Halifax-class frigate | The workhorse of the Royal Canadian Navy

Рет қаралды 17,694

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 105

@WeaponDetective 4 ай бұрын

Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Sea videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LqMGUzwZdeFlgQ9LHuY32ZX

@henryquecabral9357 4 ай бұрын

Hey Weapon Detective, awesome video. Thanks for not forgetting smaller industries in your videos, as a Brazilian is rare to find a channel that will bring up C-390, Cascavel, Super Tucano, Astros etc... Cheers mate

@williamjpellas0314 3 ай бұрын

A very underrated design. It's a shame that the only other nominal "warships" in the RCN, the Kingston class, barely qualify as coast guard search and rescue assets. If the RCN had built legitimate corvettes instead, it would have had a legitimate fighting fleet, albeit a small one. What Canada fields now is barely a coastal defence force.

@mohammedsaysrashid3587 4 ай бұрын

Nice introduction video about Halifax class frigate as Canadain 🇨🇦 navy pride .thank you ( weapon detective 🕵️‍♂️) channel...for sharing

@blingbling574 4 ай бұрын

Groomed cadets much?

@wyldhowl2821 4 ай бұрын

It's been an good design in general. It's just that the global environment of sensors & weapons constantly evolves, and even after an upgrade, at some point of course a design hits the limit of how much it can be improved.

@georgejones8784 3 ай бұрын

The minimal anti-air loadout means the ship can barely protect itself in a moderate threat environment. In a war, they'd be restricted to anywhere under a more capable ships' protection.

@brucecaron2776 Ай бұрын

@@georgejones8784 basically has the same weapons every war ship on this planet

@seungwooham3204 4 ай бұрын

캐나다 해군에 대해서는 세계에 크게 알려진 바가 없으나 지금 보니 캐나다 만의 아름다움과 실용을 갖춘 세계 최고급 전투함이라는 생각이 듭니다.

@isaacbrionesaboitiz4524 4 ай бұрын

Love your video everytime. Can you please do some video about Italian minerva class corvettes. Thanks in advance.

@shellohd8421 4 ай бұрын

very informative

@habahan4257 4 ай бұрын

Thanks. Nice video

@DHBucsFan 4 ай бұрын

Hard to believe that Canada once had the 4th largest navy in the world (it was a far distant 4th, especially in terms of firepower but still…)

@frijtersfamily9710 4 ай бұрын

Canada actually had the third largest navy in 1945 which makes it even worse (number of personnel and ships would put it in third)

@guderian7795 4 ай бұрын

We had an aircraft carrier too.

@frijtersfamily9710 4 ай бұрын

@@guderian7795 for a short period we had 2 light ones and a full sized one in service

@Alamandorious 4 ай бұрын

Great video!

@Sir_Godz 4 ай бұрын

good service but soooo out of date now

@Strelnikov403 4 ай бұрын

The damn things were out of date the day they were launched. 16x ESSM was a pathetic SAM battery even for the late 80s-early 90s, let alone by today's standards. The Bofors 57mm is a great system when it works, but they're rarely in operational condition these days owing to lack of maintenance, spares, and manpower, and it's next to useless as an anti-surface platform against anything but go-fast boats. They're slow and mechanically unreliable, their one redeeming factor is range but that doesn't even translate into longer loiter times because they're horrendously inefficient at high speeds (ie, running around in wartime) and can't sustain it. They can only carry a single hideously-oversized helo (the SMALLER Tribal-class DDGs could carry two!), and have no other standoff ASW weaponry beyond the helo's two lightweight torps, leaving them sitting ducks against the submarines they were notionally designed to hunt down. Finally as old ships they're incredibly manpower-intensive and barely automated at all, and pose a huge crewing burden on today's RCN in the midst of their biggest recruitment crisis since before WWI. I had some of the best (and worst) times of my life aboard these ships and they'll always hold a special place in my heart, but they're fucking dogs and should've been replaced a decade ago.

@habs8715 4 ай бұрын

Legit like all of our militaries stuff

@BuddyMcNugget 4 ай бұрын

@@Strelnikov403 Very interesting to hear your experience with them. I thought that maybe after the recent refit they might be a decent, if old, vessel again but your points make a lot of sense. What do you think of the upcoming Type 26? Assuming they ever get finished.

@Caesar316 4 ай бұрын

@@BuddyMcNuggetyou'll never get an accurate assessment from a former service member. They're often stuck in their own Era.

@282XVL 4 ай бұрын

@@Strelnikov403 Man knows what he's talking about. This is a 1970s design at best and it shows. She's totally outmatched by any modern submarine, her supposed prey. Modern subs have missiles - this "sub hunter" no anti-submarine missiles (these dive and become torpedoes) and so is brutally out-ranged. With no VLS she has no magazine depth and thus no staying power either in a missile exchange or against aircraft. The harpoon box launchers simply can't put enough birds in the air, even in a full up flush the tubes alpha strike, to saturate the defenses of even a single opponent. Worst of all, they're SLOW. Wartime operations with NATO would see them being left behind by modern, unified task forces. I also think its madness to be buying British replacements, given the fiasco of the QE class carriers. Also the RN is just sadly not what it once was, and the total class of these will just not be that large, reducing the production at scale savings. We should be taking a long look at the new US frigate program and entering discussions to tack six more onto the back of their long serial production order. We should also discuss the possibility of getting a pair of Burke class, one for each coast as flagships and in time of war, able to sail with an allied carrier strike group as a fully capable participant. US might sell them basically at cost, since the end result is they get 2 more Burkes in the NATO fleet, being maintained by Canada. That said, I would trade all the surface assets for a 4 pack of Virginia class SSN. One of the very few military procurement projects to consistently come in on time and under budget. If we want to credibly hold the Arctic and/or meaningfully contribute to the Big Dance around Taiwan one day, modern SSNs is how we do that. The attack sub is the modern battleship. Mark my words, the next naval war will be decided by the subs. Carriers are great for beating on primitive, uppity colonials. Surface ships are great for showing the flag, or for completely emptying their missile magazines and totally wiping each other out in a 30 minute Jutland 2: Missile Massacre Boogaloo. Subs will take and hold blue water in the modern era.

@FullSweatTryhard 2 ай бұрын

Sailed on pretty much every one

@joesutherland225 4 ай бұрын

Been good boats generally speaking I wonder if a major update would be possible .just curious.

@fgp1505th 4 ай бұрын

They used to have carriers and destroyers, hopefully they'll have more capable ships after the Halifax-class

@NewfieOn2Wheels 4 ай бұрын

The new batch of 15 river class destroyers should make for a capable force. I'm not aware of any plans to do so, but I would hope the RCN can set aside 3-4 hulls to be an air defense focused sub-class based on the "guided missile frigate" variant of the type 26 proposed for the RAN which would add an additional 64 VLS cells in place of the central mission bay, bringing the total to 96 tubes.

@flamedphoenix84 4 ай бұрын

Because the RCN does not get the option they just get told this is what you are getting by the government Minister of Procurement. Why is the Canadian Armed Forces has to work with a different Minister to get the equipment they need but don't get? If the people of Canada knew what the CAF are like right now they would be up in Arms at the Government mismanagement and not just this one but all of them for the past 30 years. They all have a hand in the state of the CAF right now. Procurement is not decided by the Canadian Armed Forces. This is the problem even when they get what is needed to do a job they get something way less and still expected to do that.

@craigquann 4 ай бұрын

They're going to be guided missle destroyers. They're getting a lot of the weapons from Uncle Sam. They're going to be far more powerful.

@TomHlavac 4 ай бұрын

This class were well suited to their natural purpose - carrying Canadian fishery officers on luxury fishpat cruises up and down the Inside Passage along Canada's Pacific coast. True story. Did that a few times.

@Hashashin74 4 ай бұрын

I loved this design, but not enough firepower. And it looks like the River class will also not have enough firepower for today and tomorrow's threat, how can Australia have a more powerful navy. Bless all those who serve in the R.C.N

@jean-lucbrault7031 4 ай бұрын

The river class destroyer will be as armed as the Hobart c’ass destroyer.. idk what you’re on. It will have 24vls cell forward, 6 quad packed (24) cells mid ship plus the navy is most likely going to add sea rams on both side. Not to mention its anti submarine capabilities, and the top of the class radar system spy7 and way more. I personally think that it is a very good ship for Canada. But I think we should also have additional smaller frigates and amphibious ship too !

@Hashashin74 4 ай бұрын

@@jean-lucbrault7031 China's type 055 has 112 vls with a 24 cell. More vls is needed.

@Hierachy 4 ай бұрын

@@jean-lucbrault7031 One is an air-warfare destroyer with 48 MK41 vls cells, the other is a Anti-submarine destroyer with half the VLS but with superior CIWS and sub hunting kit. The new ships that Canada are going to build are gonna to be very good for the mission that they are tasked. Like the Hunter class for us Aussies. I would also agree on your last point, i really think that you guys should really do a surface fleet review of your own. we were originally, before the SFR, gonna have 3 Hobart class AW destroyers + 9 Hunter class frigates + 12 arafura OPV's (40 mm gun, nothing else) + 12 Attack class (conventional powered subs), Now after the SFR, we are planing 3 Hobart AW destroyer + 6 Hunter class frigates + 11-12 new general purpose class frigates + 6 OMSV (Optionally Manned Surface Vessel) + 5 Nuclear powered attack subs. Now we might also replace the Hobarts with an AW focused hunter variant with 96+ VLS as an add on build when we finish building the new frigates aswell. it would definately be interesting to see what the canadians would do. would definaly like to see an expansion bup 10 ships at least.

@jean-lucbrault7031 4 ай бұрын

@@Hashashin74 ofc if you compare it to the most armed vessel in the world … it surpasses even the arleight burke class . But I understand your point

@casuallatecomer7597 4 ай бұрын

To be fair there's many reasons, Australia is a (reasonably well-off) island nation in a unique geographical location which favors having a decent navy. I believe that operations in East Timor taught Australia that they needed to improve amphibious capabilities so that led to a focus on the navy.The AUKUS agreement solidifies that even further with nuclear submarines. Compare that to Canada who's in arguably more benign area (surrounded by the US to the south and the Arctic to the north) and politicians whom I suspect still have a "peace dividend" mindset regarding defense spending.

@ndenise3460 4 ай бұрын

Sorry my mistake 25Bn.

@AdurianJ 4 ай бұрын

These ships have a lot of European systems

@1joshjosh1 4 ай бұрын

That's because Europeans and their descendants invent most things.

@kevinw2592 4 ай бұрын

There are on and off issues with US suppliers allowing export of their systems. Usually the Europeans are easier to deal with.

@waisinglee1509 4 ай бұрын

Us Canadians may complain about how few or outdated our ships are but would we tolerate an increased military budget? I don't think so...

@covert0overt_810 4 ай бұрын

no we gave it all to ukraine. people love that when the television tells them to love it. like trained seals

@waisinglee1509 4 ай бұрын

@@covert0overt_810 Really? $12.4 billion in financial assistance in total to Ukraine against over 2.2 trillion in GDP in 2023?

@covert0overt_810 4 ай бұрын

@@waisinglee1509 money wasted … and laundered. ukraine is the most corrupt nation in europe. before 2022

@dna6882 4 ай бұрын

We have the same problem in NZ. Many ppl would like to see the defense force improved but the second they suggest anything the Green party says that we would be better off funding cycle ways for one legged transgender green tree lemurs which identify as 3 legged Red, tree lemurs.....

@covert0overt_810 4 ай бұрын

@@dna6882 my comment got deleted..

@ndenise3460 4 ай бұрын

BTW king Steve's contract was for less than 15 BN$ it keeps going up

@BloodyCrow__ 3 ай бұрын

Only 12 and they only have 8 anti ship missiles on board.

@redj59 4 ай бұрын

They're the only frigates so of course they're the work horse. They need new ones but Canada can't afford new ones or man them. More of those patrol ships or a variant with missles.

@ceebsanimal 4 ай бұрын

Canada is replacing these ships with new River Class destroyers.

@irvinnaron7127 2 ай бұрын

A very capable ship, but a very old one. The CSC wont come until early 2030s. RCN should entertain the idea of uparming the AOPVs at least to provide a minimum air defense, antisubmarine and antisurface warfare in the Arctic. The Kingston class which is too small, too slow and underarmed should be replaced soon with the proposed Vigilance class OPV.

@JollyOldCanuck Ай бұрын

Recycling the 57mm Bofors and CIWS from the Halifax class to up-arm the AOPS would be a good idea, throw on one or two Mk. 70 Containerized VLS systems on the helicopter deck and you've got yourself a solid arctic surface combatant.

@Rip-nl3rm 3 ай бұрын

339 #1

@bennuredjedi 4 ай бұрын

Transfer a few them to CG and put the rest in reserve status. The RCN needs amphibious in some form whether it be an LHD LHA LPD LSD or LST, he'll an ESB will di,it's off the shelf and flexible for multi domain operations or a good mix like the MRSS by Damen along with the LPD 120 they offer at least 6 x2 MRSS and 4 LPD'S, I know wishful thinking lol

@Classic8 4 ай бұрын

A LHA on every coast could go a long way to supporting Canada's interests at home. SAR missions alone would be worth it, let alone sovereignty missions and aide to civil power.

@kevinw2592 4 ай бұрын

I've always thought they would make a good DART base. One on either coast like classic8 suggests. When Russia invaded Crimea the French had two Mistrals under construction that they refused to hand over. I wanted us to grab them but Egypt took them.

@bennuredjedi 4 ай бұрын

@@kevinw2592 I recall that,maybe the RCN can invest into the Damen MRSS

@davidedward10 4 ай бұрын

A great ship. But like so much of the CAF now, getting old and needs replacing. Built for a different time, hunting soviet subs.

@Leo-uu2up 4 ай бұрын

Imagine this being your only naval asset 😂

@naldanomavo405 4 ай бұрын

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. The fact of the matter is that the US does the job of Policing Canada's ocean's better than Canada.But this could also be said of about 90% of the worlds Navy's. We only have open seas and open trade because of US policing. And at the point of helping (or fighting!!!!) the world's Largest military fulfill it mission, it really is a token gesture. Halifax does a lot of little things well. And compared to many nations, this ship would do very, very well. And it's all about supporting the team.

@Leo-uu2up 4 ай бұрын

@@naldanomavo405 you are not wrong, it’s pathetic regardless. Canada used to have aircraft carriers

@tigerland4328 4 ай бұрын

@@Leo-uu2upAll commonwealth navies (the Royal navy included) are shadows of their former selves. Successive governments in Canada,the UK and Australia have cut defence spending down to the bone.

@kevinw2592 4 ай бұрын

@@Leo-uu2up Two escort carriers in WWII and one over the hill medium carrier post war. We have zero need for carriers.

@LAXERJK 4 ай бұрын

@@Leo-uu2uphad to look that up. Can’t believe Canada had carriers at one point. What the hell happened to you guys 😂

@randallwoods 3 ай бұрын

It's not a frigate - it's an offshore patrol vessel (OPV). Far less capable than a frigate.

@FullSweatTryhard 2 ай бұрын

Negative, they are FFH

@danlegris387 4 ай бұрын

The 1st batch was built when home computers weren't even a thing They didn't change the 2nd batch When they finally upgraded them, they had to cut holes in the hull to remove these space invader sized arcade games. They had to rely on laptops. They retired the Iroquois' without an air defense replacement in place, means the Halifax ships are sitting ducks. Sadly the new River class ships, the CSC, will be able to carry slightly less firepower than the Iroquois that were built 50 years ago We should be a shipbuilding powerhouse, a naval powerhouse, but we're just a joke