How Powerful Halifax-Class Frigate Royal Canadian Navy
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 08. 2019
- How Powerful Halifax-Class Frigate Royal Canadian Navy - The Halifax-class frigate, also referred to as the City class, is a class of multi-role patrol frigates that have served the Royal Canadian Navy since 1992. The Halifax-class frigate design, emerging from the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program, was ordered by the Canadian Forces in 1977 as a replacement for the aging St. Laurent class, Restigouche class, Mackenzie class, and Annapolis classes of destroyer escorts, which were all tasked with anti-submarine warfare. In July 1983, the federal government approved the budget for the design and construction of the first batch of six frigates, with a second batch ordered in December 1987. To reflect the changing long term strategy of the Navy during the 1980s and 1990s, the Halifax-class frigates was designed as a general purpose warship with particular focus on anti-submarine capabilities.
HMCS Halifax was the first of an eventual twelve Canadian-designed and Canadian-built vessels which combine traditional anti-submarine capabilities with systems to deal with surface and air threats as well. All ships of the class are named after a major city in each province (St. John's, Halifax, Charlottetown, Fredericton, Québec City, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver) plus the cities of Ottawa and Montreal.
General Characteristics
As built, the Halifax-class vessels displaced 4,750 long tons (4,830 t) and were 134.65 metres (441 ft 9 in) long overall and 124.49 metres (408 ft 5 in) between perpendiculars with a beam of 16.36 metres (53 ft 8 in) and a draught of 4.98 metres (16 ft 4 in). That made them slightly larger than the Iroquois-class destroyers. The vessels are propelled by two shafts with Escher Wyss controllable pitch propellers driven by a CODOG system of two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines, generating 47,500 shaft horsepower (35,400 kW) and one SEMT Pielstick 20 PA6 V 280 diesel engine, generating 8,800 shaft horsepower (6,600 kW).
This gives the frigates a maximum speed of 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph) and a range of 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph) while using their diesel engines. Using their gas turbines, the ships have a range of 3,930 nautical miles (7,280 km; 4,520 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph). The Halifax class have a complement of 198 naval personnel of which 17 are officers and 17 aircrew of which 8 are officers.
Armament
The Halifax class also carries a close-in anti-submarine weapon in the form of the Mark 46 torpedo, launched from twin Mark 32 Mod 9 torpedo tubes in launcher compartments either side of the forward end of the helicopter hangar.
As built, the anti-shipping role is supported by the RGM-84 Harpoon Block 1C surface-to-surface missile, mounted in two quadruple launch tubes at the main deck level between the funnel and the helicopter hangar.For anti-aircraft self-defence the ships are armed with the Sea Sparrow vertical launchsurface-to-air missile in two Mk 48 Mod 0 eight-cell launchers placed to port and starboard of the funnel. The vessels carry 16 missiles. A Raytheon/General Dynamics Phalanx Mark 15 Mod 21 Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) is mounted on top of the helicopter hangar for "last-ditch" defence against targets that evade the Sea Sparrow.
As built, the main gun on the forecastle is a 57 mm (2.2 in)/70 calibre Mark 2 gun from Bofors. The gun is capable of firing 2.4-kilogram (5.3 lb) shells at a rate of 220 rounds per minute at a range of more than 17 kilometres (11 mi). The vessels also carry eight 12.7 mm (0.50 in) machine guns.
Countermeasures And Sensors
As built, the decoy system comprises Two BAE Systems Shield Mark 2 decoy launchers which fire chaff to 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) and infrared rockets to 169 metres (185 yd) in distraction, confusion and centroid seduction modes. The torpedo decoy is the AN/SLQ-25A Nixie towed acoustic decoy from Argon ST. The ship's radar warning receiver, the CANEWS (Canadian Electronic Warfare System), SLQ-501, and the radar jammer, SLQ-505, were developed by Thorn and Lockheed Martin Canada.
Two Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) SPG-503 (STIR 1.8) fire control radars are installed one on the roof of the bridge and one on the raised radar platform immediately forward of the helicopter hangar. The ship is also fitted with Raytheon AN/SPS-49(V)5 long-range active air search radar operating at C and D bands, Ericsson HC150 Sea Giraffe medium-range air and surface search radar operating at G and H bands, and Kelvin Hughes Type 1007 I-band navigation radar.
There are twelve Halifax-class ships in Canadian service:
hmcs halifax ffh 330, hmcs vancouver ffh 331, hmcs ville de québec ffh 332, hmcs toronto ffh 333, hmcs regina ffh 334 , hmcs calgary ffh 335, hmcs montréal ffh 336, hmcs fredericton ffh 337 , hmcs winnipeg ffh 338, hmcs charlottetown ffh 339, hmcs st. john's ffh 340, hmcs ottawa ffh 341, - Věda a technologie
Can’t wait to be posted to ship! Currently doing my Academics for CSE
Good luck, east or west coast?
Videos called how powerful, not how much did they cost
@@seanstafford2682 Why are you whining about cost? Military equipment is expensive, and Canada is currently lacking in every aspect of being a modern military because people like you think your opinion on military hardware is informed because of videos like this.
@@hamishneilson7140 when did I whine about cost? Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it?
Go for it!
These ships have been amazing workhorses for Canada, but now it’s time to let them rest and build those 15 new Type 26s.
we will be lucky to get 12, 15 would be nice
Let them rest? We just spent billions refurbishing them
@@bradjames6748 in about 8 years they rest
I doubt we could crew 15 to be honest
@@TheJimyyy Not from the capability standpoint. New Type 26s will have a larger hull to carry many more missiles, including large Tomahawk missiles used for land strikes. Also not to mention that the 5"/127mm gun is going to be more lethal (and weigh more) than the 57mm on the Halifax class. You basically can't find the space or topweight to fit all the new equipment needed on a Halifax class. Nonetheless, I do agree that the Halifax class could serve as useful 2nd line support combatants if needed, or be kept in reserve for a while.
Only if the thumbnail had an RCN frigate.
Would have been so much better
It should also be noted that, while the video is showing the upgraded equipment in the video, it is stating the names of all the old equipment.
Great episode, I loved the one time I boarded it. (Army guy 🇨🇦)
Why does the link have an image of HMS MONMOUTH (a type 23 frigate of the RN) - NOT a Halifax class CPF?
There was no mention of the enormous cost of these frigates. They cost Canada $795 million to build - each! The Type 23 frigates of the Royal Navy which were built around the same time, of approximately the same size, displacement and speed, with broadly the same capabilities, only cost $223 million per ship. Another example of the utter waste, complacency and incompetence of successive Canadian governments.
"Oh, but it created jobs in Canada!" I hear someone saying. Yes, a paltry 3, 000 jobs. If one uses the difference in the price tag, the Canadian government wasted $2.3 million per job to keep them in Canada.
"Oh, but it supported the Canadian shipbuilding industry!" I hear another say. Any industry that can only survive through massive injections of taxpayer capital is not sustainable. And here we are thirty-five years later and the Canadian shipbuilding industry is still struggling. Even more so.
And the whole process is being repeated with the new Type 26 frigates we're going to build in Canada at $5.5 Billion each (the cost so far - we all know it will continue to rise) when we could build them in the UK for as little as $2.1 Billion each. If we built them in the UK and gave every one of the 15,000 Canadian workers who lose their jobs $1 million in compensation we'd STILL come out ahead.
It leaves me utterly gobsmacked how stupid and complacent Canadians are to keep putting up with this.
Our Type 26 are going to cost at least 1.5 billion each, and add another 500 million because this is the way we role in Canada.
ship yards must be retained and unlike the UK and the US Canadian purchases include the known life time cost, yeah thats a very large difference but it is real
And we're doing it to ourselves again with the _Harry DeWolf-class_ arctic patrol vessels. The Canadian Conservatives threw almost 300M$ alone at Canada's Irving Shipyards to take the Norwegian _Svalbard-class_ blueprints, which the GoC bought from Norway for 5M$, and design a RCN variant based on the Norwegian hull. In the end, it will cost Canadian taxpayers almost 600M$ per ship once all 8 (6 for the RCN and 2 for the CCG) vessels are built - a ship that does only 17 knots (31 km/h, 20 mph) in open water.
@@MelioraCogito it’s absolute madness. The Irish and the Danes each built the same class for 50-70 million per hull. Imagine the military that Canada could have if every single procurement didn’t cost 10 times what it should. The LPC and their pets in the federal bureaucracy use military procurement to funnel buckets of taxpayer money into liberal-friendly companies to buy board positions and company shares.
@@Harbinger343 Madness indeed.
Really thinking of joining the navy
I just did 15 years in the Army. I should've joined the Navy, would've seen more then just Afghanistan.
(Dont go Cook) their one of the hardest working trades. Well maybe next to Lineman. Thats what I ended my career as
Same here!
Did my thing with the RCN back in the early 60's ERA program got out when Hellyer turned it on it's ear and never looked back. Took the three trades I was trained in; wrote the B.C. trades certification exams and ended up with General Machinist, 4th class Stationary Engineer and Heavy Duty Marine Diesel mechanics cert's. Never unemployed my entire career. Started my own high speed production equipment maintenance business, employing 12 people sold out and retired in 04 at the age of 57. Living the good life all due to that early RCN experience.
Consider the merchant marine. Very short with personnel at present. Depending on whether one wishes to obtain a position on deck, in the engine room or cook in the galley, there are various community colleges across Canada that offer introductory programs. Examples of such are BCIT in Vancouver, Camsoun community college in Victoria, there is another community college in Campbell River also that offers introductory courses, Georgian College in Owen Sound, IMQ in Rimouski, NSCC has campuses throughout Nova Scotia and there is the Fisheries & Navigation Institute affiliated with Memorial University, in St. John's.
One could also attend a cadet program in either navigation or marine engineering, duration 3-4 years, depending the school. NSCC offers a 2 1/2-year program and at completion one ends-up with a 4th Class Marine Engineers Certificate.
For cooks, experience in restaurants can count to certification as a Chief Cook on ships, however, one would have to take a short course (at one of the above-mentioned schools).
Example of some of the salaries that could be (presently) expected (this in a unionized environment), for about 6-months (broken, not straight!) work per year:
- Chief Cook: 90K
- Deckhand: 60-70K
- AB (wheelsman): 70K
- MA (mechanical assistant): 70K
- 3rd or 2nd Mate: 100-110K
-1st Mate: 120-150K
- Captain: 130-160K
- 3rd or 4th Engineer: 100-120K
- 2nd Engineer: 120-150K
- Chief Engineer: 130-160K.
The RCN is very short in new recruits. To attract new entrants they are offering a 1-year program, in which a new recruit can try-out working in the navy and, if after 1-year of service, they are not satisfied with the lifestyle, conditions, etc., they are free to go. I am surprised that this YT video did not make mention of this.
In closing, I am a recently-retired merchant mariner and am holder of a 1st Mate Near Coastal Certificate. Right now, I actually miss sailing. I was very lucky to have seen and been to the high Arctic, northern Europe, South America, China, all over the Canadian & US seaboard, GOM and the Great Lakes (in positions ranging from deckhand to AB to 3rd, 2nd & 1st Mate), however, wish that I would have gone down into the engine room (in my early to mid-thirties), to obtain engine room sea-time and to then be able to start 'writing' the TC (Transport Canada) exams for 4th, and then, 3rd engineer certificates...
Why does the thumb nail picture show a Royal navy type 23 not a Canadian Halifax class?
@Stone Frigate don't be rude 😆
If the mean the still photos of the older ships at the start they are all Canadian Destroyers. RCN ships don't have Letters on the hull just numbers the RN uses both
@Canuck Yankeehappiness Atleast we didn't have an incident like the US Navy did such as USS Cole's haul blown up.
@Canuck Arrowhead so true there all from the cold war cant see today missiles or torpedos.
@Fort Halderman ignorance proven
After serving on the steamers that these ships replaced, "grateful" is the word that comes to mind. We had ships that were totally outclassed by any foreign nation we sailed with.
We even had green army uniforms for a long time. The shame.....
Thank the Liberals for that and they are at it again as they continue to be re-elected and can continue to dumb down the armed forces
@@kenclements3001 What a very simplistic way at looking at that. So much more to it than, "Liberal bad". You may want to look when they were ordered, hint 1977 and budget approved (1983). Now take a look who was the PM at the time.
@@robrunstedler6953 Yes, for PET's Irving friends....
Went on a NATO, the 3"50 magazine was chock full of cases of beer, to the light on the deck head, with room to get down the ladder and a narrow passageway to the gun rounds. That in addition to all the other beer stores onboard. Six weeks after we left, we brought on another 600 cases in Holland. I liked to party as much as anyone, if not more, but I was embarrassed when we sailed by the Americans, Dutch, British, etc, so I hear you longmanma
Ah yes, only a british type 23 frigate in the thumbnail smh
and this is why i laugh at those who say "canada has no military", we may not have 654321462514 of everything, but what we do have, is of quality
Hmmmm. These frigates are good frigates, but we only have 12 of them, and they are our largest ships. They don’t even have Tomahawk launchers. Oh well. These ships are well suited for their job of anti submarine warfare, but the fact that they are the largest ships in our navy is the real problem.
@@chesterwang3070 the Asteryx is the largest currently
@@johnharding8077 yea well it doesn't have any armament. It has provision for three of Phalanx's but still. Wouldn't classify it as a warship.
Just like the AOPS. Not a warship, it barely has any armament (25mm and 2x M2 Browning). More like a floating security guard. At least put a proper 57 mm on it, like the Norwegian version of the ship has (btw the Norwegian one is for the coast guard not the navy lol).
I am canadian but The canadian navy is very weak. A single us naval ships has way more technology then all of canadas ships combined
@@johnharding8077 Asterix is runned by Federal Fleet for the customer royal canadian navy. It is a civilian ship in the current form.
It should be included that there was orginally 18 ships, in 3 batches but the batch 3s were sold out on the empry promise of the ssn subs. When the ssn subs were cancelled the kingston class was order instead of the batch 3s. The batch 3s were possibly going ro be stretched for aaw warfare and or task force leader type
To be kind, you have your facts quite wrong. The SSN cancellation had nothing to do with acceptance of the MCDVs (Kingston class), which were built unarmed except for one twin Bofors 44mm mount literally from WWII and a pair of 50 cal MGs. Then they took off the Bofors. These ships were going to be built regardless. They were a waste of money and were not designed for war, but for "mine-warfare training" ships for the 24 Naval Reserve units which had the roles of mine-warfare and Naval Control of Shipping (NCS).
The CPFs were never realistically going to add up to 18 hulls. The Navy was then slowly torn apart with the Iroquois 280 class retired even though it was a decent DDG after expensive mid-life refits, the EH-101s cancelled, the AORs left the fleet the last one burned to death and was towed to retirement...
The RCN is ugly now: 12 CFPs which are no match for anything in 2021, no AORs (just one civilian tanker), up to 6 Harry de Joke hulls that can theoretically break ice 11.2 inches think all year (2 afloat so far)...but they have only one 25mm Bushmaster chain gun...no defence, no offence, no AAW, no ASW, no ASuW...and 4 Victoria class (ex-Upholder class) SSKs built with mid-1970s tech and not put into service until a decade ago. And not all subs are seaworthy/combat-ready or crewed. Plus the 12 MCDVs that should be sunk as reefs (lol) rather than used as easy pickin's during a conflict. They are horrid sea keepers, absolutely useless. The de Wolfes are their replacements, but they are not able to do any mine-warfare or route survey work. So, sad to reinvent the reserves again...but that's life in a country with
@@doogleticker5183 In Perrin Beatty's white paper in 1987 he advocated for 10-12 nuclear submarines. The savings would come from no longer refitting the O-boats and not delivering on hulls 13-18 CPFs which were going to be extended versions. The submarines were going to be an issue: expense, were to 'park' them - Halifax had anything that 'smelled' like nuclear over at Shearwater. Lastly the Americans would not really like us to have their nuclear technology and used 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement to block any technology transfer from UK. Joe Clark was against b/c it would 'upset' Warsaw Pack power balance, other ministers were 'allergic' to the cost ~8 billion $. Also Chernobyl was fresh in everyone's minds and nuclear anything was making the public nervous. Well the SSNs never happened, but the sacrificed 6 Batch 3 CPFs were never 'un-sacrificed' in typical Canadian fashion.
@@doogleticker5183 It's too bad you still have your steamer mentality. The steamers couldn't do anything other than shoot a things with 3 in gun, even then not very well. Your facts are so far out of whack that you make yourself sound intelligent without stating any truths. The CPF's are technically superior to anything out there today. Sure, the hulls are old, but the technology is fantastic. The AOR's are coming. All 4 subs are sea-worthy (check your facts), current and modern. The MCDV's are COASTAL Defence Vessels (hence the MCDV name), designed to defend the coast. Currently, (today; 29 July 2022) there are two MCDV's in the Baltic doing NATO, have you done a NATO? The RCN can only do what the government gives it. You don't like the RCN in its current state, complain to your MP. BUT, before you complain in a public forum, get your facts straight.
I feel sad for your readers, too.... you offer false facts without offering anything usefull.
But the 280's, TRUMP refitted, would satisfy the task force leader type.
@@JRJunior8624 there was suppose to be 18 halifax and 4 iroquois / trumped tribals.
👍Proud of our Armed Forces
My country might Buy one if You guys retire them, look good
they're supposed to start getting replaced over the next 10 years I think
Your thumbnail is absolutely wrong, no Canadian ship would have rusty decks like that bucket. I find it a bit insulting actually.
A very impressive ship!
were getting 26, new type 26 and i hjeard 8 new subs , so excitioed to see canada new military equipment for the future
That's a fantasy, a nice one but still a fantasy. Current CSC acquisition plans are for 15 hulls and it's probably going to get whittled down to 12.
8 subs huh? No. Unfortunately The number of new subs Canada has ordered is 0
I doubt Canada will ever have subs after Victoria class pay off.
no new subs required for 8 to 10 years and nuke subs are not hunter /killers oh and that's is JANE'S opinion not mine
@@jordankashuba3467 no need yet
To all Canadians that diss our military, try serving .
Canadian myself, powerful is a very nice word to described Halifax class.
It is nothing wrong to equip ESSM for frigate, however, considering that Halifax class is the "most powerful Canadian ship" now, I would expect something like SM-2 or at least not only 16 ESSMs onboard.
Halifax class worked with Iroquois class destroyer which got retired in 2017 which had SM-2 for fleet defense, now our frigates mostly travel with US Burke destroyers or UK's Type 45 destroyer.
yeah, ESSM is typical for a general purpose multi-role frigate, the area defense role was what the Iroquois class fulfilled with their Standard (SM-2) missile complement. They should have been replaced long before they had to be retired. Typical feet dragging politicians.
Well...it's fully equipped with top brand name weaponry....so it's a badass ship! 😁
top brand name... you mean Adidas and Nikes right?
@@benoitnadeau5845 please get educated
Yea get educated ! Those ships recently went through a 4 billion dollar refit ! It’s people like you that give Canada a bad name!
it's an excellent ship
How do you know?
It's a good ship but it's old are navy needs a major update we need to add destroyers new subs even a aircraft carrier ..same with are airforce ..they need to update from are old f 188 hornet to something newer maybe lockheed Martin f35 there needs to be more of them considering we only have about 70 fighter aircraft witch is just sad ..are ground army is well equipped for the most part with the leopard 2a6m ..I could go on but I'm to lazy to lol
@@tysoncomfort4244 reason why the Canadian Royal Navy ordered the construction of 30 type 26 frigates and 2 protector class support vessels
It was good for the cold war but useless nowadays it cant see today missiles or torpedoes in wargames canada lost all its ships in about 30secs to 1min of the game starting the usa hammered canadas ships badly they dont even see the missiles come in and sunk them in the game it was bad really bad.
@@kuninagako9035 and that’s simply not true
Es Tee Laurent Class... you mean the Saint Laurent class? Names after the river?
They can be put on termination mode.
How come the thumbnail for this video is a Type 23 Duke Class from the UK?
I have sailed on tribal class and Halifax frigates ...like Halifax better for the space onboard
just because it's old doesn't mean it opposite
Cool ship I wonder what's like to live on for awhile. Does one have to be short to walk through the hallway under the deck?
No.
Well ..like most ships I would assume it's cramped , and smelly lol
No problem pulling a skier that's for sure.
Will these ships get the Naval Strike Missile in place of the Harpoon?
This navy was great before canada became the country of just giving everybody whatever they wanted.
I find this incredibly funny because im from Halifax, its fucked haha...
Its not, because they are actually not giving navy what it wants 😂
If you don't like it here feel free to leave
LOL what a dumb opinion, since when was our role with UN peacekeeping ever correlated with the size and capability of our Navy?
Our Navy was never great per se. It was always as good as we needed it to be.
@@poopsie117 Peace keeping wasn't always a role we were interested in. The navy infact has always had very little to do with peace keeping. Our navy was tasked to be responsible for much of the North Atlantic during the cold War. If a hit war every broke out with The Soviet union, or job was to keep the North Atlantic free of Soviet subs. For decades the Canadian navy was considering the best ASW fleet in NATO.
Thumbnail shows a British vessel.
It is a pity the cover image is of the UK T23
Why are the engine specs in some kind of asain writing?
The copy of a "Type 26" British Frigate.
Why can't we have real voices anymore instead of shitty computer voices?
question? why havent we adopted the blue camo uniforms yet ?
Cause they're stupid?
Cause its pointless and actually sort of dangerous
We don't want them; They're not fire retardant (and that's a BIG issue in a ship), they'd make us look like Americans, and when I once asked a USN PO what he thought of them, his response was "you know, wearing camo isn't very smart if you fall overboard."
Id like some good government come into power in The Philippines again. Then sell these for as cheap as possible to them and based out of Subic Bay
Has block 2 harpoon, and block 2 essm now
But does it have block II sailors?
@@benoitnadeau5845 some of the best in the world, hands down.
We need some proper destroyers.
won't happen in the next 30 years
@@benoitnadeau5845 I mean the surface combatants may due and those should happen in the next 9 years or so.
@@alansohn855 I still have to see a real canadian type 26 to believe it. The first is supposed to be built in 2024-2025.
@@alansohn855 We still have plenty of time to cancel this procurement and order refurbished australian frigates 😅
@@benoitnadeau5845 That's what ford did for sophistication in their cars and look how they turned out.
while the 57mm can shoot 70km, how usefull and accurate would it even be that far away?
WHAT?!!!! you meant 7 km right? missed the decimal point?
lasted 3 minutes, that accent is nails on a chalkboard
i just feel like the cannon on the foredeck is so underpowered for this frigate... I mean 57mm is rather small and the general shape of the turret and barrel makes it look a bit like a toy tbh...
I haven’t seen it blow something up yet but I bet they are amazing
I was right they are really effective
The new USN FFX are getting the same MK 110.....and the Litorals have them...so?
@HellYeaNixon problem is there cold war missiles easy to intercept and are vary slow by todays standards. There also still using cold war radar sonar and tactics vary outdated. In the last wargames where canada vs the usa we lost horribly all ships of canada was destroyed in 30secs to 1min from usa missiles canada ships could not even see them on radar.
High rate of fire, better for air defense and any swarm of pesky speed boats
The ship can also sail backwards.
And be sunk in 10secs do to outdated systems there all using cold war tech and tactics. In a wargame with the usa canada lost all its ships in 30secs flat and scored 0 hits on any of the usa ones. The usa and british said that canada was not even a challenge it was vary sad how outdated they are and useless there tech is. And that why to this day we dont play the enemy.
@@kuninagako9035 you make things up
We have 12 ships we would be so easy to invade
Is this video available in English anywhere?
Pretty big Navy for 38 million people.
Everyone here thinks it is too small, which it is.
Considering 🇨🇦 is bordered by 3 oceans, the RCN is disproportionately small. We have good vessels but not nearly enough
We used to have the 7 or 8th largest navy I think right after WW2 but now it’s a token fleet
@@jaydonly2336 actually third but like all western navies we reduced dramatically after the 60's it is unfortunately very visible when you go from a 42 ship navy to a thirty ship navy.
Thumbnail isn't even a Halifax...
How capable are these Canadian ships in hard combat?
@@DEADBRO_ Prior to this class of ship being commissioned our older destroyers played a patrol and intercept role in the gulf conflict. 3 antiques provided 75% of interceptions
@@DEADBRO_ Are you stupid or soemthing? He asked how effective these ships are in here combat. Not what the U.S. or Canadas allies would do.
Useless completely useless all the tech is cold war none of it is modern. In wargames canada lost all its ships in 30-1min of the fight and scored 0 hits do to Britain and usa have tech way more advance then them they could see every little thing canada ships did and interspeted every missile as soon as they left there tube pretty much. The usa missiles were untracable by canada radar and there torpedoes where untrackable as well so the ships were target practice. The usa and Britain sad it was so sad that they had to give them selfs a handycap of not using radar and lowered there numbers bollow canadas and canada still lost with 0 hits they said it was sad so the British toke over as the enemy and gave the usa a harder time. It was a vary sad showing. Thats why the millitary in canada is calling for more money and modernization of everything.
@@kuninagako9035 Canada has a tendency to be really stingy and cheap in all ways. I suppose the upper management want bigger bonuses in government and corporations?
@@DEADBRO_ as usual uninformed about the RCN and our allies try just a little research instead of a poorly informed idiotic political opinion
The RCN better stretch as much life out of the current frigates as they can because the government has cancelled the Type 26 Program. I know they announced a five year delay but what has been largely overlooked is that the ship builder has been told the government will not pay them to retain their skilled workers. No skilled workers equals no new frigates. It's as simple as that.
Their is a few years gap when the AOPS are complete and the CSC's are ready to cut steel, they will just lay off everyone and rehire when ready. The first CSC is going to take some time to rebuild that skill.
Or we could save $50 Billion and just have them built in the UK.
Australia might build them for Canada
🇭🇲🇨🇦🇭🇲🇬🇧
We are going ahead with at least 3 type26 because we have signed contracts for all those expensive goodies that go into these destroyers (We Canadians are just too polite to call them what they really are)
@@ncmarmstrong442 wouldn't save a penny as all Canadian ships ordered are based on life time costs unlike the US and UK
Not an shining example of a 'motivational' clip. This is typical of the Canadian government putting something together without the subject matter experts. A few anomalies are provided. I guess the observer of the video is supposed to guess as to what is happening in the last half of the video. An explanation of the last 4 minutes would probably have been useful. I am amazed that the 57 mm gun has a maximum range of 'more than 70 KM'. I would believe a range of 17 km. BTW, the actual size of the barrel is not 57 mm or 70 caliber -- it is a 57 mm, 70 caliber barrel, the diameter being 57 mm and the length of 70 calibers. The Surface-to-Air missiles are shown as a 2nd set of Harpoon (no proofreading or proof-watching). It was obvious that this was a cut and paste job, when they include the french translation captioning for a few seconds. Final point, in the still photo, prior to opening the video, the photo is of a British frigate not the Halifax class. This class is/was a reasonable ship at the time of design, and the upgrade has helped it. This video is so pedantic and so rudimentary, that it actually detracts from the strengths and benefits of the ship.
I account myself lucky to not speak like that in real life scenario.
No offense but its only good for target pratique
CANADA TIME TIDAK BISA DI ULANGIN
ITU BIRU BELUM NENARAN HARUS DI NANGUNA GEDUNG MESJIDIL NABAWI DI MOSKOU RUSIA SUDAH HARUS ADA BANGUN RIDUR DILU MASIH JAM 2400 TENGAH MALAM HARI 🙏🙏🙏
Ricky's shitmobile from the trailer park. Riddled with mold and semen. No offense to those who serve I appreciate your service
The type 26 look great and going be extremely heavily armed. But i wonder how poor its performance will be because of the increased weight. I hope Canada gets on its Submarine Replacement soon. To protect canada its allies and to protect the frigates. And we either need all Nuclear Subs or Aip and nuke. the cdn government doesn't like nuclear powered anything but canada being a large 3 coastal region with interests world wide we need nuclear subs to operate in the arctic and we need nuke subs to operate months at a time in the pacfic and indian oceans far away from our shores. And would make sense for our new subs to have land attack missiles along with torpedos. Though a ballistic missile submarine would be nice but wont happen unless theres a world war or canada is kicked out of nato and norad. But a nuclear submarine with anti ship missiles land attack cruise missiles and torpedoes. It would be fast, able to operate anywhere for anytime and able to Attack in almost all waters and on all shores and coastal cities. Only plus side of diesel electric and aip is the ability to operate in very shallow water, the easier build and repairs and more stealthier when operating on electric. But anyway you look at it even if were in a middle of a war in the shallow pacfic where a aip or diesel electric would be able to handle to operate and strike enemy other than that for all other warfare peace time intelligence ops commando ops training patrols the nuke subs are better
its the aussies with the increased weight design. they arent even gonna lay down one here for like 15 years so i wouldnt be concerned about it yet lol
we will buy aip /diesel boats unless you can find an extra 40 billion just for the infrastructure for Nuke boats , 8 likely
I bet we could easily conquer something like Burundi or Ouganda with a bunch of those. ...Oh wait, both are not bordered with ocean 😅
Canada would lose badly the ships cant see missiles or torpedoes of modern day tech
@@kuninagako9035 what the hell are you talking about?
@@Caesar316 he is an idiot bot like creep don't waste your time!
Could you talk any faster lol
Robot voice? chills, absolutely butchering names and identifiers. forecastle is pronounced forksul, not fore castle, St. Laurent is is Saint Laurent, not S.T Laurent.
If you are going to have a English narrator to explain the ship. For fuck sakes get one that doesn't explode the language.
computer not person
@@alpearson9158 whatever bud. My point stands
looks incredibly outdated... good luck mates 😅🤣😂
A ship like this can be easily destroyed in seconds by a missle. Brits found that out in the Falkland war.
Not today it's 2021 Not 1981
🇭🇲🇭🇲🇭🇲🇨🇦🇭🇲🇭🇲🇭🇲
Canada navy got a wake up call in the last wargames vs usa we lost all ships in 1min from missiles that could not be picked up by cold war radar. It was vary sad the usa thought it was a tech glitch but we told them that all ships we hit and we were out on the second go tbe usa only used 4 warships turned off it radar half its speed. We lost horribly all ships were sunk in 14mins or less and we scored 0 hits all missiles were intercepted as soon as they left the tubes pretty much it was sad.
@@kuninagako9035 Halifax Class ships don't use "Cold War Era" systems. They've all been upgraded.
@@Caesar316 not only that but were laid down in the 90's after the cold war. This loon is just a shyte disturber
Not powerful anybody watchtbrm try to sink a old dystroyerit was a joke
What the hell is a halifax class lol
City class
like all navies! classes are set by the name of the first vessel in a class, in this case the Halifax was first
Whats so royal about it
Every country in the commonwealth has “Royal” in the name for its navy and air force
33kaus holokaust oh ok
a privledge granted by Queen Elizabeth 2 upon the RCN
fake accent? Not a great ship. we manage to keep it floating but it is not powerful
If you're going to narrate in English - the get some one that speaks English to do it.
Short answer: It's capabilities are limited and in general it sucks.. but she is ours!!
Not powerful at all. Under-armed for it's size from day one.
well as a post cold war vessel they are fairly well equipped for what they are actually intended as antisubmarine/missle frigates