# A Canadian Brown Water Navy [ Champagne Navy- Book]



## Ex-Dragoon

Its been discussed before but what class would be ideal to meet our needs for the littoral enviroment. Personally I have always been a fan of the US Navy/US Coast Guard Cyclone class. An updated design would provide a lot of fire power in a small package. Navyshooter posted an interesting theory of mounting a 120mm automatic mortar system onboard the Halifax class frigate to provide some modicum of NGS. I am thinking an updated and upgraded Cyclone class could be possibly armed as well. Thoughts on the Cyclone or recommendations of another class?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/pc-1.htm

Tech data etc.


----------



## Jaydub

I like the Skjold Patrol Boat.  The Norwegian Navy is phasing them in to replace the Hauks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold_class_patrol_boat

They're small, fast, and Link compatible.  They also carry quite a bit of firepower of their own.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And their role would be?

Not being sarcastic- just trying to follow your train of thought.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Inshore NGS, Coastal Escort, Surveillance, Picket, deployment and retrieval of special ops teams.


----------



## STONEY

In other words nothing that Canada would ever have a requirement for. Haven't you noticed but FPB's are disappearing from the worlds  fleets and are being replaced with larger more capable vessels. The Cyclone class was crap when they were first built and haven't gotten any better with age. The US tried to unload them but even the third world isn't keen on them. What we really need is 3 AAW/ command Frigates ,we don't have any brown water unless your expecting trouble in the pedicodiac river. 

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

STONEY said:
			
		

> In other words nothing that Canada would ever have a requirement for. Haven't you noticed but FPB's are disappearing from the worlds  fleets and are being replaced with larger more capable vessels. The Cyclone class was crap when they were first built and haven't gotten any better with age. The US tried to unload them but even the third world isn't keen on them. What we really need is 3 AAW/ command Frigates ,we don't have any brown water unless your expecting trouble in the pedicodiac river.
> 
> Cheers



Love to have your crystal ball...you will see the need of the 3 AAW/Command Frigates fulfilled by the SCSC. That is not the topic under discussion however, this is with regards to small surface combatants and their utility for the CF.


----------



## Privateer

I've often thought that something along the lines of a relatively small, very fast missile boat would be perfect for defence of the West Coast, certainly if any actual engagement was to take place in the coastal island / inlet areas.  Hide, pop out, shoot, run, hide...repeat.  I think we should have a class of such ships for "homeland defence", leaving the bigger (and more expensive) frigates, etc. for high seas or foreign deployment.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Norwegians, the Swedes, the Finns and the Danes seem to find sufficient utility in small boats that they all continue to invest money in their operation.  The Danes in particular have historical reasons to appreciate the utility of small boats capable of handling weapons in confined waters while operating against capital ships.

There is much of Canada where small, fast boats could be usefully employed.  Not for combatting the vessels of foreign states but for dealing with the freelancers of the world - people that can also afford to purchase some fairly sophisticated kit.  We don't currently have the problem but if we don't have the capability to work in those waters we may eventually need the capability.  Better to be the first boat in the water than the second trying to retake "ground".

In the mean time vessels that can keep up with the runners on the West Coast, or the Thousand Islands or the St. Clair River might be found to be useful.  Vessels that can operate amongst the ice in the North in the summertime - when the Inuit are operating in skiffs - might be found useful.   

Vessels that are small, handy and fast and shallow draft.  That can be purchased and operated in small flotillas.  That have the potential to be deployed in other transports - not self-deployed.  That have good suite of surveillance and nav gear. That are lightly armed but can be up-armed if the situation demands.  That are good utility platforms even when not armed.  Vessels that can operate under the same conditions as the Inkster, Nadon, Higgitt, Lindsay and Simmonds operate on the West Coast and off of Newfoundland.

This not a suggestion to take over the RCMP's duties. It is a suggestion to be able to supply more capable vessels to operate in the same waters as the RCMP and supply  back up at the same time.  At the same time the vessels would supply training facilities and could be found to be useful overseas.


----------



## quadrapiper

Looking at the various posts... 'twould seem there's a wide range of operations being considered for these hypothetical brown-water combatants.

If we're looking at "the Russians are coming" scenarios - fighting well-equipped and modern units belonging to a larger, highly capable naval force - then there may be a call for fast, heavily-armed miniature warships capable of taking on a guerrilla sort of role. 

If we're looking at a sturdy, fast vessel with enough firepower and sensors to handle criminal and terrorist incursions - then you hardly _need_ the most modern thing out there. [hyperbole]A WWII MGB with better sensors, really...[/hyperbole]

Not being a naval strategist I have no idea which of these is most needed... but if it's the latter, let's not spend extra resources on the former.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I used to be on another discussion forum on HT when it was running.  One of the members was a retired Navy CO and had comments on this subject.  There was a time in the late 80's early 90's when decsisions were being made on the future of the Gate ships and what to replace them with.  Serious investigation was made into adopting a small fleet of MTB MGB type ships as the future for the NavRes.  There was also the camp that believed the future needed what the present MCDVs fufull now.  It was equally split I gather amongst the big wheels on who sat on which side of the fence.  MCDVs won out as they were seen as the more adaptable/useful platforms.  But I guess it came very very close to going the other way.

Maybe it may be revisited some day in the future.  There are shipyards out there that do produce MTB class vessels, albeit in the States.  No reason why it could not be done here too if the decision was made.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canada has a large and often exposed coastline with safe harbours a fair distance apart. The MCDV were a step in the right direction, blessed are those who ensured they were armed, even if not well. The problem is that high speed smaller vessels have to give up endurance, strenght or weight carrying capcity to achieve the higher speeds. Displacement hulls limit speeds, but can give good seakeeping and endurance features. A somewhat longer version of the MCDV would offer a slighty faster vessel with longer endurance. A better weapon suite is required, along with some self defence suite. These vessels can do much of the coastal stuff and much less expense in fuel and manpower than the larger vessels.

There is room for a smaller faster patrol vessel. A couple of these could be based up North in the west and East manned by reservists based up there, the vessels hauled out every winter such as ATL did. The West coast and the Lakes could also use a couple of fast patrol vessel as there is more protected water and more ports. I not sure how they would do on the East coast though.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think going the way of the new British River class OPVs would satify patrol requirements of our EEZ.


----------



## Shad4now

I thought the navy was planning to use the new ORCAs as inshore patrol boats. They are fast (faster than the MCDVs anyways) and small enough to get into most parts of the coast.  Last I heard they are planning on mounting a 50 cal on the front of them.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Shad4now said:
			
		

> I thought the navy was planning to use the new ORCAs as inshore patrol boats. They are fast (faster than the MCDVs anyways) and small enough to get into most parts of the coast.  Last I heard they are planning on mounting a 50 cal on the front of them.



They were built to replace the training vessals...YFPs and YAGs.


----------



## Shad4now

from cdnmilitary.ca
"Training duties is not the only mission with which the ORCA class will be tasked. The vessels will have a higher speed than the KINGSTON class and a sufficient range to allow them to be used on coastal patrol duties when not tasked with training the Navy’s next generation of officers. The vessels will also have limited search and rescue capabilities."

full article at:http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/?p=25


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I dare say 90% of the ORCAs duties will entail training and if needed will be involved in patrol duties.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Shad4now said:
			
		

> from cdnmilitary.ca
> "Training duties is not the only mission with which the ORCA class will be tasked. The vessels will have a higher speed than the KINGSTON class and a sufficient range to allow them to be used on coastal patrol duties when not tasked with training the Navy’s next generation of officers. The vessels will also have limited search and rescue capabilities."
> 
> full article at:http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/?p=25



All of our vessels have a SAR capability....if you're out on the water and someone is in trouble you help them. we pulled a guy off the rocks when we were in MARS 3 near active pass when I was on the Minesweepers. This vessels were built to train people.


----------



## HalfmyLife

Wait a minute, I don't believe for a minute that the ORCA is only a Training Vsl, While yes that is it's Primary duty. I believe that the ORCA will in the Future serve other roles for the Navy. Such as Patrolling the Fraser River during the Olympic maybe? The Navy ordered more then what was required for training purposes eight in total and If CASR is to be believed, the secondary role for them was inshore patrol.


----------



## aesop081

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> and If CASR is to be believed,



Second funniest thing i have heard all day !!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The Orca's are in essence a cabin cruiser with a .50...how effective do you actually think they will be at inshore patrol? All they will establish is a _prescence_ not a _deterence_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well they certainly are an improvement over the YFP's and being armed with a .50cal is an improvement, personal in this day and age no naval vessel should be unarmed, at the very least equipped and setup to be armed on a moments notice. They make a good mother ship for RHIB's for the Olympics.

But their primary role will be navigation and basic seamanship training throughout most of their operational lives.


----------



## chrisf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well they certainly are an improvement over the YFP's and being armed with a .50cal is an improvement, personal in this day and age no naval vessel should be unarmed, at the very least equipped and setup to be armed on a moments notice. They make a good mother ship for RHIB's for the Olympics.
> 
> But their primary role will be navigation and basic seamanship training throughout most of their operational lives.



So realistically, given that the primary task of the orca's is going training, they're never going to be deployed outside Canada, and if deployed inside canada, it'll be light patrol duties inside Canada...

Given that as the case, is the .50cal enough? Would the orca's feasibly be able to accomodate a 20mm?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Personally I would love to see the Bushmaster marine mount on them, but I am just glad they can be armed, it represents a mindshift that was long overdue. The .50cal is in the system, reliable, wellknown, simple and the ammo is cheaper than the 25mm with a shorter max range which makes training more likely. A .50cal will make short work of most smaller vessels that they would encounter.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You want a 20/25mm then you want a craft that is built from the keel up for patrol duties.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Historically most small patrol craft were not built from the keel up, but were requisitioned from civilian owners and many were armed. It would be nice if the designer foresaw the requirement and built redundancy into the design such as hard points, ammo storage, communication gear and develop a stability model to ensure that it can carry the added weight safely. Experience tells us that rarely does the design allow for such forethought as it adds cost to the design and may limit other goodies that they want, like a neato PT area or nifty wardroom.

 Just about every vessel built for the Canadian government under 175’ over the last 2 decades suffered serious top hamper issues (the 47 and Arun lifeboats are the exception, due to the designs being from elsewhere) So there is a practical limit to what else you can put on a vessel and what may have to be removed to do so. The manual .50cal and mount are good because they have minimal impact on the vessel, anything above starts to add affair bit of weight.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Hello Folks, 

I'm reading a book right now called Champagne Navy. Its a history of the Coastal Forces of the RCN during the second world war. Great read if you can get your hands on a copy. 

Anyways I will get to my point. With the RCN doing things like anti-piracy patrols and OP CARRIBE right now would a small boat force of some MGBs be better suited to take on these tasks than the frigates and destroyers we currently use ?

Just a thought and trying to stimulate some conversation in the Navy section!  :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat

I'll second your recommendation. It is a great read and good history, which don't always go together.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Personally I would love to have a flotilla of FPBs for coastal ops but not at the expense of the frigates and destroyers.


----------



## Privateer

There is this old thread, on topic:  http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/66876/post-623511.html#msg623511  "A Canadian brown water navy"

Now merged.
Thanks for pointing it out to me,
Bruce
army.ca Cleaning Staff


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I would love to have a flotilla of FPBs for coastal ops but not at the expense of the frigates and destroyers.



I toatlly agree and thats not what I meant. I just wonder if a flotilla of FPBs wouldnt be better suited to OP CARRIBE, Anti-Piracy roles more than a major surface combatant.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I toatlly agree and thats not what I meant. I just wonder if a flotilla of FPBs wouldnt be better suited to OP CARRIBE, Anti-Piracy roles more than a major surface combatant.



Actually since last year the MCDV's were been used for Carribe and was very successful in that respect. Apparently its going to be a yearly thing for the ships to do Carribe. I would imagine a patrol boat class of small vessels would be highly successful in that respect. I know the ships had a very significant effect on drug smuggling there.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I was once told by someone who was around when the MCDV's were being discussed and decided upon that there were two camps.  One wanted the MCDV's and one wanted MTB's as the replacement for the Gate boats.  The process was he said, long and bloody and the MTB camp lost the arguement and battle.  I think that small attack boats would be great for coastal work, but would they not have the legs to do anti-piracy ops?  You would have to have them at the very least staged out of central locale of some sort.  I can't see us getting into that sort of arrangement with a foreign host anytime soon.  But, hell yeah I'd love to see MTB's or some other fast littoral combattant make a comeback in the RCN.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was once told by someone who was around when the MCDV's were being discussed and decided upon that there were two camps.  One wanted the MCDV's and one wanted MTB's as the replacement for the Gate boats.  The process was he said, long and bloody and the MTB camp lost the arguement and battle.  I think that small attack boats would be great for coastal work, but would they not have the legs to do anti-piracy ops?  You would have to have them at the very least staged out of central locale of some sort.  I can't see us getting into that sort of arrangement with a foreign host anytime soon.  But, hell yeah I'd love to see MTB's or some other fast littoral combattant make a comeback in the RCN.



I guess the strength was the fact we could stay on station with little support and operate in littoral waters. We were in some really tight waters, and near some really "bad" places. Just being there disrupted what was going on.
There was talk of embarking a boarding team from another country but nothing came of it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First of all, Jollyjacktar, I'm happy you stumbled upon "The Champagne Navy". Great read that I recommend to all, but difficult to locate these days (it is more than 30 yrs in print).



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was once told by someone who was around when the MCDV's were being discussed and decided upon that there were two camps.  One wanted the MCDV's and one wanted MTB's as the replacement for the Gate boats.  The process was he said, long and bloody and the MTB camp lost the arguement and battle.  I think that small attack boats would be great for coastal work, but would they not have the legs to do anti-piracy ops?  You would have to have them at the very least staged out of central locale of some sort.  I can't see us getting into that sort of arrangement with a foreign host anytime soon.  But, hell yeah I'd love to see MTB's or some other fast littoral combattant make a comeback in the RCN.



As you can deduce from my username, I was one of the CO's consulted in the replacement of the Gate boats. From a historical perspective, the debate was not quite the one you describe above - the MCDV was a compromise ship that satisfied no camp.

Basically, in the lead up to the Mulroney government's White Paper, Marcom (as it was then) identified two (huge) gaps in its capability to face realistic threats to Canada that needed addressing: Coastal Defence and Mine Warfare. The task of dealing with coastal defence was delegated to the Naval Reserve and it was attacked with alacrity. Navres started from the old plans, including the old WWII Naval Officer in Charge organization and developed an updated MAOP on coastal defence (for all I know, still out there, on the shelves and available).  This lead to the establishment of Coastal Defence Areas, mostly corresponding to the Coastguard sectors to permit cooperation. The corresponding HQ's were minimally manned by PRL personnel and then fully staffed as required with PriRes personnel for exercises or actual operations. Many exercises were run to validate the concept and worked great.

The various workgroups and tiger teams working on Coastal Defence identified the need for three types of vessels to carry out the task: Offshore Surveillance Vessels for extended operations anywhere in the EEZ (reqs were for 1200 to 1700 tons - capable of 20 kts +); Inshore Surveillance Vessels for operations off to within 6 to 8 hours of a safe harbour or anchorage (reqs called for 250 to 500 tons - capable of 25 kts +); and, finally, Harbour Surveillance Vessels, a small patrol vessel in the 50 -100 tons range. Mine warfare did not enter the picture and it was felt that, if Marcom wanted this capability, it should acquire MCM's separately and man them with regular force.

The debate that then raged on was whether we should seek the acquisition of the Offshore vessels first or the Inshore ones. There was no argument, however, that Coastal Defence plans required the 70 ships identified as required (IIRC, it was 10 Offshore, 20 Inshore and 40 Harbour). In the end, Marcom insisted on a minimal mine warfare capability, which necessarily reduced the capabilities for patrol, and would not accept the larger number of hulls the Coastal Defence teams thought were required. Compromise was required since Marcom was also looking at the replacement of its old steamers and at the acquisition of nuclear submarines at the same time. The compromise was the MCDV's to act in the Mine warfare/Offshore/Inshore roles all by itself (in typical Canadian fashion, a "do-it-all" ship that can do none properly - My personal opinion here).

As for OP CARRIBE, MGB's "Champagne" Navy style would not be useful: Legs too short, can't take the weather of open ocean and remain effective and crew fatigue kicks in real fast on those type of vessels. However, patrol boats in the style of the Australian Armidale class would be great additions if they could be substituted here and there for frigates on a 12 to 1 ratio, or in any number if additional to current frigates strength. The ratio may seem high but, you need about four to six such ship in the operation area to effectively substitute for one frigate. This is due to the fact that their sensor suites and command and control facilities are much less capable, in particular, they have no ops room or other facilities to house an integrated data display (links) that gives them access to the big - whole fleet - surface picture or contribute to it. Also, they must rely on a home harbour facility for resupply as they cannot replenish themselves at sea. In the case of OP CARIBBE, that would likely mean Djibouti and thus, the need for the 12 to one ratio to maintain four to six deployed on operation at all time. 

P.S. The Offshore/Inshore/Harbour method of operation developed then was certainly validated during the Vancouver olympics, with a Frigate "Offshore", an MCDV "Inshore" and the Orca's/RHIB's "in Harbour".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Met a guy who commanded a Fairmile in WWII on the west coast, not a bad job considering.

Displacement hull generally means good seakeeping, comfortable and range. but slow speed

Semi-displacement means slightly more speed, but less of the other stuff

Planing hull means lots of speed, limited range, limited comfort and generally poor seakeeping.

One option would be for a number of sidewall dynamically supported craft. You get almost as much speed of a planing hull with the range. comfort of a semi-displacement. The cost is higher fuel consumption and maintenance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

For more info on the Fairmile, the following link provides a good overview of the class and bears out Colin P's comments.

http://www.ww2ships.com/britain/gb-sc-001-b.shtml

In the late 70's, I remember seeing one around P.E.I. that had been turned into a yacht: The paint had been stripped to wood and marine varnished, with a shinny green hull. It was quite pretty as they had kept the wonderfully sleek lines of the original without building any extra structure above the water line.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

a few years ago there was one Fairmile and 2 ex-RCAF crashboats in Vancouver. All were being used by charterboat companies. I think though that recent TC requirements have done them in as charterboats, as you can't use a wooden boat for overnight charters.

See 2 fairmiles here, Kona winds and Gulfstream
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.oldsaltcharters.com/vanday/mv_kona.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.oldsaltcharters.com/day_motor.html&usg=__Al1A5ypu-PicMFM658vVT2HniEc=&h=150&w=250&sz=11&hl=en&start=282&sig2=_Kzdy1GsKw-yYVQhjr95LA&zoom=1&tbnid=K8Lr5dfRjVKbpM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=111&ei=TueETvOiLYyPiAfMstTDDw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddinner%2Bcruise%2Bvancouver%26start%3D273%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1

The crash boats were based on the British Powerboat company design, built by the "Canadian Powerboat company"
http://www.commandoveterans.org/cdoGallery/d/8187-4/Jones+13_001.jpg

The CPC boats
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x106/nortoi/RAF%20Marine%20Craft%20books/CPBCo%20production%20pond/PMR82-678.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/canadian%20power%20boat%20company%20wwii/alross2/hsl_0001.jpg

There was also a 40' & 46"  wooden crashboats

models here
 http://www.westbourne-model.co.uk/deans-marine-scale-model-boats-fast-launches-11188-0.html


----------



## aesop081

> In the case of OP CARIBBE, that would likely mean Djibouti and



OP CARIBBE is nowhere near Djibouti. You are in the neighbourhood of 6500 nautical miles off target


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You are totally right CDN Aviator - I must have had a brain cramp or something - and I apologize to all for it.

The original post of Halifax Tar proposed these patrol boats for "anti-piracy" and "OP CARIBBE" . I intended to talk about anti-piracy - primarily in the Gulf of Aden/Arabian sea area - in my post, but for some reason got stuck on the "OP CARIBBE" thing.

Obviously, in the actual case of OP CARIBBE, many more support ports are available for patrol boats and would make their employment easier, but I stand by my other points concerning their use. After all, the US Coastguard has been using patrol boats for years in the "drug war" and yet had to turn to the Navy for the type of support that OP CARRIBE provides.


----------



## Kirkhill

I noted somewhere along the way that the RCN was thinking about buying (or perhaps just musing about the possibility of buying) some additional IPVs along the lines of the types recently purchased for the Coast Guard / RCMP.  Suppose more of those WERE purchased for use on the West Coast, the Great Lakes and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.  Or perhaps something a bit bigger like the Armidales mentioned by OGBD?  

Couldn't some of them be seconded to the Caribbean when the waters are iced up - much after the same pattern as the flight of SAR Griffins has been offered to Jamaica and surrounding islands for the Hurricane season?


----------

