Is there a bigger joke in the history of NATO?>1 × BAE Mk 38 25 mm (0.98 in) gunThat's it's armament.
>>61482901Is it stabilized?
>>61482901you think it's not a lot until it's slotting your fucking driving cabin with 25mm in choppy seas
>>61482901>it'sfuck off you ESL faggot
>>61482901>A thread in which the OP has trouble conceptualizing the concept of an arctic patrol boat calling for backupDo you think they'll be engaging a lot of Chinese/Russian destroyers up there hiding amongst the icebergs?
>>61483040This. Serious surface combat is the USN/USAF's job.
No refunds >https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/royal-canadian-navy-s-new-arctic-ships-have-a-severe-flooding-problem-say-sailors/ar-BB1jpzHi
>>61483069Thoroughly demoralized, I am now completely convinced that China is an unstoppable monster and we should all just abandon NATO altogether
>>61483049But it shouldn't be.The arctic circle is both the property, and responsibility of Canada.Canada should have been armed with nuclear weapons decades ago.
>>61482901A FUCKING OIL RIG SUPPLY VESSEL
>>61482901This is a stabilised 25mm Bushmaster firing SAPHEI-T at 200 rpm and fucking up a T-90MS.Any problem they can't solve with that, they probably can't solve at all.
>>61483083That's a weird take.Considering the thread is about Canada's non-existent navy.
>>61483088It was, briefly.>The arctic circle is both the property, and responsibility of Canada.Canadians clearly don't agree
>>61483106>Canadians clearly don't agreeCanadian politicians don't agree
>>61483105It's a joke, fuckstick
>>61483109And guess who elects the politicians?
>The Royal Canadian Navy is trying to fix a series of problems on its new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships including anchors that aren’t effective, a refueling system that’s too heavy to use, and areas on the vessels that are leaking.>In addition, the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) can’t perform emergency towing as was required in the original contract and some cranes on the vessels are inoperable, National Defence confirmed to this newspaper.>Structural issues are also hindering the operation of Cyclone helicopters from the ships and the supplier of satellite communications systems on the vessels no longer has the security clearance to provide the navy with parts.>The ships only come with a one-year warranty, National Defence confirmed. That means taxpayers will be on the hook to repair a number of the deficiencies.Wewhttps://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/leaks-ineffective-anchors-mechanical-breakdowns-among-ongoing-problems-facing-new-arctic-patrol-ships
>>61483118>And guess who elects the politicians?Predominantly, rich whiny assholes living next to a river out east and rich whiny assholes exclusively fluent in French.
>>61482901This thing is going to do nothing but motor around the North for a couple years launching helicopters and RHIB boats, they probably had to beg for that gun
>>61483088Kek no, no it shouldn't have. Canada is not and will never be relevant. You are Canadian.
>>61483133It can't even do that kek>>61483126
>>61483040Even without backup, could it not theoretically operate helicopters with missiles and/or AEW radar? Could the crew not use shoulder-launched weapons (Javelin, Stinger) out to 4 to 5 km? If more firepower is needed for some inconceivable reason, there are options.
>>61482901where even is this gun? i cant see it on the pic, lmao.
>>61482980You need to be 18 years or older to post hereThat pea shooter is never going to be shooting a bridge of any competent adversary in the age of missile volleys
Please don't look up the projected cost and delivery date of our new icebreaker.
>>61482901Seeing a lot of threads having a go at Canadians.What's this all aboot?
>>61483539China and India for seperate reasons really hate canada more than anyone else in NATO right now
>>61483614Glad you capitalized china and india and not Canada.
>>61483614Ah, that would explain it.I'm not some sort of Canadaphile (half of them speak French, and the other half let them), but it does seem a little odd that these threads keep getting made.
>>61483634Sue me
>>61482901The royal navy is up there. >no land attack capabilities between their frigates and destroyers >no cats and arresting wires in the carriers >constant ship malfunctions >poor planning that all 6 attack submarines were in port at one time (this is huge)
>>61483661If you wanted to talk about Royal Navy Destroyers, you should make a thread Warriortard.Like the one you deleted last night. Why did you delete it again?LMAOYou going to post your outlet yet?
>>61483702It was mass reported not deleted. You got mad that you kept asking for sources and I kept having them. Like when the 6 subs were all in port at the same time. Pretty embarrasing for you. I really ruined your fun when I posted the telegraph link bemoaning the UKs inability to strike Houthi targets. The US had to do the heavy lifting
>>61483661None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF planes based 1,500 miles away.A British defence source said HMS Diamond, the destroyer stationed in the Red Sea, had not joined retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets because it did not have “the capability to fire to land targets”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had instead been “directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea”. This weekend, a British-linked container ship caught fire after becoming the latest vessel targeted by Houthi rebels.One former rear admiral suggested that Britain’s inability to strike the Iran-backed Houthi movement’s bases from warships highlighted how the Navy would be unable to “go toe to toe” with Chinese and Russian warships.Currently, the only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. While US destroyers can fire Tomahawk guided missiles at land targets, the UK’s only options for such strikes are deploying planes or submarines, five of which were reported to be unavailable at one point in the autumn.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/27/british-warships-lack-firepower-attacks-houthi-red-sea/
>>61483716>It was mass reported not deleted.No. It was your bed time. And you didn't want people laughing at your tantrum all night.Are you going to dance again today jester?kek.
>>61483737An absolutely damning write up. I can’t believe they would build toothless surface combatants
>>61483126>one-year warranty on a "warship"that's nuts. Even roads have a 3-year warranty.
Weird, American offshore patrol boats have exactly the same armament as Canadian offshore patrol boats. I guess the American navy is a failed enterprise.
>>61482901>>61483069As funny as the Royal Canadian navy is, its way better then Russias by a long shot.
>>61483755>America coast guard ships are more heavily armed then Canadian navy ships. Not the dunk you think it is.
>>61483765They're the same boats in the same role
>>61483737>>61483747You're in a thread about the Canadian Navy. Agreeing with yourself about the Royal Navy.Have you considered that people don't like you for a reason? Both here, and irl?
>>61483770Fuck off warriortard
>>61483106No, the Arctic belongs to Greenland and Denmark.t. Dane
>>61483770There not at all the same boats. Not even the same departments. American coast guard v Canadian Navy.. (Canada's coast guard doesn't even have AOPS)
>>61483772it’s not my fault hearing facts about the royal navy sets you off. What a strange thing to get so upset about
>>61483778They're both offshore patrol boats, for the same task
>>61483781Oy vey, why am I arguing with this mutt.Go to /gif/ for your daily BBC thread.
>>61482901Brown hands typed this
>>61483779>sets you off.I think you misjudge the effect you have on people.Did you know autistic people have trouble identifying different emotions?
>>61483790No please, tell me about how Canada should be using aircraft carriers for offshore patrol or whatever
>>61483817Canada should be using spaceships :^)
>>61483778the canadian coast guard has no police power so the canadian navy has to do both. the canadian coast guard is under the fisheries department and covers search and rescue, navigation assistance, stuff like that. it's not like the american coast guard.
>>61482901Putting aside the compositional problems of the RCN. In a better world, all the Canucks would be specializing in is heavy OPVs like this, and navalized icebreakers, so they could function as an effective Arctic fleet for the USN (instead of the USN having its interminable bitchfest about building icebreakers themselves).
>>61483778The US coast guard is a branch of the US military, the Canadian Coast Guard is a civilian maritime service. The Canadian Royal Navy’s coastal defense is the same as the US coast guard’s, since they share the same mission.
>>61484135Honestly it wouldnt surprise me to learn that not giving Canuck Coasties their own firepower was because >We're a little concerned about too many guns being in the water, eh?
>>61484096That's actually genius
>>61482901No joke, why do canada need a military? who's gonna invade them?
>>61484262>The single Canadian in the thread gently clears his throat to catch your eye. He then gives a subtle nod to the US Border to his left.
>>61483040Look up the price tag on these things. A fishing boat with a 50cal does the same job
>>61482901The harry dewolf class is singularly designed to be an icebreaking helicopter pad. That is it's only purpose, and it accomplishes it.
>>61483118The Chinese.
>>61483088>Canada should have been armed with nuclear weapons decades ago.Decades ago, Canada was armed with nuclear weapons.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Inventory_of_Canada's_nuclear_armaments
>>61483194here
>>61484897I didnt realize you could operate ASW helicopters and break ice with a fishing boat.
>>61484946>this thing isn't meant to participate in real combat>but apparently it needs ASW capabilitiesAny semi-competent submarine would laugh at such a fat costly and useless target before blowing it up in five ways.
>>61484976>facing the russian/chinese submarine fleet>semi-competentPick one.
>>61483539There is a leaf flag who posts on /uhg/ that really rustles the jimmies of the vatniks. He just came back after eating a 3 month ban. They are big mad.
>>61484986You can't seriously expect these things to fight off any submarines, can you?>launches an ASM at youWhat now?It has no defense, it has barely any offense. Two fucking WW2 U-boats can beat it. One distracts the helo while the other surfaces and sinks it with the deck gun lmao.
>>61482975More stable than thou
>>61485022>What now? It has no defense.It has two M2 Browning MGs that can shoot down incoming missiles! Witness the military prowess of a first world nation
>>61484262>why do canada need a military?in case of internal strife and for peacekeeping ops abroad.
>>61483661Oh look ! Warriortard talking to himself again.
>>61483040>calls for back up>gets sunkI can do that with a kayak and a cellphone.
>>61482901and patrol boat needs more to stop occasional smuggler?if it meets real warship it will be destroyed by missile fired from far far beyond horizon...warships are not exactly armored these days - so in rare situation of close range artillery duel... high rof 25mm will shred all modern warships well enough
>>61485221It has no AA or ASW
>>61483126>>The ships only come with a one-year warrantyWait WHAT?I can literally buy a USED Princess S78 yacht for -4 mil eur that comes with 1 year full warranty.How the fuck doesnt brand new military boats have 5 year all included packages?
>>61485069You can probably also carry a helicopter and a couple RHIB boats up your giant homo asshole but I'd rather let this thing do the hauling.
>>61485248in theory you could pack up couple of stingers?or mount warhead on one of underwater drones?
It's woefully underarmed and overpriced, can't believe there are "people" who are coping about this. No, a giant target that carries some boats and maybe a helicopter on a good day is not a good investment. It needs to be smaller and carry more weapons and defenses.
>>61485454I'm confused who's insisting on defending this shitshow. It's not leafs because we know our procurement is fucked and has been for decades. Contrarian Americans?
>>61482901And i thought that our ORP Ślązak was the shitest thing that could sail
>>61485454>literal retard cannot comprehend what an OPV is
>>61485383Absolutely. But I doubt Canada has either of those things.
>>61485509a low cost option for patrolling relatively uncontested watersa low cost optionslow costlowcost
it's as low cost as the government could manage. they're dealing with an incredibly corrupt company that controls a huge amount of that province mixed with blatant riding vote buying from a completely dilapidated shipyard that needed major reconstruction. they should've ordered the design built at another yard but in the end the government decided that spending an extra 300 million per ship is worth the cost if it stays within the country. it's probably not but now canada has a modern but overpriced shipyard for making the next expensive boondoggle. anyone complaining about the armament is a retard because it's just an OPV with long range and the ability to go through ice. the major fuck up, design wise, was not including refueling and servicing equipment for the larger helicopters and instead just having a large hangar and expecting to use smaller helicopters and that will cost money to add eventually. the other issues are primarily teething issues. the major differences from its design basis, svalbard, is its meant to handle other climates so it can patrol in warmer climates which is probably necessary as the old minesweepers, which were pretty much just used as OPVs and training, are aging out of use. the navy is the worst funded branch of a chronically underfunded military. the ship isn't meant to fight warships, it's not meant to find submarines, it's a patrol boat. the gun is there for shooting at smugglers and illegal fisherman.
>>61485248>>61485383The Norwegian icebreaker Svalbard (which this ship was designed off of, after the Canadian government purchased the blueprints for $5 million) has a pair of Mistrals for AA
>>61486063Well, outside of an original Oerlikon That's about as low-cost-last-resort option as it gets
>>61486063>spend over 20x what the Norwegians payed for the same ships because comical levels of corruption>can't afford any Mistralsmany such cases
>>61483111You're a joke, fuckstick
>>61483634Only nuclear states get capital letters. Sorry canadian cucks, or should I say, canucks?
>>61483770>>61483781>>61483817A single ship type in a single branch of the US Navy is more heavily armed than a boat from the entire Canadian Navy. Look at the US Navy's regular fleet and Canada's ships pale in comparison.
>>61483797Why do you need to announce that you're brown?
>>61487033>>61487639>>61487672>>61487688>>61487698There, happy?
>>61487688That's not really true, the bulk of the Canadian navy is frigates and they are very similarly armed to the US navy's frigates. Yes the Canadian Navy is tiny in comparison though and nobody disputes that, and it needs to be bigger.
>>61482901Considering the fact that the bulk of China's naval vessels are literal fishing boats with mounted HMGs, that's still pretty strong.
>>61488031The entire military needs to be bigger. Good luck finding anyone who wants to fight for a faggot PM, this country is an absolute joke.
>>61482901Our govt wants everyone disarmed, including our navy it seems. :-/ Just kidding,.. sort of.The Kingston class coastal defense vessels have a pair of .50 cal M2's. When they commissioned MM 702 they had to pull it's old 40mm gun from the local museum and mount it on the ship. Now it's back after being declared obsolete.Irc several heavy guns were retrieved from museums across the nation when the RCN deployed to assist in Gulf War: Part 1 (Desert Shield/Desert Storm).
Just leave the Canadian forces alone, especially the RCN. All Canadians understand that our armed forces are vestigial bagge we carry around just to be a part of treaties and be partners with US security. Securing the Artic? Count ourselves lucky that we even got a gun on the fishing boat.I hope Russia or China comes sailing up there defacto taking it. We’ll go cry to the UN, go cry to the U.S., and the U.S. will just shrug because they’re out of the hegemony business. Canada is deep inside a long-term leadership crisis, there’s no hope.
>>61482901>that is it is armament.
>>61482901I am a little curious. What is the 6,500 ton displacement going towards?
>>61484897>>61486063>USNS final boss fight: Yamato Super Battleship>Royal Canadian Navy boss fight pic related >Loses
Without sufficient radars what would be the point of VLS cells? These ships are means to 'show the flag' and be a tripwire for commercial or military ships transiting waters Canada claims. If a boat actually needs to be sunk it'll be done from the air.
>>61491152Tell that to most retards here without an understanding of modern military operations. Canada is buying 88 F35 A variants, which puts them as one of the largest fleet operators. They’re going to put auxiliary fuel tanks Lockheed had designed to extend range and make them more capable by using external pylons for more weapon storage. They’re using the same doctrine the F18s have, deter aggression by having a fast acting, powerful air deterrent that makes any attack a stupid idea. The arctic is never getting invaded, some retards are living in a fantasy if they think the second most inhospitable part of the world is an easy place to dominate and control. No, the NWP is not going to be controlled by Chinese or Russians because Canada doesn’t have Arleigh Burke Destroyers, that’s preposterous. One winter can destroy any army up there, especially one thousands of kilometres from it’s nearest supply line.
>>61489121h-helo pads and rubber boat storage take a lot of displacement, chud!
>>61491368>everything is done from the air>the arctic isn't getting invaded>we just need a little tripwireNice billion dollar "tripwire" we got there. You read that right each ship averages to 1 billion dollars.
>>61494017Pic very related
>>61490585Not a fair fight, the Nork boat can carry torpedoes.
>>61494017Wait what the fuck, two of them cost 2.1bil? That's more than what a Burke costs
>>61483755>Canadian Harry DeWolf AOPS6.5k tons17kn top speed6800 nautical miles range1 x 25mm gun2 x M2 Brownings>US Legend-class cutter4600 tons28kn top speed12000 nautical mile range1x57mm gun1x20mm phalanx4xM2 BrowningsThe Heritage class cutter which is a little smaller replaces the 20mm phalanx with a 25mm gun and adds 2 more BMG'sAfter that you have to go all the way down to the Sentinel class cutter (weighing in at 350tons) which only has a 25mm gun and 4 BMGsAs far as dedicated Ice Breakers go i think we are only building the Polar-2 Class ones which have 2 30mm guns and an undisclosed ability to make use of an aegis derived system to host offensive abilities.
>>61494062I think its CAD..Also Irving Shipworks are a bunch of incompetent money stealing jews that lead dept of def around by its balls
>>61494090It's still about 10 to 100 times what an icebreaker with a gun should actually cost.
>>61494095hence the money grubbing big nosery. Not like gov of canada can go to anybody else to make them.It's like Boeing if they didnt have competition
>>61494109Why not just buy from literally anyone else in the world
>>61494109For some level of perspective the US has awarded roughly 1.9bil in contracts for the completion of the 3 Polar security cutters, these are fixed cost apparently.
>>61494120Because Ottawa needs to keep it's only major shipbuilder happy
>>61483755Would also get blasted to bits by Nork harbor patrol without a armed helicopter, possibly even with depending on the helicopters weapons.
>>61494168I say we nationalize Irving then sell the shipyards to a competent company
>>61488517>and the U.S. will just shrug because they’re out of the hegemony businesslol, what gave you that impression.
>>61488517The US will shrug at canada's issues because thanks to Alaska we have interests up North and Canada isn't necessarily our friend since they want to claim all the straits wide enough to have international water between them as national waterways.
>>61494120It’s literally policy that anything military related has to be Canadian manufactured unless there’s extreme circumstances.
>>61487688>The Canadian navy looks weak in comparison to the largest and strongest navy in the worldWhat point are you even trying to make?
>>61494095Trudeau prob has some friends in shipbuilding biz.
>>61483131This guy gets it. Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver elect. The rest of Canada gets to watch.
>>61483126Oh look, the irving family ruining this country again.
>>61491368The problem with the Harry Dickwolf isn't the lack of armament, it's the lack of armament for the cost. For taxpayers to get equivalent value to a normal country buying a patrol boat they'd either need to be way cheaper than we're paying or way better armed than they'll actually be.
>>61483475>competent adversaryThey're already in NATO. There are none.
>>61494895Oh I didn't know the procurement of the majority of our air force was an "extreme circumstance"What a stupid and Jewish policy. We're giving these kikes 1 billion per ship for tiny dick patrol boats, then 4 billion per ship for shitty DDs with a quarter of the capabilities of a Burke.
>>61483643>half of them speak French, and the other half let themKek. I wish trudeau Sr passed the white papers
>>61483778Americans really do believe they are the centre of the universe. Can't even conceive that the Canadian coast guard functions differently from the American one.
>>61483088"Three Ocean Navy"Canada still had dreams of greatness in the 1980s.
Such a weensy little gun. A ship built for small dick humiliation.
>>61482901That looks like a helicopter landing pad at the back, which means it can pack a helicopter that's packing missiles that can gank any ship in the russian or chinese arsenal.Thanks for playing, Chang. GG no re.
>>61482901Finally we leafs will have something to give the Pyotr Velikiy a run for its money. Think of how much damage that 25mm chain gun will do against a battlecruiser.
>>61483764As much as i wish it wasn't the case a single Sovremenny Class could wipe out the entire RCN
>>61494138Program Start: 2016First Delivery: 2028But, the CG has officially hit pause, because they don't even have a final design. See you in the 2030s.
>>61499228> Because in my video games all helicopters can fire missiles. They go "whooosh!"You might want to check what helicopters are carried and how they are equipped before doing what you always do.Hint: The helicopters on this ship can't fire stand off missiles.
>>61485022>>61485041Doctrine over tactics. An artic patrol vessel like this spends 99% of its time patrolling peaceful shores acting as a supply vessel, assisting in repairing friendly vessels, using it's heli-pad to stage search and rescue missions etcThis ship never goes into hostile waters, and it's literally never alone.TL;DR It's still a better ship than anything Russia has in the black sea.
>>61494017Yes you fucking moron, if anyone is attacking the arctic, it’ll be fought with air power, not with arctic icebreakers and coastal support vessels. Name a single country other than the US with the capacity to “occupy” the arctic circle.
>>61499331>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BUY OTHER HELICOPTERS IF AN ACTUAL SHOOTING WAR LOOKED LIKELY BECAUSE.... YOU JUST CAN'T OK!The inability of the thirdie mind to grasp the concept of modularity will never not be funny to me.
>>61499474>>61499331You can put stingers on a Littlebird.I think they can land a Littlebird on that helipad.
>>61499382>>61499388>>61499474>t. (((Irving))) intern
>>61499219Lmao why did they even put such a tiny gun in such a prominent place where people would expect something bigger? They could've either put it in the middle like the Perrys, or not have a gun, or have a bigger gun or more guns.But nooo, it has to be a laughing stock lmaoSome tranny somewhere in the decision making process must've had a hand in this
>>614993821 billion dollars.Not 1 billion dollars for the whole program, which would still be too much, no.1 billion dollars per ship.1 billion dollars per national embarrassment.
>>61494138This is a comparatively better design because it doesn't have a tiny dick.Cheaper but still too expensive
>>61500299What are you, poor?
>>61482901>If you are outgunned you win
>>61499382comparing it to russia isn't fair. russia responded to the svalbard and canada production of AOPVs by announcing a program to make ice resistant patrol ships but this time with more weapons right after shortly after canada, project 23550. since then canada, with a completely fucked procurement and a shitty shipyard, has launched 5 and completed 4 and russia hasn't even launched 1. they're retards
>>61494138It's someone's job to make all these miniatures. They have the best job at their company.
>>61500482Yes. It's Canada.
I know it’s not the topic of this thread, but is the large surface combatant going to be any good? They’re ordering 15 of the things.
>>61502175I mean, yes and no?It's hard to say. When you look at the partner nations who are already building theirs vs Canada who hasn't even started to build them.. Canada won't have them til mid 2035.. which will be too late.
>>61482901Australian Navy is a bigger joke especially the subs or rather lack of subs https://youtu.be/Igqs1qDbnK4?&t=1361
