# Redesignation of the Kingston class???



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2007)

According to a PO that I know that works at MARCOM, he is saying there is talk of redesignating the Kingston class to an OPV. Yeah...I am still in shock, anyone else hear this and can confirm or deny it?


----------



## navymich (2 Jan 2007)

OPV?  Operation Patrol Vessel?  (oh wait, I'm not navres anymore.  I can pick on them now right?  OPV = Outdated Patrol Vessel ;D)

What does the change of designation mean?  

I'll ask some sources around here and see if I can track anything down.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> According to a PO that I know that works at MARCOM, he is saying there is talk of redesignating the Kingston class to an OPV. Yeah...I am still in shock, anyone else hear this and can confirm or deny it?



 :rofl:

Is that how we increase combat power in the CF these days ? Changing the designation of things ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Is that how we increase combat power in the CF these days ? Changing the designation of things ?



Seems that way....I am betting its not the case but the military has done some strange things in the past.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Seems that way....I am betting its not the case but the military has done some strange things in the past.



Let us know how the enquiry turns out. I wonder if these will ever deploy to look for mines overseas?


----------



## Stoker (2 Jan 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Let us know how the enquiry turns out. I wonder if these will ever deploy to look for mines overseas?



I doubt if the ships will ever be deployed for sweeping since the ships don't do that anymore, however they are capable for deployment as a mine hunting platform. i.e route survey and as a diving platform. They have been worked up in the intensive "MOST" mine warfare readiness organization. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Is that how we increase combat power in the CF these days ? Changing the designation of things ?



CP-140 Anti-Tank Bomber


----------



## gaspasser (2 Jan 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> CP-140 Anti-Tank Bomber


CP-140ASP (Anti-terrorist Surveillance Platform)


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> CP-140 Anti-Tank Bomber



Well..it is possible, the USN does mount AGM-65s on its P-3C....... ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2007)

Maybe they need to put a 30mm on it for tank busting...


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe they need to put a 30mm on it for tank busting...



My Kingdom for SLAM-ER.....

[/hijack]

What would the reasoning behind changing from MM to OPV be ? I dont see a change in the ship's fitting out ? It barely fullfils a military mission as it is.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2007)

I am not sure either why, I have my doubts that such a thing is happeneing but these days you never know.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am not sure either why, I have my doubts that such a thing is happeneing but these days you never know.



I know but hypotheticaly speaking.

I know what the official pubs say is the role of the MCDVs.  But ballancing that with reality, they serve more as training ships for MARS than anything else. I dont see the Orca-class changing that too much. The weapons fit is light and archeic.  The mission kits are few and far between and i dont, IMHO, beleive they are suited for minesweeping wither. If SCF is to go ahead, we are going to need a capable litoral support capability and i dont think the MCDVs are it.  Speaking purely of OPV, it is something they are not, again in my opinion.

i know we've touched this before, but what REAL military role do the MCDVs fill ?


----------



## navymich (2 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> i know we've touched this before, but what REAL military role do the MCDVs fill ?



Route survey.  BOIV Ops.  Escort.




			
				cdnaviator said:
			
		

> But ballancing that with reality, they serve more as training ships for MARS than anything else. I dont see the Orca-class changing that too much.



As of right now, the ORCAs will not be doing MARS IV, which leaves that still up to the MCDVs.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Route survey.  BOIV Ops.  Escort.



I see the first 2.....but the last one i go  :rofl:

What are they going to escort ? they do not have the speed to escort anything much less chase any attackers and even if they did, they are so inadequately armed that they wouldnt be able to do much.

If we need an escort in litoral waters, might i suggest that a FPB would be better suited.  The MCDV is not an open ocean escort....so what does that leave ?


----------



## navymich (2 Jan 2007)

I knew you would comment on the escort one, and we've talked about it before.  Whether they are adequate for the job or not, they are still tasked with it.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Whether they are adequate for the job or not, they are still tasked with it.



I'm not debating their task...i'm debating their suitability for it.  Like i said in another thread, i have no sailing time on them, been on Whithorse once in port and read what the 106 says about them several times. Thats the extent of my experience with them.

But how about answering my questions? What could they realistcaly do that makes them "escorts" ?


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2007)

Nevermind......something better done elsewhere


----------



## Stoker (2 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> I kno but hypotheticaly speaking.
> 
> I know what the official pubs say is the role of the MCDVs.  But ballancing that with reality, they serve more as training ships for MARS than anything else. I dont see the Orca-class changing that too much. The weapons fit is light and archeic.  The mission kits are few and far between and i dont, IMHO, beleive they are suited for minesweeping wither. If SCF is to go ahead, we are going to need a capable litoral support capability and i dont think the MCDVs are it.  Speaking purely of OPV, it is something they are not, again in my opinion.
> 
> i know weve tuched this before, but what REAL military role do the MCDVs fill ?



While they do a lot of MARS IV training, it just one small part of what they do. With the advent of the new ORCA's, some of the heavy MARS training will be done by these platforms and give the MCDV's a well deserved break, that was relayed to me by VENTURE staff,now of course that could changed. Your right that they are not well suited for the mechanical minesweeping role, but the platform is pretty versatile and the Navy is finding more and more different things for the ships to do. As for mission fits they have 3 types of route survey fits, BOIV, DSIS, Rapid Environmental Assessment and not to mention diving, Phantom ROV and SUBSMASH loadouts. For what is costs to put a frigate to sea vice what it costs to put a MCDV to sea, the ships are very cost effective. 
As for what real military role the MCDV's fill, the ships do go to Europe and take part in NATO exercises and take part in many things a operational frigate does. I agree with you that we need a litoral support capability and the MCDV's were never meant for that. They are not going ahead with the midlife modernization of the class, and nor are they going to extend the hull. I would say that the ships have another 10 years in them and the reserves will receive a new hull of a larger type of ship, probally a corvette class.


----------



## Cronicbny (2 Jan 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> While they do a lot of MARS IV training, it just one small part of what they do. With the advent of the new ORCA's, some of the heavy MARS training will be done by these platforms and give the MCDV's a well deserved break, that was relayed to me by VENTURE staff,now of course that could changed. Your right that they are not well suited for the mechanical minesweeping role, but the platform is pretty versatile and the Navy is finding more and more different things for the ships to do. As for mission fits they have 3 types of route survey fits, BOIV, DSIS, Rapid Environmental Assessment and not to mention diving, Phantom ROV and SUBSMASH loadouts. For what is costs to put a frigate to sea vice what it costs to put a MCDV to sea, the ships are very cost effective.
> As for what real military role the MCDV's fill, the ships do go to Europe and take part in NATO exercises and take part in many things a operational frigate does. I agree with you that we need a litoral support capability and the MCDV's were never meant for that. They are not going ahead with the midlife modernization of the class, and nor are they going to extend the hull. I would say that the ships have another 10 years in them and the reserves will receive a new hull of a larger type of ship, probally a corvette class.



Who will man these corvettes? Certainly not the people we don't have now. The reserves needs to address some personnel issues before we even think of manning a larger class of ship. In fact, maybe we should address these issues before we end up with an eight ship MCDV fleet on both coasts. Just MHO.


----------



## Stoker (2 Jan 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Who will man these corvettes? Certainly not the people we don't have now. The reserves needs to address some personnel issues before we even think of manning a larger class of ship. In fact, maybe we should address these issues before we end up with an eight ship MCDV fleet on both coasts. Just MHO.



I'm pretty sure the replacement for a MCDV is a long time away. I can see us manning a larger class of ship with a mixture of regs and reserves. As for personnel issues, recruiting is increasing and the reserves are slowly getting more and more trained pers. As for an eight ship MCDV fleet, they will man them with reg force before they will tie them up.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2007)

Two questions for you Stoker....Where are you finding info on this corvette class? And how do you figure the Regs can help crew the MCDVs when we have problems manning what we have now?


----------



## Cronicbny (2 Jan 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the replacement for a MCDV is a long time away. I can see us manning a larger class of ship with a mixture of regs and reserves. As for personnel issues, recruiting is increasing and the reserves are slowly getting more and more trained pers. As for an eight ship MCDV fleet, they will man them with reg force before they will tie them up.



As Ex says the RegF pers can't help us there. It's not a matter of *IF* we will have an 8 ship MCDV establishment... it's *WHEN*. Recruiting is kind of irrelevant since we can't keep up with the outgoing CT's, Unfits and MATA/PATA pers right now. Add to that the lack of people from NRDs wishing to come on Class C contracts - and the fact that too many people can't pass an EXPRES test and are therefore ineligible for a new Class C contract. 

Anyways, when my trade is finally over that 70% trained effective strength... we can talk about a sustainable 10 ship fleet.


----------



## Stoker (2 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Two questions for you Stoker....Where are you finding info on this corvette class? And how do you figure the Regs can help crew the MCDVs when we have problems manning what we have now?



The need for a "Corvette" Class has been talked about since 1991, there is a requirement for a platform in between the MCDV and CPF . I'm speculating that the reserves will be included in the manning if and when they are built, but with the MCDV's with another 10 to 15 years of life left and it takes upwards of a decade from the planning to delivery of a new class of ship, this is entirely possible. The MCDV's were only suppose to have a life of 25 years. We discussed this at length on my Maritime Warfare Course.
As for the manning i'm speaking for the MESO's of course, where we have the biggest shortage. We have had regular force stokers, a couple of Navcoms and even MARS officers posted to our ships in the past and probally will so again. These ships are not owned by NAVRES,but only manned by us. If it comes down that this ships needs a MESO or a Bosn or whatever to sail, MARLANT will get a body somewhere. I have talked to many Regs and they would love to come to our ships. There has been some reluctance in the past from NAVRES to let the reg force "take all our jobs", but I think that attitude is changing.I think it was a mistake when we manned this ships in the past, as reserves we should be able to have mixed crews with both regs and reserves on ALL classes of ships.


----------



## navymich (2 Jan 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> ...As for the manning i'm speaking for the MESO's of course, where we have the biggest shortage. ...



That may be the way it is on the East coast, but last time I was on the ships West coast a couple of months ago, they weren't hurting overall for MESOs.  Sure, a bit of a lack here and there for B tickets.  But compared to the ships that are sailing for an operational course, with only an NCIOP and the Sr NCIOP to stand watches, and it is more then just one ship like that, I see it as a high manning shortage.



			
				Stoker said:
			
		

> ...If it comes down that this ships needs a MESO or a Bosn or whatever to sail, MARLANT will get a body somewhere. ...



MARPAC isn't working that way.  West coast MCDVs are begging and pleading for bodies.  But it ends up like robbing Peter to pay Paul.  With the heavy schedule, the crews are needed across the board.  Which goes to show why the scenario that Cronicbny was saying about 4 ships per coast will come into effect.  I still shake my head in wonderment that they were able to stand up the 6th ship out here this summer for COJT.


----------



## Stoker (2 Jan 2007)

Well I guess we'll see, what happens in the future. Its funny how on the east coast we are not too bad off and on the sunny west coast your're having a manning problem. I suppose its because of all the component transfers. I know out here we are seeing a slight decline in sea days on some ships.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Jan 2007)

The only funny thing here is the comparison of how the MCDV's have been sent to Europe for Mine warfare exercises, and comparing that to what a Reg force unit does......

Escort?  Do you mean leading ships through mined areas?

Manning will continue to be a problem if we insist on working with dated technology......  IF we had more automated gear, or if we TOOK advantage of the full potential of our kit we wouldn't need 250 people to man a CPF.... I KNOW... WHO IS GOING TO CLEAN?


MCDV = OPV.... I call BS on that one, hopefully I will be wearing blue if it happens, and perhaps I will be working on one of them Cp-140 anti terror planes have been reading about.....


----------



## navymich (3 Jan 2007)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Escort?  Do you mean leading ships through mined areas?



Nope.  Although we do practice at it.  By escort, I mean escorting another ship from one location to another.


----------



## CBH99 (3 Jan 2007)

Sub_Guy hit the nail on the head.

How is it that European countries can have support ships and submarines that are almost completed automated, requiring crews a fraction of the size of Canadian vessels - yet we, who have access to the same technologies, are still building, or contemplating building ships, that require hundreds of crew members?

Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland all come to mind.  If I had more time, I would post a link to the vessels I am talking about - however I'm at work right now, so I can do so later.  Building vessels, or upgrading/modifying our vessels, to be more automated and require less crew would greatly expand our capacity to provide personnel where needed, no??

I admit, I'm way out of my lane here...but I agree with Sub_Guy.  We seem to be behind our European allies when it comes to effectively using automation to help stretch out personnel out a little further.


----------



## navymich (3 Jan 2007)

CBH, you and Sub_guy both make good points, however, this thread is about the MCDVs, not the CPFs.  Granted, the 45 man crew of the MCDVs could probably also be cut down a bit too, although they are, for the most part, a training platform, so they take on as many as they can.


----------



## Allen (3 Jan 2007)

Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland all come to mind.

Switzerland builds ships? They're landlocked!


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Jan 2007)

http://www.swissnavy.org/

I don't know about ships, but they produce a mighty fine breath mint!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jan 2007)

We are going way off topic here....


----------



## Stoker (3 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> CBH, you and Sub_guy both make good points, however, this thread is about the MCDVs, not the CPFs.  Granted, the 45 man crew of the MCDVs could probably also be cut down a bit too, although they are, for the most part, a training platform, so they take on as many as they can.



Yes, when the MCDV's were still being planned some people talked about giving us unmanned machinery spaces with a highly automated machinery control system, that could of cut down on the amount of engineers on board. Of course that went by the way side with the amount of cut backs we received to save money degaussing equipment for only 2 hulls, no bow thruster etc. I have been onboard quite a few a European warships and generally they are have smaller crew components and are more automated than we are. I also know in a DC/FF situation, the ship with the more automated/less crew size will have less persons to fight fire/save the ship.We were suppose to originally have 4 less personnel onboard than we had now. They decided to install 4 extra bunks in the quad man cabins for the first trip to Europe and it was only suppose to be a mission fit, it later became class wide. Your right that with out speed we shouldn't be a escort, however its funny how we get to take on more and more CPF roles ie fisheries, so some ships can enjoy their time alongside.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Jan 2007)

There is always some argument about keeping a larger Crew...... "What if?"  "Who will clean?"

Again most Navies get by with less crew, and in reality just how many people are going to fight this massive fire....?


I can't wait to see the finally crewing of the JSS......

MCDV's are perfect for fisheries, using a CPF is a waste of money when it comes to fishery patrols.  Now if for some reason someone fails a drug test and these re-designated OPV, these vessels will be even more suited for fisheries, so the heavies can have more time at home!!


----------



## Gus (4 Jan 2007)

OPV = *Offshore* Patrol Vessel (not Operation/al).

Whether there will be a new class of ship to replace MCDVs is unknown, and whether the MCDVs will have a mid-life extension is also unknown.  What is known, right now, is that there is not a plan (to do anything); the fact that there is no plan does not mean it will not happen, it is merely the climate in Ottawa -- CF and government planners working things out.  Maybe this is not a high priority right now, or maybe it will never be a priority, but over the course of the years it could change.

The challenge with a MCDV being an Offshore Patrol Vessel is its design.  It is desinged for inshore water, hence the shallow draught and flat bottom; unsuitable really for big ocean stuff.  Notwithstanding that the ships have transitted open Pacific and open Atlantic, they do not perform well in the big blue; their role was meant to be close to harbours or confined areas.  Personally, I think that given the Canadian coastlines (and I will leave out the Arctic for now), I find it just crazy that Canada does build ships that are not really suitable for the open sea -- you leave Halifax and five miles (and less) from the coast you are in it, and the west coast of Vancouver Island, the USA, BC's northern waters off the Queen Charlotte Islands, are all miserable places to be, especially in winter.  Any vessel we consider should factor into the plan that the ships will be out there.  Poor CF (Navy) planners?

Anyway, there are a few countries around using smaller than frigate, but perhaps larger than corvette sized OPV.  The British have built them for Falklands Islands patrolling.  Perhaps we should look at those, after all, a ship designed for the south Atlantic, a particularly nasty place, might suit us (tongue in cheek).  The Danes have some as well, and they are ice-hardened http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/T/Thetis_frigate(1991-).htm .  They require fewer people, too, so there is a substantial cost saving.  CPFs are not bad ships, physically, for fisheries patrols, but it is very expensive and really a waste of something designed to be overseas "fighting", not here "patrolling".

In terms of number of people on board for cleaning, firefighting, etc., other navies seem to be adapting to this.  The Danish ships have about 60 people on board.  To bring this to current terms, we could probably get away with fewer people in the MCDVs as well.  Because of the way we do business, we generally have more crew, but strictly in terms of cleaning and firefighting/damage control, the Canadian Coast Guard has MCDV sized ships with only fifteen people on board, and they seem to do all right (they come and go from harbours, anchor, patrol, clean, paint, rescue, send RHIBs away, and fight fires).  One might argue that they do not have to deal with battle damage, but realistically, the MCDVs do not have to either.  I wonder what the mathematical probability of a MCDV taking a hit based on a drug interdiction would be, versus a coast guard ship seconded to the RCMP for the same reason -- statistically different or insignificant?


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Well..it is possible, the USN does mount AGM-65s on its P-3C....... ;D



Interesting. Got a pic?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jan 2007)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/p-3.htm

Shows a P3 launching a Maverick in the picture section.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jan 2007)

Well if the current shopping list get fluffed over the next few years, it will make room for the planning of replacements. They should make an Act of Parliament that all major capital equipment purchase should have a specified design life and that the government must have replacements in place by that date.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Jan 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well if the current shopping list get fluffed over the next few years, it will make room for the planning of replacements. They should make an Act of Parliament that all major capital equipment purchase should have a specified design life and that the government must have replacements in place by that date.



Here here! Funny how they make damn sure the aircraft and vehicles that they are passengers in are safe and up to date eh? Their offices and staff are supplied with the latest technologies etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jan 2007)

Somehow fulfilled became fluffed?  :-[


----------

