Canada's New Warship
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 02. 2022
- The Type 26 Frigate will become the first dedicated warship Canada has built in decades. Soon the Royal Canadian Navy will take ownership of 15 of these vessels, making them the largest owner of the Type 26 - in the world.
**Update: The initial CIWS has been replaced by the SEACEPTOR missile system.
Credit to Gungho Videos Channel for that awesome missile mashup!
🇬🇧 love to our Canada 🇨🇦 brothers and sisters from the uk 🇬🇧
Thanks for stopping by!
We aren't exactly brothers.
Canada is a client state/commonwealth country of the UK.
But hello.
@@canadianmmaguy7511 commonwealth isn’t much more than bells and whistles
@@connoroneill9406 i thought every commonwealth nation had a vote in the world government and thats how the uk expanded with the league of nations and United nations.
He with the most votes controls the world government.
@@canadianmmaguy7511 I think you need to revise what those three separate entities are and do.
The commonwealth ≠ the League of Nations ≠ the UN
The Canadian Armed Forces is being upgraded.... long overdue and well deserved 🇨🇦👍
Doesn't seem like the right thing to be upgrading though. Plenty of other things that need to be updated in the CAF.
@@iGame360fficial all 3 elements are getting upgraded....army, navy, and air force.... good to see the CAF are getting some of this funny money
@@iGame360fficial q
@@iGame360fficial You're joking aren't you? This is exactly what the navy needs.
@@Raptor1867 With the recent decision to purchase 88 F-35 lightnings, I think what the Navy really needs is AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER
It's actually a good thing to be third in line to build this class. The Australians have detected some design bugs and the AC electric drives in the Type 45s still have teething pains. Hopefully, the bugs are sorted out before we start building. HMS Glasgow will be sailing fairly soon. They're riding the steep learning curve, instead of us. We haven't done this with our two big Commonwealth allies since the WWII Tribal Class.
Great points. Thanks for watching.
Im sure I read somewhere that the Australians were having problems with the T26 because they were making such massive changes the ships design /capability the displacement just keeps going up and up ?
The electric drives used on the Type 45 aren't being used on the Type 26, and were designed by General Dynamics I believe.
The problems regarding Australia's Type 26s stem from us uparming or changing it quite a bit, which made it top-heavy. We went for fixed-array radars rather than a rotating array radar, and also added torpedo launchers. Our fixed array radars are mounted seemingly higher than the projected Canadian radars as well, which will contribute to its unbalance.
@@arakami8547 I know that the Type 26 doesn't use the same drive motor as the type 45 but the AC technology itself is new and they're still working out the bugs. It is the key, though to acoustic stealth for these ships to get the diesels and turbines away from the hull. Yes, the Canadian version has a much lower profine radar (Sea Giraffe?)
@@kizzyp2735 I live in Australia and i can assure you no matter who designs these ships the Aussies will fuck up somewhere how they change the design , just like cancelling the French designed Subs who are Nuclear subs and changing them to Deisel, how stupid can one be . anyway they have been cancelled after spending a few billion dollars on the change of design , and not one bit of steel was ever used in the fuck up .
The Type 26 is a very impressive looking ship and it's great to see the UK, Australia and Canada all using it, hopefully one day we get to see all 3 versions operating together. 🇬🇧🇭🇲🇨🇦
Hi AB. It will indeed be a very impressive and capable class of ship. The only drawback could be the number of VLS cells on each vessel. As far as I know, they are not reloadable at sea. Meaning once all of them have been fired, that's it! The next volley of enemy missiles and fast jets will get through. It is possible to have multiple smaller missiles in quad launchers within each cell but at the expense of the longer range weapons.
The bigger destroyers can carry double the number of VLS cells plus other antiair and antisubmarine munitions. Also additional turrets for the new advanced multirole BAE 40mm naval guns with Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity- fused ammunition. That can be programmed in six different function modes to provide optimised effect against any aerial, surface or shore target. This provides weapon systems with the highest possible combat flexibility.
@@gusgone4527 I personally don't see it being too much of an issue, 24 to 32 VLS is pretty standard for most frigates around the world.
The UK variant actually has 72 VLS in total which is made up of 24 mk 41 launchers and 48 Sea ceptor silos for local area air defence.
But it's worth remembering that certain missiles such as ESSM and Sea Ceptor can be quad packed in Mk 41 silos, so if you have 32 Mk 41 VLS you could potentially fit 128 air defence missiles.
A pair of 40mm naval guns either side of the ship would definitely be a nice addition for added flexibility!
New Zealand needs to get on board too
@@AB-gi3qy Sea Ceptor silos are smaller than MK41 silos. Each MK41 silo can have four ESSM.
24 and 32-cell VLS are from western European points of view. The East Asian point of view has South Korea's Sejong the Great-class destroyer with 128-cell MK41 VLS, Japan has the Atago-class destroyer with 96-cell MK41 VLS.
Western European warship designs are timid when compared to South Korean and Japanese Aegis warship designs. Australia's point of view is stuck in western European while the reality is in East Asia.
@@AB-gi3qy Type 26's multi-mission bay could support a second 32 or 48-cell MK41 VLS cluster.
The world needs more Canada. Good stuff. 🇺🇸🇨🇦🤟
15 of them. That may be what the navy wants but I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting them all to be built.
has been the plan for years so likely to happen that enables Canada to replace the three a/a destroyers and a/s frigates but then frigates at 9,000 tons are far more destroyers than frigates
Both the Aussies and the British have reduced their Type 26 orders already. I suspect Canada will do the same. I doubt Canada will build more than SIX... Frankly, Canada would be better off building Incheon class South Korean smaller frigates instead of this huge Type 26 very expensive frigate, more destroyer than frigate...
Military-Hating Turdeau will be OUT, and Liberals won't be able to screw with the orders like they did with the Helicopters and Fighter Jets.
And knowing Canada they will be 3x over budget and 10 years late, especially if the Irving's have the contract
Maybe it's time to revisit the idea of an reimagined "Global RN. RAN, RCN & RNZN" with common vessels, weapons, training to point of crews being interchangeable ie. say a shortage of engineering sailors in Canada, sailor can be posted from Australia, NZ & UK similar to WW2 . We all share a common language, heritage, ideologies we are all cousins and in the face of Russia & China to better to be united than alone.
Good luck getting the Kiwis on board. They’ve been happy to just let us do all the regional protecting for the last few decades. If it can be done I’ll be pleasantly surprised as we’ve been drifting much too far apart from our ANZAC brothers.
I like your idea. We actually have kiwis in our Pacific Base right meow. They're watching over their ship being built by Sea Span.
They're very chill ppl.
We know that Shane my sister is Scottish and married a Simpson .
Canadian here, hopefully we get to cutting steel for these ships soon. Looks like our gov't is about to finally commit to F-35's after using that procurement as a political football for around 2 decades. Leftist gov'ts globally just got the wake-up call to their naïve military underfunding ways from Russia's imperialist invasion of Ukraine. I'm 100% behind having a big military & not needing it, we've learned (yet again) what happens when dictators sense an alignment of weakness.
@Drew Peacock damn bro thats crazy please link the Pierre Sprey article you lifted that bollocks from
I’m working with my Canadian counterparts in Montreal who are providing the software for the ships management system, great project to be working on
Nice that's an often missed part of the team but I'm sure it provides an interesting technical perspective. Thanks for watching!
I was the last Ordinary seaman posted to HMCS Assiniboine before it got decommissioned, my first posting.
What a difference a few decades can make. Our flight deck was condemned, our anti sub mortar outdated and a pretty useless gun. We were also still wearing green uniforms being phased out to the right colours. I remember facing 2 brand new Spanish NATO type frigates near Newfoundland over a fishing dispute thinking, "They fire, we die".
The new Halifax frigates were finally coming out. A huge leap for the Navy.
But we needed 12 for each coast tar.
Thanks for the info on this mate! I’d love to see more military coverage!
Nice to be able to share R&D costs with allies. Nice to have a real gun back! Given that my first ship was KOOTENAY...damn - this makes me feel old!
@Kyle Canada never buys completely off the shelf there will be differences and often others acquire them later
As a Yank - who has observed The Canadian Armed Forces at work - I’m glad Canadian Service Members are finally getting equipment worthy of them!
go Canada great ship from the Kingdom 🇬🇧
It really great that our Allies are updating their surface fleets.
Giving 15 ships to one yard is ridiculous, it will take years to complete the order
Don't worry, it will NEVER be 15. 10 maybe.
@@nhlpa17 I would wager no more than SIX...
I left the Canadain Navy in 91. Back when I was in NDHQ I argued for building 1 ship every year or every 2 years when HMCS Hailfax was launched. It fell on deaf ears. As far I am concerned every Officer that has attended staff collage should be fired since then and the curriculum be redone and the paper pusher mentality be squashed. General Vance ( A fellow platoon member during Basic officer training in Chilliwack) recognised this rot in the officer core and started fix it during the Canadian Afganistan involvment. That process must continue. Prime Minister Harper announced the combat ship replacement program a long time ago. And only now a decision has been made? PATHETIC.
Vance is a sexual predator and a yes man. The last real CDS was hillier
I've been saying the same thing about production schedule for at least as long but nobody listens to Petty Officers.
@Drew Peacock Because arctic sovereignty enforcement will be a major if not the primary mission of these ships. Polar ice melt is opening up arctic passages to shipping, and we don't want the Russians, Danes or Americans for that matter disputing territory we have long claimed.
Similar story all across Europe. Other than the US, the West has gotten lazy over the past few decades regarding defence. The reason was due to the collapse of the USSR and the end of their being a threat to us. Things have changed in recent years ofc. Russia is no real threat to the West, it's China this century.
@Drew Peacock They are also much more expensive, particularly nuclear subs, which carry the additional political burden of being unpopular with a majority of Canadians for environmental reasons (Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney floated the idea of buying either American or French nuclear subs in the late 1980's. You will note that we don't have any of either). Ships with helicopters and drones, along with overflights with the 88 F35's we're now going to buy, should do the job.
I live right beside that shipyard in Halifax, it's always a cool site to see the ships out front.
LOL. Working out under the stairs. Been there done that. Brilliant!!!!
Good news for Canada. UK needs 12 T26 frigates taking current situation into account.
An intergrated CANZUK Navy with the QE Class aircraft carriers pairing up with RN, RCN and RAN T26 frigates would be powerful.
Lets combine research, planning and more joint training.
problem with a canzuk navy is that while combining each countries navies makes a big number on papaer, the geography is sohuge that each country would be operating in their own area....just as they are now
For every 1 problem you had with the old ships, you'll have 3 with the new. That is a given. Drone technology must also be considered with these new ships, both above and beneath the water. Drones will likely be a defence against incoming missile and torpedoes in the future, which have become very advanced of late.
Soon. What is "soon" in Canadian procurement? 30 years?
27 Knotts that is kinda slow
No matter what speed it not out running an anti ship missile...
I think that's the "disclosed" speed. A lot of Navies keep their maximum speeds confidential. The specs for the this frigate say "in excess of 27 knots", so it's probably capable of doing something in the 30s.
Yes, the nuk boats can travel several knots faster.
Considering Canada has one of the largest waterways in the world, it makes sense to have an up to date fleet of ships.
What !? 2 obsolete /worn out frigates Ain't enough ?? Or a couple of Total Junk Submarines.. bought as discarded Scrap metal from the UK
Hell they don't have even enough bullets for their few foot soldiers.
Japan made a perfect frigate🥰
@@barenekid9695 The only reason they became scrap-worthy was because after the UK made the offer, the government dithered over whether to buy them and have sub capabilities at all. Thankfully they did finally realize that without subs, you might as well not have a navy at all. But the subs sat around rotting in the water for several years.
Long over due, its good to see our military finally getting some modern hardware so our servicemen have a fighting chance ❤
current frigates still very relevant
Australian currency isn't "dollaroos", although I can see why one would think that, it's "dollarydoos".
A positive announcement but I'll wait until the navy actually takes delivery of these important assets. For a country of this size and sophistication, Canada's incompetence in procuring much needed military hardware in a timely and on budget fashion is a global embarrassment - to myself as a Canadian, and to our NATO partners. Go down the line - submarines. Fighter jets. Helicopters. Always a day (sorry make that years, if not decades) late and a several billions of dollars short. I'm sure that there are far more knowledgeable people than myself who can point out the reasons why it takes us forever to get the equipment our service people need, so I leave that to others. We do not meet our NATO obligations of 2% of GDP to spending (I think we're at 1.3% last I checked.) We owe it to everyone who wears a uniform for this country to given them the tools they need.
One of the reasons why Canadian military procurement is so inefficient compared to other near peer countries such as Australia is due to cost saving measures after the fall of the USSR which led to the reduction in the number of procurement specialists on the government of Canada’s payroll.
One thing you neglected to mention is the modularity. The Type 26 has several "mission bays" that are essentially plug-and-play modular pods that can be applied/removed depending on the mission type. Extra ammo, humanitarian, anti-piracy and whatever else they can dream up.
I also wonder whether some of those pods can be fitted to Harry DeWolfe class in a pinch?
Reconfigurable boat bays! They're pretty adaptable which is great for a ship that will be asked to do many different things.
It sounds like a great idea but ships built in the states have found that it wasn't worth the effort. Ships that got a certain package tended to stay with through the life of the boat. I belive that is on of the thing from the lateral combat ships that's getting the axe in the future in exchange for more crew to run and maintain the ships.
@@loganholmberg2295 yes the LCS are supposed to have swappable mission modules. So that they can do Mine Countermeasures work, Anti Submarine and other work. But the problem isn't so much with the modules but with the berthing available on ship. There just isn't enough. When commissioned these ships had a crew complement of 40. But the Navy discovered that this number was too small to effectively man the ship. So the complement was increased to close to 50. But the ship only has berthing for 75. And as originally designed the mission modules add up to 35 crew. So the Independence class, at least, dont have enough bunks.
Between that and an issue with the combining gear on these ships they are being withdrawn from service.
The Freedom class LCS dont seem to have the same issues.
In the video some of the animated previews showed exactly what you described with details
Modularity is a more and more popular concept, given that it's things like sensors, comms, and weapons that must constantly evolve.
My father served in the RCNVR in WWII and proudly sailed on a Canadian built frigate, the HMCS Royal Mount. Much as I want this project to succeed, I am only somewhat optimistic it will achieve its goals. Canada has a track record of confusing defense acquisition projects with regional development handouts. When your defense project also funds the development of complex manufacturing processes for a single project, costs tend to be much higher than a direct purchase from an experienced builder.
Luckily for Canada all the design kinks have already been worked out as the first of its class has rolled out of production, plus its built in Canada so patriotism is secured which gives hopes of future manufacturing potential which even the most negative poster would see as a positive, don't worry I'm sure the brits would of loved to of built them for you but our shipyards are far too busy updating our navy, and with the upcoming aukus contract far too busy, the way I see it your gonna build 15 ships what 1 a year that experience is priceless and that shipyard will be future proof!
Well you mentioned WWII. Back then some of our ships were built in Collingwood, ON and elsewhere, well inland. The result was ship orders were filled faster. Maybe the added expense would be an incentive for our governments to add even more vessels to the fleet. Maybe our future aircraft, wherever they are designed, can be built here too. The money would be fed back into our economy instead of being lost to someone else's economy as it presently is.
I bet we don't see half these ships actually get built. Canada should just build a half dozen US naval bases.
As a Brit I hope the likes of Canada and Australia never leave the Commonwealth. Got family out in Alberta so Canada truly feels like a cousin nation, and Australia alone has seen more British emigration than the entire European continent since the formation of the EU. Anyway, I may be biased but it seems like a great ship. It's important Canada has a half decent navy for its own national security and I don't think they'll regret their choice of frigate
Plus, that would mean we'd have to pay the 60 mil per year the Canadian tax payers give the Queen each year.
@@BoleDaPole shake your empty head . That load of crap has been postulated since the sixties and is just that complete horseshyte
@@BoleDaPole Go get a president. See how much more that costs you!
As a French Canadian from Quebec I say F... the King (or Queen and the Commonwealth. Kings and Queens were good for the bronze age and middle ages.
According to current speed, by the time the whole fleet was commissioned, they would probably already outdated.
Its frustrating.
Of course 'it' will be outdated but while it will be the same hull, the bits and pieces of kit will change. One hopes. A new hull (like a new airframe) is just a platform. After that, it depends on future budgets...and changes in tasking.
Outdated by whos standards? who is building more advanced ships?
Compared to the United States probably but who else?
@@heybabycometobutthead by German, Danish, American, Japanese, Chinese, Turkish, Swedish, and Finnish standards, off the top of my head.
No other modern navy/nation can bungle a project like Canada can, except maybe the Russians.
The CWIS was replaced with the Sea Ceptor Missle system.
Its an excellent ship - worth noting for accuracy that its born solely from the UK MOD's FCS, later GCS programme. The Australian and Canadian license built sub-variants are the export design from BAE/ MOD. FREMM is a combined Italian and French effort and has suffered somewhat for that combination.
The RN is strides ahead than Europe in its navy because its designing and building all it's major naval assets (QE class, Astute class, T45, T31 and T26) entirely by itself. Its great to see our commonwealth allies getting in on this technology though, we're stronger together!
@@dynamo1796 "Commonwealth strong together"
Especially on land, where you'd not be called an "Army" until you combined all field formations of British, Canadian and Australian Ground Forces together. These three have impressive air and naval forces, but their land forces are puny.
Seems cool. Can't wait for us to get it in 40 years -_-
Time machine. Ten years into the future.
I only click on videos with "Canada" in the title so I can snicker every time they say the word "out" or "about" 😄
I know it is silly on my part, but I still would've liked to see a fully Canadian designed ship.
We tried that with the Halifax frigates & ended up with an extremely expensive ship too many teething problems, a stability problem that when corrected didn't allow for future weapon systems. Yes we can design our own boats but we can't afford the cost.
@Don Hlohinec as I acknowledged in my initial comment it was a silly desire on my part.
UK, Canada and Australia are brother nations, operational syncing with same technologies will make us all stronger while working together.
I bet you didn't type that on a fully Canadian designed computer - but you want the navy saddled with a requirement you will not live up to yourself
@@heybabycometobutthead my thought too. It makes sense to share technology and designs with friendly Commonwealth nations with similar military requirements.
We need nuclear powered icebreakers for the Canadian Artic
got the 100 billion for shore side servicing cause the country doesn't
You make fantastic videos
Thanks for coming back! Appreciate it.
NICE LOOKING AND DANGEROUS FUTURE SHIP
The future, is The Anglo-sphere!
i KNow this is a Canadian video but i fkn adore that Royal Australian Navy Flag the white and blue just hits different .
It's a good looking flag.
Couple yrs later and nothing yet. I’m thinking this will just turn into 8 Type 31’s
For 4 billion dollars they could have make a better one. I don't see how this ship with antique tomahawk missiles can be better than French Belharra class or a customised British type 32. Heck for 4 billion dollars per ship it should be a destroyer like the Chinese type 055
Dang, Canada’s military is finally getting a respectable military equipment. While not massive, new frigates, new F-35’s, some new armour personal carriers that we got a few years ago, goes a long way in having a reliable military. I don’t want a large military, but I want a reliable one. I don’t want our brave men and women who risk their lives for us not to have to go to war in sub par equipment.
Not really. Our Government treats our armed forces like an inconvenience.
Coming into the fleet in the next 20 years
Right maybe even 30 the way there going.
@@williamcrossland2012 I wouldn't be surprised
Happy thoughts!
Outstanding
I've spent the last few years building the new coast guard ships on the west coast (JSS is next). The one thing I will say, shipbuilding is a much more complicated operation than you might think. We let these skills atrophy in Canada, it takes a lot of time to build up the the skills and capabilities to crank out ships at a reasonable pace.
That is the point to building them in succession rather than trying to crank them out at once. Changes can be made before the next ship is made. But also, it leaves Canada with a continuous shipbuilding program so that infrastructure, training, etc... stays in Canada.
It was a big mistake to wind down our shipbuilding in Canada. Ironic that the ideological pressure to let it decay came from the same right wing that also wants (so it claims) a strong military. Their mentality was "non-Canadian production is just as good but cheaper, so let's not waste taxpayer money on propping up manufacturing Canadian jobs when free markets & globalization are all that matters." Economic nationalists who pointed out that Canada should retain our domestic capabilities for strategic reasons were scolded as living in the past. We became a nation of buyers of goods and sellers of raw materials instead of builders, and now looking back on it, what a terrible mistake.
yeah but irving shipyards are building these, so it'll take till 2050 and cost 4X as much.
Just for the record, The Navy has the best looking dress uniform......
Canada Strong..Go Canada, I love it!
Let it prowl the great lakes first.
It about time we got an updated navy
I'm excited to see the names picked tbh
Looks promising. I'm wait to see what gets screwed up
:{
Slight correction - The official currency of Australia is the dollaridoo, not the dollaroo.
(With current increases in cost of living 35 billion dollaridoos can supply a mid-size SUV with petrol for a whole year)
Love it, thanks for the correction.
English not your first language is it mate
Oh for the days when a destroyer could be built inside 6 months instead of 10 years.
Beautiful ship
dope ships
The Australian frigates will carry Tomahawks including the new anti-ship version. I hope the Canadian vessels will also gain the Tomahawk capability. While Australia is building less Type 26 frigates, they are all anti-submarine ships as air warfare is handled by their specialist air warfare destroyers rather than making the one type do both jobs.
Canada will have 12 anti sub and three a/a ships
That's why BAE systems has offered and designed a upgunned varent of the hunter class for Australia of a total 96 cell VLS. 32 cell VLS forward. 64 cells in the center multi mission bay
@@alpearson9158Australia may end up with 12 of them also. 6 of them with 32 cell VLS and multi mission bay for ASW. Another 6 upgunned varent with 96 cell VLS for AWDs and will be called the attack class. 3600 tonne corvettes desined by Navanti with 16 cell VLS maybe added to the fleet also but Australia has to wait till some time in 2024 when the Australian defence minister Richard Marles will give out the review
Great video! Idk if we are getting the CIWS? Maybe? Hope so.
The missle defensive system might replace it. Too early to tell. Just holding my breath on the entire program at this point. Thanks for watching!
Trudope will probably settle for ten canoes with solar boat motors
Quoting my Chief's words: "Yeah I heard we're getting new warships when I was an OS".
They reeeaally promise this time you guys!
Yeah, I wouldn't believe some of these stats. It's a safe bet that the various navies aren't publishing the true specs. A modern frigate with a top speed of 27 knots is absurd, as is a range of only 7000 nmi. The Leander-class cruisers (built in the 1930's) were capable of 32 knots, for instance, and they weren't much bigger than the Type-26.
Likely the "safe" manufacturer cruising speed.
They're not designed to be fast, because 5kn is nothing compared to mach 3. They're designed to be quiet, because 120dB is half the volume of 130dB.
As a cdn navy vet. I will fuckin fight you on our uniforms. We are clearly the best looking in the forces.
Very nice
As a Canadian I am glad we are updating our military, now if we could only stop giving free $$ to unemployed aboriginal people.
Canada won’t stop, they’ve gone full liberal.
There is a lot of problems with the type 26 class, and I would bet my ski pass that we don’t get all 15.
Yay we get new stuff
Given Canadian politicians I’ll believe it when they’re in service. After that hopefully Ottawa doesn’t sell them off.
The arctic is going to be more active with human activity as the perma ice thaws up there. We need more arctic capable navy ships. That said, I hope this ships hull is made of suitable hull construction to withstand the odd low speed bump into an ice growler without enough damage to compromise whatever arctic deployed mission it's on. I do not see any indication on if this ship is arctic deployment capable. Canada also needs some kind of a naval base up in the arctic to employ the Inuit community.
If only New Zealand could buy a few of these. By a few, I'm thinking 6
6?... not a hope... that would be equal to Australia buying 15, Canada buying 20 and the UK buying 15... or more... NZ population 5 million, GDP of just on 210 billion USD so I very much doubt it...
Hopefully they can reach the same pinnacle as are hard fighting Corvettes of WW2! Recently watched the movie Corvette k225 about Canadian Corvette in the battle of the Atlantic.
Probably will end up being 900% more expensive and then cancelled
With Canada's 8 Artic Armed and capable vessels (2 for the coast guard), and these 15 new UK type 26 warships (still just frigates), I hope Canada chooses to keep its existing older classes of combat capable warships active or in well maintained reserve. I hope the provide the older ships new the new missile pod systems. Canada needs more ships and a more capable military. I don't believe this is a political issue anymore. Canada is very capable of creating its own weapons with our investment. It would be good for the Canadian economy to create our own independent arms research and military production capacity
When I was in the Navy an eon ago I remember a time we went somewhere and had a Canadian Navy ship on pier next to us. One thing that struck me was how it was not haze gray in color, but a sort of blue-ish color. Is that still the case with Canadian ships?
They still carry a bit of foam greeny-blue....but take a look at HMCS Regina 334.
Finally, for fucks sake!!! Just hope Trudy doesn’t yank the football away!!!
The most lethargic Nav Comm? Really? How dare you wake me from my nap to call me Lethargic!
Rookie mistake from a land lubber, sorry.
An LRT in Toronto has been delayed for four years, God knows when Canada will actually gets the first ship
That really makes sense.......
God Bless Canada Forever!!!!!
Good to see Canada finally starting to pull their Nato weight
Lol outa date before they even hit the water!
It may be cheaper to build in the US, but then again, it's about the future of Canadian ship building, bringing jobs and expertise, foreign investment namely from the UK Government and BAE systems, technology transfer and more collaboration between our two nations, although it's close as it is, but could be closer, as is between UK/US military pacts and agreements, bilateral symmetry in military policy, go further and fully integrate, CANZAUKUS, all Anglophiles together.
Trump could still also get re-elected and his loyalty and commitment to America’s NATO allies of seven decades is at best transactional.
@@olanrewajuihenacho178 Naw, he'll be in prison with a cellmate named Bubba.
@@billfarley9167 ,
Nah. He's too rich to be in a cell with anyone... enough money can buy a nice private cell...
@@billfarley9167 Trump was pro British, his mother is Scottish, Biden, Palosi etc are supporters of Catholic non Commonwealth interests, fuck them.
@@heybabycometobutthead trump is pro trump. Everything else is an opportunity or a liability.
A little concerning how the two CWIS mouts will be placed port and starboard rather than forward and aft. You lose some BMD redundancy in that regard. Furthermore, that fact that there is only a single 32 cell VLS and the nature of shooting missiles means there is a serious lack in missile launching capabilities. That being said, this is a big upgrade for the Canadian Navy, happy to see my allies in the seas getting more equipped.
Same lack of VLS missile tubes 😳
@@stephenjeffrey4099 32 tubes... that is 32 Tomahawks or 128 CAMM or ESSM (as they are quad packed) or any mix in between ... they are a frigate not a Destroyer...
@@NighthawkNZ Wait, Wiki says its 24 dedicated VLS for CAMM and then 24 Mk 41 VLS for SM-2/Tomahawk/quad-ESSM. So which is it?
@@NighthawkNZ Same displacement as a Destroyer - these are embarrassing.
@@hdmccart6735 Embarrassing how??
great ship
It's about time.
canada strong!
It is a big deal in Canada if it ain't buying old, decommissioned stuff from the UK and blowing more money fixing and modernizing it. Helicopters, submarines, Canada picked it up at one point or another.
Imagine sailing around, under a fucking leaf
Agree but noticed he avoided the timing and cost debacles involved in Canadian procurement. The original cost estimate was $14 billion. It’s now $77 billion. The first ship was to be delivered in 2025. Now 2031 or 2033.
And no one gets fired!
🇦🇺🇬🇧🇨🇦 CANZUK Navy when?
I think the Aussies have a better handle on rising tensions in the Pacific. The 🇬🇧+🇨🇦 are still out of it.
❤️And respect to my Canadian Commonwealth brothers, you're more likely to get all 15 than us getting all 8! Our governments & MoD are netorious for being short minded penny pinching twats! ❤️ 🇬🇧
Lol Canada's so cheap and dysfunctional in procurement that we're buying Australian clapped out hornets until we commit to finally buying a new fighter jet.
@@Bruvva_Wu hate to say it,but 15 seems awfully high.Yes, our navy badly needs them,but gosh darn it ,those high school dropouts need to have an
X- box !!! They gotta watch Netflix on something you know !!!
My only quibble is the use of the word "soon" since we all know these things don't happen quickly, and the design isn't even fully decided. But a great overview! 👌
The Canadian type 26 is also the most loaded, from what I've been hearing we maxed out the tonnage for the hull lol. The type 26 being very flexible.
Because of hypersonic missiles they already have to consider the laser weapons being implemented. They are still in the test phase in the states.
They'll likely be more expensive than the Australian or English ships because of the extra stuff being slapped on it
CSC is a floating sensor platform that can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag because of its small VLS and will have to be protected by a USN destroyer .CSC is not optimized for ASW as it's torpedoes do not have a self defense function and does not carry asrocs ,ship is not optimized for air defense either as CSC has AEGIS baseline 9 no BMD and no SM6 ,add in the tiny 24 VLS on a 9500 ton full load displacement ship that has its propulsion system maxed out with no hope for any relevant future upgrades before steel is cut ,this project should be cancelled as CSC has almost no combat capability due to its lack of weapons and is a overhyped and overpriced one trick pony design that can't be upgraded without serious design changes.
and likely because Canada includes servicing in total cost of vessel most others do not
That is bullshit. Australia has the most powerful varent of the class been offered by BAE systems for type 26 frigate. With a total 96 cell VLS and CEFAR-2 electronic scan aray radar system Aegis combat systems. 2x 30mm guns. 2x phalanx 20mm close in weapon system. 4 x heavy machine guns. 6 torpedo tubes. 16 NSM missile tubes. 5 inch main gun. Nulka decoy system. MH60R helicopter with lowing sonar system Including underwater torpedo size drones with ASW detection systems.
Total displacement over 10.000 tonnes 13.000 nortical milies range at 26 knots cruise speed. top speed over 32 knots.
Missile varent. To be loaded on Australia hunter class ESSM evolved sea sparrow missiles. Main armament.
Anti aircraft. SM2 and SM6.
Land attack Tomahawk and LSRAM.
Anti submarine Asrock and torpedos.
Anti ship NSM and LSRAM.
BAE has also offered 128 cell VLS varent type 26 to Australia but requires the removal of the main 5 inch gun. Pushing the ship weight upto 16.000 tonnes with still having the same range and speed through modifications.
@@alpearson9158it depends how the government puts the cost to the public. The total cost of each ship or that and the total cost of servicing over its lifespan.
Australia did that with the nuclear powerd submarines that included the cost of 8 future subs. Including 5 Virginia class as a gap. Crew training. The cost of the program of the build included ship yards. Investment of requirements to have it earlier as possible. And the lifespan servicing. Total cost 368 billion dollars.
It was awesome to hear that Canada was buying the Type 26 design, Australia too, it was a shame that the US only wanted an existing design for it's FFG- X program, although the US is in good hands with Allies such as the UK Canada and Australia with this most modern of ship.
By the way, do more military equipment videos, ok enjoyed this one so much, I subscribed.
Lol, yes we rely on you.
@@pvp64 every country has it weaknesses even the US but what makes the UK, Canada, US and Australia such good allies is that we are able to combine all the military strengths of each nation into one incredibly powerful fighting force
@@jamesevans938 Thanks for your opinion, but Canada provides next to nothing in the way of Naval strength. There are third world countries with better Navies.
@@pvp64 I’m not only talking about the navy but the whole military altogether but yes unfortunately the navy although respectable is one of Canadas weaknesses
@@jamesevans938 Stop it...so powerful we got out of Afghanistan and NATO without the US is only half effective.
Not be long until the Old Empire is back, Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧
Rule Britannia from New South Wales 🇦🇺
@@mitchellgruninger9992 We don't need the Poms ruling anything over here thank you very much.
That ship sailed in 1947 and it's not coming back har har!
It’s great to our cousins in the commonwealth upgrading there navy’s it’s a dangerous world out there ,and the need to stick together and watch each other’s backs come what may
I'm born on 26 (8) and 35 (8) and I am joining navy reserves and I hope to deply on one of these 26s (8) in 2024 (8)
I'm fine with the expenditure of building the ships here IF the gov uses that investment shoreside to continue and developed new ships so we don't have to go through the expense of AGAIN having to build dockyards and support facilities for our ships. If we aren't going to invest and reuse that capability in future projects we might as well save the vast amounts of money and build in the states.
I was thinking Korea, but otherwise yes to all of it. Procurement should be an ongoing thing, not a hot potato that gets bounced from government to government until someone is left holding the bag.
@@kevinw2592 The Korean version of the Arleigh-Burke has 128 VLS cells, AEGIS Baseline 7 Phase 1 and they spent $930million per copy!!!! Lucky for the RAN and RCN they're an allied ship or they would eat your fleet for lunch. ❤ 🇦🇺 🇨🇦🇰🇷
Clearly someone has a sense of humour.
Spoiling the RCN🇨🇦 with new ships 🤣
Government of Canada🇨🇦 pinky swears to buy 15 new Frigates and that it will only cost...
By the time Canada builds these, todays sailors will turn 67 years old.
By far the best Frigate around the planet!
In my opinion these ships should be equipped with AEGIS system. I also think we should buy 10 destroyers like the Arleigh Burke class for missile defence and military capabilities. We should have more than 15 warships given that the north west passage is opening too.
Which what money
Australia varent of the type 26 will all have Aegis combat systems. CEFAR-2 electronic scan aray radar. Now it's been upgunned too. With MK41 96 cells, vls. 32 cell forward. And 64 cell in the multimission bay. That be Australia varent of the type 26
The ship will still have 13.000 nortical mile range at 26 knots. Top speed over 32 knots
Just copy Australian version type 26. It be better than the Burk class destroyers