships and are not armed for a fight. The Harry DeWolf are better ships, but they are not warships. They are a waste of money.
when that ship launched, it was 17 feet longer on one side than the other. It was put back into dry dock as soon as it launched because it was sinking. Our ships are crap even the new ones. Dont even start on our subs that the brits didnt want to sell to us because they were old and dangerous.
They were made in Canada. Guaranteed that we overpaid by 70%. The good news is that much of the money will go right back to the Liberal Party of Canada through campaign donations, speaking fees, consulting fees and of course, cushy board positions after their political careers are over.
@Otosj van Tolerbok except that this isn’t a warship. It only costs 5x what a warship of equivalent tonnage would cost to build in ANY other country. It wont be “listening” in on any other countries coastlines. It can barely leave view of our own coastline. Every single military purchase this country makes is not based on “need” or “strategy”. It is based on funnelling vast amounts of money into LPC friendly business and into liberal party members pockets. If these ships were purchased at a reasonable cost and filled an actual military need i would be all for them. They aren’t and they don’t. Military spending in this country does not “smear the gears” of politics - only one political part every benefits from the continued gutting of the Canadian military - the criminal enterprise know as the Liberal Party of Canada.
I was wrong - did some research and we didn’t pay 5 x. It was actually 10x what other countries paid to produce THE. EXACT. SAME. SHIP. 700 million per hull. The Danes and Ireland paid 55-65 million each.
@Robert Kaevur well ice breakers are a very different issue . This ship will likely move through ice at a much slower speed than cruise speed weapons are also unnecessary but carrying a very well armed RCAF helicopter changes all that
In the Netherlands we have a slightly similar concept - the Holland-class Oceangoing Patrol Vessels. While they about just 'do the job' due to an on board helicopter, these vessels are lackluster in almost every other respect. Can't intercept due to its low top speed, can't engage anything armed with missiles or torpedoes, almost completely defenceless against fighter-bombers and too short ranged to sustain long at sea operations. At the same time they eat away a good chunk of the tight budget in a time of increasing geopolitical tension. Going cheap is hardly going to do anything but show a lack of political resolve and commitment both to the US and potential adversaries. Thus a matter of pennywise and poundfoolish in the long run.
You raise good points my Dutch friend. The British Royal Navy made the same mistake with their River class of off shore patrol vessels. They built a class for "peace time" patrolling that will be worse than useless in a real war. I could have understood lightly armed inshore patrol boats that operate under friendly air supremacy. But sending the River class to potential combat zones is simply asking for trouble.
@@jaypee389 The purpose of the HDW class is coastal/ artic patrol not blue water combat. On another note how do you figure ships are "super easy to take out?"
@@55metalmonkey Because I am a military genius.....duh. If you launch 3,500 Tomahawks and or Silkworms and or Fajrs, and or 10,000 drones......all the ships are Effed......duh. Also.....8,000 speed boats loaded with 5,000kgs of C4 or Se.tex can take out anything ever.
whit the ridiculous price they payed to compare you could buy a nuclear ice breaker like the new one Russian are building for 550m only a idiot who know nothing would be paying 4 billion for that clown ship there is the price of some other ship just to compare :wasp class lhd worth around 2b usd , America-class 3.4b usd , Arleigh Burke class ddg 1.84b usd and russian Arktika nuclear ice breaker 550m usd , Virginia-class submarine ssn 2.4b usd , Gerald R. Ford-class largest aircraft carrier in the world 13b usd.
The cost and the weight are probably from the same reason - strengthening the ship for use against the ice, and the special steel needed for that role.
Algorithm brought me here, I think because I'm doing some research on Canadian army equipment. Have to be honest, I wasn't interested at all in this navy boat thingy, still watched the whole video because I was captured by the humor of your voice over, also my first experience with Canadian English. I found it hilarious. Thank you sir, I'm moving on now. Keep it up.
Canada could have just bought the Svalbard class from Norway (which this design is "based on) at a tenth of the cost with all the bells and whistles. But of course Canada has to always reinvent the wheel and end up with junk. The Svalbard is armed with a Bofors 57 mm and Simbad Surface to Air missile system. Can also carry two helicopters. Its also an actual icebreaker. Go Canada. 🤦♂
Building these ourselves gives us the expertise to build more. If we entered a serious conflict in the arctic we'd need to be building a lot more ships. Technology transfer is far better than just purchasing from our partners. It also keeps good talent here.
Gotta keep those boys and girls at Department of National Defence employed. Almost more them than we have soldiers. Lotsa tail to the teeth. See also fighter procurement project, those 4 dud subs we bought off UK, rescue choppers too. Totally agreed: stop reinventing the wheel, we are not a big enough country to run a full scale defence industry across all weapon types.
@@Megabean I don't disagree with technology transfer. They could have bought a couple and then built the rest here. However Canada didn't do that. We got the plans for a wheel, figuratively reinvented it and somehow made it worse! The Svalbard is arguably a better class of ship built by a country of 6 million with half the GDP.
@@bradjames6748 It would have been more economic to send everyone in Canada a check rather than redesign these ships for 10 times the amount of money. The role of government is to get the best bang for tax payer money, not to benefit a small number to individuals. We are not the US where we can frivolously spend billions on shiny military toys because we have 350 million tax payers.
Thank you. I watched that going into San Diego from the webcam on Pt. Loma and I wondered what the heck is that thing. When it zoomed in and I saw the hull number and ensign I thought oh Canadian but I still wondered what it was. Now you said it was an icebreaker and that makes sense, still weird looking though but cool. No pun intended.
For those commenting about the lack of armament, it doesn't matter how many guns were put on one, we wouldn't be able to outgun the Russian navy. What these do, is give us a northern presence and patrol our territory by having a PRESENCE. Russia isn't going to risk war with a NATO country, by sinking an arctic patrol craft...but they are going to respect our borders because we'll be up there...patrolling and monitoring with these ships as drone platforms for reconnaissance.
From Halifax, NS here: this project provides a lot of good jobs for my region plus keeps the port and shipyards as a centre of excellence. Halifax has the world's second largest defensible deep-water anchorage (next to Tokyo) for convoys. If we're ever on a war-footing again, Halifax stands in support of Europe, etc., just like in both World Wars.
Jobs that create wealth make sense. Jobs that suck money from the federal treasury do the opposite. And these are not Navy ships...just because they add a Bushmaster 25mm autocannon...where are the offense and defense?
last time we went to war we flew , I dont think the RCN has fired a kill shot at an enemy vesal in 65 years and defensible now includes the air and space so no place is really safe
The entire workforce at Irving is basically on welfare. The shipyards would have closed decades ago if it wasn't for the federal government supporting them in order to buy votes.
Sounds really nice Axe Guy. But this is not sixty years ago. It's push button warfare here and now. A come as you are party. Think missile sinking RN Sheffield 1982. Artificial Intelligence from a hostile UAV will not care you are merely on fish patrol or otherwise.
I think people miss the reason for this ship. This is not meant to be a combat ship just like a C-17 isn't meant to be a bomber/fighter. Tactics win battles while logistics win wars. This ship is a patrol ship but it's also meant to support logistics in the North which is clearly evident in it's design. As for it's large displacement... It needs space to store stuff and it needs to be able to break some ice.
Good point! Logistics ships and patrol ships are important as well (we really should get the Protecteur-class ships completed). Since the likelihood of Canada going to war is low having several ships to break the artic ice and keep an eye up there is a good idea.
I had no clue this channel existed up until this morning. I love our Military history and abilities in spite of poor governance. I am glad to learn that you on this channel are optimistic at least. I am flabbergasted at the lack of armament on the the Henry De Wolf, yes it will be deployed along the shores of our Nation, but what if the Bear or China wants in? Wave a good morning to them and allow them in? Our leaders that control our purse strings had better wise up fast. Overstretched and underfunded is also a undertone that I want to see improved. Bless our CAF!
Irving Shipyards. The Irving's have been big Liberal Party of Canada supporters for decades. This goes with the ease with which the price of these ships was doubled. Except similar with the expected Type 26 frigates currently on order for delivery starting in the 2030s. Also, it is common practice in Commonwealth navies to name ship classes after the first example of the ship to be enter service. Often all the ships in a class will have names that start with the same first letter.
The Americans are loading Surface to Ship/ Air missiles on anything that’ll carry them right now. Bloody PT boats almost doubled their arsenal overnight. Imagine it wouldn’t be a problem on these luxury yachts.
Its a policing ship for the north west passage to monitor commercial shipping when the passage opens up to shipping. It's never going to war and rarely leaving Canadian territory. The big boys the type 26's are for that.
While more capable ships would be better, I'm glad we're finally taking arctic force projection seriously. Armed ships in the NWP is a good step to ensuring sovereignty, even if they're only lightly armed.
We're not taking it seriously if you want to see a country thats taking it seriously look at Russia, and as the NWP becomes a more viable route we're just going to get bullied by Russia and China to let them navigate it or they just will do so without our permission. The giant Turd(trudeau) couldn't even get the 2 Micheals back when China decided to play hostage politics what makes you think a Canadian government Liberal or Conservative will have the will or spine to stand up to them? We're a joke of a country thats going to get steamrolled when push comes to shove.
It was built to be a big gray target without weapons, sensors, and the Arctic? It has a Polar Class 5 rating...less than 1 foot of first-year ice = a joke for a Navy that desperatly needs warships.
I guess they're only gonna use it more as "surveillance" vessels rather than to be in combat with only that many armaments. Still a little pricey though, isn't it for this class of ships. But, a stout and nice looking ship to venture through the arctic nonetheless. 👍
We used to do fishery patrols on the west coast(with our frigates lol.. it was a joke, we would bring on board 2 RCMP officers, two Fisheries officers and away we would go, stopping in every little port...They would set out in a rib and do what ever it was they were supposed to be doing(mostly drinking at the local Legions) we would set up the barbeques and party...and many of the guys would fish off the ship illegally with no licenses lol...What a waste of Tax payers money...Oh I was a Firefighter serving my 2-3 years on board ......it really was a very long extended holiday. I wouldn't advise the navy lifestyle for anyone, it really does suck...Oh ya we even dropped of a bunch of navy guys so they could go moose hunting for a week then we came back and picked them up....with a Frigate lol..
@@jedidiah5131 lol, thanks for sharing what really goes on aboard a ship. 😊 Well, yeah that sounds like a peace time kind of routine there huh. But, I’m sure you guys did get some real training done also during the cruise, right? 😊
Just thought I’d add, it’s 2021, 21 years into the century, and this is the first floating object that can even remotely be considered a new warship that has been commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy. A truly pathetic showing in national defence, where they RCN have been beaten out by such naval superpowers such as, North Korea, Chile, Nigeria, Vietnam, and Mexico.
With more and more ships using the Northwest Passage as the ice coverage retracts, it would make sense to keep increasing the compliment of DeWolfs. America's woefully underequipped in icebreakers and it would be unwise to count on them to quickly naval reinforce the area if an event escalated
The DeWolfs are not built to break much ice. They are only rated as Polar Class 5. That means first-year ice only (around 30 cm, 11.8 inches). And they are almost completely unarmed...they have one Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. They are not much good at anything. No defense systems, no sonars, basic navigation radars...big sitting ducks compared to the heavily armed Russian "real" icebreakers.
@@doogleticker5183 well better realize a few things . First ice breakers by and large don't carry guns, the Russian vessels )class 6 ) are bigger and about the same speed in ice and most cannot enter heavy ice at all as they are old hulls. The new Russian ship will be but if you think the 550 million quoted is real you need an education. I rather suspect the helicopter carried will be quite capable if necessary. These are an arctic patrol vessel not a warship just as mr Harper wanted when he ordered them.
I'm wondering why have such limited armament. Perhaps, are ship-ship missiles potent enough to fit the bill? With The smaller 20mm and .50cal guns for smaller vessels that approach?
There is no expectation that these vessels will go to war. Hopefully they spend many peaceful years keeping the North safe without needing to use that lil guy on the front.
Why do they need more armament at the present time? They can be "upgunned" in the future and if you need to add armament in a hurry, give the helicopters some teeth. Whatever armament you start with, any potential competitor in the same theatre is obligated to match what you've put on your ships and then some. That's how "Dreadnought Races" work. These ships will never be engaging other ships in some "Jutland between the ice flows". That chain gun is about right for supporting small groups of troops in a littoral setting.
@@abrahamdozer6273 they are already out armed by for example the Russians have a ship that looks almost exactly the same, but it has a bigger cannon, air defence, and missiles, and the Chinese aren’t far behind the Russians, but weapons are first and foremost in Canada’s case a deterrent, if the Russians see that we have better armament, they will think twice before trying to bully us up there
@@canadiandefenceinitiative3599 These are for patrolling the three routes of the Canadian Northwest Passage. Look at a globe and you will see that the Russians have a far better route that runs above the North American and Eurasian landmass. Your chances of seeing a Russian ship in our Northwest Passage (besides the little cruise ships) is about the same as seeing a Sasquatch, there. Why would they bother? As far as the Chinese go, a very poorly thought out American policy by which they consider our little straits surrounded by sovereign Canadian territory to be an "international waterway" invites the Chinese to cruise up and down, there. Canada, most other countries and Maritime Law all consider the Canadian Northwest Passage to be internal Canadian waterways and ... well, look at a map. They're a "international" as the Alaskan Inside Passage (Maybe, the Chinese should sail up to Ketchikan in a warship?) This is a fairly new American policy and it seems that what motivated them was the possibility of taking control of a big chunk of the Canadian Arctic. The US is "all hat and no cattle" in this fight as there is only one US Coast Guard vessel capable of making that transit, no US Navy vessels and no new icebreaking capability any less than a decade off so it's all blah-blah. This class of ships was a direct response to that American claim.
There are genuine needs for additional lightly armed patrol vessels but NOT at the cost of a reduction in the number of fully fledged combat vessels. GB should acquire a pair of these for use around the Arctic and Antarctic. Buying from and helping our Canadian cousins is also a very good idea.
@@alpearson9158 for defending the arctic these things are grossly underarmed compared to contemporary icebreakers it’s more coast guard cutter then warship. Not to mention cost at a total project cost of between 5.8 and 7.3 billion dollars depending on which cost estimate you use for construction of six vessels which means the per unit cost is somewhere between 383 million and 716 million per ship though the actual cost is probably somewhere in between those two. Or we could have bought six Svalbard class icebreakers from Norway with a per unit cost of 575 million NOK which is roughly 82 million CAD and there more heavily armed they have a 57mm instead of the 25mm and are capable of mounting a surface to air missile system which would be rather useful if hostility’s were to break out over the arctic rather then being what amounts to a sitting duck against aircraft and submarines. and we could have used those savings to start trying to find a replacement for our ancient submarine fleet which were trying to keep running into the 2040s.
@@jameson1239 You are correct, if these are to be used as fighting vessels or even "protection.". However, in RN service they would be purely specialist research support, survey and resupply vessels. Capable of deploying/supporting small contingents of Royal Marines for specific duties if required. Basically a beefed-up peace time patrol craft for very cold climates. GB RN could easily use two. One based at Port Stanley and the other at Lerwick. I can think of several uses for them that would permit more capable ships to concentrate on combat orientated training tasks.
The concept of an unarmed off-shore patrol vessel defines the imagination. The old axiom "in time of peace, prepare for war" has never been more true. And yet here is Canada, fielding defenseless patrol vessels. My father, a veteran of WWII (RCNVR - HMCS Royal Mount) is turning over in his grave.
For the navy, we need new nuclear submarines as well as new Type 26s. Especially for those Type 26s, we better commission them before they are outdated. We also need new fighters with at least 1 squadron being stealth fighters. Something is brewing in the world, and we need to be ready.
@@peterdguru As a retired Submariner I would disagree. We should go Nuclear with Australia and the US given our Alliance. Right now, our pitiful diesel electrics do not have any sort of arctic capability. The subs that we have are going to be in service until 2040 and we likely won't have anything planned to replace them until 2050 (which is why I'm retired). We will likely no longer have access to the 5 Eyes network once they are alongside permanently... This means we lose our water column and we have no idea who (allies or enemies) are operating in our waters. It's a sad state.
The Americans have machine guns on their little RIV’s that they run up and down the Detroit river with, let alone their ships they patrol with. I’ve always thought it was strange our Coast Guard was not armed.
That thing is sleek and the "best looking" RCN ship yet? I'm gonna sort have to go ahead and........disagree with you on that one. If you want a good looking RCN ship, check out RCN Haida, a Tribal class destroyer that is now a museum ship. If you're interested a modern ship, you'll be impressed by the yet-to-be named RCN version of the Type 26 frigate that will hopefully begin construction soon. Those are going to be sleek and beautiful, extremely capable and versatile warships.
It looks nice and cost a bunch but with no armaments how is it a navy vessel? The fact it was designed on purpose to not have vertical launch tubs now or in the future doesn't make sense.
@@FrontlinePros I mean the 25mm is a nice gun, but it just literally looks so small on the ship. A 76mm or atleast a 57mm would look better and pack a bigger punch.
Canada's new arctic patrol ship begins its first operational patrol to ... the Caribbean ;-) Of course this ship isn't designed for a shooting war. But it can carry lots of "stuff". That stuff can be search and rescue gear if a cruise ship goes aground or plane goes down. Troops and supplies to reinforce the rangers or chase off anyone poaching, setting up surveillance or other bad things now that the ice is melting, and of course it can carry lots of gear for establishing and maintaining our own monitoring equipment such as sonar buoys and the like.
The Harry DeWolf was moored in Toronto, last week, and it was open to tours of the Bridge and Landing Deck, crew quarters, galley, engine room, etc, were not available. Although she had been in commission for four years, she had, if I understood correctly, had not yet been issued with its helicopter. I was told she was currently carrying 80 crew, the maximum this video mentioned. So, I don't know where the chopper's crew and mechanics will bunk. I think military choppers require 10 hours of preventive maintenance for every hour they are in the air. So, I think it will require a meaningful number of maintenance guys. I was told the main armament had just 100 rounds of ready use ammunition. That is enough to fire warning shots, at recalcitrant civilian vessels - but, I think, not enough for any kind of real hostilities. The old Kingston class vessels, multirole vessels, were small, slow, and very poorly armed. But, if I recall correctly, did have deck space to carry at least two TEU containers, you know, standard container ship containers. That is important because those containers made the ships a lot more adaptable. A container could hold the control room for a deep diving sub, or robot-sub. Or, for wartime, there are TEU containers that can carry missiles. I think there are manufacturers who make a TEU container with a reasonably competent suite of anti-air missiles. I think there are also containers that can carry some kind of ship attack missiles. Maybe those wouldn't be top of the line missiles, but they would be a lot more deadly than the Bushmaster 25mm. Anyhow, I didn't see any deckspace suitable for carrying a container on the Harry Dewolf. I asked a junior crewman whether the vessel could carry a platoon or a company of soldiers, if it were supporting a small expeditionary force. He said the vessel did not have this capacity, but one of the Bridge officers later said it could carry a small expeditionary force. The bridge looked very modern. I took about a dozen pictures, and put them on the wikimedia commons. One oddity was that the controller for the cannon seemed to be an after-thought, tucked out of the way, relying on the tv screen, with no good view out of the windows. Crew members told me the food was excellent.
this is appropriate for a very heavy hulled vessel for ice breaking as higher speeds just don't work in fact anything over 12 knots is pointless in most ice senarios
Canada has two defensive fleets while being able to deploy units from them to assist allies in operation, Meanwhile new better armed frigates are also being made. Just thought you needed to be informed...
Everyone in the comments keeps forgetting this patrol ship is not intended for engaging enemy ships or aircraft but for monitoring and perhaps anti sub roles. The type 26 frigates when we have them will be more appropriate for combat.
This is great n all, but why do we paint our ships with that colour? They look like they are made of plastic. Asking the important questions over here. Cant wait for the Type 26 to hit the waves!
totally particularly whit the ridiculous price they payed to compare you could buy a nuclear ice breaker like the new one Russian are building for 550m only a idiot who know nothing would be paying 4 billion for that clown ship there is the price of some other ship just to compare :wasp class lhd worth around 2b usd , America-class 3.4b usd , Arleigh Burke class ddg 1.84b usd and russian Arktika nuclear ice breaker 550m usd , Virginia-class submarine ssn 2.4b usd , Gerald R. Ford-class largest aircraft carrier in the world 13b usd.
@@johnsmith-yj2cn Canada does not do nuclear powered ships... and as in program... that includes infrastructure needed to manufacture.... so ya little expensive... but when you have to invest to rebuild ship building capability and get 6 ships of the class? Idk... see how the future unfolds on such a investment. And Gerald Ford is not yet active... think the number is closer to 16 bill... they have some gremlins to work out 1st... Be the last time you ever see a program like that....
@@johnsmith-yj2cn Putin must be laughing at us again, while he continues to build Russia's Arctic Defenses- our politicians continue to divide us with vaccine, social, gender, cultural and environmental policies that do nothing to build or defend our Nation. Aussies are moving forward with plans for Nuclear attack submarines, and we can't even decide on a new Fighter and how to enroll new pilots. The US navy never wanted us to have nuclear subs in the arctic and there is info that backs that up... typical anti-ally CIA stupidity that harmed the defence of North America
Need medium sized Air Craft carriers, to carry those F-35s. Canada should also keep its F-18s A/Bs going to, going at Mach 1.8 range 3400m, we need a fast jet for our big country.
Well I think retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman summed it up best in his comment that roughly went like this "These vessels are there to more less to show the flag", I could be inaccurate of the exact quote but he was underwhelmed over the lack of protection!
good on you Canada it's expensive to build a class of ship for a specific role like ice breaking and still be an armed naval vessel but lots of dodgy countries are trying to lay claim to the artic when they have no land mass near there [I looking at you China ]
It looks great but nothing else.It probably fires frozen Timbits at opponents or issues a stern letter telling the Russians to leave the arctic or Canada will send another letter.
Mr. DeWolf would appreciate if you could hit the LIKE button. Helps fight Russian Aggression or something like that.
You forgot to say sorry.
@@foamer443 Sorry about that.
This looks like hot garbage and it’s disappointing. Billions for this we could’ve had our own Avro industry but Canada makes retard deals always.
@Alfred Churchill This is a Canadian ship for Christ's sake.
There is an ample supply of frozen pucks and lots of sticks, then we board the guy, take then into the corner and jersey 'em.
Honestly!!!
If we do go to war with Russia... I know USA wont help us out....China or Russia we kind of fucked....
Billions for the program, not the ship ... Better than kissing our Arctic Archipelago goodbye. Mostly, Canada has had a free ride defending our borders. This is the first time in 80 years that we're opening up our pocketbooks a little crack and shelling out to define Canada's borders.
I couldn't agree more. Time to at least pay our 2% NATO agreement.
@@FrontlinePros No argument from me!
I had to serve in Mr. Trudeau (Senior's) 1970s Navy, making bricks without straws. I think that circumstances are going to focus the 2% pretty soon but the focus will not be towards the Atlantic. It's 1933 all over again.
@@abrahamdozer6273 well my friend. I work on a naval base now and unfortunately I think we're still using a lot of the old naval equipment that you would remember.
I'll look for your name carved into the side of the buildings ;)
@@FrontlinePros Did they ever remove my joke from the stall in Stadacona?
(Just kidding)
If they ever consider mounting an old twin 3"-50 on an AOPS, I'll know that something has gone horribly wrong out there.
@@FrontlinePros I can guarantee you that we're still using pretty old kit lol I was surprised when I got posted to Halifax at the relics we use
A 6000-ton ship carrying roughly the same armament as a 15-ton light armored recon vehicle? Not sure the logic behind that. At least give it the 57mm MK110 so it can pretend to be well armed.
We don't really need it to be armed any more then that. Fact is unless if we're ready to spend tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars we're not going to be creating an effective fleet against our Russian neighbours. Thats why we have a defence pact with America after all. This ship will be very good for what its designed to do, I'd love if we had a strong navy but there just isn't enough of a reason.
@@Megabean As part of NATO you do have a strong navy. That is the beauty of the alliance. Also, as part of the anglosphere and the "five eyes." Canada can hold it's own in many ways.
I'd love to see even closer cooperation between CA, AU, NZ (if they regain their senses) and GB when it comes to commonality of military procurement and interoperability. Although each of us has our own specific needs based on geographical location. When it comes to Frigates, destroyers and subs, there is a good argument for a one size fits all approach. With the military industrial complex of each member country, being capable of building and repairing vessels from all the others. Splitting the costs of R&D and benefitting from the price reduction resulting from larger orders.
It could be a win x win for all concerned, if the politicians could do their jobs properly and learn to "play nice."
I agree, we should put the 57mm of the Halifax class on the DeWolf when they retire. Also some MANPADS (Man-portable air-defense system) will be a good and cheap addition too.
It is armed enough to fight drug trafficking.
@@Chris-vs4wt Then let the police use it, catching criminals is their job. Fighting wars is something else entirely.
For Russian, Chinese, and US warships sailing in our waters without permission, these boats can sail up and demand they leave Canadian waters just as well as a ship 10 times their size. It is not as if they or we are going to sink the other nation's ship and start WWIII. What is more important than size and armament are surveillance electronics, speed, ability to handle thick old ice, and the type and number (one or two) of the helicopters it can carry. But these are not built to handle old ice.
These vessels are polar class 5 (year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions), with the front hull strengthened to polar class 4 (year-round operation in thick first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions).
Why don't we just send them a strongly worded letter then? It would save us the trouble of operating these tugs. I think Global Hawks with Harpoons would do a better job of monitoring and carrying a stick.
Actually, for just sailing up, and asking other vessels to leave, aren't they pretty large? The Danes built the much smaller Knud Rasmussen class, for patrolling around Greenland, that could do that.
No, they didn't carry their own chopper, but they have a flight deck, so helicopters can visit them. And, presumably, it could carry a couple of UAVs,
Impressive looking craft. Well done Canada and god bless your armed forces. (from the UK).
Thanks for visiting and for watching!
You can thank their soldier directly. He lives on Base Borden, just west of Barrie, Ontario. Ask the local operator and she will connect you, if he is not sleeping.
Right-back Blighty🍻
@@rpm1796 The Avro Arrow too. what an aeroplane!!!!, a Canadian work of genius killed of by politicians cowtowing to the US airplane industry.
@@randlerobbertson8792 Well, it's far, far more complicated than that.
To start with, the Arrow was 30% more expensive than US offerings that got about 90% of the way there: 10 million dollars per unit back then (which converts to 98 or so millions today... an F-35 is down to about 85 million per unit now).
Then there was the issue that all the weapons (missiles/bombs) it was going to use were proprietary and inferior to the US offerings. A total redesign of part of the fuselage was needed to modernize that part, which helped to continue putting off foreign purchase interest.
Foreign purchase interest consisted of countries that were either too poor or were trying to build their own because they didn't want to lose their own industries.
Then the USSR developed the first successful version of a weapon that could bypass the need for bombers to deliver their nuclear payload by first going into low orbit territory (higher than any aircraft could go), so interceptors kind of lost their main job at that point in time, which put off even the Canadian military from purchasing it.
The US gave up on its own pure interceptor designs in favour of the ICBM, so even the US aeroplane industry got screwed there.
Then it still needed a lot of money to develop the Iroquois engines so it didn't limp into combat.
And Avro had concerns there was a USSR mole in the company... which would be verified as completely justified decades later when it was revealed that, yes, there was a USSR spy in the Avro corporation.
Add that to a government that was desperately trying to fix the runaway budget the previous several governments had left behind and it was no wonder why the Arrow was cancelled.
Still hurts though. It was a cool jet and we lost so much capability in the brain drain that followed that you wonder if it would have been better to bite the bullet and actually arm our air force with them.
But, truly, we'll never know.
I helped build that ship! It was wild to say the least lmao
That's awesome. Did they give you a free pleasure cruise when it was complete?
@@FrontlinePros There's a signup for sea trials, but I was not that high on seniority when it was done, but it would have been pretty damn cool.
Every so often I have seen this in the yard wondering what it would become, thanks for the info! Very good video
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed.
Just came across your channel. Immediate subscriber. Awesome content and commentary.
Awesome, thank you.
I work in vancouver shipyards building the new joint support ships for the navy, got to visit this ship when it docked in vancouver
Maybe get off your asses and build them...
Only Canada would send an Arctic icebreaker to the Caribbean!
She's circumnavigating North America, so that'll include coming through the canal and the Caribbean.
whit the super slow speed of 17 kt speed what they expect to do lol
@@johnsmith-yj2cn ice breakers do not require 30 knots nor would that make any sense at all
@@johnsmith-yj2cn Icebreakers are slow by design.
If you've ever served in the Navy you would know that when you're often four months or more at sea it's these types of cruises that help with retention especially in these days of severe manpower shortages. It's the main reason I chose to serve in the Navy.
Yes that is a beautiful ship what a view from the bridge
If I was the Minister of National Defense right now this is how I would envision the Royal Canadian Navy fleet by 2050.
The Harry DeWolf-class would still consist of the 8 planned ships (6 for RCN and 2 for the CCG.)
The RCN would have 3 stationed at CFB Esquimalt and 3 at CFB Halifax.
The Canadian Surface Combatant ships (which I would name the Prime minister-class) would be reduced from the currently planned 15 ships down to 12.
6 would be stationed at CFB Esquimalt and 6 at CFB Halifax.
I would then also order the production of two Helicopter Carriers. (One would be named HMCS Steller's jay which would be stationed at CFB Esquimalt and the other would be named HMCS Osprey which would be stationed at CFB Halifax.)
After that I would order the production of 2 Guided Missile Destroyers which would be based on the Royal Navy's upcoming Type 83 destroyers (I would name one HMCS Haida and the other after another former RCN Tribal-class destroyer)
Last but not least I would also make sure the Navy finally got rid of those cursed Victoria class submarines and I would order between 4 and 8 Nuclear powered and nuclear missile capable launching Submarines based on whatever future design the Royal Australian Navy has in the future and the class would be evenly divided between CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax.
I would probably also have some of the warships built in the United States simply because Canadian ship yards just could not keep up with this kind of demand, though I would make sure that all lead ships we're built in Canada and that the majority of the ships we're built in Canada.
Well said!
Yeah same here. New subs, 2 new helicopter carriers, but still the 15 CSC. These ships are basically destroyers, briming with anti-air missiles, tommohawk cruise missiles, NSM anti-ship missiles and a multitude of others. These ships are able to kill literally anything and able to deploy special forces easily due to the mission bays.
With that we would be able to send a pretty powerfull strike group to a hot zone. Consisting of 8 CSC, 2 LHD, 3 submarines, 2 harry de wolf for support and a tanker. Thats a lot of firepower.
Even with the current plans, we would be able to send 8 CSC and 2 submarines to a conflict zone. Which is pretty powerfull when combined with our allies.
It’s fun to envision what the Canadian military could be if there was money for procurement. Those type 26 frigates, as Canada wants to arm them, are very capable and more like destroyers. I think we just keep building those indefinitely (at 1 every 2 years by the time we get to 15 it will be time to retire the first in class). The political will to fund that program is questionable unfortunately, so we certainly don’t have the budget for nuclear submarines. We could easily enough buy some good diesel submarines from Japan or Germany or Sweden, but I would prefer to enter into an arrangement with the UK where we agree to deploy a type 26 frigate to their carrier group, and also a dozen F35B, and in exchange the UK will run patrols for us with their astute class subs. If we ordered 36 F35B, that would be cheaper than subs, keep us in the manufacturing supply chain and give us some diplomatic advantages by deploying those to exercise from allied carriers, like the US, UK, Japan, Italy etc. I don’t think anything else for the navy is in our budget.
what a load of politically driven garbage as for subs many might not like them, as a political toy they seem to be, but Jane's has a very different view. Nuclear submarines are so damn noisy that many navies build diesel boats that are nearly silent submerged. The Halifax class were designed and built in Canada and served us very well as they will continue to do for about 8 more years. Why buy destroyers when the ( so called ) frigates are bigger and better equipped, but then you probably have no clue about the Type 26's. A tribal class (Canadian) destroyer circa 1970+ had a displacement of 4900 tons the type 26 weighs in at about 9000 laden and has room for modulation. Canada has a problem with insufficient numbers to actually man a larger navy. Thus a smaller proficient one is advisable. Oh and our next subs should be diesel as well as it's pointless to buy expensive noisy nukes
@@NBeaver-bx4yl Maybe it's because I have an outdated perception of warships but I was under the impression that Frigates are a sort of jack of all trade vessels that can do a little bit of everything where as destroyers are more anti-ship and anti-air vessels.
A long time friend works at the Halifax shipyard, helping build these ships. Eventually 5 for the navy, and 2 for the coast guard. Proud of his involvement in the program to modernize the Navy's ships.
I'm one of em! It is a great project with problems sure, but we get it done.
Your friend is on welfare. The only reason the Halifax shipyards are operating is the federal government keeps giving them money.
@@chapsie enjoy your welfare
@@TheRealCartman1 That is the point, the government pays them an agreed amount of money, and they build the ship. They don't receive supplements to keep the job going, all of it is agreed on in the contract.
@@TheRealCartman1 I work for a living, I'm not sure if you want Canada to have archaic ships forever but that mindset is what will get us there.
Was this ship built in a "no bid contract" to Irving Shipyards....again?
So you're surprised at the insane price?
well ask Harper he ordered the first few
@@alpearson9158 No bid ship building contracts started long before Harper.
Didn't Trudeau pay raising their selves.
I'm not. Every government for the last 40 years has done the same thing. The problem is that Canadian taxpayers let them get away with it.
Too much meh in this country.
I was fortunate to be at the harbour in North Vancouver when this ship arrived after completing the North West Passage. Got some great photos!
We should be looking at armed drones, both flying, and submersible. With one of the worlds largest coast lines, on three oceans, Canada has a lot to keep an eye on. If it were not for the fact the Ocean freezes over, and equipment failure in winter means death, we would barely hold sovereignty over the arctic.
Oh yes, great CANADA who scrapped the Avroe Arrow and sole CANDOO reactor for 2 million. No manufacturing up there.Just lots of lumber and fish and wheat. Try again.😍
Great idea and I think we are starting to lean that way. A dispatch and surveillance hub launching drones to patrol the North sounds pretty awesome.
@@miamicakes1830 Plenty of talent, not much $$ to get it off the ground. The Canadian public has been fleeced by cost overruns. Probably just as cheap to buy American hardware.
@@7Trident3 Cost overruns are another bit of American culture that we've inherited. You want cost-effective... maybe S.Korea or something. Somewhere the concept of 'budget' doesn't evoke laughter.
But hey... by doing it ourselves we've at least bought a little bit of ship-building capability that we might not immediately throw away, again.
@@4Fixerdave You know that it was a "no bid contract" right? And that Irving is a huge donor to the LPC, right? This may explain why Canadian Navy ships cost so much more than our allies.
awesome Channel by the way ! Just found the channel and going trough it, been loving it. Its a unique channel when it comes to Canada.
Hey thanks for watching! I appreciate it.
We are not paying to much for them (my opinion), we are making a good compromise between having more north Canada coverage and submarine cost. Having 12 harry dewolf ships makes more sense to me than having 12 1990's kingston ships. For every ship we add, the stress on tankers gets higher. When the resolve class tanker project will be done, we will have 2 main tankers and 1 semi military tanker (MV Asterix). To maintain a permanent fleet in north canada, one of those tanker might need to stay there permanently (permanent mission), it sounds a good job for the Asterix.
All good points. Were definitely going in a new direction in terms of increased Northern Coverage.
You have no idea why the MCDVs were built. They were NEVER meant to be front-line ships and are not armed for a fight. The Harry DeWolf are better ships, but they are not warships. They are a waste of money.
Frankly Canada is a three ocean navy and has neither the hulls nor crews to sufficiently cover the territory.
when that ship launched, it was 17 feet longer on one side than the other. It was put back into dry dock as soon as it launched because it was sinking. Our ships are crap even the new ones. Dont even start on our subs that the brits didnt want to sell to us because they were old and dangerous.
@@jordanulery524 I doubt we even have the hydrographic charts all done properly
“They can’t go to war, and we’re probably paying too much for them” -🤣
They were made in Canada. Guaranteed that we overpaid by 70%. The good news is that much of the money will go right back to the Liberal Party of Canada through campaign donations, speaking fees, consulting fees and of course, cushy board positions after their political careers are over.
@Otosj van Tolerbok except that this isn’t a warship. It only costs 5x what a warship of equivalent tonnage would cost to build in ANY other country. It wont be “listening” in on any other countries coastlines. It can barely leave view of our own coastline. Every single military purchase this country makes is not based on “need” or “strategy”. It is based on funnelling vast amounts of money into LPC friendly business and into liberal party members pockets. If these ships were purchased at a reasonable cost and filled an actual military need i would be all for them. They aren’t and they don’t. Military spending in this country does not “smear the gears” of politics - only one political part every benefits from the continued gutting of the Canadian military - the criminal enterprise know as the Liberal Party of Canada.
@Otosj van Tolerbok Funny. Good for you.
I was wrong - did some research and we didn’t pay 5 x. It was actually 10x what other countries paid to produce THE. EXACT. SAME. SHIP. 700 million per hull. The Danes and Ireland paid 55-65 million each.
@Robert Kaevur well ice breakers are a very different issue . This ship will likely move through ice at a much slower speed than cruise speed weapons are also unnecessary but carrying a very well armed RCAF helicopter changes all that
This vid popped up in my feed, I thought the voice was familiar! Good stuff Brad 👍.
Haha thanks Connor. Hope you're doing well.
In the Netherlands we have a slightly similar concept - the Holland-class Oceangoing Patrol Vessels. While they about just 'do the job' due to an on board helicopter, these vessels are lackluster in almost every other respect. Can't intercept due to its low top speed, can't engage anything armed with missiles or torpedoes, almost completely defenceless against fighter-bombers and too short ranged to sustain long at sea operations. At the same time they eat away a good chunk of the tight budget in a time of increasing geopolitical tension. Going cheap is hardly going to do anything but show a lack of political resolve and commitment both to the US and potential adversaries. Thus a matter of pennywise and poundfoolish in the long run.
You raise good points my Dutch friend. The British Royal Navy made the same mistake with their River class of off shore patrol vessels. They built a class for "peace time" patrolling that will be worse than useless in a real war. I could have understood lightly armed inshore patrol boats that operate under friendly air supremacy. But sending the River class to potential combat zones is simply asking for trouble.
Super easy to take out ships 🚢 👌
Why spend lot's?
@@jaypee389 The purpose of the HDW class is coastal/ artic patrol not blue water combat. On another note how do you figure ships are "super easy to take out?"
@@55metalmonkey Because I am a military genius.....duh.
If you launch 3,500 Tomahawks and or Silkworms and or Fajrs, and or 10,000 drones......all the ships are Effed......duh.
Also.....8,000 speed boats loaded with 5,000kgs of C4 or Se.tex can take out anything ever.
@@jaypee389 ya...what tactical genius you are.......Ever hear of the Dunning Kruger effect?
Like the ship, could do with a few more guns or bigger guns.
What 50. cals not enough?? XD
Should at least throw a 57mm on it like they did with the Independence class LCS; and a CIWS.
whit the ridiculous price they payed to compare you could buy a nuclear ice breaker like the new one Russian are building for 550m only a idiot who know nothing would be paying 4 billion for that clown ship there is the price of some other ship just to compare :wasp class lhd worth around 2b usd , America-class 3.4b usd , Arleigh Burke class ddg 1.84b usd and russian Arktika nuclear ice breaker 550m usd , Virginia-class submarine ssn 2.4b usd , Gerald R. Ford-class largest aircraft carrier in the world 13b usd.
@@johnsmith-yj2cn thank you for your service...
Wouldn't be surprised if there are bigger guns ..if you had a navy ship would you want everyone to know you're firepower
Love your videos btw. Please keep it up.
Hey thank you. I appreciate it!
The cost and the weight are probably from the same reason - strengthening the ship for use against the ice, and the special steel needed for that role.
You are most likely right but then I couldn't have shoe horned "junk in the trunk" into the video.
I thought the ice was melting?
@@louismeloche3857 It is, but it'll still be around for decades to come for at least part of the year.
Algorithm brought me here, I think because I'm doing some research on Canadian army equipment. Have to be honest, I wasn't interested at all in this navy boat thingy, still watched the whole video because I was captured by the humor of your voice over, also my first experience with Canadian English. I found it hilarious. Thank you sir, I'm moving on now. Keep it up.
Hey thanks for stopping by! Appreciate it.
@@FrontlinePros Girl. 🙃
@@mo-po corrected!
Hey man amazing content as well! I love the humor you add 👌
Not designed to go to war.
Famous last words.
you should look into the vessels being procured by the Canadian coast guard... full of surprises I bet
Canada could have just bought the Svalbard class from Norway (which this design is "based on) at a tenth of the cost with all the bells and whistles. But of course Canada has to always reinvent the wheel and end up with junk.
The Svalbard is armed with a Bofors 57 mm and Simbad Surface to Air missile system. Can also carry two helicopters. Its also an actual icebreaker.
Go Canada. 🤦♂
Building these ourselves gives us the expertise to build more. If we entered a serious conflict in the arctic we'd need to be building a lot more ships. Technology transfer is far better than just purchasing from our partners. It also keeps good talent here.
Gotta keep those boys and girls at Department of National Defence employed. Almost more them than we have soldiers. Lotsa tail to the teeth. See also fighter procurement project, those 4 dud subs we bought off UK, rescue choppers too. Totally agreed: stop reinventing the wheel, we are not a big enough country to run a full scale defence industry across all weapon types.
@@Megabean I don't disagree with technology transfer. They could have bought a couple and then built the rest here.
However Canada didn't do that. We got the plans for a wheel, figuratively reinvented it and somehow made it worse!
The Svalbard is arguably a better class of ship built by a country of 6 million with half the GDP.
And exactly how many Canadian jobs would that have created?????
@@bradjames6748 It would have been more economic to send everyone in Canada a check rather than redesign these ships for 10 times the amount of money.
The role of government is to get the best bang for tax payer money, not to benefit a small number to individuals. We are not the US where we can frivolously spend billions on shiny military toys because we have 350 million tax payers.
Thank you. I watched that going into San Diego from the webcam on Pt. Loma and I wondered what the heck is that thing. When it zoomed in and I saw the hull number and ensign I thought oh Canadian but I still wondered what it was. Now you said it was an icebreaker and that makes sense, still weird looking though but cool. No pun intended.
For those commenting about the lack of armament, it doesn't matter how many guns were put on one, we wouldn't be able to outgun the Russian navy. What these do, is give us a northern presence and patrol our territory by having a PRESENCE. Russia isn't going to risk war with a NATO country, by sinking an arctic patrol craft...but they are going to respect our borders because we'll be up there...patrolling and monitoring with these ships as drone platforms for reconnaissance.
This. This is what most ppl are missing. Thank you.
This is what we get with our off shore patrol vessels. .ain't got missiles needs a bigger gun ...for fucks sake it does fisheries protection lol
The Type 26s will be capable of sinking the Russian navy. Those things are gonna be super frigates dominating the North west passage.
From Halifax, NS here: this project provides a lot of good jobs for my region plus keeps the port and shipyards as a centre of excellence. Halifax has the world's second largest defensible deep-water anchorage (next to Tokyo) for convoys. If we're ever on a war-footing again, Halifax stands in support of Europe, etc., just like in both World Wars.
Nice. Thanks for that info.
Jobs that create wealth make sense. Jobs that suck money from the federal treasury do the opposite. And these are not Navy ships...just because they add a Bushmaster 25mm autocannon...where are the offense and defense?
last time we went to war we flew , I dont think the RCN has fired a kill shot at an enemy vesal in 65 years and defensible now includes the air and space so no place is really safe
The entire workforce at Irving is basically on welfare. The shipyards would have closed decades ago if it wasn't for the federal government supporting them in order to buy votes.
Sounds really nice Axe Guy. But this is not sixty years ago. It's push button warfare here and now. A come as you are party. Think missile sinking RN Sheffield 1982. Artificial Intelligence from a hostile UAV will not care you are merely on fish patrol or otherwise.
I think people miss the reason for this ship. This is not meant to be a combat ship just like a C-17 isn't meant to be a bomber/fighter. Tactics win battles while logistics win wars. This ship is a patrol ship but it's also meant to support logistics in the North which is clearly evident in it's design. As for it's large displacement... It needs space to store stuff and it needs to be able to break some ice.
Good point! Logistics ships and patrol ships are important as well (we really should get the Protecteur-class ships completed). Since the likelihood of Canada going to war is low having several ships to break the artic ice and keep an eye up there is a good idea.
@@abdullahrizwan592 Protecteur-class are more heavily armed
@@donaldcake1 they are logistics ships, they don't have anything other than a heavy machine gun
0:42 such a young Lieutenant-Colonel. What did he do to get promoted so quick?
Great instructive and funny video, good work !
Thank you, appreciate it!
Thanks for the video, it was really entertaining, and I am now subscribed. Could you do one on the Canadian Surface Combatant program?
Hey, thanks for watching. I will add it to the list.
17 knots is slow. W22 destroyers did 30 knots
The titanic with coal did 24 knots..
But not through the ice!
Ask Captain Smith how well 24 knots through the ice worked for him. 😉
@@kellybreen5526 They said the ships top speed is 17 knots period and reduce speed through ice.
Watch the video again.
@@Crashed131963 it was a tongue in cheek remark. I think I even left a smiling face to underscore that point.
@@kellybreen5526 Sorry.
@@Crashed131963 No worries John.
Lots of people say some twitish things from time to time. Never a bad plan to call them out. Thumbs up 👍
I love this ship! It’s like an icebreaker type coast guard but with guns!
well, that's the plan. they're going to make more for the Coast Gard.
I had no clue this channel existed up until this morning. I love our Military history and abilities in spite of poor governance. I am glad to learn that you on this channel are optimistic at least. I am flabbergasted at the lack of armament on the the Henry De Wolf, yes it will be deployed along the shores of our Nation, but what if the Bear or China wants in? Wave a good morning to them and allow them in? Our leaders that control our purse strings had better wise up fast. Overstretched and underfunded is also a undertone that I want to see improved. Bless our CAF!
Your narration is a breath of fresh Arctic air, lol. If you're AI generated, lay on MacDuff. Cool vdo.
Great video, well done
Now we need about 10 more ships. Would like to see heavier weaponry on the ships however
Maybe a Tims as well. Lil one. Thanks!
That will be happening in the next class to be built
I think you are looking for the type 26 frigate.
Irving Shipyards. The Irving's have been big Liberal Party of Canada supporters for decades. This goes with the ease with which the price of these ships was doubled. Except similar with the expected Type 26 frigates currently on order for delivery starting in the 2030s. Also, it is common practice in Commonwealth navies to name ship classes after the first example of the ship to be enter service. Often all the ships in a class will have names that start with the same first letter.
I think its a great vessel for getting into a ramming war with Chinese fishing vessels who refuse to be boarded in Canadian waters.
That was very interesting! Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
It is pretty adaptable.... does that mean added weapons if needed like SSM or ASM or SAMs? Or, is it a really sophisticated fish boat?
The Americans are loading Surface to Ship/ Air missiles on anything that’ll carry them right now. Bloody PT boats almost doubled their arsenal overnight. Imagine it wouldn’t be a problem on these luxury yachts.
Its a policing ship for the north west passage to monitor commercial shipping when the passage opens up to shipping. It's never going to war and rarely leaving Canadian territory. The big boys the type 26's are for that.
@@boratb258 This IS our type 26. We aren't getting the UK variants. Unless I'm wrong.
While more capable ships would be better, I'm glad we're finally taking arctic force projection seriously. Armed ships in the NWP is a good step to ensuring sovereignty, even if they're only lightly armed.
We're not taking it seriously if you want to see a country thats taking it seriously look at Russia, and as the NWP becomes a more viable route we're just going to get bullied by Russia and China to let them navigate it or they just will do so without our permission. The giant Turd(trudeau) couldn't even get the 2 Micheals back when China decided to play hostage politics what makes you think a Canadian government Liberal or Conservative will have the will or spine to stand up to them? We're a joke of a country thats going to get steamrolled when push comes to shove.
Did I hear correctly? The ship is specifically designed for Arctic conditions and will assist in anti drug operations in the Caribbean?
I burst out laughing
It was an ice breaker but it has so many issues that it physically cant operate in the artic.
It was built to be a big gray target without weapons, sensors, and the Arctic? It has a Polar Class 5 rating...less than 1 foot of first-year ice = a joke for a Navy that desperatly needs warships.
Obviously to test the ship in real operations.
thank you Mr Harper
Nice looking ship!
Beautiful! I hope she serves our troops well!
The armament on that ship is the equivalent of carrying a handgun
Looks good, but lightly armed ?
Hey thanks for watching. It's not meant for a combat role. That being said look up what the chain gun can do it's pretty impressive.
@@FrontlinePros impressive in land combat under 3 km. In naval combat thats basically worthless.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography well I guess all the Aussie patrol boats would be useless too.
I guess they're only gonna use it more as "surveillance" vessels rather than to be in combat with only that many armaments. Still a little pricey though, isn't it for this class of ships. But, a stout and nice looking ship to venture through the arctic nonetheless. 👍
We used to do fishery patrols on the west coast(with our frigates lol.. it was a joke, we would bring on board 2 RCMP officers, two Fisheries officers and away we would go, stopping in every little port...They would set out in a rib and do what ever it was they were supposed to be doing(mostly drinking at the local Legions) we would set up the barbeques and party...and many of the guys would fish off the ship illegally with no licenses lol...What a waste of Tax payers money...Oh I was a Firefighter serving my 2-3 years on board ......it really was a very long extended holiday. I wouldn't advise the navy lifestyle for anyone, it really does suck...Oh ya we even dropped of a bunch of navy guys so they could go moose hunting for a week then we came back and picked them up....with a Frigate lol..
@@jedidiah5131 lol, thanks for sharing what really goes on aboard a ship. 😊 Well, yeah that sounds like a peace time kind of routine there huh. But, I’m sure you guys did get some real training done also during the cruise, right? 😊
Reminds me a bit like a Corvette. The deck gun is more like a pea shooter than a serious weapon.
Just thought I’d add, it’s 2021, 21 years into the century, and this is the first floating object that can even remotely be considered a new warship that has been commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy. A truly pathetic showing in national defence, where they RCN have been beaten out by such naval superpowers such as, North Korea, Chile, Nigeria, Vietnam, and Mexico.
meh, last i checked no one has invaded the north soo
With more and more ships using the Northwest Passage as the ice coverage retracts, it would make sense to keep increasing the compliment of DeWolfs. America's woefully underequipped in icebreakers and it would be unwise to count on them to quickly naval reinforce the area if an event escalated
The DeWolfs are not built to break much ice. They are only rated as Polar Class 5. That means first-year ice only (around 30 cm, 11.8 inches). And they are almost completely unarmed...they have one Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. They are not much good at anything. No defense systems, no sonars, basic navigation radars...big sitting ducks compared to the heavily armed Russian "real" icebreakers.
@@doogleticker5183 well better realize a few things . First ice breakers by and large don't carry guns, the Russian vessels )class 6 ) are bigger and about the same speed in ice and most cannot enter heavy ice at all as they are old hulls. The new Russian ship will be but if you think the 550 million quoted is real you need an education. I rather suspect the helicopter carried will be quite capable if necessary. These are an arctic patrol vessel not a warship just as mr Harper wanted when he ordered them.
Canada Is also woefully underequipped in icebreakers.
I'm wondering why have such limited armament. Perhaps, are ship-ship missiles potent enough to fit the bill? With The smaller 20mm and .50cal guns for smaller vessels that approach?
There is no expectation that these vessels will go to war. Hopefully they spend many peaceful years keeping the North safe without needing to use that lil guy on the front.
It needs more armament, it wouldn’t be that hard to upgrade the cannon and add missiles
I am as much for a "few" more missiles as the next guy but there's not alot to blow up in the arctic...yet.
@@FrontlinePros key word yet, the Chinese and Russians are hot on our rapidly thawing ass’s
Why do they need more armament at the present time? They can be "upgunned" in the future and if you need to add armament in a hurry, give the helicopters some teeth. Whatever armament you start with, any potential competitor in the same theatre is obligated to match what you've put on your ships and then some. That's how "Dreadnought Races" work. These ships will never be engaging other ships in some "Jutland between the ice flows". That chain gun is about right for supporting small groups of troops in a littoral setting.
@@abrahamdozer6273 they are already out armed by for example the Russians have a ship that looks almost exactly the same, but it has a bigger cannon, air defence, and missiles, and the Chinese aren’t far behind the Russians, but weapons are first and foremost in Canada’s case a deterrent, if the Russians see that we have better armament, they will think twice before trying to bully us up there
@@canadiandefenceinitiative3599 These are for patrolling the three routes of the Canadian Northwest Passage. Look at a globe and you will see that the Russians have a far better route that runs above the North American and Eurasian landmass. Your chances of seeing a Russian ship in our Northwest Passage (besides the little cruise ships) is about the same as seeing a Sasquatch, there. Why would they bother?
As far as the Chinese go, a very poorly thought out American policy by which they consider our little straits surrounded by sovereign Canadian territory to be an "international waterway" invites the Chinese to cruise up and down, there. Canada, most other countries and Maritime Law all consider the Canadian Northwest Passage to be internal Canadian waterways and ... well, look at a map. They're a "international" as the Alaskan Inside Passage (Maybe, the Chinese should sail up to Ketchikan in a warship?) This is a fairly new American policy and it seems that what motivated them was the possibility of taking control of a big chunk of the Canadian Arctic. The US is "all hat and no cattle" in this fight as there is only one US Coast Guard vessel capable of making that transit, no US Navy vessels and no new icebreaking capability any less than a decade off so it's all blah-blah. This class of ships was a direct response to that American claim.
does it run on Justin solar? 7 ship? does anyone know just how big the arctic is? we need a better solution
There are genuine needs for additional lightly armed patrol vessels but NOT at the cost of a reduction in the number of fully fledged combat vessels. GB should acquire a pair of these for use around the Arctic and Antarctic. Buying from and helping our Canadian cousins is also a very good idea.
These things are shit don’t they have the same armament as a 15 ton light vehicle
@@jameson1239 you are typically grossly uninformed and the only shi. is your opinion
@@alpearson9158 for defending the arctic these things are grossly underarmed compared to contemporary icebreakers it’s more coast guard cutter then warship. Not to mention cost at a total project cost of between 5.8 and 7.3 billion dollars depending on which cost estimate you use for construction of six vessels which means the per unit cost is somewhere between 383 million and 716 million per ship though the actual cost is probably somewhere in between those two. Or we could have bought six Svalbard class icebreakers from Norway with a per unit cost of 575 million NOK which is roughly 82 million CAD and there more heavily armed they have a 57mm instead of the 25mm and are capable of mounting a surface to air missile system which would be rather useful if hostility’s were to break out over the arctic rather then being what amounts to a sitting duck against aircraft and submarines. and we could have used those savings to start trying to find a replacement for our ancient submarine fleet which were trying to keep running into the 2040s.
I agree, it would be good for projecting sovereignty over places like the south Georgia islands
@@jameson1239 You are correct, if these are to be used as fighting vessels or even "protection.".
However, in RN service they would be purely specialist research support, survey and resupply vessels. Capable of deploying/supporting small contingents of Royal Marines for specific duties if required. Basically a beefed-up peace time patrol craft for very cold climates.
GB RN could easily use two. One based at Port Stanley and the other at Lerwick. I can think of several uses for them that would permit more capable ships to concentrate on combat orientated training tasks.
The concept of an unarmed off-shore patrol vessel defines the imagination. The old axiom "in time of peace, prepare for war" has never been more true. And yet here is Canada, fielding defenseless patrol vessels. My father, a veteran of WWII (RCNVR - HMCS Royal Mount) is turning over in his grave.
For the navy, we need new nuclear submarines as well as new Type 26s. Especially for those Type 26s, we better commission them before they are outdated. We also need new fighters with at least 1 squadron being stealth fighters. Something is brewing in the world, and we need to be ready.
We should buy some of Germany’s Pumas as well, those’ll do us fine
stealth hangar queens why?
i would hold out for lithium electric subs. you know they're coming soon.
@@peterdguru As a retired Submariner I would disagree. We should go Nuclear with Australia and the US given our Alliance. Right now, our pitiful diesel electrics do not have any sort of arctic capability. The subs that we have are going to be in service until 2040 and we likely won't have anything planned to replace them until 2050 (which is why I'm retired). We will likely no longer have access to the 5 Eyes network once they are alongside permanently... This means we lose our water column and we have no idea who (allies or enemies) are operating in our waters. It's a sad state.
A small carrier built for drones could be quite useful and affordable for the Canadian Navy too.
I think we should just build some Timmies up north and call it quits. Anywhere you can get a Boston Cream and a double double is Canada...
Just put one on the ship.
@@FrontlinePros Travelling Timmies, I like it. Our version of a food truck...well done
Why would you not arm the coast guard?
The Americans have machine guns on their little RIV’s that they run up and down the Detroit river with, let alone their ships they patrol with. I’ve always thought it was strange our Coast Guard was not armed.
I hope she has a long and safe life!
We need a navy base in Hudson Bay, a descent one so are sailors want to be posted there.
Respect from the empire 🇬🇧
It's a nice yacht.
Irving shipyards are similar to BAE Systems in UK, complete monopoly, no competition and high prices !
Does it run on Maple Syrup...
As an American (and former Army Artilleryman) I can only say this: that is a mighty sexy ship
That thing is sleek and the "best looking" RCN ship yet? I'm gonna sort have to go ahead and........disagree with you on that one. If you want a good looking RCN ship, check out RCN Haida, a Tribal class destroyer that is now a museum ship. If you're interested a modern ship, you'll be impressed by the yet-to-be named RCN version of the Type 26 frigate that will hopefully begin construction soon. Those are going to be sleek and beautiful, extremely capable and versatile warships.
I though the Chinese incIuded the Artic IsIands under dash Nine Iine ?
A few more mounts for c6's probably wouldnt hurt. Its armament is only for close encounters. Would be better to add just a few more for that purpose.
It looks nice and cost a bunch but with no armaments how is it a navy vessel? The fact it was designed on purpose to not have vertical launch tubs now or in the future doesn't make sense.
C o a s t a l p a t r o l s h i p
Such a pretty ship and such a tiny gun 😂
Oof..what do we say in reply to that. Would you like us to place a big ol' set of "American" balls to swing off the back end? 😁
@@FrontlinePros I mean the 25mm is a nice gun, but it just literally looks so small on the ship. A 76mm or atleast a 57mm would look better and pack a bigger punch.
They should look into adding the new 127mm cannon for the frigates on this thing for surface targets, and maybe a CIWS for AA
Build baby build, we’re going to need them.
Just subscribed 😎
Hey thanks for the support!
Canada's new arctic patrol ship begins its first operational patrol to ... the Caribbean ;-)
Of course this ship isn't designed for a shooting war. But it can carry lots of "stuff". That stuff can be search and rescue gear if a cruise ship goes aground or plane goes down. Troops and supplies to reinforce the rangers or chase off anyone poaching, setting up surveillance or other bad things now that the ice is melting, and of course it can carry lots of gear for establishing and maintaining our own monitoring equipment such as sonar buoys and the like.
The Harry DeWolf was moored in Toronto, last week, and it was open to tours of the Bridge and Landing Deck, crew quarters, galley, engine room, etc, were not available.
Although she had been in commission for four years, she had, if I understood correctly, had not yet been issued with its helicopter. I was told she was currently carrying 80 crew, the maximum this video mentioned. So, I don't know where the chopper's crew and mechanics will bunk. I think military choppers require 10 hours of preventive maintenance for every hour they are in the air. So, I think it will require a meaningful number of maintenance guys.
I was told the main armament had just 100 rounds of ready use ammunition. That is enough to fire warning shots, at recalcitrant civilian vessels - but, I think, not enough for any kind of real hostilities.
The old Kingston class vessels, multirole vessels, were small, slow, and very poorly armed. But, if I recall correctly, did have deck space to carry at least two TEU containers, you know, standard container ship containers. That is important because those containers made the ships a lot more adaptable. A container could hold the control room for a deep diving sub, or robot-sub. Or, for wartime, there are TEU containers that can carry missiles. I think there are manufacturers who make a TEU container with a reasonably competent suite of anti-air missiles. I think there are also containers that can carry some kind of ship attack missiles. Maybe those wouldn't be top of the line missiles, but they would be a lot more deadly than the Bushmaster 25mm.
Anyhow, I didn't see any deckspace suitable for carrying a container on the Harry Dewolf.
I asked a junior crewman whether the vessel could carry a platoon or a company of soldiers, if it were supporting a small expeditionary force. He said the vessel did not have this capacity, but one of the Bridge officers later said it could carry a small expeditionary force.
The bridge looked very modern. I took about a dozen pictures, and put them on the wikimedia commons. One oddity was that the controller for the cannon seemed to be an after-thought, tucked out of the way, relying on the tv screen, with no good view out of the windows.
Crew members told me the food was excellent.
It's multi-purpose we use it for fishing too
17 knots doesn't seems much, am I right or is it normal for a ship like this?
Heya, the Halifax Frigates can reach top speeds of 30ish knots.
this is appropriate for a very heavy hulled vessel for ice breaking as higher speeds just don't work in fact anything over 12 knots is pointless in most ice senarios
Makes me proud as a Canadian to have a giant brand new Hairy D
You forgot the sonar suite
I used that time to bad mouth Russia, sorry.
Well we can say that territorial sea sovereignty and deterrence were not added to the mix when designing this vessel!
The Canadians have a Navy? *Spits coffee out laughing *
No need to abuse coffee my friend! If you burn yourself it will cost you thousands. Thanks for watching.
Canada has two defensive fleets while being able to deploy units from them to assist allies in operation, Meanwhile new better armed frigates are also being made. Just thought you needed to be informed...
Everyone in the comments keeps forgetting this patrol ship is not intended for engaging enemy ships or aircraft but for monitoring and perhaps anti sub roles. The type 26 frigates when we have them will be more appropriate for combat.
@@cb2638 a presence is the need not a warship and as this is a designed ice breaker it is clearly not a warship
We are in trouble if we are making war ships with no weapons . Like what are our politicians doing ?
How can it be intended for an anti submarine role though, if it doesn't have any passive or active acoustic detection, and no torpedoes.
This is great n all, but why do we paint our ships with that colour? They look like they are made of plastic. Asking the important questions over here. Cant wait for the Type 26 to hit the waves!
It blends in with the bland northern waters? The HMCS Regina is painted in WW1 Dazzle right now.
About dam time.
"Get out of here Russia" excellent point , those boats should have been nuclear powered and fully armed!
totally particularly whit the ridiculous price they payed to compare you could buy a nuclear ice breaker like the new one Russian are building for 550m only a idiot who know nothing would be paying 4 billion for that clown ship there is the price of some other ship just to compare :wasp class lhd worth around 2b usd , America-class 3.4b usd , Arleigh Burke class ddg 1.84b usd and russian Arktika nuclear ice breaker 550m usd , Virginia-class submarine ssn 2.4b usd , Gerald R. Ford-class largest aircraft carrier in the world 13b usd.
@@johnsmith-yj2cn Canada does not do nuclear powered ships... and as in program... that includes infrastructure needed to manufacture.... so ya little expensive... but when you have to invest to rebuild ship building capability and get 6 ships of the class? Idk... see how the future unfolds on such a investment.
And Gerald Ford is not yet active... think the number is closer to 16 bill... they have some gremlins to work out 1st...
Be the last time you ever see a program like that....
Were going to start building combat ships with in the next 3 years..much more artillery
@@johnsmith-yj2cn Putin must be laughing at us again, while he continues to build Russia's Arctic Defenses- our politicians continue to divide us with vaccine, social, gender, cultural and environmental policies that do nothing to build or defend our Nation. Aussies are moving forward with plans for Nuclear attack submarines, and we can't even decide on a new Fighter and how to enroll new pilots. The US navy never wanted us to have nuclear subs in the arctic and there is info that backs that up... typical anti-ally CIA stupidity that harmed the defence of North America
Need medium sized Air Craft carriers, to carry those F-35s. Canada should also keep its F-18s A/Bs going to, going at Mach 1.8 range 3400m, we need a fast jet for our big country.
Wait - perfectly vertical sides are going to be a radar reflector.
Rule Britannia from Glasgow, Bring back the Empire. 🇬🇧 😎
Well I think retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman summed it up best in his comment that roughly went like this "These vessels are there to more less to show the flag", I could be inaccurate of the exact quote but he was underwhelmed over the lack of protection!
Increasing our Northern presents is a big reason for these ships I agree.
When I first heard of the ship, I fell in love it, it looks so sleek, AND ADORABLE for a Warship.
It's a lil pocket vessel.
@JZ's Best Friend warship? No. Just no. This thing isnt going to war. It would get obliterated.
@JZ's Best Friend UNLIMITED PUPPY!!!!!!!!!
Pocket icebreaker. Mega LAV.
it does what it says on the tin, built for purpose, cool ship guys
good on you Canada it's expensive to build a class of ship for a specific role like ice breaking and still be an armed naval vessel but lots of dodgy countries are trying to lay claim to the artic when they have no land mass near there [I looking at you China ]
It just goes to show that when Canada wants to show what it can do it can make , what is a very handsome ship.
It looks great but nothing else.It probably fires frozen Timbits at opponents or issues a stern letter telling the Russians to leave the arctic or Canada will send another letter.
HAVE TROUBLE EXITING GRADE 2 ?