Wait 20 more years as the first destroyer is commissioned in 2030 but we will still have 14 to build. And when the last one is built, the first is obsolete and needs a mid life refit.
The first one is projected to be completed in 2033 (almost a decade from now). With the rapid evolution of naval warfare as seen in Ukraine, the River class will likely need design changes to stay relevant.
@@nitroxide17no, this problem is solved. What gets obsolete is the systems, not the platform. These systems will be updated so the last ship will have up to date electronics. Everyone does this. The advanced hull has no predictable obsolescence factor.
@@nitroxide17 That's why they are doing them in batches of 3. Each batch of 3 will likely have upgrades based on technology over the previous 3. UK version was first started in 2017, won't be ready for trials until 2026, so the RCN ones are right on schedule.
This what you get when you let the shipbuilding industry atrophy. From the keel of HMCS Halifax being laid down to HMCS Ottawa being commissioned was 9 years. That was 12 ships. Now it is going to take 20 years to lay down and commission 15 ships. This was created by successive governments and a population that talks about national defence but won’t ante up when needed or when they are shamed into it. The result is what we see now. By the way I did serve in what was called Maritime Command from 1988 to 1994. Leading Seaman Duncan Dewar. Served in the Reserve with Cararaqui and was part of the recommissioning crew with HMCS Prevost. Went to sea on HMCS Porte St Jean and HMCS MacKenzie.
Wrong on all accounts, shipbuilding , Irving and seaspan will create only a few hundred jobs and it ain't rocket science, think about it , did space x even exist 10 years ago...???? Now it embaressess the old guard by launching every 3 days.... see should have outsourced to the danes or Italians or Koreans and loaded the computers and software here at home....the Irving's are laughing all the way to there Malta based bank.....
Well every country outside of China and South Korea seems to have no ability to build ships anymore. If you don't want to buy them from China for security reasons buy it from South Korea
How do you figure? The steel has only been cut on the first one, and due to be done by 2030 ish. Also the equipment and design may change as needed. Do you think that when you order a ship, that it comes off a giant sales lot and they just put it in the water? Virtually every submarine and ship go through the same process.
@watcher63034 no obviously not it doesn't take a day to build a ship however it will take upward of 10 to 15 years before 2 of these are built and we're in a tech boom rn and if a war breaks out these ships will be outdated before they even touch the water. They need to complete these in 2 years per ship or 5 in 10 years. I'd the plan is to have upwards of 13 of these ships it'll take 50 years or more to even get half of that number and it'll be pointless.
@@ExploreNovaScotia The problem with building all ships at once is this. First they all need upgrades at the same time and that would require multiple building facilities. secondly those experienced workers would retire and leave the workforce stagnant. You need a steady building cycle with refits and new designs so that ships are always being built and/or maintained. Its easier financially too.
WW2 was far away, we had the Atlantic protecting us and no way for Germany to touch us, most of Canada's navy in WW2 were corvettes, they were basicly civilian hulls with a pea shooter put on top with depth charges. It was a quick slap together navy to fight U boats. Today it takes like 10 years to build a modern warship and 20 years to train a proper caption, never mind the rest of the crew. It's why the ship building strategy was put together, having shipyards at home that can build military vessels is a national security issue. In today's modern environment if Canada were to go to war with a modern military our shipyards would be destroyed if not properly defended.
Why do these cost 5.13B $CAD to build in Canada, but only £1.3B (2.3B $CAD) to build in the U.K?...why aren't we saving the taxpayers of Canada $42B and/or spending that $42B on other military equipment like a few hundred tanks, jets, a dozen new subs, etc? Another boondoggle it seems.
Supply chains is the reason given, we don’t have the supply chains in places like the UK who has always maintained a military shipbuilding capability, where Canada has not we lost that capability along time ago and now we have to rebuild it so along with updating shipyards, we have to build a whole supply chain. That’s the reason.. I know it’s crazy to think for amount of money to build 16 new ships we could have, four super carriers
Because its Canada. We have to buy the ships, make sure the jobs go to a federal riding up for election, there might even be a bit of graft there somewhere and make sure the other folks making the widgets to supply to Irving are in good liberal ridings.
Because we have to build the shipyard infrastructure to build these war ships while the UK already has functional shipyards for the purpose of building warships. The UK and Canada also use different accounting methods for costing military projects, Canada includes the cost of initial training, ammo acquisition, spare parts acquisition, and etcetera in the project cost.
@@hlafrond965 Y'know that the shipyard was chosen by the Conservatives as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy in 2012, right? Of course you didn't.
Canada's investment in military is so laughable. We should have at least 2 aircraft carriers in our fleet preferably 3. We need to stop having so much reliance on the US and be a nation that can carry it's own weight and work with our partners on critical missions and not be a burden on others.
Are you kidding 2-3 carriers? We can hardly crew the ships we have. These upcoming frigates should be ideal for our purposes although I regret Irving getting to build them all. Irving was already looking for more money for hire off-shore as they "couldn't find skilled workers" here. The contract was based on hiring Canadians.
We need a proper Navy with the size of our coastline and current world problems. Unfortunately politicians are more interested in diversity and other nonsense. Nobody cares how nice you are if they want your country. Canada has neglected defense because daddy is across the border. Only question is what will daddy want to defend Canada?
"Largest Warships ever built since WWII" .... Hmmm. Thinking about that statement. Canada never built warships this large during WWII. The largest ships built in Canada were four Triibal Class displacing 1854 tons. The new ships weigh in at 8000 tones and are 4-1/3 times bigger than those. The 280 Class destroyers built between 1969 ad 1973 weighed in at 5,00 tons. (we'll ignore the 22,000 ton AORS also bullt around that time) so they are the biggest built since 1970.
3 месяца назад
And the new Protecteur is the largest not these and yes it's classed as a warship unlike the asterix
@@viper29ca That's not true either. The post WWII Canadian River Class Destroyer program stretching between 1950 and 1964 produced 20 ships. The sailors of that generation referred to them as "Cadillacs" as they were lntra modern and far more comfortable for their crew than the older wartime destroyers that overlepped them until 1965. HMCS St. Laurent thru HMCS Nipigon
The way the naval technology is rapidly changing, the last of the class will probably have very different (better) systems than the first, and by the time those are operating, the first ones will already be going in for major refits. That system of constant upgrades seems to just be the way of things.
But you see, I know what I am talking about. I worked 50 years in the shipbuilding industry, and on 5 classes of Canadian warships during that time. Restigouche Class, McKenzie Class, Huron Class, Canadian Patrol Frigates, and Provider. I worked at Irving Shipyard, Halifax shipyard, MIL in Ottawa, Burrard and Yarrows in B.C. and for the Navy at Naval Engineering Unit Pacific!@@delsymdrinker8064
I like the video but the voice bothers me. He has a difficult accent and is hard to understand. It bothers me that he keeps mispronouncing “river” with a hard “i”. This must be AI voice. No one in the world pronounces “river” like that.
Massively short vertical launch tubes and will easily be overwhelmed in future scenarios. The Aussies realized this and cut their order and their version had 32 cells! Ours sadly, has only 24.
@@delsymdrinker8064 That's funny, the comment was about a 50 year old ship being able to carry more firepower than it's new, heavier, and 20x more expensive (in today's money) replacement, not a long distance fight. The Iroquois were air defense destroyers, they weren't equipped with asm's, so there wouldn't be an anti ship fight between them, they were faster all they would have to do is stay 250 km away from it. In that scenario they would have 6 sea kings to send out after it, if the sea kings didn't sink it they would still just sail away.
That's not quite accurate and you are misconstruing alot. The 280s were built originally as destroyers with anti surface, air, and submarine combatant capabilities with Canada's continued emphasis on anti submarine warfare. The Sea Kings were added to extend that particular capability btw. Their midlife upgrade refit called the TRUMP program saw them upfitted with more air defense capabilities in their new additional role as command flagships whereby the could control other assets such as anti-ship missiles from other ships in the formation such as a Harpoon from a Halifax class frigate. It's really not cool to disrespect strangers on the internet when your own knowledge is just as laughable and your punctuation unintelligible. There is always a bigger fish. I sailed on Iroquois and saw all four of her class refitted through the TRUMP program. As always it doesn't matter how nice these new types are because they will be too little, too late and will be worn thin too soon as every generation of ships has for Canada since WW2 when we actually had the third largest fleet in the world. BTW the 280s were voted sexiest ships in NATO by Playboy and featured on the cover of Playboy magazine If you know you know.
@@MoparStarsAll I'm reading here is a word salad that agrees with everything I've said but with a couple of insults thrown in for some strange and odd reason. Doesn't look like I'm going to learn anything new from you but thanks for sharing
The hull is based on the Type 26, but the systems and role will vary dramatically from the other Type 26-based ships. That's what determines the classification, though the line between frigates and destroyers is often blurry and arbitrary.
Ahhh Canada 🍁, a country where it's previous defence minister harjit sajjan priotised airlifting Afgan Sikhs than Canadians itself during the fall of Kabul in Afghanistan. He left behind 1,250 Canadian citizens and permanent residents, and their family members. The great truedue and their greater nation serving ministers.
@@JT.Pilgrim In UK and OZ outfitting, they are, but only because calling it a destroyer is apparently bad, and doesn't look good on budget sheets. Also, what they will be tasked to do, which is more akin to ASW operations than anything. RCN ships, and how they will be outifitted and used will be more destroyer like. Plus we have River class destroyers in WWII, which kinda lets them get away with it, not to mention that they are designed to replace the Iroquois class, which was a destroyer, even though they have been retired since 2017
Its not the largest built in Canada yet cause we need to wait 6 years before the first one is actually built, just saying. Oh and only if we are on time 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫
Scarry thing to think Irving is going to build this. 😱 Did we not have to dropoff mid exercise with a brand new IRVING build ship in the pacific to get towed to port ?? I have to say ….what are they waiting for to fire the xecutive of this useless company? Let’s have L3 buy it and reshape it from scatch. 20 years to build 3 ships… 😱😡 are they thinking they are on vacation cruise or someting? What a joke! Any descent peace time builders would build that in 3 years. Let’s not waste time and money, let’s order those from Sweeden, France and the U.S. DO something!!!
Fraser st Lawrence etc are river names in Canada. So instead of naming them like hmcs Fraser River they named the class river and all the destroyers after Canadian rivers!
“Long-range rapid maritime kamikaze drones occupy a separate strategic niche in Ukraine’s military operations.”These robotic boats allow Ukraine to protect its grain corridor, amplify domination in the Black Sea, and engage distant enemy naval targets. Drones are effective at sinking ships.
Agreed 100% the Russia ships haven’t been updated since launched. Drone tech is advancing fast. I’m sure this new ship will take out the first two wolf packs 10m naval drones.
River - A river is a natural freshwater stream that flows on land or inside caves towards another body of water at a lower elevation, such as an ocean, lake. It is also the name of a class of warships. riv·er /ˈrivər/ Bouncing the ships is bloody annoying. Thumbs down.
@@AgeCobra It absolutely does not. There is no speed threshold that dictates what is and isn't a destroyer. You'll find a number of modern destroyers with publicly given speeds ranging from the mid-20s to low-30s.
ok let me get this straight, by the time the 3rd ship will come out in around 2050 the first ship will be almost 20 years old???? So the third ship will likely need changes before it even comes out do to 20 year difference in tech, who thinks this is a good idea!!! If these cant be built within 10 years then they need to go back to how they are sourcing these ships.
2030s?!? The Royal Navy has already launched their first, HMS GLASGOW. The new Type 26 River Class will cost many times the true price to build them, since the government insists on building them in Canada. Since they will only employ a total of 15,000 estimated jobs (a TINY number), we could give each and every employee $1 Million as compensation for not getting the job to have them built in Scotland (you know, that paragon of ship-building efficiency) and we'd still save $35 BILLION! And that's using the old figures that are now bloated by an additional estimate of $10 Billion more to build the destroyers. So make that a saving of $45 Billion today. Is it just me, or is our government - every federal government, whether conservative or liberal - insane? They've been trying to "revitalise" the Canadian shipbuilding industry for close on forty years. But who in their right mind would pay ten times as much for a vessel built in Canada, that takes three times as long to build? The Canadian shipbuilding industry is a corpse that only has a pulse because of the enormously expensive life support that keeps being pumped into it - at taxpayer expense. It’s an utterly outrageous waste of tax dollars, yet very few Canadians seem to be aware of it - or care. Canadians just roll over and go, "oh well, what can ya do? The government always wastes our tax dollars." In any other country there would be riots in the streets at such staggering waste.
This is among the worst video's that I seen. The ship that you shown is a frigate not a destroyer, and its "river" as in a stream or brook , not River as in a persons or place's name.
ok.....I was looking forward to this when I first came across it on you-tube. Less than 30 seconds into the video I turned it off. Horrendous mispronunciations of just about every word out of the narrators mouth.....
What are you talking about, aircraft carrier battle groups don't cruise at 30+ knots, if they did their escorts would run out of fuel in no time, 28+ knots is pretty much the standard for most NATO destroyers and frigates.
If a carrier went 40 knots, every other ship would need to keep up with that. Most destroyers/frigates use a combined diesel with gas turbine for high speed but cruise only with diesel so maybe 15 to 18 knots.
All this was supposed to start back in 2011 when the winning contractor was announced....here we are 13 yrs. later and nary a keel has been laid. It's a moot point anyways for a military that seems to be more concerned about having tampon dispensers in the Men's/Trans Men's washrooms. What a bloody joke !! Our enemies will laugh themselves to death, no need to engage in actual combat.
Canada once again coming up short. They don't expect the first ship to be combat ready for 15 years, with the fleet not being finished until 2050. I fully expect our Navy to collapse operationally due to staffing shortages before these ships are ever considered combat certified. Irving has turned into a massive national security risk due to their lack of speed in building these things. But the Navy itself shoots itself in the foot with recruitment when they name our new warships lame and boring things like River class HMCS Saint-Laurent. What kind of 16yr old is inspired to join so they can serve on the St.Laurent, or Fraser and Mackenzie? It's such a lame an nurtured military.. I looked up who named these ships. It was a committee of 32 people, and when you read what orgs they belong to it's no wonder the naming of our ships are so damn Lame and non intimidating. It's obvious now why we have a staffing issue for the entire CAF when we have to run through things like naming schemes through activists groups purpose built to be as lame and uncool as possible. Orgs that helped name the River class: Defence Indigenous Advisory Group Defence Advisory Group for Persons with Disabilities Defence Women’s Advisory Organization Defence Visible Minority Advisory Group Defence Team Pride Advisory Organization historians, and Honorary Captains
in five years, amazing, other country seem to take 2 to 3 years from 2025 to 2050, life of a boat, its aboit 30 years, longer than that, shortage of spare parts the are too big for what we realy can afford but, this our reality for the las 40 years and more, seem to choose the wrong again..... sorry , althought a very acuratte researche and serously done one good thing, almost same design than British navy ans Aussi navy
Brits started their first one in 2017, and it won't be ready for sea trials until 2026, not in service until 2027. Same design as the Brit and Aussie ships, just each are outfitted with sensors and weapons to fit each country.
No country builds them in 2 to three years. They take at least 4 or 5 years IF you have the infrastructure and have built the same hulls for a while. The first takes longest and requires sea trials. The second may have changes made, but by the third or fourth, time speeds up and sea trials are quicker. This hull design was deemed to be a good one. Thats why UK/Australia also went for it, plus it lets Canada build its own ships. Some countries dont allow that.
@@watcher63034 good example is Bath Iron Works in Maine. Build most, if not all of the Arleigh Burke ships. Even after how many they have pumped out, it still take 4yrs for them. And if anyone has the process down, it would be them, considering they have delivered 38, and currently have 12 in progress
They haven't even started a single ship yet and probably none of them will be constructed. The last batch of Harry DeWolf class,"patrol vessels" turned out to be lemons.
Your opinion is based on what? Are your con bot senses tingling or something? The global standard for naval lemons is the USN's LCS, a huge fleet that can basically never be used. Dare to compare.
@@wyldhowl2821I’ll give you that, the LCS is the poster child for bad design & execution. Not sure if you follow the Canadian national news but the HDW class has been plague with mechanical & electrical system failures, coating failures both above & below water, flooding, and just generally bad design. I still don’t understand how the shipyard managed to get a perfectly good operationally-proven design and managed to make it worst in every possible way at triple the cost. The same shipyard that has built the HDW is the same yard that will built the River Class vessels. And you should know that a few members of the LCS program management team have been involved with the CSC (now the River-Class) since at least 2015. So yeah, the lemon analogy might be warranted here.
Doesn't need phalanx, it has 2, 30mm guns on the rear quarters, as well as 2 X 21 cell RAM missiles in the stern deck. Couple that with ESSMs and SM2s in the Mk41s, it will be well protected. And before you say the Phalanx is better, it actually isn't. Phalanx puts out a crap ton of lead, but that is because it is only a 20mm bullet, and has to actually strike the target to be effective. These 30mm rounds are not only bigger, hit harder, but have a longer range, but can also be fitted with air burst shells. Therefore only has to get near the target and explode as opposed to actually striking the target with the round itself.
They should be outfitted with many more AA/anti ship/anti drone guns. Russia is having problems now with defending their ships against naval drones because they do not have enough small caliber guns. The NATO ships in the Red Sea are also blowing through expensive missiles at a significant rate shooting down missiles - we need something more plentiful & cheaper to fire over an extended period.
@@robertdickson9319 Not sure what an anti ship missile is going to do to a drone. But for AA, there are 2 30mm guns, both can fire air burst rounds. 2, 21 cell RAM missile launchers, and 24 Mk41 missile cells that can be armed however you want. Arm them all with quad packed ESSM and that is 96 more missiles. 138 missiles total, plus the 2 30mm guns, and the main 127 mm gun can be used to defend from an air attach as well. Not to mention the other defensive systems on board. Ship will be fine
You got that right. I'd like to have seen Davie get a shot at some. They delivered Astirix Conversion on time and under budget (and didn't Justin hate that and tried to hang Adm Norman) - AND she hasn't been unavailable except for planned 'dockings'; meanwhile the Irving built AOPS are having their troubles and a 1 year warranty? Ladas had more.
The saddest part of all the design is not Canadian the plate that it's built out of is not Canadian all of the systems that will be installed on it are not Canadian the weapons that will be installed on it are not Canadian the missiles the ammunition are not Canadian either it's all imported and if we ever actually get into a real war our military will not last more than a month. We would have to beg the enemy to put the war on hold while we wait for shipments from the United States which today it's 7 years to get another missile It's 10 years to get another airplane I'm not sure how long the waiting list is for the ammunition We don't make or produce anything there's absolutely no way we would last in a real war because we cannot supply our military at all with anything.
We've always done that. We don't have the industry to back it up. 280s (as built) Dutch firecontrol, Italian Gun, American Sea Sparrow, with Canadian launcher. While the steamers were doing their thing in the 50s-90s the vacuum tubes that a lot of the electronics used came from the Warsaw Pact - how screwed up was that?
@@hlafrond965 No we have not always done that in fact it's been during my life time that has changed us importing everything We used to produce everything our military required and supply everything it required from here in Canada in fact during the second World War not only did we supply all of our military's needs we also exported it to Russia and Britain. And the war that's breaking out today we're in big trouble our military is totally useless as we are totally unable to supply it with anything.
So the River class are 8,000 tonnes,almost twice the size of the Halifax class they'll be replacing, and that 8000 tonnes about 80% the size of US Arleigh Burke class and almost the size of the Flight 1 & 2 Arleigh Burkes , the River class also with Aegis system, so are DDGs , guided missile destroyers . And Canada to build 15 of the River class ships , which is as many as the UK and Australia are to build combined of the Type 26 frigates
What a stupid comment. How are they obsolete when they havent been built yet? The radar used is so new that nobody else has them installed on warships yet. Any gun/missile/sonar/decoy can be changed to a different model as technology changes. You dont build a new frigate because there is a new torpedo you want. You simply buy the new torpedo.
