# MCDVs and future usage



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2008)

Its been speculated and suggested here that once the AOPs come online, the the Kingston class may be removed from service. I have a suggestion that would not cost a lot of money.

I am wondering if we could station 1 or 2 per major port and use them as force protection ships. 40mm and 2x12.7s would be a very good deterent during troubled times such as this. to inspect ships, we could embark a combined police(RCMP)/customs/CCG and NBP.

Thoughts?


----------



## stegner (23 Jul 2008)

Sounds good in principle.   But their slow speed is a tactical disadvantage should it have to face off against some terrorist speedboats in a Canadian harbour.   I would maybe fix some Javellin's as well to compensate.   But it is better than nothing.


----------



## Rodahn (23 Jul 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> But their slow speed is a tactical disadvantage should it have to face off against some terrorist speedboats in a Canadian harbour.



Granted they may be slow, but let said speedboats outrun the aforementioned 40mm, or twin .50's....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Granted they may be slow, but let said speedboats outrun the aforementioned 40mm, or twin .50's....


Concur..not to mnetion the training, maintenance and storage areas having missiles onboard for a force protection vessel might entail.


----------



## Klinkaroo (23 Jul 2008)

Also who is going to man them as patrol vessels? The CCG will never want to man an armed vessel... they got a darn good union for that and the RCMP don't have the manning or the expertise to man a ship of that size, same thing goes for Customs and other departments.

My Opinion is that we could strip the weapons off and transfer them to the CCG. Those would make good research platforms because it is a very maneuverable ship when it comes to towing equipment and stuff (that is what they were designed for, not patroling) or they could rig a crane for doing buoy maintenance and stuff again with those Z-Drives very maneuverable.


----------



## DONT_PANIC (23 Jul 2008)

Even when the aops come, I doubt that we will see the mcdvs vanish.  I think we will keep a few so that we don't loose (anymore) minewarefare capacity.  I'd guess we would leave two active and one down ship on each coast, with the rest of the crews going to the aops.  We still need the mcdvs for other things like mars iv training, so still plenty of reasons to keep them around.  Plus, getting rid of half the mcdvs leaves plenty of spare parts for the rest of them.


----------



## HalfmyLife (23 Jul 2008)

I believe there is a future for the MCDV's, and I like Ex-Dragoons idea. While the 40mm is plenty of fire power for that class of ship they will need to find a new mount for them (something stabilized). Also I think you will find in the near future that MARS IV training will be done on the ORCA's. rumour has it that DMTE has told Venture to get on with that.  Even though I know the first question you guys asked will be manning!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Aug 2008)

Adding a crane to handle a 9 tonne buoy, chain and anchor might not be that easy. Research vessel quite possibly, but I don't know if Navy accommodation would suffice for scientists!

If the Tories get a majority 2 times in a row I can see elements of the CCG being forced to be armed, even though it may just be .50cals on the ships. They have armed the border guards and now are working on the Park Wardens. The union will put up a fight but they could create a new organization to supplant some of the roles and add new ones. The harsh reality is that the only job the CCG does that could not be contracted out is SAR, buoy tending and Ice breaking could all be done by contract. You could see a CCG one day that does only SAR & enforcement.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Aug 2008)

> Adding a crane to handle a 9 tonne buoy, chain and anchor might not be that easy. Research vessel quite possibly, but I don't know if Navy accommodation would suffice for scientists!



Ever see what their accomodations are like on the _Quest_?


----------



## Stoker (1 Sep 2008)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> Also who is going to man them as patrol vessels? The CCG will never want to man an armed vessel... they got a darn good union for that and the RCMP don't have the manning or the expertise to man a ship of that size, same thing goes for Customs and other departments.
> 
> My Opinion is that we could strip the weapons off and transfer them to the CCG. Those would make good research platforms because it is a very maneuverable ship when it comes to towing equipment and stuff (that is what they were designed for, not patroling) or they could rig a crane for doing buoy maintenance and stuff again with those Z-Drives very maneuverable.



Aren't some of the Coast Guard ships armed with .50 Cal's for fisheries?
As for research the ships really do not have a lot of spare space for labs. 
I know fleet diving unit would like to have one or two for DSIS ops and other ROV ops, perhaps they will be sent there.


----------



## medaid (1 Sep 2008)

I'd bet if you station 2 permanently in Vancouver and 2 permanently in Esquimalt on the West Coast it would to allot for Port Security and Force Protection. The current port security for the Port of Vancouver is... well you know.

Not to mention they can also patrol and interdict Delta Port as part of their regular patrol route. Assisting in SAR missions along with the Coast Guard and doing Drug/Smuggling interdiction with the RCMP and CBSA. Having a Joint Interdiction Task Force made up for NAVRES, RCMP and CBSA could be a viable step in the right direction when it comes to Port Security.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Sep 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I'd bet if you station 2 permanently in Vancouver and 2 permanently in Esquimalt on the West Coast it would to allot for Port Security and Force Protection. The current port security for the Port of Vancouver is... well you know.
> 
> Not to mention they can also patrol and interdict Delta Port as part of their regular patrol route. Assisting in SAR missions along with the Coast Guard and doing Drug/Smuggling interdiction with the RCMP and CBSA. Having a Joint Interdiction Task Force made up for NAVRES, RCMP and CBSA could be a viable step in the right direction when it comes to Port Security.



Much like I said in the beginning of the topic.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2008)

Why not fit them out for delivering 'commandos'? With a few mods it looks like you could get a SDV or a RHIB on the back deck plus a folboat or two. Add an RPV capability, plus some of the other fancy new sensors they must have kicking around these days, and you're away to the races... in a covert manner, of course.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Sep 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not fit them out for delivering 'commandos'? With a few mods it looks like you could get a SDV or a RHIB on the back deck plus a folboat or two. Add an RPV capability, plus some of the other fancy new sensors they must have kicking around these days, and you're away to the races... in a covert manner, of course.



Could work but remember their best speed is around 15 knots. Putt....putt......putt


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Could work but remember their best speed is around 15 knots. Putt....putt......putt



Exactly... "Not by strength, By Guile"


----------



## Stoker (1 Sep 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I'd bet if you station 2 permanently in Vancouver and 2 permanently in Esquimalt on the West Coast it would to allot for Port Security and Force Protection. The current port security for the Port of Vancouver is... well you know.
> 
> Not to mention they can also patrol and interdict Delta Port as part of their regular patrol route. Assisting in SAR missions along with the Coast Guard and doing Drug/Smuggling interdiction with the RCMP and CBSA. Having a Joint Interdiction Task Force made up for NAVRES, RCMP and CBSA could be a viable step in the right direction when it comes to Port Security.



Unfortunately a lot of Port Security are full of people who don't want to go to sea, especially in a MCDV. I agree the idea has its merits, however MCDV's already assist in SAR missions, RCMP and CBSA up the coast of BC.


----------



## Klinkaroo (1 Sep 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Could work but remember their best speed is around 15 knots. Putt....putt......putt



And the speed is something we will have to live with because even if we put much stronger motors in the MCDVs the hull shape is just not designed for high speed maneuvers.



			
				Stoker said:
			
		

> Aren't some of the Coast Guard ships armed with .50 Cal's for fisheries?
> As for research the ships really do not have a lot of spare space for labs.
> I know fleet diving unit would like to have one or two for DSIS ops and other ROV ops, perhaps they will be sent there.



Completely uneducated on the subject but from what I can gather from some sources if the CCG are armed they have RCMP officers on board arming them. It's not actually the CCG that has weapons it's the RCMP that 
bring their own.
Please feel free to correct me on this one though

For the Lab part could they maybe embark some containers outfitted as labs?


----------



## Rodahn (1 Sep 2008)

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> Also I think you will find in the near future that MARS IV training will be done on the ORCA's. rumour has it that DMTE has told Venture to get on with that.



Even the Orca'a are having some teething problems, the company where I work is hauling one out shortly due to problems with the cathodic protection system.


----------



## Stoker (1 Sep 2008)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> And the speed is something we will have to live with because even if we put much stronger motors in the MCDVs the hull shape is just not designed for high speed maneuvers.
> 
> Completely uneducated on the subject but from what I can gather from some sources if the CCG are armed they have RCMP officers on board arming them. It's not actually the CCG that has weapons it's the RCMP that
> bring their own.
> ...




Its not actually the hull shape, its the length of the hull. I have been up to 19 knots on a MCDV. It was discussed that lengthening the hull was too costly due to the way the ship was built and where it was to be lengthened. The motors are actually pretty big, and putting in bigger ones would run into all sorts of problems.
As for the CCG, the fisheries have their own boarding parties and I think fisheries officers man the .50 Cal's.


----------



## Mortar guy (1 Sep 2008)

> I have been up to 19 knots on a MCDV.



Wow. Was it going down hill at the time?

I think that with a stabilized weapon system, the MCDV is still very useful for inshore patrol (Georgia Strait, Gulf of St Lawrence, etc.) and harbour defence/mine sweeping. Besides, they are the best thing that ever happened to NAVRES.

MG


----------



## hugh19 (1 Sep 2008)

I have been at 19 knots in one as well. But yes it was with a tail wind going down hill.


----------



## Stoker (1 Sep 2008)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Wow. Was it going down hill at the time?
> 
> I think that with a stabilized weapon system, the MCDV is still very useful for inshore patrol (Georgia Strait, Gulf of St Lawrence, etc.) and harbour defence/mine sweeping. Besides, they are the best thing that ever happened to NAVRES.
> 
> MG



Well actually it was going down the St. Lawrence at the time ;D. The other time was with the factory rep, when we were doing some trials on the SCR's.

As for a stabilized weapons system, we did a trial with a stabilized .50 cal. What a nice piece of kit.


----------



## hugh19 (1 Sep 2008)

Ok so who are you stoker?  I think we might have worked together at some point.


----------



## Stoker (1 Sep 2008)

sledge said:
			
		

> Ok so who are you stoker?  I think we might have worked together at some point.



You picked me up in Panama City when I flew in to meet the Edmonton.


----------



## Klinkaroo (1 Sep 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Its not actually the hull shape, its the length of the hull. I have been up to 19 knots on a MCDV. It was discussed that lengthening the hull was too costly due to the way the ship was built and where it was to be lengthened. The motors are actually pretty big, and putting in bigger ones would run into all sorts of problems.
> As for the CCG, the fisheries have their own boarding parties and I think fisheries officers man the .50 Cal's.



Well about the hull pretty much what I was saying, it's not a motor problem it's mainly a hull problem and very costly to change. If you were to add 20 feet example to the back well it's the entire length of the hull that needs reworking to keep the form.

I am studying naval architecture do you think it's possible to get a hold of some line plans or did the DND classify them? Would love to lengthen the hull as a project for school on our modeling software.

By the way between which frames where they talking about lengthening?


----------



## Stoker (1 Sep 2008)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> Well about the hull pretty much what I was saying, it's not a motor problem it's mainly a hull problem and very costly to change. If you were to add 20 feet example to the back well it's the entire length of the hull that needs reworking to keep the form.
> 
> I am studying naval architecture do you think it's possible to get a hold of some line plans or did the DND classify them? Would love to lengthen the hull as a project for school on our modeling software.
> 
> By the way between which frames where they talking about lengthening?



Unfortunately I don't have my ship characteristics book in front of me. I believe it was looked at to be lengthened at frame 26 fwd and aft of the after machinery room. As for the plans I don't think the plans are classified, however they are probally rights issues by Irving and German Marine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Sep 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> As for the CCG, the fisheries have their own boarding parties and I think fisheries officers man the .50 Cal's.



Not on the West coast, a DFO boarding party would be 2 guys armed with SW 5946's. None of the vessels are currently are armed from what I last heard.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (5 Sep 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ever see what their accomodations are like on the _Quest_?



Not sure how Navy accommodations compares to the Canadian Coast Guard but this scientist thought the accommodations on _ Martha L. Black _ were more than adequate on a short research cruise (5 days) up the Saguenay Fjord. Our labs were containers sitting on the open deck around the bow hold. A key need for ad-hoc research vessels is flexibility in instrumentation and workspace.


----------



## NCRCrow (5 Sep 2008)

what about stationing some 2 MCDV's (without weapons) in the Great Lakes (Cataraqui-East) & Griffin (West) so that inland reserve units can use them there vice flying to the coasts for weekend training.

Designate them as training vessels and with the ability to assist OGD if needed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Sep 2008)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Not sure how Navy accommodations compares to the Canadian Coast Guard but this scientist thought the accommodations on _ Martha L. Black _ were more than adequate on a short research cruise (5 days) up the Saguenay Fjord. Our labs were containers sitting on the open deck around the bow hold. A key need for ad-hoc research vessels is flexibility in instrumentation and workspace.



The Black had very nice accommodations, I sailed on her sister ship the George R. Pearkes. Going from a R class to a 1100 was quite the leap in comfort.


----------



## Stoker (5 Sep 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not on the West coast, a DFO boarding party would be 2 guys armed with SW 5946's. None of the vessels are currently are armed from what I last heard.



DFO out here do the armed boarding party course with MP5's.


----------



## Stoker (5 Sep 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> what about stationing some 2 MCDV's (without weapons) in the Great Lakes (Cataraqui-East) & Griffin (West) so that inland reserve units can use them there vice flying to the coasts for weekend training.
> 
> Designate them as training vessels and with the ability to assist OGD if needed.



Easier said than done. The ships are maintenance pigs and who is going to do that maintenance? It would be actually cheaper to fly in the members to Halifax for training.


----------



## stegner (5 Sep 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> DFO out here do the armed boarding party course with MP5's.



DFO has MP-5's?


----------



## Stoker (5 Sep 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> DFO has MP-5's?



I have a friend who does offshore fisheries, he told me he did a armed boarding course using MP5's. I assume the RCMP has ownership of these weapons.


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Sep 2008)

DFO has fisheries officers who take something along the general lines of police training (distinct from the Coast Guard, who are not the same organization despite both being under the same department).


----------



## stegner (5 Sep 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> DFO has fisheries officers who take something along the general lines of police training (distinct from the Coast Guard, who are not the same organization despite both being under the same department).



Thanks for this.


----------



## whitehorse (18 Sep 2008)

The official line with respect to the AOPVs is that there will me a 'mix' of regular force and reserve crew members and as far as this goes I believe it to be accurate. 

The simple reality is that the navy as a whole is short a great of sailors. Estimates in the main stream media have quoted various officers as estimating the shortfall of around 600 or so on each coast. The MCDVs themselves are short significant numbers and as a result the navy (again as a whole) is unable to man the 10 MCDVs it would like to man on a continuous basis (the other 2 are usually down for an extended refit/maintenance period ona rotational basis).

To understand what is probably meant by the 'mixed' crew concept you must first understand that there are really two naval reserves in Canada. The first, comprising between 1500 and 2000 out of 4,000 or so naval reservists are those members of this formation who are employed on a continuing full-time basis with the forces. Most are employed on either coast in Ottawa or in Quebec City (NAVRESHQ, CFFSQ etc). By and large these personnel are on 6 month to three year contracts for a given position (not unlike a regular force posting). These individuals have no civilian careers, are not registered in a University and are unlikely to pursue either. They do not belong to a NRD unless they have been 'posted' there on a full-time contract. The vernacular for these individuals is 'permashads'.

The other half of the NR are the traditional reservists with civilian jobs, etc etc.

The simple fact is with the current manning levels with the navy as a whole the senior leadership within CMS has no choice to include reservists in their manning plans. I would suggest that this applies to FFHs and DDHS as well as MCDVs, AORs and ultimately AOPVs. What will change however is that the AOPVs will not be 'primarily' manned by reserves. They will simply be manned by whomever is available from the fleet. The implications are that the senior positions (CO, XO, Cox'n , CERA etc) in these ship will not necessarily be reservists, even those that are nominally 'reservists' or permashads. 

My expectation is that a significant amount of the crew would be regular force given the nature and types of personnel required to man them (so far as this is really known at this point). The engineers on the MCDVs are, at a formal level at least, considered merely operators. [I know that they actually do much more than that, but the training system considers them as mere operators and not maintainers or repairers]. To transition all these 'reserve engineers' to the AOPV will require considerably more training (particularly in diesel repair and theory) as the vessels will be operating well away from a support base. Similarly reserve MARS officers (except perhaps very junior ones) may find themselves 'squeezed out' of this platform as they lack the formal training for vessels which will not be considered 'minor war vessels'. Other trades including NESOPs, Hull techs etc which may be required are not trained in the NR.

This will require a substantial change in focus by NAVRESHQ and the reserve formation if at the time the AOPVs are introduced the MCDVs are decommissioned as we will 'loose' the MCDV manning as the primary focus of the formation and revert to our general manning mission as has been the historic mission of the formation.

As far as the future usage of the MCDVs my general sense is that they will in fact be decommissioned (in their entirety) for two inescapable reasons. First they will be at that time (5-8 years from now) near the end of their expected life cycle. The midlife refit was cancelled. Operating and maintenance costs associated with these platforms can therefore generally expected to increase at a higher level than has been the past. Second as explained above the fleet simply does not have the bodies required, especially full-time bodies, to man the MCDVs and AOPVs simultaneously along with all the other platforms. So unless there is a reduction in other platforms (AORS, DDHs) we simply won't have the bodies needed.

As far as the idea of using them in the FP role. My response would be to look at what happens now in these type of exercises. And then ask is there anything an MCDV can do that an AOPV or other hull (Orcas?) can't do better.


----------



## Snakedoc (18 Sep 2008)

whitehorse said:
			
		

> Similarly reserve MARS officers (except perhaps very junior ones) may find themselves 'squeezed out' of this platform as they lack the formal training for vessels which will not be considered 'minor war vessels'.



Out of curiousity, if not minor war vessles, what class or category are the AOPV's considered?

Thanks,
Snakedoc


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Sep 2008)

They will fit in the roles of OPVs or small corvettes...


----------



## whitehorse (18 Sep 2008)

Snakedoc;

The term "mnor war vessel" was invented in the 60's to take into account certain discrepancies between reserve MARS training and Reg F. It was later extended to take into account that smaller warships lack a sophisticated Ops Room as well as size discrepancies. The current concept behind the AOPVs are a vessel roughly the size of an old MACKENZIE class DDE but heavier due to hull reinforcement. It will also be able to carry a helicopter. 

All of these will probably mean that the 'adults' will want a CO (and XO) with a surface command ticket (i.e. capable of commanding a DDH, FFH etc), as well as other sailors with non-NR qualfications. This leaves the bulk of the NR formation at the senior level out.

By the way there is so far as I can deermine no shortage of command qualified offiers in the Reg F and so therefore no need for 'reserve' (i.e. permashad) COs XOs


----------



## Snakedoc (19 Sep 2008)

Thanks for the reply, very informative!


----------

