A Canadian Vessel built by Canadians. And it`s as beautiful as efficient obviously. Well done !

Been waiting for a documentary style video on how these beautiful ships were made. Y'all made my day❤

@RoyalCanadianNavy

11 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

Very interesting documentary. Thank you everyone for your service 🇨🇦

It's nice to see new equipment, but why does it have such a small main gun unable to defend itself?

The arctic ships are now leaking

Our navy is too small, and our too few frigates are too old and too busy, for us to integrate littoral navy vessels with only a singular peacetime role. Apparently too many Canadians and RCN sailors are hypnotized into belief that this single 25 mil and times two WW2 machine guns (in circa 1940 pedastal mounts) are enuf armaments. If there is war tomorrow our too few shipyards will be wartime busy with more important projects. So. We are building 6-8 new reefs courtesy Irving RipOff Yards.

the aspect ratio on this video is perfect, well done! and what a ship :D

Lovely ship. Congrats RCN

Great presentation... thank you for all you made this possible.

So cool!!!

Another great video of RCN.

Beautiful ship

Good old cousin Harry - 9th cousin, but what the heck. Saw HMCS Haida in 64 on the Toronto waterfront. Made a big impression on this farm boy. I’d never seen anything so big that moved before. I thought she was a battleship! And she’s less than half the size of the HMCS Harry de Wolf. The new AOSPS are incredible. I’ve been over the public specs, and these compare very favourably with other countries ships, in fact I’d rate this class very highly for peace time patrolling. You aren’t going to find a better ship for that. In fact I could see export opportunities, at least to the richer nations. The capabilities built into this class are more than anything other than a first tier navy can afford.

Proud to be canadian. Proud of our Navy!

@mrwhips3623

10 ай бұрын

You must be insane, our navy can't even afford new submarines, you realize this pathetic boat is a patrol vessel that has no utility in a war! For Pete's sake it's not even armed with missles. This piece of crap is useless. It's embarrassing, and don't even get me started on our army. It's disgusting.

This video skipped over the years of corruption and over spending.. "In May 2013, the CBC reported that the cost of the design phase of the project was many times what other countries paid for design, construction, and full-up operational deployment of similar ships. The projected design cost of the AOPS, $288 million, was compared primarily to the Norwegian icebreaking offshore patrol vessel Svalbard that was designed and built for less than $100 million in 2002, and whose basic design documentation package was purchased by Canada for $5 million. Shipbuilding experts interviewed by CBC estimated that the design cost of the AOPS should have been $10-20 million even if accounting for cost of adapting the Norwegian design to Canadian service." "CA$4.98 billion (2023 estimate for first six Navy ships)" Norway built a better ship in 2002 for $100 million.

Building amphibious vehicles into the ship is a brilliant idea . Is there space for a 3D printer? . Is there a machine shop? . This boat is gorgeous . Take us to space(!) . #OCanada #Canadarm

@kwinter2541

10 ай бұрын

(Protip from the Americans . Use bulletproof-coated inflatable rubber for skirmish boats .)

@kwinter2541

10 ай бұрын

how·s the integration with fighter jets? . if a serious threat is detected while on patrol , how fast can our birds get in the air? .

@kwinter2541

10 ай бұрын

Soundtrack·s fuckin· lit

@Joe3pops

7 ай бұрын

​​​​@@kwinter2541that would depend solely upon the forward operating bases in Canada's north. If Baker Lake, Iqualuit, Yellowknife, Inuvik,or Goose Bay has a NORAD detachment in place, response can be there forthwith. Keep in mind aerial intercept patrol means no iron bombs available upon first incident.

I was in Halifax like 5 years ago, and could see these things (the first of the class I assume) getting built in their yard. I guess some are done and out there now. The worlds has certainly taken a turn for the worse since then.

love the comments ,, its a patrol vessel not a war ship

@canadianguy1955

Ай бұрын

All Navy vessels in a time of war are considered war ships. Where did this childish idea that just because our Navy says our patrol vessels are peaceful, the enemy wont attack them come from? A patrol vessel is just as valid a target as a frigate. Look back at all the major wars in the 1900's, and early 2000's. Non of those wars have patrol vessels as off limits or considered non combatants. In fact they are prime targets because they relay information to the fleet, and air wings. We need to stop being Naive the world is dangerous, and we need ships that can tackle many roles of defense. Not non combatant ships, that can't defend our airspace, or themselves from hostile air power, ship based missiles, or drones both air and water based.

I swear people still think it's 1915, clamouring for big guns. They might as well be asking for battleships. This vessel is outstanding and EXACTLY what's needed and nothing more or less.

@mrwhips3623

10 ай бұрын

More delusion. You know nothing about warfare. Now go play world of warships in your mom's basement

@billestew7535

9 ай бұрын

hardly

@SeanCSHConsulting

6 ай бұрын

Exactly.

@SeanCSHConsulting

6 ай бұрын

@@billestew7535 You mean "totally". FTFY

@Joe3pops

3 ай бұрын

No it's not 1915. It's 2024 and a naval vessel even littoral, deserves a 20mm Phalanx CIWS or a SAM launcher. Merely for self preservation. Our navy is much too small to integrate littoral vessels with only a peacetime role. That's very poor expenditure.

It's a nice looking ship but I wouldn't want to be in a shooting war with one of those things. I'm sure all the 'no need' excuses would fall flat in a heartbeat.

@canadianguy1955

Ай бұрын

Ya the "it's a patrol ship no one will shoot at it" crowed. Clearly have not payed attention to history.

Battle of the Atlantic was in WW2

Is this ship build on a norwegian coustgard config?

@canadianguy1955

Ай бұрын

Yes but it went through a complete redesign to meet the Canadian Navy's requirements as well as to support the ship yards manufacturing techniques. It's origins are based on that design but really its a lot different then their vessel.

@OleBrumHonning

Ай бұрын

@@canadianguy1955 if i remember correct it 30+ years old ship.

AOPS is going to be working in an environment that has the possibility of being contested and as a support vessel for the Army as well as Arctic Rangers, taking the 57mm Bofors off of the CPF and adding them to AOPS [if possible] and adding Oto Melara compact 76 Super rapide guns to CPF [if possible] and putting a bank of JASM missiles on the AOPS giving them some punch, we always have a lack of ships for regular patrolling and NATO operations these AOPS could help with that [if suitably armed ] the fact that the 50 caliber machine guns are not remotely controlled on AOPS seems rather cruel, and the cost overruns are probably not going to have any effect on the government that caused them because they will probably be in opposition [if they are lucky] and the next government will have their own politically driven defense boondoggle, why? because they always do.

I am a bit torn about this ship class. It is obviously very capable and well built. But is it what our navy needed? Was it good value for money? I understand the PR that it for constabulary duties and not meant for combat.... but I simply can't agree with the spin. A ship of this size could have been armed, and it still can be. Put a 57mm gun on her, relocate the 25mm to one side and put another on the other side. Install two sea-rams, and slap on 2x4 NSMs. I know none of us want a war, but in the case of a conflict it should be given a fighting chance. The sailors on these ships should be proud, the decision makers should not be.

@Joe3pops

11 ай бұрын

Yes. It has a strange armament suite that appears too weak. That single 25, could have been twinned, perhaps even tripled up in a single turret. Why doesn't it sport a 20mm Phalanx CIWS in the aft?? Why aren't those .50 bmgs in remote firing turrets with weatherproofing your gun crew and NVG sighting from below decks? There is a Norwegian firing module just like this that u can slap on a 40mm auto grenade launcher too, with your chosen machine gun. With a war in Ukraine full on, and our arctic pretty much bordering Russia, its meak armament doesn't compute. The world is more dangerous than it was just 3 years ago. We should act accordingly.

@Joe3pops

11 ай бұрын

@RelativeGalaxy7 This is exactly why this nation failed in its 2 percent spending as a NATO partner. This doesn't have to be armed like a vessel going into combat. As a parallel example, I point out the former Protecteur & Preserver. They were not combatant vessels, but they were HMCS navy vessels. Each of them had two 20mm Phalanx CIWS and four .50 BMG for self-preservation. Using this logic as a ruler, this patrol vessel rates one 20mm CIWS in its aft along with its current armaments suite. This expensive vessel has a landing craft and two MRI machines. This is basic self defense to ask for merely to add, but ONE CIWS.

@sierravortec2494

11 ай бұрын

These ships were an absolute waste of money, and just another feather in the hat of government after government dismantling any form of combat capability this country has left. These things are far too slow, not armed and not capable of operating in thick arctic ice. It’s beyond criminal at this point how this can continue

@evanputterill8286

11 ай бұрын

@@RelativeGalaxy7 I don't agree. I don't think that what I outlined has a huge weight or space penalty, it is defensive and a lot is above the deck. The idea that "it will never see combat" is nothing but a wish, a wish that I share, but a wish none the less. Whether it is engaged in combat in it's 40+ lifespan is not really up to Canada; world affairs can change quickly and a future enemy might not care about what you think today. I agree there is lots of roles for unarmed vessels; however, 100% if those roles could be satisfied if it was armed with self defense armament. P.S. please give your head a shake about it being a waste of money to arm our navy ships.... That is the same backwards logic that will see us build a 9000 ton frigate with only 24 type 41 cells on it. Incremental costs of arming, or adequately arming, is small compared to the cost of building the ship.

@TheOwenMajor

11 ай бұрын

It's not a warship, its a civilian ice breaker in grey paint, nothing more. The navy bought some to pad out the Coast Guards order, that's it.

All of the (Oberon) submarines are beached. The last two support ships are being sold for scrap. Of 5 Frigates? only 2 are functional. Let us continue to the Ice Breaker area. We have none. I am done trying to laugh this off.

Built 3x more of these maybe add some frames and put in some fleet action level capabilities, RCN needs a high caliber deck gun in the fleet. Also need to deploy these on some freedom of navigation ops in the south seas too fend off belligerent maritime militias instead of icebergs, might make some foreign sales!!!

@mrwhips3623

10 ай бұрын

💀💀💀💀 this thing has no missles. My dad's paddle boat is more useful in a war💀💀💀💀

@alexanderstark5192

9 ай бұрын

​@mrwhips3623 I agree they need a bit better armament but this isn't a combat vessel it's not meant to fight frigates and destroyers etc.

@Joe3pops

8 ай бұрын

A meek armament suite leaves the ship/crew more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. A swarm of inexpensive drones can turn this expensive littoral navy vessel into a burning inferno. Do u watch the news what currently occurs in the Black Sea or Israeli beaches? It's lacking one 20mm Phalanx CIWS aft tied to its neat anti missile radar and another 4 machine guns at least for all around coverage without changing its heading in pan ice. At least 2 heavy machine guns should be remote controlled from below decks. Or maybe you want your navy nephew to operate an M2 Browning at minus 35 degrees and 100 miles off Thule in December??

@canadianguy1955

Ай бұрын

@@alexanderstark5192 "Combat ship" All Navy ships are combat targets when war is on. I'm sure the enemy will just skip right by these because we say they aren't combatants. Ah look over there a Canadian Navy vessel relaying information to their fleet and air wing. Ah Canada says they aren't combatants. No need to remove the ship gathering intel on us... What a ridiculous and deadly way of thinking.

No missile defense? No CIWS? Insanity.

@scottbuckley6578

7 ай бұрын

I know it's a joke and the money could of built something more of a ship with better defense

Other than the HMCS Haida and the (Tribal Class) that actually fought in WW2 this is a joke.

WAY to expensive for its capabilities.

As always, lots of brah-bros who've never served and think they know everything about naval combat because they've played World of Warships. lol sigh

Nice ship, but over priced for what it is and not the best choice for a Navy role. Other Nordic countries have similar ships that were procured at a lot lower price, but in Canada everything cost the tax payers more. The Canadian government procurement process must be the worst in the western world, the design phase had ridiculous prices to make an existing ship plan "Canadian specific" I guess ice is different in Canada vs Norway. It would have been a lot nicer product if the cost was more in line with what the capabilities are. Too bad that the costs to Canadians overshadows the ship, not really an ice breaker or a frigate, does not really do a great job of either role, overpriced costal patrol boat.

Overpriced and under-equipped, unfortunately Canadians are being gouged by domestic shipbuilders. Next stop, frigates at $9 billion a piece.

Interesting part with the legitimate footage of the actual ship and the cheap copy. Such unprofessionalism on the 1 Scientology vessel in the clips.... like the improperly folded ratchet ties. The Canadian forces are making these assembly line style, 11 vs. 1... And the frame that Scientology chose will never become David miscavige's ghost sea org ship because it (the prototype) was sitting in Toronto in the Portlands for quite some time and we sprinkled it with some fairy dust to make sure the vessel may be traced to the end of the universe and beyond..... But yeah, these are important pieces of equipment and not meant for underqualified persons to operate - this isn't "show-off" for boys and their egos. This Gleason guy looks like that actor from that "$pace Force" time-waster show. You guys may try to hurt our nation, combined of many First Nations... But a real Canadian knows what they know. Peace ✌️ may you all be able to leave the "church" safely if you so desire. But what do I know? I'm just one of those "surreptitious persons" of whatever y'all call it

@assaultsquirrel

4 ай бұрын

Bro go outside and touch grass

Nice ship, but needs more teeth too bite back. It's (our north coast) and is going to be raped if we as a nation are unwilling too defend our sovereignty.

Nice documentary. Too bad the RCN has gone woke. Dress codes, etc... War heroes would cringe. Worthless AOPS ships... Just a joke.

@SeanCSHConsulting

6 ай бұрын

Serve some time, then you can flap your mouth.

@coryfice1881

6 ай бұрын

Woke? Tell me how you failed grade school.

@Joe3pops

2 ай бұрын

​@@coryfice1881go top up your tampon machine forthwith.

Warships need to be armed to the teeth. Come on Canadian Navy we can do better.😂

@TheOwenMajor

11 ай бұрын

It's not a warship, it's a civilian ice breaker. The Coast Guard ships will be basically identical.

@eanerickson8915

11 ай бұрын

It has a anti aircraft gun.

@nb3627

11 ай бұрын

@@eanerickson8915 will that suffice.?

@eanerickson8915

11 ай бұрын

@@nb3627 For our military? Yes. Chinese Navy? Probably not.

@alexanderstark5192

9 ай бұрын

Patrol craft don't, but yes these could have been a bit better armed

Man even the Canadian warships have become woke and weak 😂

@SeanCSHConsulting

6 ай бұрын

Go back to World of Warships, clown.