People seem to misunderstand the mission of these ships. Their job is to monitor, not a combat mission. That is the job of the new subs and f35s. Honestly, the detractors need to open their eyes.
Exactly. They are basically ISR and Enforcement vessels maintaining a presence and operating as the fleets eyes and ears in the remote waters of the arctic.
Well they are only useful for maybe half of the year, during the Arctic summer months in the FAR NORTH they were built for. Useful for patrolling, carrying a few small containers, and a few vehicles in the vehicle deck to support Canada's local northern militias. Their ability to defend themselves vs warships is nearly nothing, the best ASW weaponry is the helicopter. However during the winter months their usefulness is spotty, I suspect they could be used for fishery protection or hydrographic surveying chores. Maybe in the future this class could be fitted with radio controlled drones...
@@AdrianLeeMagill Unfortunately the FAR NORTH archipelago does NOT have a deep water port, thus some sort of ship capable of handling a LCU or LCM is required for beaching or coastal operations, and with a ship with some ice breaking capability of first year ice, capable of docking alongside using its crane to support whatever militias deployed. Being able to carry dog sleds, snow mobiles, and quads come in handy as well up north. This class is built for patrol and constable duties, the small chain gun is more than sufficient... Frankly while this class isn't the greatest warship around, it will be very useful in Canada's FAR NORTH, especially during the summer... Of course I do support Canada finally building much more infrastructure up north, a deep water port is sorely needed but apparently falls on deaf ears in Ottawa... If anything, while this class is of good size larger than the present City class frigates, by no means is this class a large LPD... Keep in mind Canada has NOT built much infrastructure up north, not only is there no deep water port, there is no paved road or railroad to the Arctic coast or on many of the archipelago islands... Most of the goods and freight are flown in by bush planes...
As a retired sailor, I was excited for the AOPs but too call them a warship at this point is laughable. Perhaps their future refits will solve combat issues.
Its not really meant to be a combat ship though is it. Seems to me its more to monitor northern activity and assist with northern people. That being said I'm sure it could add capability with its size in the future.
[As I said in my main comment] Perhaps the helicopter the ship has could field some kind of ship-killing weaponry at a distance. If it needs improvement, it would be in defending itself against attack, more than attacking.
The name is Offshore Patrol Vessel. They have Class2 icebreaking capacity for light ice issues. A proper naval vessel would be a sitting duck in an ice pan.
This ship is a patrol ship not a surface combatant. That said it is designed with space for up to 11 ISO seacan shipping containers that can hold a variety of modular weapon systems. They tested the use of a towed sonar array this past summer, making the ship ASW capable as the Cyclone helicopter is designed for ASW. I think it must be working out well because I just read about the Russians looking to build a similar class ships with few fixed weapons but capable of carrying modular weapon systems. Despite all the bad press I think the AOPS will become an extremely versatile class of navy ship.
I agree. Although the expensive surface combatants and submarines will always be the main power behind a fleet cheaper Patrol ships with containerised weapons will be an important asset in any blue or green water navy. It's simply not economically viable for countries (With the exception of the United states) to pump out 25-30 £1 billion+ ships. Having a reasonable number of high end combatants complemented by at least an equal number of mid to low level containerized vessels is a sensible solution to the problem of numbers.
Sure, if designed today, they would probably be more heavily armed, but the Conservative Harper government set forth the project parameters of the AOPS, a project which they would not be around to see completed. It is too late to change these, so the RCN just has to use the assets it has. It is for sovereignty patrols, and maybe fits the mindset of 20 years ago, when the world was not on the edge of WW3. How would it actually be used? Well it was never meant to go gun-to-gun or missile-to-missile against Russian frigates or sink subs; it is a patrol & support vessel. If some non-naval vessel should wrongly intrude Canada's waters, this ship can stop them with some low grade gunfire and then navy warriors boarding it. However, by providing a watchful presence there, it can detect intruding naval forces and that in turn can call down air strikes from Canadian or US/NATO assets. It will have its own helicopter, and perhaps that may be able to use an anti-ship or anti-sub weapon (not just sonobuoys). It can also act as a supply ship to sustain arctic land / air bases and troops, something which the RCN's other supply ships would not be able to do, given the ice hazard. Perhaps an ice breaking pure warship could start being designed, but given that Canada is not made of money and is busy with other naval projects first (all of which are necessary), you would not see such a vessel operational for probably 20 years. So if you want to kill ships with other ships up there, send subs. Even the new subs will be ready to go before any new arctic warship. The Russians are not the real issue anyway, at least not if no official war breaks out. They do not covet what we've got as much as alarmists suggest. However, China and India - any non-arctic country really - should be kept out of the Arctic completely. As in, no military vessels, by mutual agreement of the actual Arctic nations. However, the brutal breakdown of relations with Russia, and Russia's new dependence on alliance with China, is the thing making such an agreement impossible, it is pits one Arctic nation against all the others in open conflict. (Basically since the Maidan overthrow of Ukraine.)
The gun would have been larger a bofor 40 mm multipurpose naval gun would have been a better cost effective choice. The class needs a layered Defence against misses. It doesn’t even have chaff. There is lots of deck space to add in sensors and weapons. Its biggest asset is the large hanger. It could operate a large number of drones for surveillance ops. That would at least give it extended range.
Chaff and SeaRam can be added later if a war is imminent... This class is a OPV, a patrol boat with more range and endurance to patrol the FAR NORTH, not near the harbors of Vancouver or Halifax...
These ships have more than enough displacement to retrofit all manner of weapons or sensors in the future but for now let's get the last of them out of the shipyard so they can get busy cranking out the new destroyers.
How thick a sheet of arctic ice can this Canadian military ship break? In all months of the year? It has classic Canadian warship paint. However it appears that it can only… show the flag… during limited months of the year in Canada’s arctic.
Approximately 4 ft of ice. It is not classified as a combat ship, it's duties are as a supply ship for northern communities, help in disaster relief, surveying of northern navigation routes, scientific research and in warmer climates drug smuggling prevention
@@georgefox4982 Thanks for the information. Showing the flag & running supplies is a useful effort however… all season ice breaking & navy ships with teeth… are necessary. Canada is a bit behind these days. Sadly.
I will just mention that there are towed array sonar modules the AOPS can equip if they are required. They would still be bad at submarine hunting but the option is there.
25 mm bushmaster is not a machine gun. While questioning the lack of weapontry is valid be accurate. Additionally the torpedoe suite you memtion would be useless in the arctic.
Frankly this class will be more useful in the FAR NORTH during the summer than during the winter... Better to drop torpedoes from a ASW helicopter than fire a torpedo from a ship as a helicopter has much more range...
Try sailing any of those war ships into an ice field the likely wouldn't still be afloat. The purpose of these ships is surveillance and constabulary enforcement not naval engagement with destroyers. Second when the design was conceived the point was to patrol areas were other ships couldn't go and electronic surveillance not the ability to blow the other ship out of the water. The corvette of world war 2 was extremely successful it was based on a whaling ship. Weapon systems can be adapted and fitted to the ship that is likely were they will end up.
These vessels are not equipped to defend our three coasts from aggressive belligerents such as Russia and China. Let us hope that they won’t shot at an ‘unarmed’ ship.
It's not really a machine gun. It is the 25mm Bushmaster, same as the Bradley, in a different mount. Could take on small boats, helicopters. If it was a war situation the help would have anti ship missiles and anti sub torpedoes. It's not an open water warship, it's for patrolling ice bound waters.
Ever notice on “constabulary” or sovereignty patrol tasking they are most often escorted by much better armed combat capable ships usually from the USCG. 🤦♂️
The AOPS are not warships. Period. These vessels would be useful, sort of, in fisheries patrols, at-sea rescues, etc. In a real navy they'd be considered auxiliary vessels. Having served in the Canadian Navy on IRE's and Mackenzie class frigates in the seventies I think I can identify a warship when I see one and these aren't those. It's bloody pitiful and more than a little embarrassing.
@@detch01 If you did serve, you should be able to understand the different missions of a destroyer escort and a patrol vessel. Could capability be added in the future? Yes I hope so, but the navy needs a lot right now and only has so much money, the presence these ships add mean something as well. But I'm sure you understand the importance of presence.
@@chm985 I did serve. And yes, that capability can be added in the future. We can also replace the aging F18's at some point in the future (God knows when). The point is that the AOPS is not a warship. As I said, it is an auxiliary vessel - essentially the equivalent of a Coast Guard ship and not fit to be used in a naval combat zone. It cannot defend itself, let alone accomplish an actual military task. Will we ever need an actual fleet of warships? Most likely. Don't kid yourself, we are not a rich enough nation to have a significant naval influence in the world but even our allies do not take us seriously. Geopolitics don't give out participation trophies and if we want to be taken seriously by our military allies we need to behave with some level of seriousness. At present we do not. We are seen as the weak link, the village idiot, and we've done this to ourselves with weak, corrupt governments. It's probably time we grew up and acted like a country populated by adults.
@@detch01 luckily we don't have to ask God when the f18s will be replaced. Now that delivers of block 4 ready aircraft are being made we can reasonably predict the time-line. We have our spot in the production line. Thankfully we didn't get the original version of the f35 which you can't upgrade to this standard. The airforce have a lot bigger issues than worrying about f35 deliveries just like the navy has a lot bigger issues than if AOPS are worthy of a warship title.
@@chm985 Yup. However, while I agreed with Trudeau not getting those original F35's, I wish they had actually made a purchase of at least some gen 4.5 fighter (Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale) and gone through with it. The Super Hornet deal fell apart because Boeing decided to be dickheads, of course.
@@wyldhowl2821 the super hornets fell short on range requirements because the conformal fuel tanks got canceled too. I would have liked some gripens as well, they fit with what we needed here in Canada, cheap to operate, and minimal personnel to service.
A low calibre gun, how an about at least ONE “Rolling Frame” mutiuse AD, Gr to Gr, with a mini torpedo launcher. Add in a 30 MM Bushmaster, now it’s a Navy ship IMO
These would be great ships for our coast guard but are useless resource sucking slush-breakers with the same armament as one LAV III armoured personnel carrier for our Navy. 😢
@@chm985 Well it might squeal for help, but would be sunk pretty fast with a Russian bomber fires a high speed cruise missile at it. Canada's nearest base is in Cold Lake Alberta good luck with it answering the call.
@@jorgematias4943 so what scenario in your head does this happen when we are not at war? Norad would answer that call before it happened, thats why they intercept before they enter NA airspace.
Can carry modular weapon systems in shipping containers. The RCN tested the use of a towed sonar array from a shipping container on an AOPS this past summer.
Those are coming too... Frankly the RCN could use a couple of sea lift ships, like the Mistral LHDs... While these Arctic Ocean patrol ships maybe useful in the FAR NORTH archipelago, Canada should have larger sea lift ships to support and supply a large army deployment defending the more populous islands such as Vancouver and Newfoundland... Apparently the Canadian government won't get alarmed until the enemy is within artillery range of Ottawa...
@@ronclark9724 as much as i like the idea i think if we are talking about sea lift capability simply to go to Vancouver Island or New Foundland we are so badly screwed it's incomprehensible i think if we are talking about "large scale deployment" we would be better off expanding air lift, way more versatile and Canada is a relatively light force overall anyway maybe i don't know what i'm talking about but i think maintaining a fleet of airplanes and it's crews would be easier and cheaper then the ships for us
They'd better be prsctical - C$5 billion for 6 AOP vessels! With all due respect to our military leaders and advisors that recommended such vessels to the navy - why were they not designed to operate year-round in the Arctic, as are Russian icebreakers? What is the ice class? Have not seen anything published that regard, however, I do belive they are ice class I (able to maintain 1-3 kts in ice 1-metre thick). Sorry, do not have any real confidence in the people/groups/committees that had recommended this design.
Ppl need to pull the broom stick out of their ass and relax. The contract called for a Patrol vessel that could deal with 1st year ice if it needed to. That’s what we got. The 25 mm gun is about the same fire power that patrol boats and ships around the world have. So no different than other navies. The gun is linked to the computerized defence system so over and about being used for offensive purposes it can engage incoming missiles and the like so it has a defensive role as well Why did we chose the 25 mm I presume it’s because it’s the gun the Canadian Army uses for the LAVs. This is the same gun that were on the Bradley’s in Ukraine when they destroyed the T 90 tank. These ships were ordered back in the Harper era before the Russians invaded Ukraine and the Chinese decided to make a big thing out of the South China Sea. Now as far as China in the Arctic I can see them wanting to run the Arctic much like the US Navy, Royal Navy, the RAN and the RCN do to the South China Sea every so often. They are not likely to provoke a war in the Arctic, just be a pain in the ass.
Time for a refit and add SeaRam for starters. Canada, with its anemic Navy, can't afford defenseless war ships. The Chinese Coast Guard has a larger deck gun.
You're right about everything save the 25mm gun destroying that T-90. It was abandoned but not destroyed. All the fireworks were from the smoke "bomb" launchers being stuck and all going off at the same time.
@@jasonthorpe7087 yeah they made it combat ineffective with the guns and finished it off with a drone. The point is for what it was built for the 25 mm is fine. Now Drones and those Lingering Munitions would be a good addition to these tubs. They don’t need a lot of added infrastructure and they really proved themselves in Ukraine. Also, I have seen where there are mortar system, surface to surface missiles and air Defense system that are mounted in Sea container type boxes. Something like that could be set up on the back deck of the ships as needed
@@rickcosman9670 Good points. These ships are also designed to take on cargo to remote communities in the Arctic so have room to carry several shipping containers on the quarter deck. These containers can carry modular weapon systems. The RCN tested a towed sonar array earlier this year. Also all this cargo space could be useful for carrying other systems like drones which the war in Ukraine is showing to be very effective.
@@barry1fitzgerald Thankfully nothing right now and not much since WWII. That may change unpredictably as the world destabilizes. Then our own weapons are inadequate and it takes a long time to ramp up. Being prepared and Peace Through Strength seems better.
@@erikrehtlane4890 Peace Through Strength sounds like an American talking point, how has that worked out for them? Now look at Switzerland and peace through neutrality and look around both of those countries.
@erikrehtlane4890 Our politicians are very cheap especially on weapon systems and in keeping ammunition stocks for war time does not matter which party is power they all do it.
So true. Funny that the people who complain the most about Canada's lack of military assets are also the ones complain about paying taxes the most. They want to shoot, but I guess shooting themselves in the foot is their only sort of marksmanship.
People seem to misunderstand the mission of these ships. Their job is to monitor, not a combat mission. That is the job of the new subs and f35s. Honestly, the detractors need to open their eyes.
Exactly. They are basically ISR and Enforcement vessels maintaining a presence and operating as the fleets eyes and ears in the remote waters of the arctic.
Well they are only useful for maybe half of the year, during the Arctic summer months in the FAR NORTH they were built for. Useful for patrolling, carrying a few small containers, and a few vehicles in the vehicle deck to support Canada's local northern militias. Their ability to defend themselves vs warships is nearly nothing, the best ASW weaponry is the helicopter. However during the winter months their usefulness is spotty, I suspect they could be used for fishery protection or hydrographic surveying chores. Maybe in the future this class could be fitted with radio controlled drones...
@@ronclark9724 How many warships can traverse the arctic? Besides, we have heavy icebreakers on the way too.
@@ronclark9724 Well, we will see.
@@AdrianLeeMagill Unfortunately the FAR NORTH archipelago does NOT have a deep water port, thus some sort of ship capable of handling a LCU or LCM is required for beaching or coastal operations, and with a ship with some ice breaking capability of first year ice, capable of docking alongside using its crane to support whatever militias deployed. Being able to carry dog sleds, snow mobiles, and quads come in handy as well up north. This class is built for patrol and constable duties, the small chain gun is more than sufficient... Frankly while this class isn't the greatest warship around, it will be very useful in Canada's FAR NORTH, especially during the summer... Of course I do support Canada finally building much more infrastructure up north, a deep water port is sorely needed but apparently falls on deaf ears in Ottawa... If anything, while this class is of good size larger than the present City class frigates, by no means is this class a large LPD... Keep in mind Canada has NOT built much infrastructure up north, not only is there no deep water port, there is no paved road or railroad to the Arctic coast or on many of the archipelago islands... Most of the goods and freight are flown in by bush planes...
As a retired sailor, I was excited for the AOPs but too call them a warship at this point is laughable. Perhaps their future refits will solve combat issues.
Its not really meant to be a combat ship though is it. Seems to me its more to monitor northern activity and assist with northern people. That being said I'm sure it could add capability with its size in the future.
Absolute EM,
Manning problems aside...The 8 ships in the class should all go to a new USCG armed standard Canadian Coast Guard.
[As I said in my main comment] Perhaps the helicopter the ship has could field some kind of ship-killing weaponry at a distance. If it needs improvement, it would be in defending itself against attack, more than attacking.
The name is Offshore Patrol Vessel. They have Class2 icebreaking capacity for light ice issues. A proper naval vessel would be a sitting duck in an ice pan.
This ship is a patrol ship not a surface combatant. That said it is designed with space for up to 11 ISO seacan shipping containers that can hold a variety of modular weapon systems. They tested the use of a towed sonar array this past summer, making the ship ASW capable as the Cyclone helicopter is designed for ASW. I think it must be working out well because I just read about the Russians looking to build a similar class ships with few fixed weapons but capable of carrying modular weapon systems. Despite all the bad press I think the AOPS will become an extremely versatile class of navy ship.
I agree. Although the expensive surface combatants and submarines will always be the main power behind a fleet cheaper Patrol ships with containerised weapons will be an important asset in any blue or green water navy. It's simply not economically viable for countries (With the exception of the United states) to pump out 25-30 £1 billion+ ships. Having a reasonable number of high end combatants complemented by at least an equal number of mid to low level containerized vessels is a sensible solution to the problem of numbers.
Sure, if designed today, they would probably be more heavily armed, but the Conservative Harper government set forth the project parameters of the AOPS, a project which they would not be around to see completed. It is too late to change these, so the RCN just has to use the assets it has. It is for sovereignty patrols, and maybe fits the mindset of 20 years ago, when the world was not on the edge of WW3.
How would it actually be used? Well it was never meant to go gun-to-gun or missile-to-missile against Russian frigates or sink subs; it is a patrol & support vessel. If some non-naval vessel should wrongly intrude Canada's waters, this ship can stop them with some low grade gunfire and then navy warriors boarding it. However, by providing a watchful presence there, it can detect intruding naval forces and that in turn can call down air strikes from Canadian or US/NATO assets. It will have its own helicopter, and perhaps that may be able to use an anti-ship or anti-sub weapon (not just sonobuoys). It can also act as a supply ship to sustain arctic land / air bases and troops, something which the RCN's other supply ships would not be able to do, given the ice hazard.
Perhaps an ice breaking pure warship could start being designed, but given that Canada is not made of money and is busy with other naval projects first (all of which are necessary), you would not see such a vessel operational for probably 20 years. So if you want to kill ships with other ships up there, send subs. Even the new subs will be ready to go before any new arctic warship.
The Russians are not the real issue anyway, at least not if no official war breaks out. They do not covet what we've got as much as alarmists suggest. However, China and India - any non-arctic country really - should be kept out of the Arctic completely. As in, no military vessels, by mutual agreement of the actual Arctic nations. However, the brutal breakdown of relations with Russia, and Russia's new dependence on alliance with China, is the thing making such an agreement impossible, it is pits one Arctic nation against all the others in open conflict. (Basically since the Maidan overthrow of Ukraine.)
The gun would have been larger a bofor 40 mm multipurpose naval gun would have been a better cost effective choice. The class needs a layered Defence against misses. It doesn’t even have chaff. There is lots of deck space to add in sensors and weapons. Its biggest asset is the large hanger. It could operate a large number of drones for surveillance ops. That would at least give it extended range.
Chaff and SeaRam can be added later if a war is imminent... This class is a OPV, a patrol boat with more range and endurance to patrol the FAR NORTH, not near the harbors of Vancouver or Halifax...
These ships have more than enough displacement to retrofit all manner of weapons or sensors in the future but for now let's get the last of them out of the shipyard so they can get busy cranking out the new destroyers.
How thick a sheet of arctic ice can this Canadian military ship break? In all months of the year? It has classic Canadian warship paint. However it appears that it can only… show the flag… during limited months of the year in Canada’s arctic.
Approximately 4 ft of ice. It is not classified as a combat ship, it's duties are as a supply ship for northern communities, help in disaster relief, surveying of northern navigation routes, scientific research and in warmer climates drug smuggling prevention
@@georgefox4982 Thanks for the information. Showing the flag & running supplies is a useful effort however… all season ice breaking & navy ships with teeth… are necessary. Canada is a bit behind these days. Sadly.
As if a patrol ship could see and engage targets very well during the winter up north when days are mostly night...
I will just mention that there are towed array sonar modules the AOPS can equip if they are required. They would still be bad at submarine hunting but the option is there.
25 mm bushmaster is not a machine gun. While questioning the lack of weapontry is valid be accurate. Additionally the torpedoe suite you memtion would be useless in the arctic.
Frankly this class will be more useful in the FAR NORTH during the summer than during the winter... Better to drop torpedoes from a ASW helicopter than fire a torpedo from a ship as a helicopter has much more range...
Made some triple chins buckets of money so it served its purpose
Try sailing any of those war ships into an ice field the likely wouldn't still be afloat. The purpose of these ships is surveillance and constabulary enforcement not naval engagement with destroyers. Second when the design was conceived the point was to patrol areas were other ships couldn't go and electronic surveillance not the ability to blow the other ship out of the water. The corvette of world war 2 was extremely successful it was based on a whaling ship. Weapon systems can be adapted and fitted to the ship that is likely were they will end up.
I thought it was a fishing trawler 😂😂
These vessels are not equipped to defend our three coasts from aggressive belligerents such as Russia and China. Let us hope that they won’t shot at an ‘unarmed’ ship.
They weren’t built for the purpose of going to war. I
They are supposed to be in combat, that is what the new warships being constructed are for.
@@pauldelay7797These are not warships. You are thinking about another class.
@@pauldelay7797 This class is a arctic patrol ship, not a frigate warship... They are designed for CONSTABLE duties, not for fighting wars...
m.g's against mainguns & missles these boats won't be able to defend themselves if attacked.
It's not really a machine gun. It is the 25mm Bushmaster, same as the Bradley, in a different mount. Could take on small boats, helicopters. If it was a war situation the help would have anti ship missiles and anti sub torpedoes. It's not an open water warship, it's for patrolling ice bound waters.
@@jameslinn7344
Excuse me did you just say the 25mn bushmaster gun can take on helicopters…?? You are crazy 😂
Ever notice on “constabulary” or sovereignty patrol tasking they are most often escorted by much better armed combat capable ships usually from the USCG. 🤦♂️
@@ayo-v1p Sorry proven in Ukraine!
ARE THESE HARPERS HEAVILY ARMED ICE BREAKERS LOL LOL LOL ONE GUN
I'm thinking that there're heavier caliber firearms on most Alaska Game Warden's boats
The AOPS are not warships. Period. These vessels would be useful, sort of, in fisheries patrols, at-sea rescues, etc. In a real navy they'd be considered auxiliary vessels. Having served in the Canadian Navy on IRE's and Mackenzie class frigates in the seventies I think I can identify a warship when I see one and these aren't those. It's bloody pitiful and more than a little embarrassing.
@@detch01 If you did serve, you should be able to understand the different missions of a destroyer escort and a patrol vessel. Could capability be added in the future? Yes I hope so, but the navy needs a lot right now and only has so much money, the presence these ships add mean something as well. But I'm sure you understand the importance of presence.
@@chm985 I did serve. And yes, that capability can be added in the future. We can also replace the aging F18's at some point in the future (God knows when). The point is that the AOPS is not a warship. As I said, it is an auxiliary vessel - essentially the equivalent of a Coast Guard ship and not fit to be used in a naval combat zone. It cannot defend itself, let alone accomplish an actual military task.
Will we ever need an actual fleet of warships? Most likely. Don't kid yourself, we are not a rich enough nation to have a significant naval influence in the world but even our allies do not take us seriously. Geopolitics don't give out participation trophies and if we want to be taken seriously by our military allies we need to behave with some level of seriousness. At present we do not. We are seen as the weak link, the village idiot, and we've done this to ourselves with weak, corrupt governments. It's probably time we grew up and acted like a country populated by adults.
@@detch01 luckily we don't have to ask God when the f18s will be replaced. Now that delivers of block 4 ready aircraft are being made we can reasonably predict the time-line. We have our spot in the production line. Thankfully we didn't get the original version of the f35 which you can't upgrade to this standard. The airforce have a lot bigger issues than worrying about f35 deliveries just like the navy has a lot bigger issues than if AOPS are worthy of a warship title.
@@chm985 Yup. However, while I agreed with Trudeau not getting those original F35's, I wish they had actually made a purchase of at least some gen 4.5 fighter (Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale) and gone through with it. The Super Hornet deal fell apart because Boeing decided to be dickheads, of course.
@@wyldhowl2821 the super hornets fell short on range requirements because the conformal fuel tanks got canceled too. I would have liked some gripens as well, they fit with what we needed here in Canada, cheap to operate, and minimal personnel to service.
Why would you only have a machine gun?we have the same rubbish in Australian navy only a machine gun will be blown out of the water.
A low calibre gun, how an about at least ONE “Rolling Frame” mutiuse AD, Gr to Gr, with a mini torpedo launcher. Add in a 30 MM Bushmaster, now it’s a Navy ship IMO
sad not a warship at all very sad needs guns ... and the broke down already
@subdawg1331 Yes, this class not very reliable when it comes to its mechanical bits. Broke down in the latest Pacific rim exercises.
These would be great ships for our coast guard but are useless resource sucking slush-breakers with the same armament as one LAV III armoured personnel carrier for our Navy. 😢
2 of them are being built for the Coast Guard, less militarized but somehow more costly.
Ship the size of a WW II light cruiser and it is armed with a pop gun and no missile system. It is a joke.
Its not going to war. Its monitoring and assisting our coastline and the north.
@@chm985 Well it might squeal for help, but would be sunk pretty fast with a Russian bomber fires a high speed cruise missile at it. Canada's nearest base is in Cold Lake Alberta good luck with it answering the call.
@@jorgematias4943 so what scenario in your head does this happen when we are not at war? Norad would answer that call before it happened, thats why they intercept before they enter NA airspace.
@@jorgematias4943 Help would likely be sent from one of the Norad forward operating bases.
Can carry modular weapon systems in shipping containers. The RCN tested the use of a towed sonar array from a shipping container on an AOPS this past summer.
it's meant to be a glorified coat guard ship and that's what we got.....SHOULD it be a destroyer/frigate? probably
Those are coming too... Frankly the RCN could use a couple of sea lift ships, like the Mistral LHDs... While these Arctic Ocean patrol ships maybe useful in the FAR NORTH archipelago, Canada should have larger sea lift ships to support and supply a large army deployment defending the more populous islands such as Vancouver and Newfoundland... Apparently the Canadian government won't get alarmed until the enemy is within artillery range of Ottawa...
@@ronclark9724 as much as i like the idea i think if we are talking about sea lift capability simply to go to Vancouver Island or New Foundland we are so badly screwed it's incomprehensible
i think if we are talking about "large scale deployment" we would be better off expanding air lift, way more versatile and Canada is a relatively light force overall anyway
maybe i don't know what i'm talking about but i think maintaining a fleet of airplanes and it's crews would be easier and cheaper then the ships for us
DID A HELCOPTER EVER LAND ON IT YET?
They'd better be prsctical - C$5 billion for 6 AOP vessels! With all due respect to our military leaders and advisors that recommended such vessels to the navy - why were they not designed to operate year-round in the Arctic, as are Russian icebreakers? What is the ice class? Have not seen anything published that regard, however, I do belive they are ice class I (able to maintain 1-3 kts in ice 1-metre thick).
Sorry, do not have any real confidence in the people/groups/committees that had recommended this design.
Ppl need to pull the broom stick out of their ass and relax. The contract called for a Patrol vessel that could deal with 1st year ice if it needed to. That’s what we got. The 25 mm gun is about the same fire power that patrol boats and ships around the world have. So no different than other navies. The gun is linked to the computerized defence system so over and about being used for offensive purposes it can engage incoming missiles and the like so it has a defensive role as well
Why did we chose the 25 mm I presume it’s because it’s the gun the Canadian Army uses for the LAVs. This is the same gun that were on the Bradley’s in Ukraine when they destroyed the T 90 tank.
These ships were ordered back in the Harper era before the Russians invaded Ukraine and the Chinese decided to make a big thing out of the South China Sea. Now as far as China in the Arctic I can see them wanting to run the Arctic much like the US Navy, Royal Navy, the RAN and the RCN do to the South China Sea every so often. They are not likely to provoke a war in the Arctic, just be a pain in the ass.
Time for a refit and add SeaRam for starters. Canada, with its anemic Navy, can't afford defenseless war ships. The Chinese Coast Guard has a larger deck gun.
You're right about everything save the 25mm gun destroying that T-90. It was abandoned but not destroyed. All the fireworks were from the smoke "bomb" launchers being stuck and all going off at the same time.
@@jasonthorpe7087 yeah they made it combat ineffective with the guns and finished it off with a drone. The point is for what it was built for the 25 mm is fine. Now Drones and those Lingering Munitions would be a good addition to these tubs. They don’t need a lot of added infrastructure and they really proved themselves in Ukraine. Also, I have seen where there are mortar system, surface to surface missiles and air Defense system that are mounted in Sea container type boxes. Something like that could be set up on the back deck of the ships as needed
@@rickcosman9670 Good points. These ships are also designed to take on cargo to remote communities in the Arctic so have room to carry several shipping containers on the quarter deck. These containers can carry modular weapon systems. The RCN tested a towed sonar array earlier this year. Also all this cargo space could be useful for carrying other systems like drones which the war in Ukraine is showing to be very effective.
Did you just say a 25 mm gun can take on incoming missiles…?? You are crazy😂
Why do so many Canadian efforts appear so mickey mouse? Its not hard to provide better firepower.
What are you expecting them to fire at?
@@barry1fitzgerald Thankfully nothing right now and not much since WWII. That may change unpredictably as the world destabilizes. Then our own weapons are inadequate and it takes a long time to ramp up. Being prepared and Peace Through Strength seems better.
@@erikrehtlane4890 Peace Through Strength sounds like an American talking point, how has that worked out for them?
Now look at Switzerland and peace through neutrality and look around both of those countries.
@erikrehtlane4890 Our politicians are very cheap especially on weapon systems and in keeping ammunition stocks for war time does not matter which party is power they all do it.
Please use human natural narration instead of Text-to-Speech software artificial narration
The Norwegian class our AOPS was derived from has a 76mm gun on the focsle and SAM/SSM. The RCN is a joke.
Don't be mocking Canada. If everybody paid their taxes, we would have more.
It looks space age!
So true. Funny that the people who complain the most about Canada's lack of military assets are also the ones complain about paying taxes the most.
They want to shoot, but I guess shooting themselves in the foot is their only sort of marksmanship.
Waste of money and time building these toy boats.