Meet The River-Class Destroyer - State-of-the-art WARSHIP!

We’re celebrating the start of construction activities for Canada’s new fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC)!
The CSC project will equip our fleet with 15 new, state-of-the-art warships to bolster our capabilities at home, and abroad for decades. Today’s start of construction is on the production test module, where Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc will be able to test, adapt and enhance the build process.
This should allow the River-Class Destroyers to be in full rate production in 2025, with the delivery of the HMCS Fraser expected in the early 2030’s.
www.canada.ca/en/navy/corpora...

[@vergy]

From the Canadian Gov website.... "Delivery of the first River-class destroyer, HMCS Fraser, is expected to happen in early 2030s, with the first nine ships projected to be built by 2040. The final ship, of a projected total of 15 destroyers, is expected to be delivered by 2050." LOL

[@tysoncomfort4244]

5 to 7 years per ship if they really wanted to they could put on 12 hour rotation of work working around the clock and have the first one done in 2 or 3 years

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

expect nothing less from the Canadian government and RCN

[@cariopuppetmaster]

Do they expect these ships to serve until the 2090s??

[@FlickFinder196]

The government should start looking for its replacement while the last ship is under construction. By the time the last ship is completed, HMCS Fraser have reached its mid-life.

[@mp40submachinegun81]

@@cariopuppetmaster yes, probably about that. and thats completely normal in naval terms. look at the american ticonderoga class as an example, first one was comissioned january 1983. scheduled to be retired in 2027. will probably be pushed beyond 2027. 44 yrs of service atleast. also remember virtually the only part of a ship that wont change and be modernised over time is the hull itself.

[@banzeyegaming2234]

I could cry tears of joy...finally, our navy is getting upgrades!

[@benoitnadeau5845]

They still can cut the 15 total to 9 or 12.

[@TofuBoi_]

They're not actually destroyers anyway, they are even considered under armed compare to other frigates today. 😳

[@Wesley_H]

@@TofuBoi_Oh here he is! It’s okay everyone, I’ve found the missing Russian bot! Come on little guy, let’s take you home.

[@brianhouston5368]

@@TofuBoi_ LOL, no. 127mm main gun, 24 cell VLS that can fire Tomahawks and SM-2s, Rolling Airframe Missiles, 2 x 30mm Naval Gun Systems...that's a decent armament, and a huge upgrade over our current fleet.

[@TofuBoi_]

@@Wesley_H lol

[@victorandhannahweston6295]

Great naming convention for the class.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

It's the third generation of River Class Destroyers. One historic River name is HMCS Ottawa. There were two of those named after the river and there is currently a Frigate named after the city. What to do?

[@viper29ca]

@@abrahamdozer6273 Name one HMCS Rideau instead of Ottawa. Current Ottawa was the last frigate built, so if they did go the Ottawa route, it would have to be one of the last of the new destroyers built and not named until after the frigate was decommissioned. Naming it the Rideau still gives it ties to Ottawa Other names to consider Yukon (former McKenzie class) Churchill Saskatchewan (former McKenzie class) Athabaska (or Athabaskan former Tribal Class, former Iroquois class) Ottawa (although we have that in the Halifax class, and was the last one built, assuming the last one to retire, maybe not) Columbia (former Town class, former Restigouche class) Winnipeg (ditto with the Ottawa) Nelson (maybe instead of Winnipeg) Saint John (former River Class) Niagara (former Wickes class via USS Thatcher) Saguenay (former River class, former St. Laurent class) Kootenay (former Restigouche class) Rideau (maybe instead of Ottawa) Skeena (former River class, former St. Laurent class) Restigouche (former River class, former Restigouche class) Just to name a few. Lots of battle honors there with ships from WWII!

[@abrahamdozer6273]

@@viper29ca As I say, I like Nahani. No HMCS Bow, no Red, no HMCS Souris, no Old Man, ... poor old Qu'Appelle By the way, Ottawa could also have been the name of a Tribal, as well as a river and a town. I think that Ottawa needs to be honoured again because the first one was such a significant loss during WWII.

[@viper29ca]

@@abrahamdozer6273 I think the plan is to stay away from tribal names. No reason why they couldn't reuse Ottawa, just that the current Ottawa was the last built, and will likely be the last Halifax class to be decommissioned, so naming one of the new ships Ottawa for the Ottawa River, wouldn't happen until after the current Ottawa is decommissioned. A lot of names will be reused from past ships named after rivers, especially those with honors from WWII, which is how it should be. No Assiniboine, as that is what they are naming the new facility being built in Halifax.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

@@viper29ca No, the days of tribal names are done. I was just mentioning that as an oddity. The shame is that the most powerful and capable warships that Canada launched for two generations, named in honour of first nations peoples. Ottawa could still be re-used as a river to hoonour the loss of the first one . St-Croix should also be re-used to honour a ship that ultimately had only one survivor from her sinking.

[@EVRevolution]

Love it! Great to see The MacKenzie coming back! i served on DDE 261 from 1982 to 1985 as AB Radar Plotter and she was a proud ship and crew. Travelled over 25,000 miles and visited many ports. Can’t wait to see this new River Class!

[@kevdupuis]

I served on Qu'Appelle DDE-264 during CanComTrainPac 77, love the old MacKenzie class steamers.

[@longjohn9509]

I served on MAC from1965-69 best ship I was on.

[@AL-31]

Sorry you won’t likely be alive to see the new MacKenzie in service :(

[@longjohn9509]

@@AL-31 UNDER Trudeau neither will my Grand Sons

[@mrshar1000]

FINALLY, Hope that we get to see them and that they dont get stuck in development hell but it feels good knowing that something is finally on the way.

[@flamedphoenix84]

supposedly they cut steel for the first one on 28 June 24. It is interesting because the Halifax class ship took 1 year 1 month to build and 4 years for trials. So, if it take 7 years to build how long will it take for trials. So, let's hope they can build these as fast as the Halifax class ship but I don't see that since it took them so long to build the AOPS.

[@nxswad]

cant wait to see them in 15years+...

[@doogleticker5183]

You’ll see one…only one obsolete ship. 😢

[@canadian75made]

With the Canadian procurement process, lucky to see them in 15 years, maybe right around the time we finally see the new F35's LOL

[@alpearson9158]

@@canadian75made the f35 problem is from Lockheed not the government

[@danoonthego9539]

Looking forward to seeing it float in my 80’s !!,

[@EpicMother249]

Happy 74th Birthday. I hope you make it!

[@chlomyster8526]

Me too i'll be 88 by the time they sail. Wish I was 20 again so I could join.

[@patallen5095]

Great production.......Now we just need to build about a dozen more and find the crews! Hopefully most of the electronics and weapons are off the shelf items......less bugs and teething problems. At the end of the Second World War, Canada had the world's 3rd largest navy. With the Arctic and Pacific heating up, we need to commit to the world and to our men and women in uniform!!

[@TheOwenMajor]

"At the end of the Second World War, Canada had the world's 3rd largest navy." - This is disingenuous information that has been propagandized. It's technically true if you count up the number of ships, but is deliberately misleading for two reasons. 1. Most of Canada's fleed was comprised of small boats, many were wooden fishing boats pressed into service. I don't think many people would consider a wooden fishing trawler that was used for minesweeping to be considered a navy ship. 2. It's only true because most other nations' navies were destroyed or seized by the end of the war. France had been occupied, and Japan, Germany, and Italy's navies had been captured or destroyed.

[@ArcticuKitsu]

@@TheOwenMajor 3 Aircraft carriers (granted, one at a time; Swapped out), 2 light cruisers, 3 armed merchant cruisers, many destroyers, many corvettes. Even 2 Q-Ships. It's still a dangerous navy, if you can coordinate nicely with the CVs, CLs, and DD's in combination. I'm certain we could have had an Essex-Class aircraft carrier as well, if the war kept going. It is what it is, and we have to respect (not shame) what we have as Canadians. This has nothing to do with navies being destroyed, it's about Canada having a presence, and it was true it had the 3rd & 5th largest navy at the time. Even noteworthy radar, which was used by HMCS Uganda/Quebec to be used in Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Pacific. If HMCS Ontario made it in time we could have seen her in lovely action in a similar role.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@ArcticuKitsu 1 aicraft carrier - Kinda at the end of the war (it was never really ours), the other two stayed in the Royal Navy. At the end of the day, all three were British ships temporarily loaned or operated by Canadian sailors. 1 light cruiser - Kinda - Both were transferred from Britan, and one was right at the very end. ------ And that's it for anything of note. Then it's just a handful of destroyers (Again, largely provided by the UK), and smaller patrol vessels.

[@patallen5095]

@@TheOwenMajor Canada's Navy had 95,000 men and women in uniform at the end of the war. 434 commissioned vessels that included cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes with auxiliaries used for transport. A minesweeper was a minesweeper. Not sure where you get your information?!

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@patallen5095 In comparison, the US Navy had 3.4 million men, and the Royal Navy had 1 million sailors. Very proud to say 3rd biggest, not so vocal about being 1/10th the size of the 2nd largest. Also in comparison the Germans and Japanese each had about 1.5 million personal each. So again to my point, this whole "3rd largest navy" figure is cherry picked and not representative of reality.

[@CZac2k12]

I support this navy development!! Let's keep our rivers and tributaries safe!! 😁👍🇨🇦 Happy Canada Day!!

[@Historybuff_769]

Might have to join the navy now

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

these won't be ready until your children are old enough to join up.

[@davidkendall1614]

Bring a hundred friends…that will help them crew one ship.

[@Jim-XLCH]

As an ex-RCN veteran, all I can say is interesting ad.

[@flamedphoenix84]

yeah let's see how long it take for them to be built. I know they will take double the amount of time to build then the Halifax class ships maybe even triple the time.

[@vergy]

@@flamedphoenix84 From the gov website. "Delivery of the first River-class destroyer, HMCS Fraser, is expected to happen in early 2030s, with the first nine ships projected to be built by 2040. The final ship, of a projected total of 15 destroyers, is expected to be delivered by 2050." What a joke LOL

[@kingjames7273]

Come- on jim tell us what ya really think!😅😅😅😅 and if war breaks out in-between their insane time line? I see a disaster ahead.and their frigging frigates not destroyers but I guess if they say so

[@kingjames7273]

​@vergy north Korea will have nuked us by then lol😅😅😅😅😅😅

[@RedGaming5]

Man this ship looks so cool can’t wait to buy one for myself

[@davidkendall1614]

The price will be 50% more when it hits the water. Trudeau acquisition management. “And the budget will take care of itself”. We just need a $60 million app from GC Strategies now to tell us when it is still tied to the wharf without a crew.

[@jarridurlacher7731]

Why was this put together better then most movies haha

[@DarkpawTheWolf]

AWESOME! My only wish is that they would be built faster. The last ship is due in 2050, which is an astonishingly long time from now. With our procurement process taking decades, they should start working on the next set of ships now. Maybe we should subsidize reopening the shipyard in Saint John, and two ships could be built at the same time? (one in Halifax, and one in Saint John)

[@brettfavreify]

10,000 DND bureaucrats spent 10 years just coming up with the names.

[@wyldhowl2821]

Pay me as much as the group of them, as a "contractor", and I'll gladly crank out naming conventions for all kinds of things. Is presenting it on the back of a napkin okay? 😆

[@davidkendall1614]

And they had to outsource to GC Strategies still, who outsourced it to someone else and billed the government $60 million…

[@Astr0b0y8]

Looking good!

[@jonmce1]

So suddenly frigates have turned into destroyers.

[@buckshot9521]

Look NATO, we are finally committing to building a serious military! Check out these totally awesome DESTROYERS!!! What's their displacement? Armament? Who cares! DESTROYERS!

[@canmorecommando4925]

@@buckshot9521funny enough these ships have the same displacement as a light cruiser, the reason they are called destroyers is the role they will play in our naval, missiles vessels(destroyer role), which is a change from the original role of general purpose(a frigate role).

[@MMG008]

The classification ‘Frigate’ or ‘Destroyer’ is a function of their role. Displacement isn’t relevant.

[@buckshot9521]

@@MMG008 Type 26 destroyers are classified as frigates by every other country operating them.

[@wyldhowl2821]

@@MMG008 Agreed. The line between the two roles is blurring anyways.

[@thejeffinvade]

Type 26 with new radar. I was hoping for more than 32 VLS in an 5000 ton ship. I hope more can be added later on.

[@viper29ca]

Only 24VLS on the first 3 ships. Who knows about the rest. CAMM also replaces with SeaRAM

[@Harldin]

Its actually an 8000t ship, yea bit under armed.

[@cannack]

Mockups have been seen with both 3x mk41 launchers (24 cells) and 4x (32 cells). So room in the design is certainly there for that option if exercised, But it may very well be just 24 cells for some if not all of the ships (based on what the RCN has stated). The type 26 for the RN will have *48* CAMM launchers (24 behind the stack, 24 at the bow) and 24 deep vls. Omission of additional CAMM or vls of any type on the bow in these mockups may be a sign that they plan/planned to put 32 cells on future hulls, or simply grimaced at the cost & reduced the numbers, so god knows what really is going on. With not so much as a single welder`s tear on the keel blocks yet, anything related to the ships can and likely will change over the next year. This is Canada afterall, one must assume things will have drastic changes underlined by delays, which is already a given for any first-of-class vessel. Feels like yesterday they called off the batch-3 FFH (halifax) frigates...... so I'm pessimistically hopeful for the future.

[@thejeffinvade]

@@viper29ca really? That’s even fewer than I thought. I guess we will need Americans to provide most of the air over while we conduct blue collar jobs.

[@SpruceMoose-iv8un]

@@cannack Australia is looking into replacing the mission bay with VLS cells, at the rear.

[@Mark-079er]

The way Canada works is you won't even see the first ship till it is outdated in 10-12 years, the rest 20 or more years. Like everything Canada does Armed Forces wise, it will take many years and headaches. Might see 5 ships before program is cancelled.

[@EpicMother249]

Exactly. Add 1% to GST to support our troops

[@dirtdevil70]

The stated build schedule is first one enters service in 2030( 6yrs wtf) with the last in 2050(17yrs)...so you werent too far off.

[@chlomyster8526]

Love the names. Now we need our young Canadians to join and take up a fantastic opportunity to see the world and have a great career too. Sigh if only I was 20 again.

[@moonanxiety2993]

Woahhhh the production is awesome

[@aaronmorse9071]

My Great Uncle served on the H48 HMSC Fraser in WW2. Great name!

[@MrDeman40]

Great news to hear!!

[@ChaoticCobra]

I knew that these ships were too good to be considered frigates!!! The RCN'S River class ships deserve to be classified as destroyers 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦👏👏👏

[@TofuBoi_]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but these are actually not destroyers, they are even considered under armed compare to other frigates today. 😳 It has only 1/4 to 1/3 of fire power a US Burk class destroyer, the actual destroyer, has. The newest Aegis destroyers from South Korean Navy have almost 100 more VLS per ship than this Canadian "River class destroyer" class light frigate... Federal government is not willing to build capable ships for RCN and now they are not even willing to admit it. Calling these frigates "destroyers" might be one of their effortless attempts to hide it. 🤔

[@EpicMother249]

Dont worry cobra. I have been seeing this tofubrains comments all over the place. And his anger isnt directed at you. He is mad at the teacher for pointing out he failed because he thought answering all "C's". On the multiple choice test was a good idea. Boo-urns Tofu.

[@Scotian6444]

@@TofuBoi_ and you have no clue what they will do with the space... its just for extra beer for all you are concerned

[@TofuBoi_]

​@@EpicMother249hahaha 😂 so you are trying to be the funny one, not bad, keep em coming 😉

[@TofuBoi_]

​@@Scotian6444I will know what they will do to all the space when they quickly run out of missiles

[@RahimLadhajuma]

Absolutely love this 🇨🇦🤙🏼🪖

[@Nomenius1]

Finally, a boat that isn't older than my mother.

[@mikelang4191]

Are you 10?

[@Will-od8rc]

My Grandfather served on HMCS Saint Laurent (a river class destroyer) back in the second world war, I'm glad to see these new river class destroyers will have HMCS Saint Laurent among them again. Now, what's her hull number going to be?

[@daedalus-N7]

Pretty underwhelming payload capability for an 8000 ton ship. But hey it's more more payload than anything we've fielded in the past. So it's a step in the right direction

[@jpapillon47]

🎉👍👌exciting!!😮😊

[@bobwood9689]

It only took about 10 years to design a ship already being built by the British. They have started to build a test module to figure out how to build it. They aren't starting the first one until 2025 and we don't get the the last one until the 2050s. Good job people.

[@user-og1ux8nr3i]

The longer you delay the cheaper they get. lol

[@GrizzAxxemann]

I figure upgrading some used Arleigh Burkes to Flight III status would have been faster and cheaper.

[@user-og1ux8nr3i]

@@GrizzAxxemann -- you could be right.

[@darwoo]

@@user-og1ux8nr3i Actually the longer we delay the more expensive they get. They’ve quadrupled in price over the past 15 years as steel, electronics and weapons systems cost increased exponentially. During this time of crisis expect prices to climb much higher due to supply and demand. 😢

[@user-og1ux8nr3i]

@@darwoo -- normal way for the liberals when handling buying for the military

[@benoitlaferriere8581]

About time , now it's gonna take 15 years to see the first operational ship.

[@crankyguy135]

Have they reclassified our Type 26 variant a destroyer now? Serious question.

[@EpicMother249]

Naming conventions of destroyer frigate and cruisers are obsolete. A relic of WW2. Type 26 is comparable to a light cruiser from WW2. Its a multi mission platform. Command and communication capabilities of a crusier. Size of a destroyer. And ASW specialized like a frigate. Its displacement is similar to a US Ticonderoga Class, and that is a cruiser Hell, if we put drones on board, it is all so an aircraft carrier by WW2 definitions.

[@Nohandle2500]

I wonder if they’ll take half a century of bureaucracy to clear like replacing the CF-18 has taken

[@EpicMother249]

Oh the beurocracy has royaly messed that purchase up. Small silver lining= the block lV F35 which we will be recieving. Have upgraded internal ( stealth ) capacity (for missiles) are 150% of the Block l-lll's. So there is always that.

[@canadianguy1955]

We won't see an operational one for 15 years. With the fleet not finished until 2050. Meaning we will have put 33 years of effort into getting these built. Not half but certainly more then a quarter of a century seems to be what they are aiming for.

[@wanekiacook9257]

Can't wait to see these on the high seas in 10 years.

[@wanekiacook9257]

I was joking at first, but looking it up, the first is expected to launch in the early 2030s, and the last by 2050. That's if they're not over budget or delayed 💀

[@TofuBoi_]

They will probably be outdated even before all the ships in class delivered.

[@wanekiacook9257]

@TofuBoi_ they're probably outdated now tbh.

[@TofuBoi_]

@@wanekiacook9257 agree, majority of new ships now are built as stealth ships, Type 26 has some stealth features but itself is not a stealth ship, it was initially designed 10 years ago (however its program started over 2 decades ago).

[@wanekiacook9257]

@TofuBoi_ Stealth Ships are just future reefs.

[@mobo8933]

Are laser based weapon systems like the british dragon fire going to be added too?

[@abrahamdozer6273]

Over the ship's 45 year life span, all sorts of things will be added and subtracted. Same with the AOPVs and their current single chain guns.

[@crusaderwm60-e48]

They're pretty open platforms as it is. Big part of modern ship design is being able to swap parts as new systems develop and become available. I can't imagine a direct laser system would be particularly large

[@wyldhowl2821]

It is a very long program to build these, and I would not be surprised if the latter half of the project is adding very different systems, because it will be like 10+ years from now. By the time it is done, the first ones to hit the water will already need some kind of refit before very long.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

@@wyldhowl2821 Yup.

[@Evil.Totoro]

Love the naming convention choice because of the history behind it. I was worried the RCN was gonna go with the Province and territories as names.

[@breadtoasted2269]

To bad I’ll be like 100 years old to see these in action my kids will enjoy

[@codyhunter5330]

Nice!! let's goo!

[@BrianZinchuk]

Since when did the type 26 become a destroyer? I thought it was billed as a frigate.

[@cortneysauk7533]

It is, these aren't Type 26 ships though. We've just used the design as the starting point for our own design and construction of the CSC (now River Class)...

[@abrahamdozer6273]

I was on the last St. Laurent a long, long time ago in a navy far, far away 'I think that they should add a couple of new rivers this cycle: Nahani (nobody knew much about that river in the 1950s) And Athabaska (NOT the tribal name Athabascan) as Alberta should have one of her rivers represented. You can see why there was no HMCS Red built in 1955.

[@coreya151]

Now I'm thinking of Alberta rivers and how they could be ships. HMCS Peace might be an odd name for a warship. Probably won't go with Slave or Smoky. HMCS Oldman comes to mind... Oh oh oh HMCS Battle River! Wabiska and Wapiti would be good, too.

[@wyldhowl2821]

Yeah, "Red", definitely a clunky and problematic name, especially in that era. Also the Red River is very prone to flooding, so probably bad luck to slap that name on a ship.

[@comanderx5677]

And there was me thinking type 26 were frigates. Although I guess a displacement of 8,000 tons is pretty close to most modern destroyers

[@cortneysauk7533]

Canada isn't buying the Type 26 though... We're using its design as a starting point for building our own vessels which will be larger and hold more weaponry. Just look up the difference in capabilities of the Type 26 and the CSC (now the River Class Destroyer)

[@MichaelBaxter2876]

Truly love this. And that we showed the American Niagara Falls not the Canadian

[@Aitch-102]

wearing our crown, not your own turban

[@augurseer]

Not the first river class destoryers in Canada. But cool

[@kutter_ttl6786]

That was the intent, as an homage to the WW2 River-class destroyers. The plan is to have each of the new ships named after their WW2 counterparts (at least the first 14).

[@markblondeau1143]

​@@kutter_ttl6786 I think they're also named for their Cold War predecessors of the St Laurent series of four classes (certainly these three are, and all of the old steamers were named for rivers 🤷‍♂️).

[@TrickiVicBB71]

Good news to hear

[@benoitnadeau5845]

Can we see the Kingston and Victoria classes replacement ?🙂🙂

[@Alpha3280]

i love our navy, its great

[@brianhouston5368]

Damn. Never expected to see something like this, given our current government's penchant for leaving the CAF wanting. I guess other NATO countries putting the screws to us is having an effect. Good stuff; we are in desperate need of new air-defence warships.

[@avroarchitect1793]

Except that these are years behind schedule and we are not building enough to meet our needs

[@EpicMother249]

12 frigates are sufficient

[@brianhouston5368]

@@EpicMother249 Negative. Destroyers with air defence capability are far better in today's climate. Much more utility in NATO taskgroups. And I'm sure these will have the standard Canadian ASW suites, so these will be pretty good warships if delivered with the capabilities promised. Given our procurement history, that's a big if, of course.

[@EpicMother249]

@brianhouston5368 Frigates and destroyers. The great debate. We call the destroyers. Britain calls them frigates. Yes, the ships are not identical( ours are 15 feet longer and 50 cm narrower ) and the systems suites won't be either. But the naming conventions are outdated. I like Type 26's and think that when we roll them out, they should serve us well. I am excited to see the CSC when completed. A 32 cell vls mk41 vs. the 24 vls would tip my hat a little more. But the weight concerns are legit.

[@hornet002]

​@EpicMother249 our 12 frigates will be 40 years old before the first of these have their kinks all worked out these are replacements not additional

[@Berlin-Kladow]

Great news for RCN. Lets add some AUKUS submarines from Australia/US/UK as well. Whatever they say the cost is, it will be three times as much

[@SteveSamillano]

These destroyers are loooong overdue.

[@Wheeler590]

If they give half of much thought to how they build them as they do naming them....they might work! E.g. Garage band when you are 13, awesome name...no one can play an instrument. 😉

[@sdoo-ou2ni]

this trailer slaps

[@connorkilgour3374]

Would love to see a HMCS Kaministiqua named after the river in my home town of Thunder Bay. The river has played an important role from the fur trade to commerce to shipbuilding

[@davyman2000]

Only problem with that is it would go against the policy for the rest of the country to generally ignore Thunder Bay lol

[@connorkilgour3374]

@@davyman2000 haha maybe. But there has been a HMCS Port Arthur, HMCS Fort William (The two cities that formed Thunder Bay) And HMCS Thunder (As in named after the bay itself)

[@mikemirtle]

Awesome 👏.

[@defenderofwisdom]

Cool... Maybe an HMSC Riel?

[@strikezonefishingadventures]

Great news, and made in Canada too.

[@commodorce6431]

Made in Canada designed and built first buy Britain

[@MATC1077]

Are they getting built in Canada

[@smobro]

Yes they are being built in Canada. I know they will build at least some of them at the Irving Shipyard but not sure if they are all being built there or if some are being built elsewhere in Canada.

[@jeremythebeer8609]

Are these actual Destroyers named after rivers or river vessels like the Swedes have? I thought Destroyers needed to be crewed by more sailors which Canada does not have and that they were being replaced by an all-in-one Type 26 Frigate?

[@wyldhowl2821]

One global trend in is that thanks to automation, advanced computing and so on, crew sizes are getting smaller relative to capabilities. It's actually a selling point in many recent designs.

[@jeremythebeer8609]

@@wyldhowl2821 These are apparently Type 26 Frigates... They'll replace both the Iroquois Destroyers and Halifax Frigates.. We'll see them in a decade. So sad.

[@jeremythebeer8609]

Next question is how do we build these ships faster?

[@michaelmcwhinnie1693]

Well that's both exciting and welcome news!! 🎆👏

[@tssteelx]

Do they ice breaking ablity?

[@davidkendall1614]

Noooooo

[@Scotian6444]

With this new contract we need new assembly hauls made... Vancouver... Quebec... and NB... if we must pay that 3% gdp on defense than spending it on tooling up a industry is the way to meet demands

[@romanmalmas9370]

Please tell me it’s not being made by the Irving oligarchs?

[@davidkendall1614]

We are taking a Frigate design and calling it a Destroyer?

[@justinleon3509]

i like the name of the class and that we are finally looking to reconstitute the navy. however, we should get closer to 20 of these, maybe 17-18. we should also get maybe 2 more arctic offshore patrol vessels. the kingston class and victoria class should have plans to be replaced. we may also need to look at getting a third replenishment ship. and then explore longer term plans for an amphibious assault ship. that would be a credible naval fleet.

[@cortneysauk7533]

We can't even man the 12 Frigates we have right now. Shit, we're lucky to have at most 2 or 3 Frigates on each coast even capable of sailing at the same time. Our Naval Engineer trade has been destroyed to the point it's unrecoverable and it's getting worse every year. Last I saw, they were below 60% in manning and that's total for the trade, a good percentage of those are injured, untrained, or retiring soon. Our Navy was very slowly dying before Covid and OP Honor, since then it's hemorrhaging bad and getting worse every year.

[@justinleon3509]

@@cortneysauk7533 im actually interested in the naval engineer trade. i agree we do have personnel issues, but does that mean we reduce our naval fleet? the northwest passage will soon be navigable so there are economic interests there we need to protect. the americans do not recognize the passage as canadian waters so we cannot rely on them there. i have a friend who serves in the army who said that one of the issues, in his opinion, is there isnt a military base-presence near our large urban centres. as such, young ppl in the cities dont have connection to the military. maybe that is something the military needs to look at, maybe having more regular training-presence near our cities throughout the year. we may have this, but also maybe look at the US model where they have 'pathways to citizenship' by serving in the military. again, open to see what you think about this as well

[@Boujading1]

Glad they are in the works (too late IMO) but we need some competition for Irving. The CSC is so expensive per unit, thanks in large part to this lack of shipbuilding competition.

[@EpicMother249]

Please dont. The Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy was evenly divided ( after litigation and lobby. Hence, the serious delay. ) between Davies, Irvin, and Seaspan. The cost is associated with infrastructure since we havent seriously build ships since the 1980's. Ports crumble, people move on, and crotical talent is lost. The biggest thing the NSS did was bring these ship yards into the modern times

[@Boujading1]

@@EpicMother249 Looking at those numbers I would hardly use the word "evenly." $5.6 billion or over $4 billion USD each at a minimum now!!! Too many adds to the platform, overweight for the propulsion gees! For perspective the Burke is $2.2 billion USD per unit. Canadian oligopolies gouging taxpayers again.

[@EpicMother249]

@Boujading1 absolutely. Our shipyards ( three separate companies ) gouged the federal government. But the US is not a comparison. Do you compare your wages to bezo or musk. The biggest producers have kept their industries humming. Imagine crank an engine that's been idle for four decades. The cost of infrastructure is baked into delivery.

[@EpicMother249]

@@Boujading1 what would you take off to reduce weight? Armor? Weapons? Crew?

[@Boujading1]

@@EpicMother249 The comparison is valid. It is a similar ship that is better outfitted for almost half the cost.

[@AdrianLeeMagill]

Great! Now, if we can get some nuclear powered submarines...

[@wyldhowl2821]

The "River Class" is fine, but this video suggests only destroyers, where everything up to now suggested some ships functioning as destroyers and others as frigates. I suppose if they wish they can name the destroyers one type of thing and the frigates another.

[@EpicMother249]

A frigate is a destroyer by another name. The River Class will be 15 nearly identical ships. We happen to call them destroyers because they will have a VLS ( vertical launch system ) and ASW ( anti sub warfare ) system suites. In the old days, surface ship hunters were destroyers. So voila. A destroyer. Hell. Britain and Australia call them frigates. They are all Type 26's. The aussies " Hunter " class is nearly identical and I believe the "City" class is as well. Call it a win if we can get it in the water sooner than later

[@ScottMorris-yd2fp]

​@EpicMother249 frigates hunt subs. Not sure I get the whole destroyer thing. Does this mean type31s for frigates

[@EpicMother249]

@ScottMorris-yd2fp Britain designed the 26's. They couldn't afford all they needed, so they designed a smaller and cheaper boat. So, if a frigate was less capable than a destroyer ( in WW2 ). And the 31 is less capable than the 26. Then yeah, you could call the 31 a frigate. But the old naming convention doesn't really work in modern times

[@berkshire7139]

Glory be, Hallelujah.,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please tell me this isn't fake news. This is long prayed for news. We need 6 in the class with Polar 3. Please please please let this be true!!!

[@Aitch-102]

Who makes those then?

[@romanmalmas9370]

The Irving family

[@Aitch-102]

@@romanmalmas9370 Guess again.

[@NolzySZN]

@@Aitch-102Irving will be making them, no need to guess

[@amougyou1640]

Wait we have a navy?

[@mnufeld8448]

Approx as large as that of Spain, & surface fleet almost as large as that of russias northern flt

[@NolzySZN]

@@mnufeld8448that’s not saying much, russian subs dominate the northern fleet

[@mnufeld8448]

@@NolzySZN northern fleet is russias premier fleet, with Pyotr velikiy, Kirov class battlecruiser as fleet flagship,to be replaced by Nakhimov ,and with the russian navy flagship ,even as it is ,the Kuznetsov also homeported at murmansk . and northern fleet far larger than either the Baltic or the ( crippled) black sea fleet , around about as big as both of them put together

[@TofuBoi_]

Just checked specifications, how come a 8000t ship carries less weapons than a 5000t ship. The only thing that qualifies it as a destroyer is the weight, but it has non of the capabilities. To justify this massive weight, it at least need to have 80 minimum Mark 41 VLS, and if a mission Bay is preferred, the number of VLS should still be no less than 50. NATO members need to build actual capable ships instead of these "diet warships," also calling a frigate a destroyer is just a joke 😓

[@kevinyaucheekin1319]

You do know it is a specialised ASW platform. Quite possibly the best in the world. However it immaterial even if it is the best. 3 or even 8 platforms are way to few to be meainful

[@EpicMother249]

Tofubrain is just upset. Pay him no mind. The final outset if ships will be 15. And who knows with and adequate and educated shipyard industry. The Type 45 Daring class might join our fleet in the future. I look forward to the fleet finally getting the equipment it deserves.

[@TofuBoi_]

@@EpicMother249 lol, didn't think I would have a "know it all" fan following my every comments, keep it up! 👌

[@EpicMother249]

@@TofuBoi_ Oh Tofu, my boi. I hope you have cleaned up your toys. Now, quickly. Wash up for dinner. I made those nuggets you like.

[@TofuBoi_]

@@EpicMother249 XD not bad, so you really are trying hard to be the funny one

[@IRORSCHACH]

All the way to space😮

[@lmz920621]

0:26 Only 24 VLS?

[@EpicMother249]

Yes. But they are the tall ones. So a 24 of tall bois must be the equivalant of 1.5× the regular ones

[@GraingyAircraft]

If only I could be optimistic.

[@machonurin9588]

Very good. How many ship we can have?

[@barbcorrigan2389]

But is it really a destroyer. After all it's a Type 26 Frigate.

[@Holdfast1812]

The problem is that the procurement process is so slow and corrupted that we might only see three of the 18 needed. As well as the nuke subs that are also needed of course.

[@Jul_Vy_Mdama]

I live on the Mackenzie river as a Dehcho Dene, so naming a "River-Class Destroyer" after a colonizer who just came and went jsut to say he was the "first" to discover it isn't so indicative to celebrating the heritage of my people lol. Anyways the ship looks good tho!!

[@lookabomba32]

Destroyers? Like actual destroyers? Not frigates? Very nice. So whats gonna happen to our Halifax Class frigates?

[@hornet002]

No bae calls it a frigate uk calls it a frigate and Australia calls it a frigate and up until this week so did we. Its the size of a destroyer but theres not really much of a diff in size between frigates and destoryers these days. Big diff is these ships want to be do everything ships and have about half the missle cells of most destoryers and a 1/3 of the American ones and are slower than the destroyers too. These are still good ships but the destroyer class is for pr

[@hornet002]

And the halifax class will be 40 years old when these start to get going, these are replacements for them. hopefully they will save one or 2 as museum ships

[@commodorce6431]

How does a frigate get turned into a destroyer?

[@tilaman3]

The new ships will have more fire power and abilities with up graded systems, the new destroyers will be larger than the current frigates and also the retired 4 destroyers.according Nato standards they are destroyers.

[@commodorce6431]

@@tilaman3 larger but not by much 148m compared to 151

[@tilaman3]

@@commodorce6431 the Halifax frigates are 134 meters and the retired destroyers are 129 meters compared to the new destroyers at 151 meters the new destroyers will have more advanced weapons and capabilities compared to what Australia and England are building that's why they are destroyers not frigates according to NATO, there are articles about why they are classified as destroyers you can read. PS The new ships will be heavier than both the old destroyers and frigates

[@commodorce6431]

@@tilaman3 heavier by about 300 tons but okay, still…pretty light for a destoyer

[@tilaman3]

@@commodorce6431 I agree but I think it's because it will have the capability greater than a frigate.

[@cpo9504]

Well it looks like ower top general begin on his hands and knees for air defense atully did some good, and this wasn't expected but vary welcome given the targets nato is expected to defend against

[@uou_knightplaysoldchannel1557]

This should of started production 12 years ago. Well thats Canada for you. We are slowly catching up with current tech will be obsolete in 26 years

[@EpicMother249]

Mid life schedules maintenace or extended life programs have kept the Halifax Class frigate relevant. Most armed forces programs have tech that is decades old and still going strong. The B52 was designed in the 50's. I am sure they are not calculating speed with their watches anymore 🤞

[@xXimf4m0usXx]

WTF is that timeline? I thought we were supposed to get the first Type 26 frigate in like 2023 or 2024?

[@EpicMother249]

WTF. Is this the first time you have updated yourself on the National Shipbuilding Strategy. It has been ongoing since Harper announced in July 2008. Where do you think the Asterix and the AOPS came from. If you're interested. You should keep up. Military procurement is important. Look it up on wikipedia. Has the whole timeline and issues. Three different shipyards, Davies, Seaspan, and the other one. Ita a good read

[@darwoo]

How is it that after the Australian design review they determined 32 VLS tubes were inadequate for their (now ) 6 Hunter Class Type 26 Frigates, yet here in Canada we reduced from 32 VLS tubes to 24 VLS tubes? Seriously, before these ships hit the water their main armaments have already been determined to be inadequate by our peers.

[@kevinw2592]

They will be used in different places. The north atlantic isn't going to be plagued by enemy airpower.

[@darwoo]

@@kevinw2592 Yes but the South China Sea will and you are assuming we will be fighting the last war. AirPower will never be the main problem , our potential opponents already have area denial weapons and will utilize mass attacks with waves of cruise missiles, sea skimmers, hyper velocity missiles and the ubiquitous air and sea drone. What if they are called upon to assist in a NATO mission in the Persian Gulf or SeaLane keeping off the coast of Yemen? These are going to be the only surface combatants Canada owns for the next 40 years, we have no idea when and where they will be called upon to serve.

[@SJB117]

Surely they won't be delayed 5 years each and horrendously over-budget

[@Abbittibbi]

Gotta keep on feeding the friends of the regime...

[@Huskycomicowner]

More vls cells would have been nice.

[@philg2415]

Don't all get excited now. NO contracts have been signed. Any order books in the future are usually cut per Canadian politics.

[@alpearson9158]

yup as the PP government will do

[@silverdart333]

A ship that size should have atleast 32-48 mk41 vls. This ship originally was planned to have 32 and the government cut it down to 24 plus they removed the x2 phalanx…

[@abrahamdozer6273]

Oh, I don't think so. Who told you that?

[@mattanigma]

Read the tech specs on the infographic, what you are seeing in the 3D model in the video is not exactly as it will be. Good example is CAMM being swapped out for RAM apparently, so I think things are quite fluid at the moment, you may likely see SeaRAM on the port and starboard sides where the Brits and Aussies have Phalanx.

[@viper29ca]

The ship was never designed to come with more than 24 VLS and 6 VLS in the back for point defense missiles, same as the UK ships. Aussie's found out quick what happens when you start adding more weight to the ship. CIWS was never an option on the Canadian ships as they get torpedoes instead. Only the UK ships had the CIWS, but no torpedoes. Canadian ships still retain the 2 30mm guns, which can do the job of a CIWS just as well if not better. CAMM missiles were supposed to be in the 6 VLS in the back, however I am now seeing on the graphic that they are being replaces by Rolling Airframe Missiles. Not sure if the ship is getting a SeaRAM launcher, or if they will be launched vertically from a VLS in the back .

[@abrahamdozer6273]

@@viper29ca I was talking to a senior, serving navy officer about Phalanx CIWS and he made an interesting point. The gatling gun shreds the incoming missile (hopefully shredding the warhead and fuel) but the total kinetic energy of the shredded missile is the same. No mass is lost and a shotgun blast that makes a far bigger hole hits your ship at the same speed, spreading the damage out all over the place. I guess that they think Sea Cepter will do a better job. It occurs to me, though that Phalanx might be a good way to counter the new sea drone threat that is capable of creating havoc. Ironically, those 25 mm chain guns on the AOPVs that everyone thinks are too small might be the very best counter to sea drones that we have. A sailor bouncing around on a deck of a ship that is also bouncing around while trying to hit a drone bouncing wildly with a .500 cal.ain't going to hit a lot of drones.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

@@mattanigma Right you are. They have a lot of faith in Sea Ceptre. I noticed that they have kept the 2 x quad launchers mounted on the deck so I guess if you add them to the 24 VLS you get 32 projectiles. It is a ittle weird, though.When you're spending a fortune on significant ships that will serve for four decades, you shuld give them a bit more capacity to start with. It's a bit like launching ships with 1" chain guns on the foredeck.

[@Marshal_Dunnik]

Now they just need crews...

[@wongjefx980]

Now just need more people to crew these boats. I hope they can be delivered, but procurement is always, late, over budget, and requires fixes.

[@jasonbraida3223]

They look like they will be amazing ships. Not sure why it will take 9 years to see the first one enter service. Surely we can do better than that.

[@marcusaetius9309]

Nice, now actually finish building them (on time and on budget), then get busy designing and building 4 to 6 nuclear submarines and we might become respectable..

[@terryvallis1436]

As a 28 year veteran of the RCN…..you wanna share what ever it is you’re smoking!

[@AdrianLeeMagill]

We already are respectable. Ask a veteran.

[@marcusaetius9309]

@@AdrianLeeMagill I am a veteran.

[@AdrianLeeMagill]

@@marcusaetius9309 Then, with all due respect to the service you have provided to our country, you should respect who we are as a people and a nation. I am not going to give you a list of everything Canada has done that is worthy of respect, as it seems you have already made up your mind, but I will express my disappointment that I even had to consider it.

[@marcusaetius9309]

@@AdrianLeeMagill Very nice and I don’t require any credit for doing a stint in the military. It was there that I realized in what bad shape we are in. We are a vassal of our southern neighbour and because of the apathy and ignorance of so many we had ceded our responsibility to have a reasonable military. Canada has also lost a substantial amount of our manufacturing capacity, our government floods our cities with immigrants when we don’t have the capacity to house them or the native born. I could go on but trust me my simple friend Canada has lost a huge amount of respect relative to the rest of the world but by at least focusing on growing OUR defense industry and staying out of foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with us it will be a small step in the right direction.

[@nancyw294]

Proud to be part of this

[@dannyyin9663]

So we’re calling them destroyers and not frigates. 8000 tonnes is pretty big.

[@clarkbeamish180]

Happy to see them and realize that it can take decades to be considered seaworthy but the production timeline is too long. Obviously, it's another job creation program. The Type 26 design is not new; other countries have them; and we probably have had people in the planning and design pipeline for years regarding this requirement. Do we have the capacity to have more than one keel laid st one time? Why not? Lack of people in the system? Lack of shore facilities? Unions?

[@EpicMother249]

Three separate ship yards. Lobbying and litigating against the other. We happen to be building a boat load of ships right now. Ice breakers, support ships, aosps, and the CSC. So we dont have much yard capacity left, never mind three decades of infrastructure decay and loss of qualified employees. The long production line is how you maintain your workforce. It's sux, but it's true. Feast and famine drive the workforce to a more stable industry

[@krazyinthekootenay712]

Wait till the indigenous get a hold of the naming of these ship's

[@wyldhowl2821]

Half the major rivers in Canada have indigenous names already. The other half were named by explorers who made treaties with them.

[@kingjames7273]

The King of Canada is making his move...oh boy😅😂

[@tilaman3]

The Con!!!! Servatives did nothing only shrink the Military funding. Thanks to Harper our contribution was 1.1 GDP compared to now of 1.76GDP Harper did nothing

[@AB-gi3qy]

Stunning ships!

[@adearthofconfusion]

Must be an election year.... Mike in Canada

[@EpicMother249]

Absolutely. When Harper announced the NSS that started the CSC (RIVER CLASS) in the spring of 2008. There was an election in October 2008. Wierd

[@adearthofconfusion]

@@EpicMother249 Yeah, seems that no matter what party is in power, there is only one playbook. Strange.

[@doogleticker5183]

It also should be noted that for such a big ship it is quite weakly armed. What a missed opportunity!! 😢

[@roberts1922]

River boats are a far cry from a deep water Navy, this virtually ensures we won’t be able to deploy these ships to assist our allies. I served on HMCS MacKenzie, circa 1976.

[@brucecaron2776]

river boat ? lol

[@brianb-p6586]

They are named after rivers. They won't operate in rivers (except the St. Lawrence, of course).