My great grandfather, my grandfather, my father and myself served in the Royal Canadian Navy. My last posting was aboard the HMCS Fredricton, beautiful well built vessel and more then enough to protect our water's
Guys lets not forget that these ships are over 20-30 years old. The new ship building project will be done by 2018-2020. And by the way if you guys do some research, those submarines are very quiet and one of them (HMCS Halifax) participated in RIMPAC 2012, firing and sinking an old navy ship. There are plans to have at least 3 of the 4 subs in operating conditions by early 2013. So for two are out and about
The Canadian government needs to stop military cutbacks in the name of fiscal responsibility. The problem is more about poor management than poor equipment. There is no excuse for us having second-hand equipment, when Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
The destroyers are solid ships, they carry a pretty solid Area Air Defense system, frigates are top heavy carry a mixture of Harpoons and AA missiles. They are comparable to any 1st world last gen navy ships as current gen are Stealth ships.
We should buy the Astute Class Submarines. I think the Victoria class was a good buy because our Navy needed to get more experience operating modern British class submarines. The Victoria class are capable submarines they just have limitations & they were not designed for the Canadian theater of operations. If we ask the British they will sell us the Astute class, more than 4 of them & the Victoria class would make great training subs for them, since they have similar interior & design.
two of our subs are currently in operation, one of which has sunk a ship with its torpedos. if you dont know anything about the navy, i suggest not posting.
It's not a the ship that defines its worthiness, its the crew. You can have a 3 billion dollar super ship but if the crew is incompetent its just an expensive tin can there have been many times where countries have lost in training exercises against Canadian warships because the crew were on the ball
@BaconTV123 The entire kingston class MCDV, or MM Kingston, whatever you call it, was built in Halifax Shipyards LTD in Halifax Our navy needs more funding, and more ships. We need 2 LHD's, or two medium sized multipurpose carriers We should go the medium carrier route, as it would be much more versatile, with the ability to launch F35's at sea, our navy would be one of the worlds most prestigous! We do however currently have very dedicated personel who are equipped with the best we have.
At least we’ve ordered 15 type 26 frigates, that will help a lot. Now I’m wishlisting here, but we should have: - 20 frigates (or 15 and 5 destroyers) - 15 coastal patrol ships - 8 submarines - 6 better armed arctic patrol ships (add in a Phalanx or SEA-RAM and a bigger main cannon) - 4 supply ships (2 for each coast) - 2 LHD’s (we could get some F-35B’s for them) Now again, I know this is a major wish list, but it’s what we need to defend our coastline and what our soldiers deserve. The LHD would be the longest shot I think, and we could easily get destroyers and/or submarines.
What is ordered - What gets commissioned : Two completely different concepts when talking about Canadian military procurement. Cost overruns will result in 6 surface ships actually built at 3x the original 20 unit sticker price and delivered 7 years late - with some equipment missing - and other fitted equipment considered obsolete .
C Mac. You list is worthy. Somehow our coastal patrol vessels lost thier 40mm Bofors and obviously an admiral lied because they didn't replace them even a 25mm. So now they have two machine guns and the largest gun is a two pounder salute gun they all fawn over. So that's what 12 to 14 warships only with machine guns. Our artic patrol vessels the joke of all arctic patrol vessels. Danish ships same tonnage same role have two or thee gun turrets and missile launchers. Largest deck gun a 57mm. Russian artic patrol vessels have twin 100mm in forward mount and they recently announced will soon be refitted for mid size cruise missiles. We endanger our sailors with these love boats and pretend they are a real navy on drinking cruises the Great Lakes.
I remember going on one of the ships in Halifax it was so big I got a ship bandage on my knee from the navy doctor. Born in Halifax in 55 my father was on many of these ships the Maggie the Bonnie and Cape Scott to name a few. Loved his Navy uniforms as he went up the ranks Navy men were stars at that time everyone loved them lol except the army
That is the same attitude the Americans had going into Vietnam about the lack of a need for guns on it's combat aircraft. They learned in a hurry that wasn't true and even modern fighters today all carry at least one cannon. As long as there is an ocean, we are going to need a Navy.
STOP THE CANADIAN NAVY HAS 5 NEW NAVY SHIPS AND ARE THE SAME LOOKING THEY HAVE NEW EQUIPMENT AND NEW MISSLES THAT CAN DEVESTATE A SHIP! PLEASE STOP SAYING OUR MILATARY IS A JOKE WHY ELSE WOULD MY DAD PUT ON A NAVY UNIFORM AND HEAD TO THE CANADIAN NAVY BASE!?
@@alpearson9158 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Navy#Offshore_patrol_ships I did 26 years during the Cold War and 1st Gulf War. The Navy was stronger then than it is now. Thanks for the compliments about being typical and ignorant. Obviously, you have superior rhetorical skills than one could expect from most Internauts. Regarding, the link, browse specifically about the arms carried onboard the relic of our once powerful RCN. Then look up future and planned acquisitions. www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/proactive-disclosure/supp-estimates-a-2020-21/other-issues/procurement-navy.html Note the 40 years it will take to create the next obsolete force. These ships are not meant to work for 40 years, so factor in a mid-life rebuild...or scrap, as is usually the case with DND's budgets. Take into account the typical ship's life cycle (~1 year of upgrades & maintenance, ~1 year of crew training, & ~1 year of deployment) and you will get a small idea of the total force available as a result of chronic underfunding. There are no plans for coastal defense ships and no adequate protection for airborne threats from 21st-century technologies. The MCDVs were never meant to be anything other than training ships. They literally used Bofors 40 mm Model 60 Mk 5C rapid-fire gun from WWII, until they were finally considered dangerous to fire and removed in 2014. Quack, quack. That's the RCN!! The US Coast Guard (not run by transport Canada) is configured as such: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Coast_Guard_cutters Canada's Coast Guard is non-military, relies on RCAF helicopters for SAR (standards.globalspec.com/std/1681559/ATP-10(D)), and looks like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_of_the_Canadian_Coast_Guard Please scroll over the links to see what these many small ships and boats do. Transport Canada has a few unarmed icebreakers! Good to plant flags on polar bears. Canada had the third-largest navy in the world after WWII ended. It was focused on the Battle of the Atlantic and consisted primarily of anti-submarine Corvettes and a handful of destroyers, and eventually two cruisers. Post-war, the RCN got into Naval Aviation. Until 1969, when Trudeau the First, castrated that endeavour, and it has been a long dirty slide down the toilet ever since. How do you sugar coat history? You must forget it and repeat it...we live by the grace of the USA. But now, they are in trouble...so good luck. I'll be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.
"instead we have a token air force," Well here's the really cool thing, I found out that we are not locked in to the F-35 purchase. We only have an MOU. We can cancel our original order. Eurojet is much cheaper than the F-35 but I'll agree that we need some F-35's to help our allies in operations but we don't need it for Sovereignty patrols, not really. We'd be better served by something like the Eurofighter which can outmatch the SU-35 very important. We'd have more jets & it would cost less.
I said super hornet because its cheap and similar to what we have now The Euro fighter as a 10-15 year intern too expensive... Your right about not letting it get in the way of politics, in Australia they make a point to not let defense come in the way of it, wish we had more politicians like them.
Well until you've been on one or see them sail successfully you can't make an educated opinion. I seen the the subs sail and have flown in the seaking for a patrol the equipment is sound it's just old
"The Cyclone is a new development project," Yeah but it's actually a spin off of the S-70 which is a faster version of the SH-60 Seahawk. We're having ours designed specifically to meet our needs but the problem is Sikorsky & the USA in General don't care about our needs we're just a number to them. Partly our modification demands slowed things down but the mods were not that serious, that it had to be this long of a wait. plus there is no closure on our variants range. Lynx Wildcat is better.
Well at least we have the ability to create artificial reefs. I mean seriously why would you bother protecting your coastline. creating artificial reefs is way more important. Canada might as well just sink all of them because they are not going to stop north Korea or any other country for that mater.
FOR CANADIANS fly away cost is 85 million...... Current test aircraft flyaway cost is 195 million. We are buying ours 5 or so years into full production which will bring us down to 85 million. Our investment was peanuts but when exporting a fighter you give best deals to attract the first customers, apparently India is getting the Rafales at bargain basement deals for that reason. As we did when we signed the first contract. Were not getting the STVOL version it has never been reported.
What about the Victoria class used submarines we bought from Britain for around 700 million dollars and then one burnt and we have been spending shit loads of money on them ever since. Why does this happen?
@mattmatt115 well equipped? no man, the attrition in the navy is pretty bad, more people are leaving then being recruited, our 4th destroyer was lay to rest cause we could not crew it. 40 year old resupply ships, the other 3 destroyers are aging, the 12 frigates are finally being upgraded, with no plans in site for replacement but i have read that were only going to go with 12 warships in the future, 12????15 is even hardly enough to cover Canada, never mind having enough for escorting LHD's
It was never reported officially, but if you watch all the marketing video the Canadian conservative used on of the big features that kept popping up is it's STVOL capabilities. Evening on the Lockheed Martin marketing, they do that, I don't blame them though, their Marketing was meant to target the USA's budget, they're buying all 3 variants for different services. & last I heard the cost of F-35 are not going down but up because they will be getting new combat systems - black ops! I won't say
you realize the Halifax class is one of the most advanced warships in the world right now? Yes the subs are terrible but we needed them to get in NATO, also the Tribal Class are old but they are still a powerful ships
Are any of these boats still sea worthy and operating. I thought we caught a deadly blow of self destructivness and have lost most of our vessels one or two of woch are resupply vessels
+Wucifer slayer Most of these ships aren't sea worthy anymore. It,s sad but canadian navy fleet is now mainly limited to frigates and few other coastal vessels. Submarines were obselete 20 yrs ago due to rare spare parts, thanks to UK, who got rid of it due to the fact that they adopted nuclear, they sold it back to us. As for destroyers, they can't go anywhere without being worried to fail into pieces. Of course, many Prime Govs promessed to fix those huge problems, none made it and never it was done.
@MegaTmarshall You should put that question to Jean Chretien. He's the bonehead who thought the used British subs were such a great deal. But then you can't expect much from a guy who couldn't figure out which way to wear a kevlar helmet.
WE definitely need an upgrade. Our military, the men and women are one of the best trained in the world today! without cursing others out, I will say it is a marvel how these men and women use what we have and succeed greatly. All you who are in a fight about military are SADLY disrespecting our men and women who serve our nation, I shame you for it, Canada's history is wonderful, with the Brits we were a fighting force to deal with. The stories I heard from men and women of WW1 and WW2 as a kid, just amazing, so before you act like a pompous prick, remember, respect our soldiers and be proud of them. I do agree 100% we need an upgrade big time!!! without insulting our soldiers!
Euro Jet costs 100 million plus a jet... F-35 85 million and price is dropping. For Canada anyway, we were the first foreign nation to throw an investment so we got one of the best deals :P. For maintenance i do not know, F35 high tech systems, stealth etc... Euro fighter cost of maintaining duo engines etc.., But ya the Euro fighter was designed to do those long range patrols, as long as we get more then 100.. 65 is too few.......
Still, I'm very proud of our Canadian Forces and many country are very glad to see a Canadian navy ship coming to join the fight wherever on the globe.
This is NOT currently accurate. Why can Australia,a smaller country,afford a much more powerful military than Canada??...True,we are not surrounded by potentially hostile nations but what if...
"The Canadian Navy is a powerful Navy with powerful ships." Have been smoking B.C. Bud again? Canada has never had a powerful Navy....it had a large Navy in WWII based on number of ships but it was never powerful. Escort vessels are fine for ASW but would have got their butts kicked by any other country's task force comprised of Battleships, Battle Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Light Cruisers, Fleet Carriers, Light Carriers, and submarines.
We did have a very serious and lethal navy from world war two right into the late 50's. Since then it has been a downward spiral and heartbreaking to watch. I served during the 80's on the steamers, and even then we brought something to the table others couldn't ASW and the ability regularly beat our allies in any task given. What we have today is the skeleton of a navy. What we need today is a lot more meat on the bones and to scrap the Kingston class outright. Those things are a joke. The Bras' D'or type vessel would be a far better unit for coastal patrol, fisheries enforcement and drug interdiction than the Kingstons with their rowwboat speed ever will be.
We had a huge fleet of destroyers and some cruisers. Canadian Navy was huge, professional and well equipped. Not comparable to UK, US, but at the end of the war no other world navies would compare. Even the soviet one was weaker.
Actually the Americans regard our investment as peanuts. Actual cost of the fighters at fly away = 195 million. There's is proof that the Ministry of defense hid an additional 10 billion in costs from the public that did not include maintenance. Maintenance is cheaper on the C variant we're getting the A variant it is not even VTOL capable. That's inconceivable because the public was lead on to believe we were getting a cool VTOL fighter but nope! Even if more expensive Eurofighter is best!
@@benjaminkavcic7149 that is correct. All four of the Victorias are seaworthy and able to meet any mission assigned to them. the problem we have is we don;t have enough of them.
There is currently only 4 fighters on the market that meet our needs & only handful still on the drawing board or in prototype only. half of that are among our allies. None of them are from the Americans because they cancelled the F-22 program. We need to build our own. The Eurofighter is great but it will be obsolete very soon, within 10 years. It is capable of 4th Gen++ (or 4.5), stealth & thrust vectoring & APAR & it is air superiority capable. but we need to think long term. see ya on forum!
im canadian and for one of the biggest country of the world in land mass and surrounded by three ocean our navy is kind of a joke really.......there was talkin about buyin the new britt frig type -46 was it ? but it think its dead talk like the f-22 buying lol
The Cyclone is a new development project, the only thing that is the same as the original chopper is the general airframe design... New engines, reinforced airframe for fordable rear end, lets not forget the gearbox fail of the civilian version, government then set new requirements of flying time 30 min after gearbox failure... It was a steep order. Your right F35 not air dominance aircraft, F18 is obsolete, Euro fighter best air superiority fighter on the market. Continued.
***** We have a navy of floating rust. Subs that can't submerge and spend more time in drydock than not. Supply ships which can't supply. Helicopters that came into service before I was born and I'm retired. Biggest ship is an antiquated destroyer. Need I go on? The sailors are top notch, their equipment not so much.
***** Let's hope the NDP and the Liberals don't win the next election otherwise my bathtub fleet will be able to give the Canadian navy a run for its money.
But ya if we were getting 100 or more I would agree with you in getting something that suits our needs. Euro fighter was specifically designed as a high bird fighter interceptor/ long range patrol fighter to meet the needs of the different EU nations building it. here check this out "forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1161528/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=ps84b0n7cb9oblckknrufr4t17#new" 42 pages of military personal and civis debating etc... Its a great read.
None of those ships (let alone the subs) look like they could fight their way out of a wet paper bag to me. The Brits saw us coming when we bought those crappy subs from them, too. I wouldn't buy my next car from the wreckers and expect it to work so why does our gov't go shopping for subs at a British garage sale???
Wow I am Canadian. That is a terrible navy. I think South American navy's are larger and better equip. We need to stop giving poor country's cash and start spending it on ourselfs
***** Agreed, it would be nice to see our navy if anything grow seeing we are a country bordering 3 oceans. Not 100% sure but i think we did have a aircraft carrier at one point but it was retired in the late 70's.
***** upgrade doesn't mean spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military upgrades only to use them in training exercises, BECAUSE NO COUNTRY HAS DIRECTLY DECLARED WAR ON CANADA FOR A LONG TIME, POSSIBLY NEVER. besides, our truce with the us would get them to send their military to help ours. in fact, since they barely use any of their ships in real war these days, im sure they would be happy to actually use them. as for other parts of the military, canada does just fine
***** You sir, are an extreme dumbass. There's a HUGE difference between upgrade and bigger. Our navy is already extremely advanced (except for our submarines since they're used). Its just not very big. We have no use for a big military. And we don't have a big population to support a big military. So instead we focus on just making our military stronger. Even just basic training here is longer and more physically demanding then the us.
meanwhile for the same money,south korea and the u.s. builds destroyers fitted with Vertical Launch Missile cells all neatly tucked below decks that can launch a mixed bag of tomahawk land attack cruise misslies,harpoon antiship missiles, standard antiairaft/icbm missiles and asroc torpedo tipped antisub missiles. they also have a REAL cannon on front that can fire laser guided shells (one shot one kill) effective at almost twice the range of our pathetic wop 37 mm peashooter and we could also do like the dutch installing a 30mm CIWIS goal keeper on the rear, add our a chopper retrieval bear trap and double pad flight deck. topped with a pair of regular model 60 Seahawks (torpedos, sonobouys, 2.75 rocket pack,paired stingers and Mini door guns in armory), instead of our colossal money wasting EH101/coromant(TOO HEAVY for our wimp ass frigates) and lately some customized unproven design never before produced. i really question WHY we always end up with shit that either too complex, costs way too much and/or is inadequate. of all the assault rifle designs, we had to adopt the least reliable (a rehashed overweight M16)when there is a plethora of compact bullpups to choose from, submarines that cannot be relied on(while germany makes the quietest sub worldwide) and a us navy carrier multirole fighter/bomber-given we have NO aircraft carriers). i pray like fuck that we just choose to jointly build the SAAB Gripen, using our existing F404 engine maintenance and NATO weapons stock from the old F18. the only purchase that seems to make sense the FN minimi light machine gun.versatile and reliable with good magazines. AND why was it they needed a million dollar "study panel" to choose a replacement for our arctic .303 lee enfield? there are off shelf hunting rifles that can kill a polar bear just as easily. lots of corporatist thievery and ivory tower empire building in our politicians, top brass and contractors.
But then it comes down to spending... 65 jets is a token air force for intercepting the odd Russian aircraft wanting to play cat and mouse on the boarder or intercept airliners in emergency which we failed to do in B.C... In a perfect defense spending we would have two airframes as it should be one air dominance and one fighter/bomber... But instead we have a token air force, were better off being interchangeable with the Americans, if shit happens our jets can use their maintenance crews.
the American's do not service their aircraft as well as our people do. That has been a running joke in my 70 plus years, but even the 88 now being purchased are insufficient and if the f35 is purchased well then about 60 plus percent of them will be in service and available at necessity. that just doesn't work
There is truth in what you are saying. However, I just wish that the Canadian Gov't would stop being so cheap & just provide our military with the proper subs that they need. Those aging Sea King helicopters are also a source of embarrassment. What kind of a military keeps the same helicopters in service for over 50+ years???
I though we had problems with what we got in the Royal Australian navy then I heard the about the problems you Canadians have with your defence budget and that your government can’t commit to any projects , if your government doesn’t act soon it’s going cost billions more the longer they wait ,that’s what happened with our air warfare destroyers it was Spain’s ship builder bidding on lhd and awd projects doing a deal for all five ships that got the projects moving. Your Air Force fighters , navy destroyers and submarines and replenishment ships need to be replaced NOW , your lacks sea lift for your army which should be of concern .
The coastal patrol vessels are there but lost a lot of speed when they figured out they were lop-sided and had to put metal on the other side on the hull to even the keel, but it slowed them down a lot. TY very much Irving Shipyards. Shitty design and engineering. I cant knock the other ships, they are doing what they are asked!
Do another one of these videos now 8 years later. Two of the classes shown are gone and the Victoria class?...............You can get better subs at Subway. As for the Halifax's,they look like they haven't been fed in a week. You can see their ribs under the sheet metal hull. I swear it looks like you could smash a hole in their sides with a claw hammer.As for the Kingston's?...... Well like it said in the video,their not combat ships so you get the idea. It's not our fighting men and woman's fault. It's the criminal politicians that have bled the navy to death. They deserve better and we owe them better.
victoria class, unlike what certain political knobs think, are actually well thought of outside Canada the frigates have done an excellent job but are getting long in the tooth, new subs are about 10 years away the frigates should start being replaced sooner as they are ordered
opposition just wants to get in power. the military procurement strategy should not be up for debate... it's a no brainer: no top of the line equipment today -bend over for the Russians & everybody else. F-18 needs to start being replaced now. Super hornet is not good enough the SU-35 can blow it out of the sky unless it gets modified with thrust vectoring, plan forming & the latest APAR radars. Euro jet would be better for interim, it's being modified with all the above as we speak. 30 or 40
ShifeGaming in my opinion, I think our helicopters are great when it comes to transportation. The griffon is compact and easy to transport troops quickly. Of course the chinooks can transport heavy loads including vehicles. It's too bad we don't have any offensive helicopters to quickly assist out troops on the ground but it is how it is. The CF18s are our only fighter jets and we only have 70-80 of them. Plus they're already 30 years old so I think it's about time our government develope a new fighter jet. Which is absolutely possible. Our air force and Navy equipments are good but when it comes to fire power, it's shit compared to other countries.
My great grandfather, my grandfather, my father and myself served in the Royal Canadian Navy. My last posting was aboard the HMCS Fredricton, beautiful well built vessel and more then enough to protect our water's
Thank you for your service, sailor.
Weii said
The air force has 1000 more personal then the Royal Canadian Navy so I guess what I am try to say is that we definitely need a bigger navy
What we need are some destroyers, patrol frigates, aircraft carriers and other support ships
fine i'll take about 100 billion to even consider such thanks for vollunteering your money
Guys lets not forget that these ships are over 20-30 years old. The new ship building project will be done by 2018-2020. And by the way if you guys do some research, those submarines are very quiet and one of them (HMCS Halifax) participated in RIMPAC 2012, firing and sinking an old navy ship. There are plans to have at least 3 of the 4 subs in operating conditions by early 2013. So for two are out and about
The Canadian government needs to stop military cutbacks in the name of fiscal responsibility. The problem is more about poor management than poor equipment. There is no excuse for us having second-hand equipment, when Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
The destroyers are solid ships, they carry a pretty solid Area Air Defense system, frigates are top heavy carry a mixture of Harpoons and AA missiles. They are comparable to any 1st world last gen navy ships as current gen are Stealth ships.
We should buy the Astute Class Submarines. I think the Victoria
class was a good buy because our Navy needed to get more
experience operating modern British class submarines. The
Victoria class are capable submarines they just have limitations
& they were not designed for the Canadian theater of operations.
If we ask the British they will sell us the Astute class, more than
4 of them & the Victoria class would make great training subs
for them, since they have similar interior & design.
Wow.. Just 3 more ships and the Canadian navy can play battle ship..
E, 5
Only takes 1 sub to sink a battle group
two of our subs are currently in operation, one of which has sunk a ship with its torpedos. if you dont know anything about the navy, i suggest not posting.
It's not a the ship that defines its worthiness, its the crew. You can have a 3 billion dollar super ship but if the crew is incompetent its just an expensive tin can
there have been many times where countries have lost in training exercises against Canadian warships because the crew were on the ball
canada can hold its head very high they always accomplish alot with very substandard gear go canada
@BaconTV123 The entire kingston class MCDV, or MM Kingston, whatever you call it, was built in Halifax Shipyards LTD in Halifax
Our navy needs more funding, and more ships. We need 2 LHD's, or two medium sized multipurpose carriers
We should go the medium carrier route, as it would be much more versatile, with the ability to launch F35's at sea, our navy would be one of the worlds most prestigous! We do however currently have very dedicated personel who are equipped with the best we have.
At least we’ve ordered 15 type 26 frigates, that will help a lot. Now I’m wishlisting here, but we should have:
- 20 frigates (or 15 and 5 destroyers)
- 15 coastal patrol ships
- 8 submarines
- 6 better armed arctic patrol ships (add in a Phalanx or SEA-RAM and a bigger main cannon)
- 4 supply ships (2 for each coast)
- 2 LHD’s (we could get some F-35B’s for them)
Now again, I know this is a major wish list, but it’s what we need to defend our coastline and what our soldiers deserve. The LHD would be the longest shot I think, and we could easily get destroyers and/or submarines.
Colm Mackay
U have the right idea, great wish list
15 type 26 frigates... which are to replace the 12 halifax class frigates and the 4 already retired Iroquois class destroyers
What is ordered - What gets commissioned : Two completely different concepts when talking about Canadian military procurement.
Cost overruns will result in 6 surface ships actually built at 3x the original 20 unit sticker price and delivered 7 years late - with some equipment missing - and other fitted equipment considered obsolete .
C Mac. You list is worthy. Somehow our coastal patrol vessels lost thier 40mm Bofors and obviously an admiral lied because they didn't replace them even a 25mm. So now they have two machine guns and the largest gun is a two pounder salute gun they all fawn over.
So that's what 12 to 14 warships only with machine guns. Our artic patrol vessels the joke of all arctic patrol vessels. Danish ships same tonnage same role have two or thee gun turrets and missile launchers. Largest deck gun a 57mm.
Russian artic patrol vessels have twin 100mm in forward mount and they recently announced will soon be refitted for mid size cruise missiles.
We endanger our sailors with these love boats and pretend they are a real navy on drinking cruises the Great Lakes.
I remember going on one of the ships in Halifax it was so big I got a ship bandage on my knee from the navy doctor. Born in Halifax in 55 my father was on many of these ships the Maggie the Bonnie and Cape Scott to name a few. Loved his Navy uniforms as he went up the ranks Navy men were stars at that time everyone loved them lol except the army
Will say we need a bigger navy and air force.
With this new ship building deal, we can build ourselfs those shiny new sail-boat thingies!
The argentinian navy has more ships in mothballs , than the canadian navy has in fulltime service......sad is not the word word for it....
Argentina is a joke
Maybe Harper will follow through and Buy/Build the first Canadian Air Craft Carrier still... We can dream cant we..
I don't know what's more surprising. That it's an incredibly small navy, or the fact that it gets the job done....
That is more than enough ships, naval warfare is obsolete due to new missiles and technology
That is the same attitude the Americans had going into Vietnam about the lack of a need for guns on it's combat aircraft. They learned in a hurry that wasn't true and even modern fighters today all carry at least one cannon. As long as there is an ocean, we are going to need a Navy.
i wouldn't mess with our frigates, or our destroyers, the crews are highly trained and very potent (lethal) if need be
We had 2 of them, the Bonaventure went into refit in the 60's and after everyone connected to that event made their millions it was scrapped.
Canada needs more subs than other ship in my opinion, especially if we are gonna be patrolling the arctic.
STOP THE CANADIAN NAVY HAS 5 NEW NAVY SHIPS AND ARE THE SAME LOOKING THEY HAVE NEW EQUIPMENT AND NEW MISSLES THAT CAN DEVESTATE A SHIP! PLEASE STOP SAYING OUR MILATARY IS A JOKE WHY ELSE WOULD MY DAD PUT ON A NAVY UNIFORM AND HEAD TO THE CANADIAN NAVY BASE!?
need more navy personnel, subs and some new destroyers. We need this more than handing out money to suspect illegals crashing our borders
Sorry kid, but your Dad is doing that so you can eat...
@@doogleticker5183 typically ignorant boy
@@alpearson9158 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Navy#Offshore_patrol_ships
I did 26 years during the Cold War and 1st Gulf War. The Navy was stronger then than it is now. Thanks for the compliments about being typical and ignorant. Obviously, you have superior rhetorical skills than one could expect from most Internauts.
Regarding, the link, browse specifically about the arms carried onboard the relic of our once powerful RCN. Then look up future and planned acquisitions.
www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/proactive-disclosure/supp-estimates-a-2020-21/other-issues/procurement-navy.html
Note the 40 years it will take to create the next obsolete force. These ships are not meant to work for 40 years, so factor in a mid-life rebuild...or scrap, as is usually the case with DND's budgets.
Take into account the typical ship's life cycle (~1 year of upgrades & maintenance, ~1 year of crew training, & ~1 year of deployment) and you will get a small idea of the total force available as a result of chronic underfunding.
There are no plans for coastal defense ships and no adequate protection for airborne threats from 21st-century technologies. The MCDVs were never meant to be anything other than training ships. They literally used Bofors 40 mm Model 60 Mk 5C rapid-fire gun from WWII, until they were finally considered dangerous to fire and removed in 2014.
Quack, quack. That's the RCN!!
The US Coast Guard (not run by transport Canada) is configured as such: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Coast_Guard_cutters
Canada's Coast Guard is non-military, relies on RCAF helicopters for SAR (standards.globalspec.com/std/1681559/ATP-10(D)), and looks like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_of_the_Canadian_Coast_Guard
Please scroll over the links to see what these many small ships and boats do. Transport Canada has a few unarmed icebreakers! Good to plant flags on polar bears.
Canada had the third-largest navy in the world after WWII ended. It was focused on the Battle of the Atlantic and consisted primarily of anti-submarine Corvettes and a handful of destroyers, and eventually two cruisers. Post-war, the RCN got into Naval Aviation. Until 1969, when Trudeau the First, castrated that endeavour, and it has been a long dirty slide down the toilet ever since.
How do you sugar coat history? You must forget it and repeat it...we live by the grace of the USA. But now, they are in trouble...so good luck.
I'll be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.
"instead we have a token air force,"
Well here's the really cool thing, I found out that
we are not locked in to the F-35 purchase. We only have an
MOU. We can cancel our original order. Eurojet is much
cheaper than the F-35 but I'll agree that we need some
F-35's to help our allies in operations but we don't need
it for Sovereignty patrols, not really. We'd be better served
by something like the Eurofighter which can outmatch the SU-35
very important. We'd have more jets & it would cost less.
You might want to re do this video but we are slowly but surely doing so.
@mattmatt115 no one is going to join a substandard navy, when Canada got them Leo 2's, the armored corps had a shit load of recruits.
I said super hornet because its cheap and similar to what we have now The Euro fighter as a 10-15 year intern too expensive... Your right about not letting it get in the way of politics, in Australia they make a point to not let defense come in the way of it, wish we had more politicians like them.
most of the newer frigates where built in saint john nb canada
Well until you've been on one or see them sail successfully you can't make an educated opinion.
I seen the the subs sail and have flown in the seaking for a patrol the equipment is sound it's just old
"The Cyclone is a new development project,"
Yeah but it's actually a spin off of the S-70 which is a
faster version of the SH-60 Seahawk. We're having ours
designed specifically to meet our needs but the problem
is Sikorsky & the USA in General don't care about our
needs we're just a number to them. Partly our modification
demands slowed things down but the mods were not that
serious, that it had to be this long of a wait.
plus there is no closure on our variants range.
Lynx Wildcat is better.
Well at least we have the ability to create artificial reefs. I mean seriously why would you bother protecting your coastline. creating artificial reefs is way more important. Canada might as well just sink all of them because they are not going to stop north Korea or any other country for that mater.
I am Canadian, and after seeing that I am ashamed of my country
Ouch
If someone was to do a current article, it would be worse.
@@411maintainer yeah, tough we are in the process of modernising it a lot, so in the next decade its gonna get better.
FOR CANADIANS fly away cost is 85 million...... Current test aircraft flyaway cost is 195 million.
We are buying ours 5 or so years into full production which will bring us down to 85 million. Our investment was peanuts but when exporting a fighter you give best deals to attract the first customers, apparently India is getting the Rafales at bargain basement deals for that reason.
As we did when we signed the first contract. Were not getting the STVOL version it has never been reported.
At least we don't miss
Sad... but dont try our infantry
What about the Victoria class used submarines we bought from Britain for around 700 million dollars and then one burnt and we have been spending shit loads of money on them ever since. Why does this happen?
@mattmatt115 well equipped? no man, the attrition in the navy is pretty bad, more people are leaving then being recruited, our 4th destroyer was lay to rest cause we could not crew it. 40 year old resupply ships, the other 3 destroyers are aging, the 12 frigates are finally being upgraded, with no plans in site for replacement but i have read that were only going to go with 12 warships in the future, 12????15 is even hardly enough to cover Canada, never mind having enough for escorting LHD's
It was never reported officially, but if you watch all the marketing
video the Canadian conservative used on of the big features that
kept popping up is it's STVOL capabilities. Evening on the Lockheed
Martin marketing, they do that, I don't blame them though, their
Marketing was meant to target the USA's budget, they're buying
all 3 variants for different services.
& last I heard the cost of F-35 are not going down but up
because they will be getting new combat systems - black ops!
I won't say
you realize the Halifax class is one of the most advanced warships in the world right now? Yes the subs are terrible but we needed them to get in NATO, also the Tribal Class are old but they are still a powerful ships
Are any of these boats still sea worthy and operating. I thought we caught a deadly blow of self destructivness and have lost most of our vessels one or two of woch are resupply vessels
+Wucifer slayer Most of these ships aren't sea worthy anymore. It,s sad but canadian navy fleet is now mainly limited to frigates and few other coastal vessels. Submarines were obselete 20 yrs ago due to rare spare parts, thanks to UK, who got rid of it due to the fact that they adopted nuclear, they sold it back to us. As for destroyers, they can't go anywhere without being worried to fail into pieces. Of course, many Prime Govs promessed to fix those huge problems, none made it and never it was done.
+KallegrandStudios the Canadian Navy is for defense not to go all out attack shit. they just patrol our borders
So were basically done against any other nation
@MegaTmarshall You should put that question to Jean Chretien. He's the bonehead who thought the used British subs were such a great deal. But then you can't expect much from a guy who couldn't figure out which way to wear a kevlar helmet.
Chretien no RCN yes but these subs are well regarded elsewhere
well how am I supposed to learn that way
W-Pall's ; Albeit Dated , I was Informed & Entertained . YYZ , Mohawk-Planker .
Are all these ships second hand ex British ships?
Stoney ascension
No only the submarines are
WE definitely need an upgrade. Our military, the men and women are one of the best trained in the world today! without cursing others out, I will say it is a marvel how these men and women use what we have and succeed greatly. All you who are in a fight about military are SADLY disrespecting our men and women who serve our nation, I shame you for it, Canada's history is wonderful, with the Brits we were a fighting force to deal with. The stories I heard from men and women of WW1 and WW2 as a kid, just amazing, so before you act like a pompous prick, remember, respect our soldiers and be proud of them. I do agree 100% we need an upgrade big time!!! without insulting our soldiers!
I would be surprised if 10% of these worked.
Euro Jet costs 100 million plus a jet... F-35 85 million and price is dropping. For Canada anyway, we were the first foreign nation to throw an investment so we got one of the best deals :P.
For maintenance i do not know, F35 high tech systems, stealth etc... Euro fighter cost of maintaining duo engines etc..,
But ya the Euro fighter was designed to do those long range patrols, as long as we get more then 100.. 65 is too few.......
And I know this because I am in Royal Canadian Sea Cadet's
If only I didn't know wikipedia, at all.
Still, I'm very proud of our Canadian Forces and many country are very glad to see a Canadian navy ship coming to join the fight wherever on the globe.
This is NOT currently accurate.
Why can Australia,a smaller country,afford a much more powerful military than Canada??...True,we are not surrounded by potentially hostile nations but what if...
Video is as outdated as our ships.
"The Canadian Navy is a powerful Navy with powerful ships."
Have been smoking B.C. Bud again? Canada has never had a powerful Navy....it had a large Navy in WWII based on number of ships but it was never powerful. Escort vessels are fine for ASW but would have got their butts kicked by any other country's task force comprised of Battleships, Battle Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Light Cruisers, Fleet Carriers, Light Carriers, and submarines.
We did have a very serious and lethal navy from world war two right into the late 50's. Since then it has been a downward spiral and heartbreaking to watch. I served during the 80's on the steamers, and even then we brought something to the table others couldn't ASW and the ability regularly beat our allies in any task given. What we have today is the skeleton of a navy. What we need today is a lot more meat on the bones and to scrap the Kingston class outright. Those things are a joke. The Bras' D'or type vessel would be a far better unit for coastal patrol, fisheries enforcement and drug interdiction than the Kingstons with their rowwboat speed ever will be.
We had a huge fleet of destroyers and some cruisers. Canadian Navy was huge, professional and well equipped. Not comparable to UK, US, but at the end of the war no other world navies would compare. Even the soviet one was weaker.
Hey Buddy Where You From......
Actually the Americans regard our investment as peanuts.
Actual cost of the fighters at fly away = 195 million.
There's is proof that the Ministry of defense hid an additional
10 billion in costs from the public that did not include maintenance.
Maintenance is cheaper on the C variant we're getting the A
variant it is not even VTOL capable. That's inconceivable because
the public was lead on to believe we were getting a cool VTOL
fighter but nope!
Even if more expensive Eurofighter is best!
actually none of our crappy used and old subs can fire a torpedo or even dive… their basically floating metal containers...
Christian66991
Simply untrue
@@benjaminkavcic7149 that is correct. All four of the Victorias are seaworthy and able to meet any mission assigned to them. the problem we have is we don;t have enough of them.
There is currently only 4 fighters on the market that meet our
needs & only handful still on the drawing board or in prototype
only. half of that are among our allies. None of them are from
the Americans because they cancelled the F-22 program.
We need to build our own. The Eurofighter is great but
it will be obsolete very soon, within 10 years. It is capable
of 4th Gen++ (or 4.5), stealth & thrust vectoring & APAR
& it is air superiority capable. but we need to think long
term. see ya on forum!
im canadian and for one of the biggest country of the world in land mass and surrounded by three ocean our navy is kind of a joke really.......there was talkin about buyin the new britt frig type -46 was it ? but it think its dead talk like the f-22 buying lol
The Cyclone is a new development project, the only thing that is the same as the original chopper is the general airframe design... New engines, reinforced airframe for fordable rear end, lets not forget the gearbox fail of the civilian version, government then set new requirements of flying time 30 min after gearbox failure... It was a steep order.
Your right F35 not air dominance aircraft, F18 is obsolete, Euro fighter best air superiority fighter on the market. Continued.
hell yea HMCS winnipeg
Sad excuse for a navy. I'd be embarrassed to be a sailor.
***** We have a navy of floating rust. Subs that can't submerge and spend more time in drydock than not. Supply ships which can't supply. Helicopters that came into service before I was born and I'm retired. Biggest ship is an antiquated destroyer. Need I go on? The sailors are top notch, their equipment not so much.
***** Let's hope the NDP and the Liberals don't win the next election otherwise my bathtub fleet will be able to give the Canadian navy a run for its money.
But ya if we were getting 100 or more I would agree with you in getting something that suits our needs. Euro fighter was specifically designed as a high bird fighter interceptor/ long range patrol fighter to meet the needs of the different EU nations building it.
here check this out "forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1161528/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=ps84b0n7cb9oblckknrufr4t17#new" 42 pages of military personal and civis debating etc... Its a great read.
None of those ships (let alone the subs) look like they could fight their way out of a wet paper bag to me. The Brits saw us coming when we bought those crappy subs from them, too. I wouldn't buy my next car from the wreckers and expect it to work so why does our gov't go shopping for subs at a British garage sale???
funny thing is the government doesn't do the shopping the Navy did oh and those subs are well regarded outside of Canadian media
Our navy fleet is a joke, it should never have got this way
Wow I am Canadian. That is a terrible navy. I think South American navy's are larger and better equip. We need to stop giving poor country's cash and start spending it on ourselfs
***** Agreed, it would be nice to see our navy if anything grow seeing we are a country bordering 3 oceans. Not 100% sure but i think we did have a aircraft carrier at one point but it was retired in the late 70's.
***** upgrade doesn't mean spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military upgrades only to use them in training exercises, BECAUSE NO COUNTRY HAS DIRECTLY DECLARED WAR ON CANADA FOR A LONG TIME, POSSIBLY NEVER. besides, our truce with the us would get them to send their military to help ours. in fact, since they barely use any of their ships in real war these days, im sure they would be happy to actually use them. as for other parts of the military, canada does just fine
***** You sir, are an extreme dumbass. There's a HUGE difference between upgrade and bigger. Our navy is already extremely advanced (except for our submarines since they're used). Its just not very big. We have no use for a big military. And we don't have a big population to support a big military. So instead we focus on just making our military stronger. Even just basic training here is longer and more physically demanding then the us.
@@Blackhandofset420 we've had 3 but all are retired long ago
meanwhile for the same money,south korea and the u.s. builds destroyers fitted with Vertical Launch Missile cells all neatly tucked below decks that can launch a mixed bag of tomahawk land attack cruise misslies,harpoon antiship missiles, standard antiairaft/icbm missiles and asroc torpedo tipped antisub missiles. they also have a REAL cannon on front that can fire laser guided shells (one shot one kill) effective at almost twice the range of our pathetic wop 37 mm peashooter and we could also do like the dutch installing a 30mm CIWIS goal keeper on the rear, add our a chopper retrieval bear trap and double pad flight deck. topped with a pair of regular model 60 Seahawks (torpedos, sonobouys, 2.75 rocket pack,paired stingers and Mini door guns in armory), instead of our colossal money wasting EH101/coromant(TOO HEAVY for our wimp ass frigates) and lately some customized unproven design never before produced.
i really question WHY we always end up with shit that either too complex, costs way too much and/or is inadequate.
of all the assault rifle designs, we had to adopt the least reliable (a rehashed overweight M16)when there is a plethora of compact bullpups to choose from, submarines that cannot be relied on(while germany makes the quietest sub worldwide) and a us navy carrier multirole fighter/bomber-given we have NO aircraft carriers).
i pray like fuck that we just choose to jointly build the SAAB Gripen, using our existing F404 engine maintenance and NATO weapons stock from the old F18.
the only purchase that seems to make sense the FN minimi light machine gun.versatile and reliable with good magazines.
AND why was it they needed a million dollar "study panel" to choose a replacement for our arctic .303 lee enfield? there are off shelf hunting rifles that can kill a polar bear just as easily.
lots of corporatist thievery and ivory tower empire building in our politicians, top brass and contractors.
Wtf, we have a submarine O.o
And it sometimes works!
But then it comes down to spending... 65 jets is a token air force for intercepting the odd Russian aircraft wanting to play cat and mouse on the boarder or intercept airliners in emergency which we failed to do in B.C...
In a perfect defense spending we would have two airframes as it should be one air dominance and one fighter/bomber...
But instead we have a token air force, were better off being interchangeable with the Americans, if shit happens our jets can use their maintenance crews.
the American's do not service their aircraft as well as our people do. That has been a running joke in my 70 plus years, but even the 88 now being purchased are insufficient and if the f35 is purchased well then about 60 plus percent of them will be in service and available at necessity. that just doesn't work
There is truth in what you are saying. However, I just wish that the Canadian Gov't would stop being so cheap & just provide our military with the proper subs that they need. Those aging Sea King helicopters are also a source of embarrassment. What kind of a military keeps the same helicopters in service for over 50+ years???
the US, UK, and probably more please get educated beyond politics
I though we had problems with what we got in the Royal Australian navy then I heard the about the problems you Canadians have with your defence budget and that your government can’t commit to any projects , if your government doesn’t act soon it’s going cost billions more the longer they wait ,that’s what happened with our air warfare destroyers it was Spain’s ship builder bidding on lhd and awd projects doing a deal for all five ships that got the projects moving. Your Air Force fighters , navy destroyers and submarines and replenishment ships need to be replaced NOW , your lacks sea lift for your army which should be of concern .
I love the we will fight against communism part
I'm still laughing, so sad so sad. Good thing they have bars on Canadian ships aye ? Helps the poor Canucks drown their embarrassment.
The coastal patrol vessels are there but lost a lot of speed when they figured out they were lop-sided and had to put metal on the other side on the hull to even the keel, but it slowed them down a lot. TY very much Irving Shipyards. Shitty design and engineering. I cant knock the other ships, they are doing what they are asked!
Do another one of these videos now 8 years later. Two of the classes shown are gone and the Victoria class?...............You can get better subs at Subway. As for the Halifax's,they look like they haven't been fed in a week. You can see their ribs under the sheet metal hull. I swear it looks like you could smash a hole in their sides with a claw hammer.As for the Kingston's?...... Well like it said in the video,their not combat ships so you get the idea. It's not our fighting men and woman's fault. It's the criminal politicians that have bled the navy to death. They deserve better and we owe them better.
victoria class, unlike what certain political knobs think, are actually well thought of outside Canada the frigates have done an excellent job but are getting long in the tooth, new subs are about 10 years away the frigates should start being replaced sooner as they are ordered
opposition just wants to get in power. the military procurement
strategy should not be up for debate... it's a no brainer: no top of
the line equipment today -bend over for the Russians & everybody
else.
F-18 needs to start being replaced now. Super hornet is not
good enough the SU-35 can blow it out of the sky unless
it gets modified with thrust vectoring, plan forming & the latest
APAR radars.
Euro jet would be better for interim, it's being modified with all
the above as we speak. 30 or 40
i gotta admit, our navy s shit. the best thing about our military is our infantry strength. but the navy and air, not so much
+Rickey Andres I saw your comment on another vid called How will you remember
Ranbir Khaira yeah i watch a lot of canadian military videos
Rickey Andres our cargo planes aren't that bad but our helicopters and jets are awful
ShifeGaming in my opinion, I think our helicopters are great when it comes to transportation. The griffon is compact and easy to transport troops quickly. Of course the chinooks can transport heavy loads including vehicles. It's too bad we don't have any offensive helicopters to quickly assist out troops on the ground but it is how it is.
The CF18s are our only fighter jets and we only have 70-80 of them. Plus they're already 30 years old so I think it's about time our government develope a new fighter jet. Which is absolutely possible.
Our air force and Navy equipments are good but when it comes to fire power, it's shit compared to other countries.