# Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)



## x-grunt

What do the MCDV's really do? There's what the recruiting propaganda says, which seems a little different then what I've been told by a few people who have spent time on them. What did your ship(s) do while you were posted in them?


----------



## tabernac

They are Naval Reserve boats, for use by Naval reserve units. 

The Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs) were designed and built to commercial standards, although some key areas such as stability, flood control, manoueverability and ammunition storage are built to military specifications. The ships are very flexible -- inter-changeable modular payloads can be fitted for route survey, bottom object inspection and minesweeping. KINGSTON Class ships are crewed primarily by Naval Reservists. 

Vital Roles 

Coastal surveillance involves general naval operations and exercises, search and rescue, law enforcement, resource protection and fisheries patrols. The ships' Naval Reserve crews are augmented by two Regular Force naval electronic technicians. MCDVs offer an economical alternative to major surface units for routine but nevertheless important patrolling duties, as these are vital in maintaining our sovereignty and protecting our shores. The 12 vessels are divided equally between both coasts. 

Leading-edge Communications and Engineering Technologies 

The vessels' design accommodates three modular payloads: a mechanical minesweeping system (MMS), a route survey system, and a bottom object inspection vehicle. These can be on- or off-loaded within 12 hours. During Route Survey tasks, the ships deploy a partially controllable "fish" fitted with a side scan sonar. This towed system creates imagery and a database of the condition and objects on the seabed for subsequent investigation. The database can later be used during mine hunting tasks for example, to avoid investigating previously located and known objects. A remote operating vehicle (bottom object inspection) can also be deployed to closely investigate objects that have been observed. 

The onboard fully integrated communication system includes VHF, UHF and HF radios as well as secure voice. Four 2450 Hp diesel engines drive two 3000 Hp electric motors, each turning an azimuthing thruster fitted with a five-bladed fixed-pitch propeller.

A 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft gun and two 50 calibre machine guns provide a basic level of self-defence. 

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet/mcd_overview_e.asp


----------



## x-grunt

Hey cheeky_monkey thanks for that but it's really just quoting official stuff. I'm more interested in what those who have spent time in them have to say about what they really did. Did you really do SAR, coastal surveillance, fisheries patrols etc? Did you sail for long periods, or day trip here and there? That kind of thing.

I'm just curious.

I imagine some of the official sounding missions do happen but I spent enough time on heavies way way back when to know that sometimes what the official word is and what really happens is not quite the same.


----------



## NavyGrunt

up and down the coast......small trip here, hom 2 weeks, small trip there......work on man overboard drills......clean the heads....tie knots and stand watch....


----------



## Cronicbny

I'll give you an example of an average year for an average west coast MCDV. There are only 5 of the ships in routine at any given time... so here we go:

1 Jan - 7 Jan Leave Period
8 Jan -10 Feb MARS IV Consolidation/NRD/OJT - Local Area Deployment (Olympia, WA - Port Hardy, BC)
11 Feb-1 Apr ISSC/Esquimalt Available
2 Apr - 15 Apr NRD/Route Survey (Local Area)
16 Apr -  20 May Esquimalt Available/MARPAC Taskings/Workups/Sar Zone
21 May - 1 Jun Empire Days in Nanaimo/NRD/OJT
2 Jun - 15 Aug MARS IV Reserve/NRD/OJT - Out of Area Deployment (Alaska, San Diego, Mexico, Etc)
16 Aug - 1 Sep Leave Period
2 Sep - 15 Sep ISSC
16 Sep - 1 Nov MARS IV Regular Force/NRD/OJT - Local Area
2 Nov - 15 Nov Esquimalt Available
16 Nov - 15 Dec NRD
16 Dec - 20 Dec ISSC
20 Dec - 31 Dec Leave Period

This is a made up schedule, but is fairly commonplace for the 5 in routine ships. 

As you can see, it equates to an average of 180-200 days at sea per ship (slow year)

During MARS IV deployments we will conduct any number of operations concurrently such as (but not limited to), Sar Zone, CFLC events, Surveillance, Dedicated RMP periods, WUPS assist for the FFG/DDH types, TGEX's, etc etc etc.

MCDV's are also required to conduct MARPAC taskings throughout the year. (No details here)

Additionally, the ships are required to sail in support of various community events... some of these include:

-Empire Days (Nanaimo)
-Bathtub Races (Nanaimo)
-Symphony Of Fire (Vancouver)
-Swiftsure Sail race (Victoria)
-Night of Lights (Victoria)
-Rose Festival (Portland, OR)
-Seafair (Seattle)
-and of course, Canada Day which is generally celebrated in some random US port (Juneau, Seattle, etc)

Further, one ship will generally be dedicated for BOIV operations, and one for Route Survey operations. 

You might even get to add some sailing days for 2 weeks of Work Ups which usually includes a weekend in Seattle.

Foreign Ports (any port that is not Esquimalt) are fairly commonplace on 6 out of 8 weekends in your average 2 month program. Personally my most visited ports (in no particular order) are:
1. Seattle (by far the most)
2. Vancouver
3. Portland
4. Juneau
5. Skagway
6. Prince Rupert
7. Victoria
8. Olympia
9. Everett
10. San Diego

The ships are fairly busy.... so you'll never be bored! Naturally, each foreign port includes a Duty Free issue (up to one a month), which is always nice.

Any other questions, feel free to ask

LJ Kenward
MS
Senior NCIOP
HMCS Yellowknife


----------



## Meridian

This may seem silly.. but as a reserve unit...  how do you ensure you have enough people parading to sail? 180-200 days/year is fairly active at least reserve-wise...   what do you do when people don't show up?


----------



## x-grunt

That is great info Cronicbny

That's a typical "slow" year? That seems to rival the regs for total days at sea. My recruiting contact at the NRD said some reservists transfer to the reg force to get full time employment but also to have less sea time per year - I thought she was joking. Now I wonder if she was serious.

What have your busy years been like? No need to put up a list, just an idea of sea time and time for the average deployment.

It looks like the average deployment is about 2-4 weeks for west coast MCDV's, is that right?


----------



## hugh19

OK Meridian The MCDV's are crewed by full time reservists on class c call out so if they don't show up they get run.

Also ex grunt I was one of those people who transfered over to the reg force to get more pay and much less sea time.


----------



## Cronicbny

MCDV's are crewed by 31 people on Class C at a minimum. Most of those contracts are over 1 year, and generally 2-3 years. If people dont "show up" they are simply run and replaced. Unfit sea, however, is a different story, but I've had enough beer to make me think discussing that now would prove reprehensible.

Evening all


----------



## Navalsnpr

MCDV's also have Reg Force crew members on board as well. 

I think there are at least 3-4 members that are Reg Force as there is no Reserve equivalent for the trades available.


----------



## Sheerin

Are they commanded by reservists?


----------



## hugh19

There are only 2 reg forces members normally, the PO2 electrician, and a MS  NET. Hopefully that answers your question sheerin.


----------



## Sheerin

Sure does....

thanks.


----------



## Torlyn

I believe they do have some 2-lt's on board.  Don't the reg-forces MARS kidlets do some training on those??


----------



## hugh19

whats a 2lt??? Is that like a sub lt???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

sledge said:
			
		

> whats a 2lt??? Is that like a sub lt???



Better yet an _Acting Sub Lieutenant_.


----------



## Navalsnpr

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Are they commanded by reservists?



Yes they are. Just as RSS staff at an Army Reserve Unit would receive their Evaluations from a Reservist.


----------



## NavyGunner

sledge said:
			
		

> There are only 2 reg forces members normally, the PO2 electrician, and a MS   NET. Hopefully that answers your question sheerin.



Lets set this straight...it is a P2 Electrician and either a MS NET or a MS NW Tech.....our NW Techs are just as qualified for the gear involved.


----------



## navymich

The "core" crew of an MCDV consists of:  
CO (LCdr), XO (LCdr/Lt(N)), 
OpsO (Lt(N)), NavO (Lt(N)), DeckO (SLt), 
Coxn (P1or C2), 
Chief Engineer (C2), Engineering Officer of the watches x3 (P2/MS), Engineering Roundsmen x3 (AB/LS/MS), 
Sr. NCIOP (MS/P2), NCIOPsx2 (AB/LS/MS), 
Sr. Communicator (MS/P2), Communicators x3 (AB/LS/MS), 
Chief Bosun Mate (P2), Bosuns x5 (AB/LS/MS), 
Chief Cook (P2/MS), cooks x2 (AB/LS/MS), 
electrician (P2), tech of some sort (weapons/electronics MS).  

Ship can hold 47 pers in total, so they usually fill up the remaining bunks with OJT's or extra BWK's (bridge watchkeepers)

Just to add from before, when an MCDV is embarked with route survey gear, their sea time for the year goes up greatly, often reaching to 260 days.


----------



## Navalsnpr

navymich said:
			
		

> Ship can hold 47 pers in total, so they usually fill up the remaining bunks with OJT's or extra BWK's (bridge watchkeepers)



There is also a POD that can be put on the quarterdeck to allow for some additional accommodations.


----------



## Cronicbny

47 includes the accomodations pod and assumes one person sleeping in the CO's cabin. With a pod you'll generally sail with 46... without the pod... 40

A Little clarification - there are only 3 Core crew NAVCOMMS, including the SNAC, the fourth billet is only funded by MARPAC/MARLANT for one year. 

Hope that helps to clear things up


----------



## navymich

For the comms, last I had heard was it was only a Marpac thing funding the 4th.  And I added it into my list 'cause I am partial to comms...  Hopefully Navres gets the hint to keep it going.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Engines?
Radar?
Weapons?

Specifically, I'm curious if we moved towards an Australian Coastwatch Model, if the MCDV could be taken out of Reserve hands and put into active service with either the Navy or Coast Guard and what changes would be necessary to make it an effective asset in such a new role.

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I would transfer the MCDV over to the Coast guard keeping some for mine sweeping duties...


I would look at getting a medium sized patrol vessel, one that could handle the weather associated with Canada.  With automated equipment you should be able to keep the crew size the same as the MCDV, if not just slightly larger.  This would free up the CPF's to deal with real taskings and not chasing fishermen of NFLD.


I don't like the MCDV at all


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Too slow, too flat bottomed, lousy sea keeping ability, old weapons, not enough mission modules, poor damage control, awful RHIB position and launching equipment just to name a few things wrong with the Kingston class. Was a waste of money from the get go.


----------



## x-grunt

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> if the MCDV could be taken out of Reserve hands and put into active service



No comment on their capabilites, as I am too new to have any knowledge of the subject. But I am curious. Why would you take the MCDV's away from NavRes, regardless of role? From what I read/hear, they do more sea time then most Reg vessels, and they have, afaik, a solid core of experienced, full time contract reserve crews. Plus NavRes is trained to a higher standard then the Army's reservists.
What about the MCDV's is not "active service" at this time? Are they not at this time considered operationally tasked, as well as being used for training of reservists and Reg/Reserve officers?

Not being confrontational here, simply curious.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> From what I read/hear, they do more sea time then most Reg vessels


Oh really...tell that to the guys who went to Op Apollo 2-3 times.



> and they have, afaik, a solid core of experienced, full time contract reserve crews.


On this coast I always see critical Manning Lists from the MCDVs looking for personnel



> Plus NavRes is trained to a higher standard then the Army's reservists.


i hope you can back that up otherwise you will have a flame war on your hands soon.



> Not being confrontational here, simply curious.


Not the way I see it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Too slow, too flat bottomed, lousy sea keeping ability, old weapons, not enough mission modules, poor damage control, awful RHIB position and launching equipment just to name a few things wrong with the Kingston class. Was a waste of money from the get go.



I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but based on that assessment would you be in favour of the following:

1)   Sell at depreciated value 8 vessels to the Coast Guard (4 Remain as dedicated Naval Reserve Minesweepers)
2)   Coast Guard with its now much larger fleet takes primary responsibility for Sovereignty Patrols of sea lanes within 100km of the coastline.
3)   Navy shifts to more of a war fighting/war training focus with a secondary role of acting as "First Responder" if the Coast Guard requires assistance
4)   Navy temporarily trains up Coast Guard crews with current MCDV crews, but eventually transfers them back to staff undermanned CPF and DDH vessels
5)   Navy uses new found funds on the 280-replacements.

Thanks again Ex,



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth, but based on that assessment would you be in favour of the following:



> 1)  Sell at depreciated value 8 vessels to the Coast Guard (4 Remain as dedicated Naval Reserve Minesweepers)


While I would like to see dedicated minesweepers 4 is not enough to cover what we need...12 is not even enough.


> 2)  Coast Guard with its now much larger fleet takes primary responsibility for Sovereignty Patrols of sea lanes within 100km of the coastline.


You forget the CG has not interest in being armed so what they have now while needing to be replaced or updated is adequate for their role.


> 3)  Navy shifts to more of a war fighting/war training focus with a secondary role of acting as "First Responder" if the Coast Guard requires assistance


Thats our primary role right now, that has never changed and the military is always ready to step in to aid another goverment body.


> 4)  Navy temporarily trains up Coast Guard crews with current MCDV crews, but eventually transfers them back to staff undermanned CPF and DDH vessels


You forget we only embark at times only a few Naval Reservists...very little of our crew make up is reservists and most prefer it to stay that way.


> 5)  Navy uses new found funds on the 280-replacements.


Would be nice we will see in about 5-10 years is my guess.


----------



## NCRCrow

They were an effective asset at Swiss Air Diaster and have better parties.

Never miss a SHAD BASH!

See you after at Scoundrels or the Tudor!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

LOL you left out better looking women NCR


----------



## x-grunt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Oh really...tell that to the guys who went to Op Apollo 2-3 times.
> On this coast I always see critical Manning Lists from the MCDVs looking for personnel
> i hope you can back that up otherwise you will have a flame war on your hands soon.
> Not the way I see it



Too bad you see it that way Ex-Dragoon, I was honestly just being curious.

Concerning the time spent at sea, look at this thread.   There is a discussion about this topic. In it one person confirms that he transferred to the regular force to get LESS sea time.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/23040.0.html

As for training standards, I was thinking more of officer training rather than NCM's.   I am completely open the possibility that I am wrong, but I would prefer hard information.

Here's my thinking. I will use reserve infantry officer training and MARS as examples, as those in the two I am most familiar with.

Reserve infantry BOTC seems to be the 10 weekend BMQ/10 weekend SQ (Only 40 days - that can't be right, can it?) and sometimes there seems to be some additional week long training module but this seems to be dependent upon location.   Going through the various posts here, the average length of training including the module is about 47 days (?).

Naval reserve IAP/BOTC at Esquimalt is accredited as equal to the regular force, and is nearly four months long full-time. (My source is the naval reserve magazine, The Link). The regular force sends candidates to Esquimalt sometimes.

Militia infantry CAP-R an PLC courses are shorter in length and lack some of the training included in the regular force counterparts.   There are several threads in the forums concerning this.

MARS officer candidates take the same 40 weeks of training whether they are regular or reserve.   The watch keeping certification qualification at the end of this training is the same.   Then off everyone goes to apprentice in their particular ship type.

As for NCM's, in both the naval reserve and the militia training seems to be one-third to one-half that of the comparable regular force courses. I do note that there are several discussions on these forums about militia spending several months upgrading their training before they can be deployed.   Of course naval reserve personnel being deployed would have to come up to some higher standard if they have not spent much time at sea, but I have not heard of anything this extensive being required for naval reserve personnel.   This suggests that the standard is closer to the regular force than in the militia.

Of course, the naval reserve has an operational tasking and deploys units composed and commanded by reservists.   It would make sense that they would be trained to a decent standard so that this mission can be achieved.   The militia deploys individual members but is not responsible for deploying complete units.

I used to be a reserve infantry NCM.   I took a long look at my former trade when I was considering reenlisting.   Using my knowledge and experience for comparison, I am quite impressed with what I see in the naval reserve.

Now, I am making no attempt to say that this is better than that.   What I see are two different branches, with different missions, that need to prepare their members in different ways.   And I am certainly not making any comment at all on individual member professionalism.   I have met some very professional, competent militia members.   I am certain that there will be some bumbling fools in the naval reserve.

Thank you for the information concerning the Manning lists.   That's new information for me.


----------



## NCRCrow

My wife is lurking around here somewhere....but I do agree!! :blotto:

I married a cute little SHAD!


----------



## Sub_Guy

I think that the MCDV's are a huge waste of money.  Some people claim that the MCDV's spend more time at sea than the Heavies, sure I'll buy that but it depends on the ship you are posted too...   Sort of like I bet that there are Guys in Petawawa right now who have spent more time away from home, than say his bro in arms posted to Gagetown.

I always thought the whole point of the reserves was to have people who could step up and perform the role of a reg force individual.  You can't take your average SHAD and throw him on a CPF....... I would talk an Able Seaman reg force over a MS shad any day, they might spend some time at sea, but so do fishermen.  It comes down to experience, and when it comes to operations the reg force sailor is worth more than the SHAD..  Whoa off topic there

I don't know what it is like in the Army, but don't the reserves and reg force use the same kit?  

We don't need minesweepers, really if the enemy is sneaking into our harbours and planting mines, then we are in over our heads.... 

Get rid of them, pick up some OPV, something with Balls that can move in the water


----------



## NCRCrow

Yeah.....you tell like it is. Do shads impact us skimmer pukes...nah.

We are light years away from getting an AEGIS capability or a heavy sea lift/amphib cap.

What do we need balls for......MIO??? (we did not have a robust enough ROE in OP APOLLO Roto 0 to stop anybody anyway) When we did anything the onboard JAG had to call Ottawa for permission!!!

The Wavy navy has a role and they perform it adequately. MCDV's are not the best, but when they have the Ready Duty Flag hoisted. It makes this skimmer puke happy.

I retire in 2009, I hope you prove me wrong.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

"Is it worth upgrading the MCDV and what would you *mofidy*????" 

mofidy. Must be a navy term


----------



## x-grunt

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> Yeah.....you tell like it is. Do shads impact us skimmer pukes...nah.



Gotta ask. Skimmer puke?


----------



## NCRCrow

What submariners call us above surface guys! (reg force term)

Shads-reservists

Perma Shads- Class B'ers w/ CD's

I have seen more reservists augmenting the Heavies, and yes they are undertrained and a little weary. 

But we all started out somewhere!


----------



## Cloud Cover

I would add a hot pretzel maker and a bigger canned beer machine. In addition, I would throw all of that minsweeping, sidescan crap over the side, and have a large, outdoor projection screen tv with surround sound audio system installed. The ship would be just as effective with my proposed modifications, and the crew would be a whole lot happier.


----------



## NCRCrow

Sign me up!!

Maybe the dayworkers will have there own fleet of ships!


----------



## x-grunt

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> I would add a hot pretzel maker and a bigger canned beer machine. In addition, I would throw all of that minsweeping, sidescan crap over the side, and have a large, outdoor projection screen tv with surround sound audio system installed. The ship would be just as effective with my proposed modifications, and the crew would be a whole lot happier.



Ah, I see. Then it could be redesignated a Multiple Channel Deployment Vessel, sent to provide Starchoice entertainment to troops and aid workers in TV deprived areas around the world.   ;D


----------



## NCRCrow

with a CANCON show POD..them girls on OP ATHENA Roto 0 were FRIGGIN SMOKIN....I like the Shania one!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Hmm .... would the brass pole* go midships or port or to starboard? 

* was that a security breach? OOPs, I meant ummm .. the new comms array.


----------



## George Wallace

Things are heating up here.

Could put it Midship and call it a Fire Pole.

GW


----------



## Cloud Cover

I volunteer to be the guy with the nozzle on the initial attack team.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Concerning the time spent at sea, look at this thread.  There is a discussion about this topic. In it one person confirms that he transferred to the regular force to get LESS sea time.
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/23040.0.html



Maybe for the west coast types x-grunt for us east coast types we are always gone.


----------



## navydrill

OK guys lets set the record straight on a few things.
1. on average an MCDV spends about 280 days A YEAR, EVERY YEAR at sea.
2. we desperately need better RIB launch capability/recovery
3. 12 is not enough, however we don't have the man power to man any more.
4. the navy is getting 4 new ships, something akin to the old yags, to be manned by both reg and res crew.
5. i have sailed on CPF and MCDV and the MCDV is way more work so BZ to all the res that do it year after year.
and 6. the navy period needs more thinkers in HQ who the hell thought up the MCDVs anyway i mean come on i minesweeper with a steel hull D'UH.


----------



## navydrill

wow you guys out on the west coast got it easy. out here we do minimum of 280 and the most I've ever seen is 340 days at sea(trip to Europe minesweeping with everything else). as far as the pay scale there are about 6 class c the rest are class b. we are working to get rid of class b all together.and hey kenward long time no see glad to see you are still around.
cheers LS miller
EX- darksider


----------



## Sub_Guy

Prove you wrong?     Yes the MCDV is good at what it does.... Training Officers..................And they do a good job at it.   

But I thought the one of the main purposes of a Reserve force was to Augment the Reg force in time of need.   The Navy reserve and the Reg force are two different forces.   You can take your average Reserve Soldier and he can fully integrate into an Army unit with little training.   Take your average Navres sailor, and throw him in a reg force position and they are lost (nav comm).     If the MCDVs and CPFs were manned jointly by SHADS and Reg Force, I think the training standard overall would go up.   

There is a difference between your average SHAD (NCM) and your Reg Force sailor.     

MCDV Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel   <--- Too slow 
Mine Sweeping <--- Metal Hull




Funny how when they decided to try to market the MCDV overseas........ Not one country would bite..... I beleive it was Finland who manufactured a Mine Sweeper with a Fibre glass hull

After some research, I did find that last year four MCDVs out east sailed 187 days.  They were a part of the nothern deployment, and other sails.
That was a busiest year so far............

So for someone to say that an MCDV spends about 280 days a YEAR, EVERY YEAR at sea........ is unfounded.

Seriously though SHADS are hard working, but don't them fool ya, I am sure that it might be difficult at times on a MCDV, but you get on a CPF preping for the gulf, and you will work.   Get a CPF in refit, you will sit around.  Depends on where you are posted.


Skimmer Puke  = Term used by Submariners to describe our Surface Brothers


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Sounds like a good platform for fisheries patrol and that's about it.



M.   ???


----------



## Sub_Guy

A minimum of 280 days for all the MCDVs?  Are you crazy?  And can you really count the days where you leave in the morning and return back for supper?  Don't get me wrong I know that there are busy ships, but the MCDV fleet as a whole isn't ripping around 280 days a year.....  

I know people like to inflate numbers, for example when you sail for 5 months, it is always inflated to 6...............


----------



## x-grunt

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> But I thought the one of the main purposes of a Reserve force was to Augment the Reg force in time of need.   The Navy reserve and the Reg force are two different forces.



From what little I know - and I confess to being a noob with current naval issues - NavRes primary task is not to augment Reg force personnel, but man the MCDV's and provide personnel for coastal ops. At least, this is what I get from the defence website.   I assume this was done to free up the Regs for bluewater ops. Providing manpower (person-power?) to the CPF's is a lesser role and and perhaps training does not reflect CPF equipment all that well.



> You can take your average Reserve Soldier and he can fully integrate into an Army unit with little training.



Army reserves supply members to augment the Reg units as a primary task. And from what I've read here and experienced in the infantry, it does take a while upgrade an army reservists training, regardless of element. 

Regardless, you are absolutely right. Part-timers will never be as cozy and competent with the work as a full-timer in any activity. That's the way it is. The Regs are the overall pro's. Reserve organizations are never going to have the same level of experience and training. As you stated, this doesn't mean Res members don't try as hard or have any less pride in their work when deployed.



> So for someone to say that an MCDV spends about 280 days a YEAR, EVERY YEAR at sea........ is unfounded.



I can't speak to how many days at sea any vessel does. I have no right to speak of the workload, I have not been to sea on a CF vessel since '77. But I have met several reservists who each spent over 300 days at sea last year. So maybe it's not so much the ships being at sea, as the sailors moving from hull to hull to fill crews?



> MCDV Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel   <--- Too slow
> Mine Sweeping <--- Metal Hull



Bizarre. Who bought these things?

I still like the idea of converting these to "entertainment vessels"


----------



## Sub_Guy

Yes I will agree that sailors with 300 days at sea, are most likely the result of switching hulls, but there are a lot of day sailing trips, sailing in the morning, and returning at night...  


Our MCDVs and SHADs are top notch, but the vessel could have been better designed.  Our Naval reserve has it own distinct mission. How about the Air Force reserve, what is their primary role?  Is there even such a thing?


----------



## navydrill

OK let me clarify the ship its self may not sail that much however due to manning shortages sailors get bumped around the ships all the time.half the time i did not know what ship i was on in the morning.
all this leaves the crews with poor morale and sailor with no time along side.


----------



## Navalsnpr

Though a good concept, the design of the MCDV's weren't fully thought out as many here will agree.

They do serve as a good training platform for MARS officers, but due to the lack of modern weaponry, and stability issues, I think it's role would be better suited as a training platform.



			
				NCRCrow said:
			
		

> See you after at Scoundrels or the Tudor!!



NCRCrow, you've just dated yourself, as that place has been closed for many years!! Don't get me wrong, it was an excellent place which was frequented by many Naval Reservists....


----------



## NCRCrow

and single Reg force guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Navalsnpr

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> and single Reg force guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Damn Right!!!


----------



## Cloud Cover

The Tudor House is closed?


----------



## Navalsnpr

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> The Tudor House is closed?


No not the Tudor House....Scoundrels


----------



## Cronicbny

If the Tudor house closed I'd quit! LOL. In all seriousness, there are many things they could do to improve the MCDV's. Yes, the design was flawed. Yes, metal is a poor choice for a MM. The DC arrangement is atrocious. But all in all they fulfill the mandate very well considering. I'm sure the frigates would love to set to sea for a single day tasking any time our american friends want to visit Esquimalt. 

Anyway, point of the post... MCDV's do many things well. In fact many things we do better than the frigates could since they don't know ANYTHING about sailing in local waters (listening to a frigate call into Victoria Traffic borders on embarassing). 

MCDV's are sent to sea because,

We're cheap to send out

We're cheap to send out

and finally,

We're cheap to send out

So, in essence we're everything a frigate is NOT:

Small
Low cost for fuel
Low cost for maintenance
Low cost for crew (CCFP doesn't pay the salaries on the MCDV's but owns the ships)
Long endurance without victuals or fuel replenishment
Excellent redundant propulsion system (twin screw, twin motor, four diesel engines)
Highly maneouverable at any speed (up to 15 knots)
Purpose designed for coastal operations
       -Black water treatment system one of only two approved by the USCG to discharge within US TTW
       -2 High capacity ROD units capable of making 12 CUMs of water daily
       -Capable of shallow water transits (3.3 metre draught... INCLUDING mandatory safety depth of 50cm)

As part of TGEX 04/02 the MCDV's proved capable of not only integrating with a TG, they proved invaluable for intelligence gathering in restricted waters. Further, in the last 12 months the MCDV fleet (west coast) added more contacts to GCCS than the "reg force" fleet did, resulting in over a dozen RCMP/USCG interdictions that ended in arrests. Further, the last sovereignty patrol conducted by HMCS Calgary covered the exact same areas that three MCDV's were already patrolling. When it comes to local (seattle to prince rupert) ISR, the only choice CCFP wants to make is the group with experience... and they're not on a frigate.

For all the reg force types that continuously haggle about our training and experience.... I have to agree the training is sometimes lacking. But I'll tell you this (from experience on both sides of the house), my four man ops team could bury a frigate when it comes to contact identification and reporting in Canadian waters. 

You can have your MIO ops and American TG experience. I can go to sea every day knowing that I'm contributing to the security of MY country directly. It may not be our "mandate" on paper, or in any CF doctrine. But the workhorses of our ISR network are the "only useful for training" MCDV's.

Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of the reg force making fun of reservists... especially those of us who work every day of the year on unlimited liability just like you. Yeah, my trade courses have been shorter than yours... so what? My JLC was the same, and I finished atop 25 reg force guys. My shipboard training is the same... Flood, Fire, Boarding party.... all with the reg force.  I taught some reg force folks how to use C2PC and sametime chat when they couldn't figure it out. In the end, I work under an ex reg force CO, who in turn works for a ex-reg force DCOMD MOG4 (who incidentally was my old CO), who in turn works for a whole line of reg force guys.

So if you've got a problem with SHADS... here's a news flash... WE DON'T CARE. We've heard enough of it....


Good day.


----------



## Cronicbny

Hey miller! Yeah they can't get rid of me! Hows things with you these days?!!?


----------



## NCRCrow

Lets have a group hug!


----------



## x-grunt

Cronicbny, I enjoyed your post. 
Can I ask for the meaning of some of your acronyms:
ISR
CCFP
TG
MIO

thanks.


----------



## Sub_Guy

True MCDVs are better for local waters....... that is what their main mission is, and sure the CPF isn't a logical choice for ripping around the straits out here on the west coast.   Speaking as a 277, I have seen many OOW maneouvers go wrong with a Kingston class in the mix, and it isn't from our inexperience.  That being said, there are cluster fcuks all over the place, and no matter where they are and who they work for, they always stand out when representing an organization.

MCDV should be the logical choice for local waters, and as for adding more contacts in GCCS over the last year BZ to the SHAD fleet, considering the REG force fleet was exhausted and spent most of the time sitting alongside from the numerous tours to the middle east.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> MCDV should be the logical choice for local waters, and as for adding more contacts in GCCS over the last year BZ to the SHAD fleet, considering the REG force fleet was exhausted and spent most of the time sitting alongside from the numerous tours to the middle east.



So true Sub Guy so true.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

navydrill said:
			
		

> OK let me clarify the ship its self may not sail that much however due to manning shortages sailors get bumped around the ships all the time.half the time i did not know what ship i was on in the morning.
> all this leaves the crews with poor morale and sailor with no time along side.



And you don't think that happens with the Reg Force? More often then we like..and let us not forget the poor sailors that get posted a high readiness unit every 3 to 5 years. Doesn't happened? Happened to me up until 2002 when I went ashore finally and I have been Navy since 1994.


----------



## NavyShooter

To modify the Kingston class MCDV to be a better vessel for the task it does, here's a few suggestions.

1.   Lengthen the ship by 20 feet.   (better length/beam ratio = faster ship, better handling, also provides more space for additional crew)

2.   Remove 40mm Bofors (most of which are dated from the 1940's, I saw them being re-furbed in the weapons shop in D-200) replace with modern 25mm Bushmaster   (Smaller ammo, larger quantity able to be carried)

3.   Add active stabilizers, provide better sea handling

4.   Increase engine power available, or upgrade Z-drives, allowing greater speed (over 20 knots), allows greater flexibility and ability to be used for MIO Ops

5.   Add IR/NV system to permit covert surveillance as part of MIO ops.   

6.   Add better Zodiac/RHIB system, again allowing better utility for MIO ops.

If the 20 ft section was added in midships, there could be more cabin space added, better stability, more speed, and a spot for RHIBs on each side.

The likelyhood of the ships being modified/improved in any significant way (such as adding 20 feet) is extremely unlikely, so the options most likely to provide improved capabilities for the MCDV's would be an increase in engine power to allow greater speeds, adding stabilizers, and adding an IR/NV system.

As you can see, I'm suggesting a lot of things that would allow the ships to be better used in MIO ops, (Maritime Interdiction Operations).  Having a greater capability in doing this would make the ships that much more deployable, and because of their cheaper operating costs, they might be a better option to send in the case of a mostly MIO operation.

I do not think it would be a worthwhile option to consider increasing the armament on the MCDV's to the point of them being a major surface combattant, but adding a Stinger team, or Blowpipe might be a good idea, allowing for some local air defence in the case of a high risk area (especially if deployed overseas doing MIO in the Goo or somewhere.)  

Just my thoughts, but adding a 20 foot section was proposed half-way through the build cycle on the ships (just as it was proposed to add 28 feet into the CPF's during building.)

NavyShooter


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Would you want the Kingston class to be redesignated as an OPV and look on the market for dedicated MCM vessels?


----------



## navymich

x-grunt said:
			
		

> Can I ask for the meaning of some of your acronyms:
> ISR
> CCFP
> TG
> MIO



CCFP-Commander of Canadian Forces Pacific
TG-Task Group
MIO-Maritime Interdiction Operations



			
				Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Speaking as a 277, I have seen many OOW maneouvers go wrong with a Kingston class in the mix, and it isn't from our inexperience.



Unfortunately, on the Kingston class side of the house, problems with maneouvers usually ARE from the inexperience.   I joined as a sig, and will always be a sig at heart.   The guys in my dept are well trained up on maneouvers thanks to me, and are even used to how anal I am on my flag deck.   But new pers onboard, and even some of my counterparts on the other ships scare me with reporting signals and even transmitting them.   OOW Man. died long ago, and teaching basic resultant order on crses is not helping at all.   They are cramming too much info into a 8 week crse for comms now (including trying to add IT to the mix) and stuff is being lost including tactical and semaphore.

Yes, upgrading an MCDV equipment and looks-wise is a choice that needs to be made.   But what also needs to be upgraded is the training of the personnel serving on them.   The current ones and the "oldies" have learned, but the new ones coming onboard are, sadly, lacking in the upgrades that have been added and even the old-famil.   As a current full-time reservist, I have all the time right now to learn.   But a Class A shad lacks for the time to train, and that is noticeable.   No fault to them though, they are simply doing their job as a typical reserve.   But to NavResHQ, they must step to the plate and work on seriously training people.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Would you want the Kingston class to be redesignated as an OPV and look on the market for dedicated MCM vessels?



Personally, I think the Oksoy-class with a remote 25mm turret (like the Australian Armidales) would be an interesting alternative.



Matthew.


----------



## Sub_Guy

So if you've got a problem with SHADS... here's a news flash... WE DON'T CARE. We've heard enough of it....

I don't think anyone has a problem with SHADS, what happens is a little friendly rivalry which keeps everyone on their toes.  I am sure that we can all agree that the Air Force takes a lot of hits from the NAVY and the ARMY.  Within the army in the Combat arms trade there are rivalries (Infanteers poking sticks at artillery and tank drivers, or how about MSEOPS?)   In the Navy we have reg force poking sticks at SHADS, and within the reg force Navy, you get OPS types, Bosn's, Stokers, all who poke fun at the each others trade.

My main point is that we are all part of a team and each and every part of this team has to remain strong as when it comes time for all of the team to work together, there are no weak links, and the job will get done with great success.   I feel that the elbow rubbing that goes on between services, ships, bases, trades, reg, and reserve is healthy and good for us all, as it keeps camaraderie strong, and keeps us in check.

I married and ex-SHAD, and trust me I always hear about it when I start to poke fun at them.  


Everyone take care and enjoy the extra $$$ that is coming our way


----------



## Missile Man

Interesting, the real reason that MCDVs are used so much more Domestically than CPFs/280s was never really addressed as you all bickered about reg force vs shads.  MONEY!  Sending an MCDV out for a day costs $10-12,000, whereas a CPF costs anywhere from $25-30,000.  (Please don't be a loser and debate back with exact figures, people, it all depends on how much gas is burned and what type of Sea Day it is, either low activity, operational, etc. I know)  As for the SHAD vs Reg Force debacle, get a grip.  Each has it's own role, and fulfills their roles quite well.  In fact, most Reg Force trg and MOC coursing is identical to SHAD courses, particularly Bosn's, MARS Officers and the like.  Granted, reg force types get much more specialized trg down the road, but I would hope and expect a more in-depth course being on a $1 billion platform with 24 missiles, several weapons systems and radars under my control vice one dated, un-stabilized gun, and no LINK or CCS.  P. Diddy said it best -it's all about the Benjamins, baby.


----------



## Missile Man

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And you don't think that happens with the Reg Force? More often then we like..and let us not forget the poor sailors that get posted a high readiness unit every 3 to 5 years. Doesn't happened? Happened to me up until 2002 when I went ashore finally and I have been Navy since 1994.



Ah, Dragoon hits it on the head again.  When I first hit the fleet (reg force) I was TD'd to so many different ships, I actually put a velcro patch where my ship's crest goes, and velcroed them on and off to save trips to the tailor!  SHAD-tubs don't spend 280 days at sea at all.  They do short little trips, and are never away on 50, 60, 70-day stints at sea like a CPF or 280 -becasue they don't have the refuelling at sea capabili, nor the stores to maintain an extended cruise at sea.  As well, they are so minimally manned, any evolution is virtually all-ship, they cannot maintain "Stbd SSD" or "Port SSD", it's just SSD!

Now, to finally answer the original question in this blog -what does an MCDV do?  Not much, really.  They are essentially replacement PBs, used primarily for junior officer and operator trg (without, regretably, a Dunk's Diner, of course! )  Those "Salty" "Senior NCIOPs" and Master Seaman "Yeoman" can drivel all they want about "Operational Effectiveness" of that platform, but it boils down to this -no legs (sustainablility at sea for a duration of time), 2 -no LINK (thus cannot tangiably contribute to force RMP or RAP) 3 -poor self-defence "suite", let alone force weapons.  2 .50 cals (which are highly inaccurate) coupled with a WWII 40mm Bofors that is welded to the deck with no stabilization OR CCS interface so that targets can be designated and engaged through radar/STIRs).  MCDVs are completely useless operationally, but a sound trg platform, as their rolling ride helps to give young trainees their sea legs early on.  Overall, SHADs are good people working with bad, old, operationally ineffective and irrelevant kit.  For that, I salute you all!


----------



## K. Ash

ha....shad boats...missions.....they are the few and the proud coastal defence vessels


----------



## navydrill

ok guys enough shad bashing! we do alot and we have our place in the navy just as the regs have theres so lets leave it at that.
any shad that reads this knows we get boned with all the shitty little jobs that are to good for the regs. so without us, you would be doing all the fish pats and little trips out trainging the MARS. so i think you owe us a thank you. because of us  you get to spend more than 3 weeks at a time along side! :threat:

hey kenward, not much! still out east been here since 99.same old same old.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ah yes bow down before the mighty naval reservist we know how they carry the navy on their backs...blah blah blah.  :


----------



## K. Ash

yea sorry navy drill, i was a little drunk when i wrote that. I used to work with a lot of reservists most were great, but then again a lot of the others were just bags of shit. 

I had a kilik for life preaching to me about dress and deportment, meanwhile this guy couldn't put crease in his sleave to save his life.


----------



## Zoomie

Technical question that a fixed wing flunkie such as myself has no knowledge...

There is an MCDV coming up the coast some time in the future (sorry guys, ship movements are OPSEC) to look for the Beaver float plane that went down off Campbell River, BC.  The water in that area is approx. 600' deep.  How effective is the Side Scan SONAR that our MCDVs carry (within reason - no details required) ?  I know that we had MCDVs in Lake Ontario looking for Avro Arrow models - will it be able to do the job here in BC?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well seeing how detailed the side scan details are of Halifax harbour is I would say its one of the best features of the MCDV.


----------



## navymich

Zoomie said:
			
		

> (sorry guys, ship movements are OPSEC)



Only when it's more then 48hrs away!!


It's not my trade, so I'm not all that knowledgeable on this, but hopefully some others that I know are out there will fill in the high points (Cronicbny, I mean you...).   What I do know though is that the gear has been trialled out here (B.C.) numerous times, but most recently just a month or so ago.   And trialled successfully too.   There is also other gear that can be taken for mission-specific to aid in Route Survey, dependent on the depth, area, terrain etc.

Sorry, I know that didn't answer much...

Zoomie, can I assume that you have been part of the search so far to know about what's happening next?


----------



## NavyShooter

Guys,

I think this goes into "CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS" discussions.  I am not sure that it is appropriate for an open forum?

NavyShooter 

(283 NET(A).....)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

No worries its being watched.


----------



## Cronicbny

This is all open source

The 511 side scan sonar is capable of operating in upto 200m of water... so 600' fits right in there. The sonar on the 511 is generally considered one of the best on the market as far as detail goes... the exact detail level is classified, however it's comparable to commercially available units (read Klein 5500). What makes the 511 perfect for this job is it's depth capability, accuracy, and, relative platform stability (easier to use than a 200lb 5500 sonar lowered by hand off a skiff). The bottom conditions on the west coast are also quite favourable for side scan sonars. 

Hopefully the results of this will prove the equipment worthwhile... the sonar has had a bad go of things in the last few years. Of course, the flip side... if it doesn't work... the Navy will look stupid. I have faith that the system will perform capably.


----------



## Cloud Cover

And there you have ... a wonderful summary.  Well done Cronicbny!!


----------



## Zoomie

navymich said:
			
		

> Zoomie, can I assume that you have been part of the search so far to know about what's happening next?



We are kept in the proverbial loop.   RCMP is now handling the crash as a missing persons case.   More to follow once pertinent details are released officially to the public.

Thanks for the good Gen on the system Cronicbny...   It certainly seems like excellent conditions for this unit to locate any wreckage and hopefully give closure to the remaining victim's families.


----------



## Sub_Guy

No it is not worth upgrading the MCDV.

What we can do is this transfer 6 over to the Coast Guard, Fisheries.

Have 3 on each coast


Pick up some coastal patrol vessels, that have SPEED............. Utilize a patrol vessel for just that, Patroling close to shore.

Utilize Frigates for missions overseas, doesn't make sense to have a CPF Patroling around Vancouver island, when you can have a nice Patrol vessel with a crew of less than 20 doing the same thing.  (US Coast Guard Island Class vessels would suit us just fine)


Drop our CPF fleet from 12 to 8, 4 on each coast

Pick up 6 smaller frigates (similar to Thetis class Denmark) smaller crew of 60 compared to 220 on a CPF, use these for patroling further out to protect our national interests


----------



## Sub_Guy

gravyboat said:
			
		

> MCDVs are alot cheaper to run then subs. When was the last operational submarine deployment BTW?



?!?!? What kind of post was that??   I didn't even mention subs, so what if my name is sub guy.   Do you think I had anything to do with the procurement of these subs?   I will answer your question though, these subs have not been on an operational deployment.   heck frigates are probably cheaper to run than the subs.   When/if they are allowed to return to sea, they will prove to be very useful, as they are still the true stealth machine. 


Hey fact of the day!   when the Chicoutimi caught fire, Canada had 3 submarines at SEA.................................

The MCDV would be a fantastic training vessel or route survey, mine hunting, but for coastal defence I think that a faster vessel would be better suited for the job.   As in my previous post states.   I said that we should keep 6 of them, did you get offended?   Did you design the vessel?   Lighten up.

You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?   Not an exercise...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> The MCDV is a fantastic vessel, but for coastal defence I think that a faster vessel would be better suited for the job.  As in my previous post states.  I said that we should keep 6 of them, did you get offended?  Did you design the vessel?  Lighten up.
> 
> You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?  Not an exercise...



Pardon? How are they fantastic yet not apparently not used or even worthy of operational deployment. As a training vessel, they are marginal at best. As a warship, they are useless and an absolute waste of precious resources and talented manpower.  The strength of the vessel seems to be in it's non-military uses, such as disaster assistance and patrolling for the sake of surveillance and presence, rather than actual patrolling to intercept. These are great ships for the coast guard and perhaps the RCMP/OPP, but not the Navy. 

I would agree the shads should be crewing light frigates and perhaps even some supply ships.


----------



## navymich

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?    Not an exercise...



Just over a month ago in fact.  http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_plane-sonar20050318  This link will fill you in a bit.  I am sure there is more out there, but first I found.

Entertaining enough?  Sure, nothing like a 6 month deployment overseas, but it is an example of an MCDV doing what they have trained to do in the multitude of exercises they have.


----------



## Sub_Guy

That counts as an operational deployment..... So the last time the subs were on an operational deployment that the Public knows about would be Swissair Flight 111, as they used the sonars to hunt for the black box.  There have been many RCMP drug operations as well.

Not these subs, as you would have to be a tool box to think that these were on an operational deployment


----------



## mcdvnav

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> ?!?!? What kind of post was that??   I didn't even mention subs, so what if my name is sub guy.   Do you think I had anything to do with the procurement of these subs?   I will answer your question though, these subs have not been on an operational deployment.   heck frigates are probably cheaper to run than the subs.   When/if they are allowed to return to sea, they will prove to be very useful, as they are still the true stealth machine.
> 
> 
> Hey fact of the day!   when the Chicoutimi caught fire, Canada had 3 submarines at SEA.................................
> 
> The MCDV would be a fantastic training vessel or route survey, mine hunting, but for coastal defence I think that a faster vessel would be better suited for the job.   As in my previous post states.   I said that we should keep 6 of them, did you get offended?   Did you design the vessel?   Lighten up.
> 
> You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?   Not an exercise...



Hey,

Do SAR patrols, SOVPATS, escorts of Canadian and AMERICAN HVUs, OGD support and route survey count?


----------



## Underway

Fresh off the SHAD hotline... NAVRES has been directed to come up with a pers management plan to adjust to having no MCDVs within a 5 year timeframe. 

This should not be a huge surprise to anyone who can read between the lines.  No midlife refit planned.  Kingston will be 26 years old by 2020.  New AOPS to do the coastal patrol duties.  The mine hunting packages are just as easily placed on any ship with the space to tie down two seacans.  Only a few working route survey packages left.

Also the timeliness of this are interesting.   New budget in 6 months.  New CFDS shortly thereafter.  Navy has been holding onto Horizon 2050 for quite a while as it has been written but not released (prob waiting for the new CFDS to be released so they don't steal any thunder or go in the wrong direction.)


----------



## Navy_Pete

Mid life refits are to upgrade the weapons and sensors.  MCDVs don't really require that, and the few systems can be addressed via individual Engineering Changes (ECs).  They were built to a LLoyds commercial standard, so its a lot easier to replace components with fit/form/function as there aren't the same milspec requirements.

As far as I know, crews for AOPs will come from 280s (maybe not one for one at the trades but at least the number of billets), which will all be retired before the end of the decade, so really has nothing to do with the MCDVs.

So don't worry, no impending retirement of the loveboats!   ;D


----------



## Underway

Midlife refit do more than just weapons and sensors.  FELEX for example is changing some of the ships internal layout from heads, messdecks, ops room, ccr etc... It also replaces worn out or out of date equipment.

That being said, yes they are very simple boats with easy to replace components and you are probably correct in requiring a refit.  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction.  Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.


----------



## PuckChaser

Underway said:
			
		

> vice reserve only ships.



That might be your answer. Reservists are expensive to employ for long periods of time.


----------



## MARS

Underway said:
			
		

> So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction.



Contingency planning.  An entirely appropriate task for a higher HQ.  Staff routinely develop plans for Commanders, some of which come to fruition, and some that don't.


----------



## Monsoon

Underway said:
			
		

> Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.


Bingo. NAVRES has also been asked to FG a couple dozen people for upcoming deployments on heavies soon. Not big numbers, but it's the next step in the blended crewing concept that the RCN's been committed to since SPM II. As for what platforms will stay online or be lifecycled out, what's happening now is all course of action development. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that anything is off the table, but the fact that they're studying something doesn't mean a decision's been made.

I might have mentioned that sooner, but I was loath to contribute to a gossipy thread that popped up just over an hour into the Coxn's Course while the Cmdre was still speaking. I'm pretty sure the term "privileged platform" isn't unfamiliar to anyone here. I'm also sure "rumour control" is a topic for the agenda later this week.


----------



## Cronicbny

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I might have mentioned that sooner, but I was loath to contribute to a gossipy thread that popped up just over an hour into the Coxn's Course while the Cmdre was still speaking. I'm pretty sure the term "privileged platform" isn't unfamiliar to anyone here. I'm also sure "rumour control" is a topic for the agenda later this week.



Just a coincidence to be sure...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> Midlife refit do more than just weapons and sensors.  FELEX for example is changing some of the ships internal layout from heads, messdecks, ops room, ccr etc... It also replaces worn out or out of date equipment.
> 
> That being said, yes they are very simple boats with easy to replace components and you are probably correct in requiring a refit.  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction.  Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.



You are right of course; I agree that's not the only purpose of MLRs.  For the 280s, they also changed the cruise engines, modified the gear boxes and of course, got rid of the bunny ears.  However, for the MCDVs, nothing of that scope is required or planned, so for those particular ships there is nothing that can't be done in a normal work period, or a planned docking.  I think the replacement of worn out gear (ie nav radars) are all separate projects as opposed to being bundled together.  Technically speaking, there is no reason why the ships can't last another 10-15 years.  There may be solid resource/operational reasons to get rid of them sooner, but a the moment it's just one of the many options on the table, so guessing NavRes was tasked with that contingency plans so the BGHs can get an idea of the impacts and pros/cons if they went that way.

In case you're curious though, that kind of decision would have to go through numerous chains of command, (both Command RCN and ADM(Mat)) then eventually up to the MND and probably the cabinet.  That takes years (literally), and would then need years for transition and disposal to implement.  Also contractual issues as they are under ISSC, so you can imagine the kind of hoops that will create.


----------



## Monsoon

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Just a coincidence to be sure...


Surely.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Gate vessels were 24 years old when I joined. We were told that they would be replaced within five years to 6 years.

I ended up as last captain on two of them - 24 years later.

Just saying!


----------



## Stoker

Seen the thread and its pretty interesting to hear all the rumours.  HMCS KINGSTON is coming up to 17 years old and is still going strong. 12 new complete DA's were just purchased, new radars a few years ago, new degausing gear, dynamic positioning system, new HF being planned etc so as systems wear out are being upgraded.
Like the Admiral said last summer, why would I get rid of the MCDV's when they are cheap to operate. I would imagine the MCDV's will be around for a few more years yet. If I was a betting man at least 2020.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Seen the thread and its pretty interesting to hear all the rumours.  HMCS KINGSTON is coming up to 17 years old and is still going strong. 12 new complete DA's were just purchased, new radars a few years ago, new degausing gear, dynamic positioning system, new HF being planned etc so as systems wear out are being upgraded.
> Like the Admiral said last summer, why would I get rid of the MCDV's when they are cheap to operate. I would imagine the MCDV's will be around for a few more years yet. If I was a betting man at least 2020.



The CF is trying to expand its footprint into the Caribbean and South Americas as well.  These Vessels are perfectly suited for that operating environment and deployments such as OP CARIBBE.


----------



## Stoker

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The CF is trying to expand its footprint into the Caribbean and South Americas as well.  These Vessels are perfectly suited for that operating environment and deployments such as OP CARIBBE.



Absolutely the KINGSTON class is well suited for OP CARIBBE deployments and have doing that annually for several years now.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Absolutely the KINGSTON class is well suited for OP CARIBBE deployments and have doing that annually for several years now.



They are generally just good little all purpose ships.  In a lot of cases, they can do a lot of the routine items just as well for much, much less (fuel, food, maintenance etc).  Another good example is the trip up north (NORPLOY?)  And with some of the new gear coming onboard, they will have a big role to play in sea bed mapping, which is kind of a big deal for any claims to the artic.  For all the lack of respect they get, those ships get far more sea days then any of the heavies, and they are so ridiculously stable that it's not an easy ride either.


----------



## mad dog 2020

Oddly enough, I was hooked on the Australian TV series "Sea Patrol" which ran (or is still running) for 5 seasons.  I know it is only fiction but based on the concept, they seem to get a lot done. 
Is there some duplication of service between the Coast Guard and Navy. 
Is the empire building crossing lines for survival and fiscal reasons. 
Should they be phased out as they seem to have a purpose, just too much internal politics.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Coast guard does a lot of things that the navy doesn't and vice versa.  There is some overlap on SAR and maritime security, but not a whole lot.

Some of the MCDV capabilities are particular to them.  Now that the ORCAs have taken back over some of the MARs training, it should free them up to get back to the stuff they were built to do. They have their own limitations, but I think if they have a bad rap it's because they have been regularly used to do things on the outer limits of their intended purpose.


----------



## AlexanderM

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, I was hooked on the Australian TV series "Sea Patrol" which ran (or is still running) for 5 seasons.  I know it is only fiction but based on the concept, they seem to get a lot done.
> Is there some duplication of service between the Coast Guard and Navy.
> Is the empire building crossing lines for survival and fiscal reasons.
> Should they be phased out as they seem to have a purpose, just too much internal politics.


I watched it too.  Not much firepower, but good speed and look.  To me, the Kingston Class is too slow, doesn't sound like the replacements, should they happen, will be that much faster.  A patrol boat should be hitting 30 knots, not 15.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I watched it too.  Not much firepower, but good speed and look.  To me, the Kingston Class is too slow, doesn't sound like the replacements, should they happen, will be that much faster.  A patrol boat should be hitting 30 knots, not 15.



Haha be careful what you wish for!  Ask for a cigar boat:







and you may get this:






 ;D ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I watched it too.  Not much firepower, but good speed and look.  To me, the Kingston Class is too slow, doesn't sound like the replacements, should they happen, will be that much faster.  A patrol boat should be hitting 30 knots, not 15.



I depends what you need them for.  They aren't going to run anyone down, but even 30 knots is slow compared to some of the smuggling boats.  Unless they go to some kind of surface skimmer that hits 40 or 50 knots, better to go with some kind of air support (armed UAVs?) and keep one or two fast attack boats onboard the patrol ship for boarding parties.  Put a few anti ship missiles onboard (with ROEs to use them) and then you'll have a real deterrent.  We don't do that though, so they may get replaced with a few sexy carbon fibre canoes with an outboard and a guy with a C6.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> We don't do that though, so they may get replaced with a few sexy carbon fibre canoes with an outboard and a guy with a C6.







Plan set in motion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Plan set in motion.



I love the trawling motor 0.1 knots per hour it is!


----------



## MARS

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> but I think if they have a bad rap



I'm not convinced they have a bad rap.  They certainly have many limitations but they are still routinely used for missions well outside of their intended scope.

Sure, if you are the Combat Officer in a FFG/DDH, then yes, looking at your own missions and requirements, a MCDV might not have much utility for you and some might take a derisive attitude toward them.  However, if you are the people that matter, by that I mean CCFL/P or CMARL/P, (heck, even if you are N3/N31/N31-1: they folks who actually have to implement higher Command direction) with more missions to conduct than platforms to conduct them with, the value, utility and 'rap' of a KINGSTON Class MM is much higher.

my 2 cents


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Upgrade the gun, some basic counter measures and fit for Hellfire/stingers, etc. A little more teeth would be good. Always thought these small ships were a great idea and the fact that they armed them showed a change in thinking from the ships they replaced. Frankly I don't think any new small naval vessel should be built without armament on it, or at least fitted for it. It's a bit about mindset and the fact if things went strange you really don't have the luxury of time to prepare defenses like the last wars.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Upgrade the gun, some basic counter measures and fit for Hellfire/stingers, etc. A little more teeth would be good.


Yes! And anti-submarine can be done with mission module.  Also, have some kind of UAV as was previously mentioned. There are some patrol boats with harpoon missles, the point being, can still be capable with teeth, even if small.


----------



## dimsum

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they test-fly ScanEagles off MCDVs?  Or was it just the CPFs?


----------



## TwoTonShackle

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they test-fly ScanEagles off MCDVs?  Or was it just the CPFs?



Yes, they successfully tested the Scan Eagle set up off the GLACE BAY in fall of 2009.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Yes! And anti-submarine can be done with mission module.  Also, have some kind of UAV as was previously mentioned. There are some patrol boats with harpoon missles, the point being, can still be capable with teeth, even if small.



So what your saying is the name for these new ships needs to be the Honey Badger Class


----------



## dapaterson

But how do you translate that into French?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With the continuing involvement of AUV's, I expect to see small vessels like this becoming effective mine and sub hunters, literally being a "depot ship" for a fleet of AUV's, similar to the flying boat depots ships of old. I can see slow moving AUV's that have various sound signatures uploaded into them, they swim slowly listening for those signatures or similar ones and then they signal the ship with locations, bearings , tracks. 

As for speed, you give up a lot to get speed in a small ship. A smaller ship that has the endurance and the seakeeping to stay on station is also valuable and sometimes more important than the fast missile boat stuck in the harbour because of the seastate.


----------



## cupper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But how do you translate that into French?



le blaireau de miel


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The Gate vessels were 24 years old when I joined. We were told that they would be replaced within five years to 6 years.
> 
> I ended up as last captain on two of them - 24 years later.
> 
> Just saying!



...and Sea Kings were only 21 when I joined...replacements "just around the corner!"  :nod:

When the head winds turn in a few years' time, the MCDVs may yet see a gently following sea...OGBD, you and I have seen enough to know we shouldn't count the young gals out yet...  

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin, I'm with you on the MCDVs crossing the Pacific, but it would be no trouble for the AOPS: The damn things are bigger than the IRO's or HAL's, not to mention bigger than the contemplated CSC's and with greater unrefuelled range than any of these ships. Moreover, they are supposed to be designed to operate in  the Grand-Banks in winter so, no problem with bad weather either.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fantastic observation. I wonder what it means for the cost of operation, and what tasks they will be assigned. The navy is used to operating with high-cost 5000-ton frigates and low-cost 1000-ton MCDV. The 6000-ton AOPS will certainly not be cheap to operate.
Click to expand...



Doesn't that further argue *for* retaining and upgrading the cheap, sturdy little MCDVs until they can be replaced by a few cheap, sturdy _corvettes_?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Absolutely!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Does one want to send a ship with "a maximum speed of at least 17 knots" if any possible serious action is envisaged?
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.page

A ship of this type?



> ...
> AOPS will not be a complex combatant. It will be armed and equipped for a constabulary role in support of other government departments...
> http://vanguardcanada.com/preparing-for-a-unique-maritime-theatre/



What OGDs to support in Asiatic waters?  And this sort of gun?



> For the AOPS, the navy is considering a 25mm gun forward says the Admiral, “but they are constabulary vessels not a combatant. They will be built to commercial standards and aimed at providing Canada with an arctic surveillance offshore sovereignty capability and also to be there for search and rescue, to enable other lead departments in their maritime mandates, whether it is RCMP, Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans, or CBSA.”..
> http://www.frontline-canada.com/Defence/index_archives.php?page=1784



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Does one want to send a ship with "a maximum speed of at least 17 knots" if any possible serious action is envisaged?
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.page
> 
> A ship of this type?
> 
> What OGDs to support in Asiatic waters?  And this sort of gun?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




All well and good, Mark, and someone thinks there is an important role for them ... even if it is just to keep some yards active while we get our warship act together.

I, a rank outsider, am attracted to the big (5,000 ton), large crew, expensive _major combatant_ vs the small (1,000 ton), small crew, cheap _small combatant_ argument. Leave the AOPV out of the equation, completely and say, in the future, let's have a half dozen of them PLUS:

     1. _n_ (a number equal to or greater than 10) major combatants;

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





     2. _n1_ (a number between six and 10) small combatants.

         
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




    3. An appropriate number of AORs, submarines and small support vessels like research ships and diving tenders.


----------



## Monsoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Does one want to send a ship with "a maximum speed of at least 17 knots" if any possible serious action is envisaged?


This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette) seemed to do alright, at a time when the max speed of heavy combatants was considerably higher than today's, and when the nature of surface warfare depended to a greater degree than it does today on "legs". It's all a matter of role.


----------



## AlexanderM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina-class_missile_boat


----------



## Kirkhill

21 knots, 54 Crew and a deck big enough for a Sea King / Cormorant / Cyclone (with hangar).  5000 nm @ 15 kts.

Big, rangy boat with a small crew.  And cheap.

Link


----------



## AlexanderM

This is close to what I expect we'll end up with, but too slow.

http://www.casr.ca/id-danish-naval-projects-rasmussen.htm


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting design. Speed is a tough thing and generally more speed mean less of something else. I note the below video did not show how it performs in any form of sea state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr-OnjzRS3E


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC2XIGMI2kM

Rasmussen taking a Lynx onboard in weather.


----------



## AlexanderM

Needs better stabilizers?  Pretty bad roll.


----------



## Kirkhill

Pretty small ship.


----------



## AlexanderM

Doesn't matter, there are stabilizers available that can do the job.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Hollands, nice images:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1205

Damen design used for new CCG mid-shore patrol vessels:



> ...
> The Mid-Shore Patrol Vessel is based on Damen’s Stan Patrol 4207 design...
> http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Vessel-Procurement/Mid-Shore-Patrol-Vessel



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

They look like they'd be pretty stable.


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Does one want to send a ship with "a maximum speed of at least 17 knots" if any possible serious action is envisaged?



If serious action is required the AOPS is not going to be sent.  AOPS if you look at their design and the requirements from the government are going to be the ultimate "taxi cab" for OGD's and other CAF elements.  I say "taxi" because it won't be a lot of storage.

It will be able to take 40 extra pers, it will have a landing craft, it will have an enclosed boarding party boat, it will have a crane that can pick up a Bv206 from the ice a distance from the ship, and it will be able to store trucks, snowmobiles and land a helo.

For sensors aside from surface search radar there will be some sort of EO-IR sensor that can pan independent to the gun.

Its going to drop off or pick up ranger patrols, arctic platoon sized operations, and act as a mobile helo refueling pad for arctic borne helos.  For the Offshore part they will embark fisheries or RCMP and use their RHIB to send out boarding parties.  With sister ships they could drop of a company and provide logistical/ communications support.  There are lots of very interesting options for these vessels that don't involve just offshore patrol.

If the MCDV's can do fishpats, RMP, SAR zone time and OP CARIBBE ops effectively enough with a max speed of 15kts and a cruise of 8-10kts then the AOPS with their EO-IR, ability to launch/ land a helo/scan eagle and 14kts cruise will be just fine.  When the big guns are needed then they task the frigates.

I really think the AOPS is looking a bit like an ice capable Black Swan  concept, without the heavy shooting packages.  Similar speed, higher tonnage (due to ice breaking), and similar storage capacity for OGD's.  MCM packages can be added as they are already modular on the MCDV's.


----------



## AlexanderM

Aren't we talking about the patrol boats?  And it's not an issue, if something goes down they won't be sent.  It's an issue, if something goes down and they're already in the middle of it.  Such as, they have to catch smugglers in a fast boat, or they detect a foreign sub in our waters, then what capabilities do they have.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on the "Black Swan":



> What Type of Ships Does the RN Need?
> http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1609



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> More on Hollands, nice images:
> http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1205
> 
> Damen design used for new CCG mid-shore patrol vessels:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The Mid-shore boats remind me of the R-class should have been. I served on the Ready and Racer.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> More on the "Black Swan":
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I like the concept.  It looks like it was written with the Holland in mind.  And the AOPS isn't far off the standard either (allowing for its northern peculiarities).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Sheer speed is a bit overrated; the difference between a ship going 15 knots of 50 knots doesn't matter much next to the sub sonic to supersonic speeds of missiles.  Also, the prevalence of radar, UAVs, helos etc has generally increased the surveillance footprint of a ship significantly.

MCDVs, AOPs and other similar ships are more of a presence then a threat; if you wanted some real teeth in the Artic or otherwise close to shore some medium range missile batteries may be more effective.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Because the subject is germane (and it drags us back on topic):



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> _NOTE:  Torn between putting this here (because of the airframe) or in a navy forum (because of the launch/maintenance platform) - flipped a coin and here it is._
> 
> Wanted:  someone to build, maintain small UAVs to (apparently) work off Kingston Class ships - this from MERX:Closing date:  2013/11/04 14:00 EST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... This bid solicitation is being issued to satisfy the requirement of the Department of National Defence of Canada for the Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS). It is intended to result in the award of two (2) contracts to one successful Bidder: the SUAS Acquisition Contract (SUAS-A) and the SUAS In Service Support Contract (SUAS-S) ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More details (370+ page PDF) in bid docs here
Click to expand...


And



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> I didn't read all of it, but ScanEagle would work.



The ScanEagle on a ship:






Source: Defence Industry Daily (2 Jul 13)


----------



## Kirkhill

Swarms of Scan Eagles

Equals a MCDV with its own Maritime Recce Squadron (or at least Flight).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Reading back through this thread I am understanding that:

     1. These little ships are capable and, although 15+ years old, are being upgaded to give them a longer service life, maybe even with new capabilities (UAVs); Question: what is a reasonable service life for these vessels?

     2. There are useful roles - "presence" type operations, FishPats, etc - for a small (1,000 - 1,500 ton) warship "flying" a UAV which are likely to auger for retention and eventual replacement of the KINGSTON class;  Question: is there room (need?) for a "sloop" type vessel in the RCN, betweenthe "heavies" and the MCDVs/corvettes?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
   
     3. There is still a long term requirement for some "major combatants" - 5,000+ ton "blue water" ships carrying manned and unmanned aircraft; and                                                                                                         

     4. There _might_ be a role for an "intermediate" class of combatants - like the UK _Black Swan_ idea.

Obviously there are also needs for support ships, submarines, training vessels, tenders and so on, including AOPVs.

The NAVRES have proven that they can put competent crews on warships. A problem is that the NAVRES, as currently established, cannot produce 400+ of the _right_ people (12 X 35) on a full time basis. Another problem is that it is not clear that any _Reserve_ force should be providing full time units. But, the fact is that NAVRES can do a job, within appropriate means. Question: leaving aside any questions about the _propriety_ of using reservists to staff what are, clearly, full time units, can the NAVRES experience be applied to other Army or RCAF units? Or does the MCDV tell us that greater and greater co-manning, with opportunities for e.g. NAVRES officers to rise command even major combatants, the right lesson to be drawn?

<fixed formatting - Mod>


----------



## Monsoon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Reading back through this thread I am understanding that:
> 
> 1. These little ships are capable and, although 15+ years old, are being upgaded to give them a longer service life, maybe even with new capabilities (UAVs); Question: what is a reasonable service life for these vessels?


According to the Admiral in an open forum brief quite recently, the MCDVs are on the books (the fleet plan reviewed by the Minister regularly) for another 15 years or so. Doesn't mean life won't intervene to take them offline sooner, but with the recent radar upgrades and other tweaks, they'd probably run until then without major overhaul.



> 2. There are useful roles - "presence" type operations, FishPats, etc - for a small (1,000 - 1,500 ton) warship "flying" a UAV which are likely to auger for retention and eventual replacement of the KINGSTON class;  Question: is there room (need?) for a "sloop" type vessel in the RCN, between the "heavies" and the MCDVs/corvettes?


Just a minor bicker about nautical terminology - 'sloop' is a term I've not heard applied navally recently, so I assume you're reaching for the right word. In sailing days, sloops-of-war were vessels smaller even than corvettes, so while we're coining terms this one may not be the right one. If what you want is a ship about the same size as a Kingston-class with more line-of-sight weapons, a bit more speed and a slightly larger crew to support continuous operations, 'corvette' is probably the right word.



> The NAVRES have proven that they can put competent crews on warships. A problem is that the NAVRES, as currently established, cannot produce 400+ of the _right_ people (12 X 35) on a full time basis. Another problem is that it is not clear that any _Reserve_ force should be providing full time units. But, the fact is that NAVRES can do a job, within appropriate means. Question: leaving aside any questions about the _propriety_ of using reservists to staff what are, clearly, full time units, can the NAVRES experience be applied to other Army or RCAF units? Or does the MCDV tell us that greater and greater co-manning, with opportunities for e.g. NAVRES officers to rise command even major combatants, the right lesson to be drawn?


The direction being taken by the RCN (again, the Admiral will tell this to anyone who asks) is that the new NAVRES mission is identical to the RCN's mission, and no longer includes a separate "man the MCDVs" line in it. The RCN will man all ships; most of the crews of all ships will be Reg F, but they will be augmented individually by reservists trained to the same standard at various different ranks (basically, the number of people on the Kingston class now, spread throughout the fleet). There's a lot that needs to happen between here and there (the RCN as a whole will be moving away from platform-specificity in training, and PRes/Reg F training will need to be aligned for all trades, etc), so reservists will be predominant on the Kingston-class for quite some time, but this is the 10-year plan.

All that to say that no new platforms will be designated "reserve" or otherwise.


----------



## Edward Campbell

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ...
> Just a minor bicker about nautical terminology - 'sloop' is a term I've not heard applied navally recently, so I assume you're reaching for the right word. In sailing days, sloops-of-war were vessels smaller even than corvettes, so while we're coining terms this one may not be the right one. If what you want is a ship about the same size as a Kingston-class with more line-of-sight weapons, a bit more speed and a slightly larger crew to support continuous operations, 'corvette' is probably the right word.
> ...




I got that from:



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> More on the "Black Swan":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Type of Ships Does the RN Need?
> http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1609
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
Click to expand...



The linked paper eventually gets you here where the 3,500 ton warship ship, pictured on page 3-8, is described as a sloop of war.

But I'm an old soldier, so I'll defer to _matelots_ on all these matters.

And thanks for the answers to the other questions.


----------



## AlexanderM

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> This is close to what I expect we'll end up with, but too slow.
> 
> http://www.casr.ca/id-danish-naval-projects-rasmussen.htm


Rasmussen is classed as a Cutter.  A Corvette is a bit bigger.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 21 knots, 54 Crew and a deck big enough for a Sea King / Cormorant / Cyclone (with hangar).  5000 nm @ 15 kts.
> 
> Big, rangy boat with a small crew.  And cheap.
> 
> Link


This guy would be a Corvette, based on size (over 300'), but no missiles or mission modules.  Kirkhill, what was the price tag?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Rasmussen is classed as a Cutter.  A Corvette is a bit bigger.



Cutter is a term left over from the days when the USCG was the US Revenue Cutter service as well as used for smaller sailing vessels. Cutters used in naval/coast guard ops from my experience can be up to frigate size (check out the National Security Cutters)


----------



## Kirkhill

> Construction is being carried out in parallel, with the first two at Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in Vlissingen, the Netherlands, and the remaining at Damen's sister shipyard in Galatz, Romania. The project is estimated to cost €467.8m ($687.9m). These ships were built between 2008 and 2012.



About 172 MUSD a piece.

Link

In terms of terminology, as Mr. Campbell asserts, the "sloop" cognomen came from the Black Swan info.

A bit of reading revealed that the Flowers were also called sloops before they were called corvettes with large corvettes being called frigates.

The "Black Swan" Concept is a bit shorter (90m vs 108 m) but about the same displacement (3150 for the sloop vs 3750 for the OPV) and with the same emphasis on being a cheap and cheerful platform for anything you can put in sea can or haul aboard on  10 tonne crane or skyhook.

Interesting crewing concept for the sloop (8 man core crew plus up to 32 mission specialists with an additional 40 Pax short term).

Some comments have been it needs more power for faster transit.  The counter argument is less power = less cost = more hulls = more presence = fewer transits (ie more likely to have a vessel where and when you need it).






Black Swan Sloop.

Interesting that her dimensions are broadly equivalent to the AOPS, Svalbard and Barentshav (which the author cites as an antecedent).

But back to ERC's question on the MCDVs.  We have them.  And if hull speed is becoming less of an issue and unmanned vehicles more of an issue what can you cram into an MCDV?

Scan Eagles apparently.  How about UUV towed sonar arrays?  Long Range 10 tonne UUVs?  VTOL UAVs?  Better sea boats (Danish LCPs?)


----------



## Kirkhill

Additional Swan Concept images


----------



## Kirkhill

> 322. Cost. A preliminary estimate21 for the unit production cost of the
> sloop-of-war, built in a UK shipyard, using commercial norms, is £65M at
> 2010 financial conditions. Further work would be required to calculate these
> savings and the through-life costs of the platform. However, with a small core
> crew, reduced fuel burn, easy access to fewer onboard sensors and a
> markedly reduced maintenance burden, not only will the ship’s availability
> increase but its overall cost will be far less than current warships. This figure
> does not take into account the cost of capability packages.



From the Black Swan JCN Chapter 3.

Anticipated Unit Cost Budget (2010) 65 MUKP or 100 MUSD.  

This is about 60% of the Holland class OPV but the Holland spends a fair bit of cash on its Integrated Mission Mast and has larger fixed weapons array than envisioned for the Black Swan.


----------



## Underway

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> According to the Admiral in an open forum brief quite recently, the MCDVs are on the books (the fleet plan reviewed by the Minister regularly) for another 15 years or so. Doesn't mean life won't intervene to take them offline sooner, but with the recent radar upgrades and other tweaks, they'd probably run until then without major overhaul.
> The direction being taken by the RCN (again, the Admiral will tell this to anyone who asks) is that the new NAVRES mission is identical to the RCN's mission, and no longer includes a separate "man the MCDVs" line in it. The RCN will man all ships; most of the crews of all ships will be Reg F, but they will be augmented individually by reservists trained to the same standard at various different ranks (basically, the number of people on the Kingston class now, spread throughout the fleet). There's a lot that needs to happen between here and there (the RCN as a whole will be moving away from platform-specificity in training, and PRes/Reg F training will need to be aligned for all trades, etc), so reservists will be predominant on the Kingston-class for quite some time, but this is the 10-year plan.
> 
> All that to say that no new platforms will be designated "reserve" or otherwise.



So that's where my original info came from.  NAVRES is going to move to augmenting Reg F instead, looking more at blended crewing.  Makes sense as NAVRES can barely keep up with the MCDV staffing requirements.  It will also allow more flexibility in staffing for the Reg F.  With the amalgamation of the pension plan and the stated goal of moving to "full time" and "part time" sailors vs Class A, B, C and Reg F positions you can see the long term pers management coming to the fore.

For comparison currently the PRes force employment structure for the Army, Navy and Airforce are completely different.  Airforce is 90% previous Reg F service, Army is almost all Class A and Navy is half to two thirds Class C/B.  As the Commodore remarked "If they asked me to mobilize the Navy reserve I would say - mobilize who?  We are already mobilized!"


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> So that's where my original info came from.  NAVRES is going to move to augmenting Reg F instead, looking more at blended crewing.  Makes sense as NAVRES can barely keep up with the MCDV staffing requirements.  It will also allow more flexibility in staffing for the Reg F.  With the amalgamation of the pension plan and the stated goal of moving to "full time" and "part time" sailors vs Class A, B, C and Reg F positions you can see the long term pers management coming to the fore.
> 
> For comparison currently the PRes force employment structure for the Army, Navy and Airforce are completely different.  Airforce is 90% previous Reg F service, Army is almost all Class A and Navy is half to two thirds Class C/B.  As the Commodore remarked "If they asked me to mobilize the Navy reserve I would say - mobilize who?  We are already mobilized!"




Do members think one of the two (army or Navy) is a more "correct" model or reserve forces?


----------



## kratz

Underway said:
			
		

> We are already mobilized!"



Welcome to waking up to reality.

Sadly, the demobilization will put NASCAR to shame, 
shedding the built up core skills due to the budget cuts.


----------



## Furniture

Just to add my two cents.... Though they may have depreciated due to market volatility...

In regards to placing the scan eagles on MCDV's, there is more than deck space to factor in with the UAV. The amount of pitch an roll matters a great deal in aviation ops, and the smaller we try to go with ships the more vulnerable we become to the whims of the sea. A UAV det on a small boat may be great in calm seas, but in 20KT with 1-2m seas it may very quickly become useless.  

Size matters in many ways, not the least of which is sea handling capabilities. A large boat takes light seas easily with no impact on crew, a small boat reacts to light seas very poorly, resulting in increased crew fatigue.


----------



## AlexanderM

There are very good stabilization systems available.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> Fresh off the SHAD hotline... NAVRES has been directed to come up with a pers management plan to adjust to having no MCDVs within a 5 year timeframe.
> 
> This should not be a huge surprise to anyone who can read between the lines.  No midlife refit planned.  Kingston will be 26 years old by 2020.  New AOPS to do the coastal patrol duties.  The mine hunting packages are just as easily placed on any ship with the space to tie down two seacans.  Only a few working route survey packages left.
> 
> Also the timeliness of this are interesting.   New budget in 6 months.  New CFDS shortly thereafter.  Navy has been holding onto Horizon 2050 for quite a while as it has been written but not released (prob waiting for the new CFDS to be released so they don't steal any thunder or go in the wrong direction.)




So, three pages on, are we agreed that:

     1. The MCDVs are anything but dead ~ they have useful roles, some of which they perform in an very efficient and effective manner, relative to the "heavies." Maybe they will have new kit and new roles, too;

     2. A wholly "reserve fleet" is on the way out. All ships will be crewed by whoever is available and qualified;

     3. NAVRES will need more and better training to do its full and fair share of co-crewing the fleet;

     4. There is a Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy which currently makes provisions for new AORs and new "heavies;" but

     5. Question: Is there a "master plan" for a complete, mixed fleet of "heavies" with support ships, subamrines, tenders, training vessels and small combatants (1,000± tons) and even an
         "intermediate" class of ships like the UK proposal for the Black Swan class of ships?


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 5. Question: Is there a "master plan" for a complete, mixed fleet of "heavies" with support ships, subamrines, tenders, training vessels and small combatants (1,000± tons) and even an
> "intermediate" class of ships like the UK proposal for the Black Swan class of ships?



Are there serving members that see value in the Black Swan approach?  

To wit:  3000 - 4000 tonne relocatable platforms, lightly manned, built to SOLAS standards, capable of maintaining a presence and being adapted to a variety of roles.

The 3000 - 4000 tonne range seems likely to improve the stability issues and the range of sea states in which operations can be conducted.

The small crew (as small as eight) would seem to reduce personnel issues - and with good Ship to Shore connectors permits the crew to be swapped on station.

Any serving champions for the concept?


----------



## Infanteer

Good thread, and maybe soon worthy of a split.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Are there serving members that see value in the Black Swan approach?



I'll stick my hand up.  This comes from an Army Officer, so take it for what it's worth.

I like the Black Swan proposal for its general intent; something akin to the U.S. LCS that delivers joint force capability to project power abroad.  The paper correctly identifies the primary problem that we'll face, even when we have the Future Surface Combatant/SSC/whatever it is called this week.



> _However, these large combatants will be too few, too costly, too mission essential and most importantly too vulnerable to be risked in a contested littoral – although without an alternative they will have to be risked with the knowledge that they will probably take losses. Defence needs to escape its current predicament of escalating platform and personnel costs causing ever decreasing numbers,
> which also lack the quality required to make them fit for task._



Our frigates will never be available in sufficient numbers to conduct the dirty tasks, like counter-mine warfare, that are essential for force projection.  I did some research in amphibious operations and it is apparent, despite big platforms costing so much in terms of manpower and resources, that navies often shed lesser platforms to sustain these capital ships.

To me, a primary problem is that joint force development rests (appropriately) in the hands of the Chief of Force Development is in the VCDS branch but that anything done here is diluted by the fact that the Army, Navy and Air Force all have their own force development organizations that, generally, follow single-service development.  This is, ironically, one of the reasons that spurred Unification in the 1960s.  Although a tank, a frigate or an F-35 produces some form of combat power or capability for Canada, I wonder how much more capability is gained through creating systems capable of joint force synergy.  A tank in Suffield, a Fighter in Bagotville or a Frigate in the middle of the blue ocean may not be as strategically useful as a small "Black Swan" with some UAVs and a company of soldiers on board.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Just a minor bicker about nautical terminology - 'sloop' is a term I've not heard applied navally recently, so I assume you're reaching for the right word. In sailing days, sloops-of-war were vessels smaller even than corvettes, so while we're coining terms this one may not be the right one. If what you want is a ship about the same size as a Kingston-class with more line-of-sight weapons, a bit more speed and a slightly larger crew to support continuous operations, 'corvette' is probably the right word.



In WWII a "sloop" was an ocean-going escort with 2 shafts, warship machinery and oriented towards AAW.


----------



## kratz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, three pages on, are we agreed that:
> 
> 1. The MCDVs are anything but dead ~ they have useful roles, some of which they perform in an very efficient and effective manner, relative to the "heavies." Maybe they will have new kit and new roles, too;
> 
> 2. A wholly "reserve fleet" is on the way out. All ships will be crewed by whoever is available and qualified;
> 
> 3. NAVRES will need more and better training to do meet  its full and fair share of the new role co-crewing the fleet;
> 
> [snip]



FTFY


----------



## Ostrozac

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Do members think one of the two (army or Navy) is a more "correct" model or reserve forces?



An equivalent army structure to the Navy Reserves would be if the battle group on high-readiness were to actually receive its full complement of reserve augmentation, posted, cost-moved and on Class B or Class C service for the two year period of high readiness. The problem in a peacetime army is that being posted to Petawawa or Shilo for two years with the prospect of probably not actually deploying overseas is not too attractive a job to a reservist, and even if we were to develop "career reservists" the way the navy has, we have five force generation bases that we would have to keep moving guys between.

The navy seems to have a good thing going with their naval reservists -- it seems to work for them. But a peacetime navy based out of Halifax and Esquimalt still sails around and does interesting things. A peacetime army is training and waiting for the next mission.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To me, a primary problem is that joint force development rests (appropriately) in the hands of the Chief of Force Development is in the VCDS branch but that anything done here is diluted by the fact that the Army, Navy and Air Force all have their own force development organizations that, generally, follow single-service development.  This is, ironically, one of the reasons that spurred Unification in the 1960s.  Although a tank, a frigate or an F-35 produces some form of combat power or capability for Canada, I wonder how much more capability is gained through creating systems capable of joint force synergy.  A tank in Suffield, a Fighter in Bagotville or a Frigate in the middle of the blue ocean may not be as strategically useful as a small "Black Swan" with some UAVs and a company of soldiers on board.



Personally, I would prefer greater integration with the army for operations.  OP HESTIA in Haiti was a good example; I know ATH and maybe HAL as well picked up a platoon in Jamaica and shuttled them in, then provided some logistic support (like water).  They weren't designed for it though, but something similar to the Black Swan concept would be perfectly suited for that.  Also then we'd be less likely to be toting around a 'Land Forces Support Radio' that uses a frequency range the army abandoned in the 90s.

If they had gone down with a supply ship as well (PRE was in refit), they could have easily deployed a fair bit of manpower and had a good sized mobile supply depot on hand, and a half dozen helos, plus the RIBs/landing crafts would have been available for movement.

Adapting that to a warzone doesn't really involve much more.  You'd want one or two ships capable of air defence to protect the tanker.  If the Black Swan were fitted with a reasonable sized gun, they could also provide fire support.  Of course, if there was a USN Arleigh Burke ship along with you they'd have a ridiculous number of missiles onboard as well.

The one big thing changing in the newer ships is that they are modular.  So aside from your core crew, each different load out would come with it's own operators, so you could have two ships in the same class doing different jobs, but keeping some similar core capabilities.

If nothing else, it'd be nice to be able to better support the army when they are fighting a ground war or otherwise off somewhere miserable.  Joined the mob because I wanted to do something more meaningful then improving someone's widget factory.  While it's been a lot of fun, sailing around with stops in Boston, NY, Edinburgh etc while friends are getting shot at doesn't really fill me with a sense of accomplishment.


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, three pages on, are we agreed that:
> 
> 3. NAVRES will need more and better training to do its full and fair share of co-crewing the fleet;



I would disagree with #3.  Due to this sailing time and the "total force" training concept the NAVRES is pretty far along to meeting platform augmentation.  Its more a platform famil that needs to happen.  MARS for example have nearly identical training for through the Naval Officer Training Centre.  Its the platform experience and sailing time that creates the division, (and eventually the class A vs Class C division).  But at the SLt level going to their first ship all MARS officers are essentially equal.  The same could be said to varying degree's for Bosn, Navcom, and probably NCIOp at the AB-LS level.  MESO is the problem child most definitely but I do believe that the focus will be on making them roundsmen qualified to start.  

As a matter of fact I know plenty of PRes MARS who operated as 2OOW or NAVO for a heavy, and the same for LS Bosn, and Navcom who backfilled on the Protector or the Algonquin.  I think its the positions and pers management as well as promotion requirements beyond LS that will have to change more so than the initial trades training.




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 5. Question: Is there a "master plan" for a complete, mixed fleet of "heavies" with support ships, subamrines, tenders, training vessels and small combatants (1,000± tons) and even an
> "intermediate" class of ships like the UK proposal for the Black Swan class of ships?



Yes there is a master plan.  Canada First Defence Strategy, Leadmark 2020 , and Horizon 2050 (and associated documents relating to the three).The Canadian Navy maritime strategy doesn't have a place for a 3000 tonne or below ship aside from MCDV's which have a very specific role.  The Navy believes that to be an effective warship in the Northern latitudes the minimum floor for tonnage is 3500+ tonnes, preferably.  

The core of the navy is the task group 1 AAD destroyer, 1 AOR, frigates, subs and attached air as required.  Building lighter escorts will do things the navy doesn't want IMHO.

1.  Create more ships that we can't crew properly.
2.  Cause us to loose out on proper (read 5000+ tonnes) warships because we are spending limited funds on smaller less effective platforms.
3.  Similar to above - maintenance on more ships - limited funds again.
4.  It follows that if we make less capable ships then we loose certain abilities to implement gov't policy - make us more of a Rank 4-5 navy vice the Rank 3 navy we are now.
5.  Canadian military procurement politics - ask for what you really need, because if the gov't sees smaller cheaper ships guess what they will build instead (read losing out on 6-12 frigates because of the Mulroney nuclear submarine discussion)

Essentially being that North America is an island continent would a 3000 tonne frigate be able to sail around to worldly hotspots and do what it needs to do?  This is the same question that killed the Black Swan project, and the Global Corvette project for the UK.  They would rather place their money on the 5400 tonne Type 26 frigate.

What the Navy needs to do its job it's already requesting and almost everything will be built.  What the navy believes it needs to do its job as the gov't has directed and previous operational experience has shown is the following.

3 Area Air Defence and C2 ships (aka destroyer replacements) 5000-7000 tonnnes
12 General purpose combat ships (aka frigates) 5000-7000 tonnes
2-3 AOR's (going to get two most likely)
6-8 AOPS 
6-12 MCDV's
2 Dive units 
organic air (cyclone, UAV's)
4-6 submarines
Maritime patrol aircraft of some sort
and
1-2 amphibious troop carrying ship (never going to happen but its what we need)

*edit to fix grammar/format*


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> ...
> Essentially being that North America is an island continent would a 3000 tonne frigate be able to sail around to worldly hotspots and do what it needs to do?  This is the same question that killed the Black Swan project, and the Global Corvette project for the UK.  They would rather place their money on the 5400 tonne Type 26 frigate.
> ...




Thanks for that informative response, Underway; the quoted bit makes very good sense to me.

Am I correct in saying that you see an ongoing requirement for a 1,000± ton vessel ~ a requirement that sees a need for 6 to twelve replacements twenty or so years from now?


----------



## Kirkhill

Does your General Purpose Frigate (5000 to 7000 tonnes) include space and displacement for an 1000 m2 mission bay from which boats can be launched, accomodation for 40 (140 overload) PAX and a flight deck big enough to land a Chinook?   

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Does your General Purpose Frigate (5000 to 7000 tonnes) include space and displacement for an 1000 m2 mission bay from which boats can be launched, accomodation for 40 (140 overload) PAX and a flight deck big enough to land a Chinook?
> 
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/



I don't know.  The design is 3-7 years away, planning is ongoing for the AAD version.  As they will have the same hull and probably the same sensor package (APAR and SMART-L) the tonnage will be similar.  Judging by the way the wind is blowing I'm thinking 6000 or so. That's more tonnage than both the current destroyers and frigates by a significant margin.  With the Halifax design add in 1000 tonnes and you have a bucket load of space relatively speaking. If you can do it with the GCS at only an extra 400 tonnes over the current platforms then why not with an even heavier platform?  I suppose its all about what you want to do with the platform?  Though this is a discussion for another thread.  I think you should start one Kirkhill, we can bash away at each other with ideal ship design and fleet mixes all day.   ;D



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that informative response, Underway; the quoted bit makes very good sense to me.
> 
> Am I correct in saying that you see an ongoing requirement for a 1,000± ton vessel ~ a requirement that sees a need for 6 to twelve replacements twenty or so years from now?



I'm assuming you are referring to MCDV replacements and that is an interesting question.  I see a requirement, depending on current tech.  What have the MCDV's been used for operationally and what is their future role?
a. Officer/navigation training, Reserve training 
b. support whole of navy training operations (aka help other ships with their workups by pretending to be a bad guy etc....)
c. OGD support operations -  fishpats, SAR zone coverage, security, Olympics etc... 
d.  mine counter measures 
e.  advanced route survey
f.  command development platforms
g. inshore support for continental operations - OP CARIBBE, Swissair,
h.  trialing new equipment (Scaneagle, remote .50 cal gun system etc...)

Lots of these roles are already being surplanted by new platforms, or can be done better by other organizations.  Everything but "d", "e" and "g" can be done by the AOPS or ORCA's effectively.  "c" can be done better by the Coast Guard for the most part. The Hero Class  for example might be excellent for this.   MCM can be done off of just about any ship as the Fleet Dive Units use UUV's and their staff to hunt and destroy mines.  You can do it off a barge,  a dive tender or a frigate if you want fairly easily (depending of course on sea state).   In 15 years will route survey UUV's be advanced enough that we don't need to tow behind a ship?  What kind of "continental operations" are required?  Whats the threat environment like?  Will the gov't have different requirements?

The main argument in support of the MCDV's and their potential replacements is that they are *CHEAP TO OPERATE* in crew, fuel and maintenance.  They give the navy a cost effective answer to many questions and problems, allowing them to meet their domestic and continental requirements without sending a big expensive heavy.  If new ships are built to replace the MCDV's they will be built to slightly modified civilian standards, they will go faster with better seakeeping than the MCDV's, and will have a modern naval gun (prob similar to the AOPS).  If they can keep position statically (azimuth and bow thrusters) and hold a few ISO containers then we have a winner of a design.  But I certainly don't see a much more capable replacement combat power wise.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> I don't know.  The design is 3-7 years away, planning is ongoing for the AAD version.  As they will have the same hull and probably the same sensor package (APAR and SMART-L) the tonnage will be similar.  Judging by the way the wind is blowing I'm thinking 6000 or so. That's more tonnage than both the current destroyers and frigates by a significant margin.  With the Halifax design add in 1000 tonnes and you have a bucket load of space relatively speaking. If you can do it with the GCS at only an extra 400 tonnes over the current platforms then why not with an even heavier platform?  I suppose its all about what you want to do with the platform?  Though this is a discussion for another thread.  I think you should start one Kirkhill, we can bash away at each other with ideal ship design and fleet mixes all day.   ;D



Ample opportunity for the mutual bashing on a multitude of other threads Underway.  ;D

I'm just figuring that in the absence of a decent supply of BHSs (1 ain't the number I'm thinking of) then the least we can do is make sure that we supply an array of lily pads, or step stones, across which muddy boots can bounce.  Instead of trying to get a whole Med/Hvy Battle Group on the ground in a month what could be done with Light Forces in the meantime?

They may not be able to skip Leos across decks but there is a pile of other gear that would come in useful that would fit in the same space you guys might carry UUVs, Boats and UAVs - or sweeping gear or hunting gear etc.

And with a big enough flight deck - well at least you could get your Timmies delilvered by the bucket load.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> ...
> The main argument in support of the MCDV's and their potential replacements is that they are *CHEAP TO OPERATE* in crew, fuel and maintenance.  They give the navy a cost effective answer to many questions and problems, allowing them to meet their domestic and continental requirements without sending a big expensive heavy.  If new ships are built to replace the MCDV's they will be built to slightly modified civilian standards, they will go faster with better seakeeping than the MCDV's, and will have a modern naval gun (prob similar to the AOPS).  If they can keep position statically (azimuth and bow thrusters) and hold a few ISO containers then we have a winner of a design.  But I certainly don't see a much more capable replacement combat power wise.




Which, it seems to me, is a very good argument for replacing them _circa_ 2030. And given the sorts of tasks you outlined, do they need to be "more capable, combat power wise?"


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> do they need to be "more capable, combat power wise?"



Giving them a modern naval gun of the 25-30mm variety and a modern EO/IR targeting capability would be a massive leap in combat power over the current 40mm WWII Bofors.  Combat equipment is as we know is the most expensive addition to a ship.  If you upgrade the weapons then you have to upgrade the sensors as well and then you start running up costs.  Then crewing gets bigger, etc... and before you know it you have a ship that isn't cheap anymore.  That being said is still might be cheap-ER and that would be ok.


----------



## Bearpaw

Would the Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System be considered?

Bearpaw


----------



## Navy_Pete

Pretty sure the 40mm is on the way out and to be replaced with a few .50 cal mounts.  Makes more sense given their actual use and they are common equipment so it's cost effective in the age of bring your own stationary.

I guess one thing to make a distinction about is draught; large or small ships can both be relatively deep or shallow and that has a much greater impact or AoO then displacement.  Both of the USN littoral ships are listed as being less then 15', so they can get a lot closer to shore then most general purpose ships.  Really depends what you want to do with it; they new RN type 45s are around 8000 tonnes, primarily because of the top heavy Gizmo like radar on top of the mast.

They may want to get around to updating their ConOps for the existing fleet though before they look at the future fleet; the ORCAs for example are designed for a crew doing day sails and alongside every night, were they are actually out for a week at a time.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Another question: what about the M242 _Bushmaster_/Mk 38 as "a modern naval gun of the 25-30mm variety?" My _google_ search says it is used on ships by many navies.






Mk 38 25mm Machine Gun System





US Navy 111231-N-KS651-967 A Mk 38 MOD 2 25mm machine gun system aboard the amphibious dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor

We already know the _Bushmaster_ in the Canadian Army, and it is in fairly common naval use, including as "main armament" for the Republic of Singapore's minesweepers and on their coast guard's new patrol vessels.





Singapore's _Bedok_ mine countermeasures vessels, mounting a Mk 38 _Typhoon_ 25mm _Bushmaster_ based gun system


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I roughly calculated $50,000 to arm a CCG ship with 2 .50cals, mounts, spare bits, lockers, comms and crew gear. The bushmaster would likely be 3x that for 1 mount.


The nice thing about the .50 is that all the training could be done through the normal crew cycle and pay for a Navy guy to come and teach onboard, with meals and quarters onboard.


----------



## Kirkhill

How about adding something like the Mirador to the MCDV?

Wouldn't it serve for general situational awareness, navigation, low visibility conditions and fire direction (especially if weapons (12.7 or 25 mm) were mounted on remote weapons mounts)?


----------



## AlexanderM

They should be well armed.  Look at the Rasmussen design, which I expect would fit into our budget, it's armed with a 76mm main gun and can carry modules for ESSM's and ASW.  Just my opinion, but this is the minimum we should be looking at.  I'd like to stretch that design a bit and add a hanger, so it could carry a small to medium sized helicopter, doesn't have to carry a Cyclone.


----------



## Edward Campbell

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> They should be well armed.  Look at the Rasmussen design, which I expect would fit into our budget, it's armed with a 76mm main gun and can carry modules for ESSM's and ASW.  Just my opinion, but this is the minimum we should be looking at.  I'd like to stretch that design a bit and add a hanger, so it could carry a small to medium sized helicopter, doesn't have to carry a Cyclone.




I'm leaning towards the two platform solution: _n_ "heavies" and _n1_ small combatants, plus AORs, submarines, tenders and training vessels, for the reasons Underway gave. The justification for the small combatants is, as he said, "they are CHEAP TO OPERATE in crew, fuel and maintenance.  They give the navy a cost effective answer to many questions and problems, allowing them to meet their domestic and continental requirements without sending a big expensive heavy."

It seems to me that if you arm them too well and make them big enough to carry a helicopter that we are:

     1. At the point of buying a 3,500 ton ships which we don't really need; and

     2. Devoid of CHEAP alternatives to the "heavies."

I would, I think, prefer to see the MCDV upgraded, just enough, and a replacement designed that is:

     1. In the 1,000± ton range, say less than 1,500 tons;

     2. Is stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs;

     3. Is lightly armed with a modern 25-30mm main gun and some machine guns;

     4. Is built to mine counter measure standards - whatever that means in hull material, etc; but

     5. Is also built to "slightly modified civilian standards;"

     6. Has a crew of about 30 to 50 all ranks, which, I think, limits how many sophisticated systems the vessel can carry; and

     7. Can be reconfigured (using ISO containers) for different missions.

Re: the "heavies." Can we not have the same hull and engine with several different configurations: general purpose frigate, AAW frigate, C2 ship, and, even, a few of Kirkhill's "lily pads," ships able to deploy with, say, a company of light infantry on board?

In my perfect world we have three or four AORs, with helicopters, several submarines (several is more than three), 16 to 20 "heavies," all with helicopters, six to ten small combatants, flying UAVs, and several tenders, training vessels and so on. That sort of mix is, I believe, affordable - but not, I think, possible within the budgetary constraints imposed by the _Canada First Defence Stratgey_ - and would be _strategically_ effective, too, giving our government a global reach and a mix of options.


----------



## quadrapiper

Would that 16-to-20 scheme include some sort of "Arctic heavy?"


----------



## AlexanderM

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would, I think, prefer to see the MCDV upgraded, just enough, and a replacement designed that is:
> 
> 1. In the 1,000± ton range, say less than 1,500 tons;
> 
> 2. Is stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs;
> 
> 3. Is lightly armed with a modern 25-30mm main gun and some machine guns;
> 
> 4. Is built to mine counter measure standards - whatever that means in hull material, etc; but
> 
> 5. Is also built to "slightly modified civilian standards;"
> 
> 6. Has a crew of about 30 to 50 all ranks, which, I think, limits how many sophisticated systems the vessel can carry; and
> 
> 7. Can be reconfigured (using ISO containers) for different missions.



The Rasmussen is 1700 tones so not far out of your target range at all and has a crew of around 50.  What we need in the MCDV's is a capability so they can handle things in coastal water without having to call in a heavy.  So then the destroyers and frigates can concentrate on the bigger picture.  In my mind, having a small patrol craft with very limited capability just isn't going to get the job done. 

Having a crew size of 50 does not limit systems as much as some might think, as they can be automated. 

I was wrong, the Rasmussen has a crew of 18, but can accomodate up to 43, and that's with air crew, 76mm main gun and ESSM and ASW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel


----------



## Edward Campbell

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Would that 16-to-20 scheme include some sort of "Arctic heavy?"




In my "perfect world" the AOPS would be assigned to the RCMP (because they are an "armed service") or to the Coast Guard, if we decided to make it an "armed service," too.

There is, in my opinion, an important _constabulary_ role for ships ~ for lightly armed, non-military ships. But I think organizations "below" the armed forces, in terms of the use of force continuum, are better for those _constabulary_ duties (not better qualified or better trained, but "better" in political terms) than are the traditional armed services.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with an armed Coast Guard in my "perfect world."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Which they used to do

http://members.shaw.ca/rcmpwcmd/HistoricalPhotogallery.htm


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would, I think, prefer to see the MCDV upgraded, just enough, and a replacement designed that is:
> 
> 1. In the 1,000± ton range, say less than 1,500 tons;
> 
> 2. Is stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs;
> 
> 3. Is lightly armed with a modern 25-30mm main gun and some machine guns;
> 
> 4. Is built to mine counter measure standards - whatever that means in hull material, etc; but
> 
> 5. Is also built to "slightly modified civilian standards;"
> 
> 6. Has a crew of about 30 to 50 all ranks, which, I think, limits how many sophisticated systems the vessel can carry; and
> 
> 7. Can be reconfigured (using ISO containers) for different missions.



I got a chance to do a tour on the Rasmussen a few years ago; pretty slick little ship.  

All those are possible except 4 & 5 as they are somewhat mutually exclusive if you want a good, built for purpose mine hunter, which has some fairly different concerns then civilian ships (reduced noise and magnetic signature, precise positioning etc).  It is pretty limited what you can do for stabilization at that hull size as well; probably easier to continue developing shipborne UAVs, as there hasn't been a lot of work, other then using existing land based systems for launching and then a few different methods of recovery (one involves essentially flying it into a pole with a hook on it)

Crew size matters less then you may think; most of it is automated and aside from simple maintenance, there isn't much in the way of repairs that can be done at sea, other then maybe swapping some components.  Smaller crews can work fine, and aside from having a few senior, skilled techs for safety critical gear, everyone is an operator.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Re: the "heavies." Can we not have the same hull and engine with several different configurations: general purpose frigate, AAW frigate, C2 ship, and, even, a few of Kirkhill's "lily pads," ships able to deploy with, say, a company of light infantry on board?



Yes, that's supposed to be the concept behind CSC, and a few other ships use already that general concept.  The MCDVs had a few different ISO container loadouts.  The USN littoral ships are taking it a bit further;

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

They have different configurations but need to be with heavies in a combat zone.

For carrying troops, you also need to create extra capacity for food, water, etc.  Because you can live onboard for extended periods, the hotel loads for extra personnel aren't insignificant.  Particularly now with environmental regulations severely restricting what can go overboard (ie no compost in some zones, all sewage treated, eventually including grey water from sinks, etc).


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my "perfect world" the AOPS would be assigned to the RCMP (because they are an "armed service") or to the Coast Guard, if we decided to make it an "armed service," too.
> 
> There is, in my opinion, an important _constabulary_ role for ships ~ for lightly armed, non-military ships. But I think organizations "below" the armed forces, in terms of the use of force continuum, are better for those _constabulary_ duties (not better qualified or better trained, but "better" in political terms) than are the traditional armed services.
> 
> By the way, there's nothing wrong with an armed Coast Guard in my "perfect world."



I've worked with the Coast Guard quite a bit in my civilian employment.  Lets just say from what I have seen I would not be... comfortable... with an armed Coast Guard.  It would require a significant amount of change in the way they do business and training to arm them IMHO.  They would have to change from basically merchant marine to paramilitary.  Not a slag as what they do is so far away from paramilitary.  Research, icebreaking, buoy tenders, aids to navigation, SAR.  It would be quite a culture shift.  I've been to two of the MSOC (Maritime Security Operations Centre) and met the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams.  They work together very well as each member brings something great to the team.  RCMP are crime experts and provide the powers of arrest.  Border Svcs are experts dealing with immigration issues and smuggling.  The navy provides the overall "operations centre" and command/control expertise.  CCG provide the ships and resources to move everyone around etc....



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me that if you arm them too well and make them big enough to carry a helicopter that we are:
> 
> 1. At the point of buying a 3,500 ton ships which we don't really need; and
> 
> 2. Devoid of CHEAP alternatives to the "heavies."
> 
> I would, I think, prefer to see the MCDV upgraded, just enough, and a replacement designed that is:
> 
> 1. In the 1,000± ton range, say less than 1,500 tons;
> 
> 2. Is stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs;
> 
> 3. Is lightly armed with a modern 25-30mm main gun and some machine guns;
> 
> 4. Is built to mine counter measure standards - whatever that means in hull material, etc; but
> 
> 5. Is also built to "slightly modified civilian standards;"
> 
> 6. Has a crew of about 30 to 50 all ranks, which, I think, limits how many sophisticated systems the vessel can carry; and
> 
> 7. Can be reconfigured (using ISO containers) for different missions.



What you almost described there is an AOPS.  What I'm wondering is now that the AOPS have been forced on the navy how will they fit into the fleet mix and be used.  Low crew, probably cheaper to operate.  Designed for OGD support etc...  ISO containers.  No MCM but that can be put on just about any ship with ISO capability (or a flight deck).  They can also carry a platoon strength org and "lily pad".  It's tonnage is going to be high relatively due to the icebreaking and helo requirements.  Would they be able to fill in for your "light requirement" or are they too much ship.

Either way I suspect that there may be a reduction in MCDV replacements due to the effectiveness of the AOPS.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Re: the "heavies." Can we not have the same hull and engine with several different configurations: general purpose frigate, AAW frigate, C2 ship, and, even, a few of Kirkhill's "lily pads," ships able to deploy with, say, a company of light infantry on board?
> 
> In my perfect world we have three or four AORs, with helicopters, several submarines (several is more than three), 16 to 20 "heavies," all with helicopters, six to ten small combatants, flying UAVs, and several tenders, training vessels and so on. That sort of mix is, I believe, affordable - but not, I think, possible within the budgetary constraints imposed by the _Canada First Defence Stratgey_ - and would be _strategically_ effective, too, giving our government a global reach and a mix of options.



*edit- ninja'd! by Navy_Pete*  Re: the heavies - that's the plan for the CSC project.  AAW C2 configuration for the first batch, the next 3 batches would be a general purpose model.  All would have the same power plant, hull, power distribution and other hotel options.  What would change is some of the internal layout, superstructure, weapons loadout and probably sensors to a certain extent. That would reduce development costs, make training across platforms more standardized.  Lots of positives here.

As far as ideal fleet mix I agree with you for the most point.  I would prefer 3 AOR's and 2 heavy lift type ships.  A reduction of the heavies to 15 would be fine.  4-6 subs would also be better IMHO but they will have to be long range patrol capable and preferably under ice or ice fringe capable.  Nothing out there on the SSK market matches this capability right now as European subs are short range types. 

Honestly looking at Canada's place in the world our planned fleet mix is pretty good.  15 major combatants and 4 SSK's puts our combat power over quite a few other countries that are Rank 3 navies as well.


----------



## AlexanderM

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It is pretty limited what you can do for stabilization at that hull size.


What do you mean?  I was looking into buying a 40-50 ft. sport yacht not too long ago and looked into available stabilizers for that, they are available, read reviews by people who use them, say they pretty much eliminate roll.  You want to eliminate roll, just use stabilizers.

Here, just select Products and Service, then Roll Stabilizers and pick the appropriate size, we'd want the largest one they have.  I do admit it only goes up to 1500 tons, but we could find one or have one made for a 1700 ton vessel.  Wow, I just looked on the site a little more and they have roll stabilizers built to military standards that go up to a 5500 ton vessel.  The 925 model handles up to 2000 tones.

http://naiad.com/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> I've worked with the Coast Guard quite a bit in my civilian employment.  Lets just say from what I have seen I would not be... comfortable... with an armed Coast Guard.  It would require a significant amount of change in the way they do business and training to arm them IMHO.  They would have to change from basically merchant marine to paramilitary.  Not a slag as what they do is so far away from paramilitary.  Research, icebreaking, buoy tenders, aids to navigation, SAR.  It would be quite a culture shift.  I've been to two of the MSOC (Maritime Security Operations Centre) and met the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams.  They work together very well as each member brings something great to the team.  RCMP are crime experts and provide the powers of arrest.  Border Svcs are experts dealing with immigration issues and smuggling.  The navy provides the overall "operations centre" and command/control expertise.  CCG provide the ships and resources to move everyone around etc....



Very much the truth, you could easily train the CCG crews to fire and operate the .50cals. They would likely enjoy that. However training the Captains and management to be able to make the decision to use them and open fire on a belligerent vessel is a whole other matter. It would also be a huge culture shift to set up boarding teams and the people that want to do that sort of stuff don't want to scrap sea slime off a buoy, or pack batteries and cement up to a beacon site.


----------



## Kirkhill

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> What do you mean?  I was looking into buying a 40-50 ft. sport yacht not too long ago and looked into available stabilizers for that, they are available, read reviews by people who use them, say they pretty much eliminate roll.  You want to eliminate roll, just use stabilizers.
> 
> Here, just select Products and Service, then Roll Stabilizers and pick the appropriate size, we'd want the largest one they have.  I do admit it only goes up to 1500 tons, but we could find one or have one made for a 1700 ton vessel.  Wow, I just looked on the site a little more and they have roll stabilizers built to military standards that go up to a 5500 ton vessel.  The 925 model handles up to 2000 tones.
> 
> http://naiad.com/



Alex, I'm no expert but it seems to me that stabilizers, while they have their place, are likely no cure-alls.  I doubt if they are going to turn the Rasmussen into a CVN or a super-tanker.     I could see them, perhaps, turning an unstabilized 1720 ton Rasmussen into an unstabilized 3500 tonne Black Swan or even a Halifax, but  having sailed (for a short stint) in a 600 foot processor in the North Pacific and Bering sea, I can state that even a ship of 3500 tonnes is going to have days like those shown in the helo videos.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Alex, I'm no expert but it seems to me that stabilizers, while they have their place, are likely no cure-alls.  I doubt if they are going to turn the Rasmussen into a CVN or a super-tanker.     I could see them, perhaps, turning an unstabilized 1720 ton Rasmussen into an unstabilized 3500 tonne Black Swan or even a Halifax, but  having sailed (for a short stint) in a 600 foot processor in the North Pacific and Bering sea, I can state that even a ship of 3500 tonnes is going to have days like those shown in the helo videos.


Disagree, stabilizers make a huge difference, the new technology is very good.

It's more likely that some designers simply have their heads in the past when it comes to design, it can be a mindset.


----------



## Furniture

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Disagree, stabilizers make a huge difference, the new technology is very good.
> 
> It's more likely that some designers simply have their heads in the past when it comes to design, it can be a mindset.



In reality no matter how good a stabilizer is it will not stop a small ship from pitching and rolling significantly in rough seas, not to mention the extra limitations imposed on small aircraft such as mini UAVs due to strong winds associated with rough seas.  

In reality a small boat relying on small UAVs will be much more limited in what conditions it can operate in than a larger boat with a real helo. That's why in the north Atlantic and Pacific oceans we need a capable and large ship to operate year round and maintain an effective presence. Just being there isn't enough when all your effort and attention is focused on keeping the boat afloat, or none of your kit works because the seas are throwing you around too much.


----------



## AlexanderM

Stabilizers work, even in rough seas.  They do not eliminate pitch but do significantly reduce roll, the difference is very substantial.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CCG took our 500 class (Gordon Reid, John Jacobson) , based on a proven hull, took the short version, added mucho top hamper, the vessel rolled like a drunken sailor on Saturday night shore pass. First they had a Flume tank, then active rudders, weight reduction program and then bilge keels to make it manageable. The weather ships needed concrete in the fuel tanks to reduce the roll, I also understand the Torpedo recovery vessels built around the same time as the 500's also had stability issue. Vessels designed by committees often float the same way, we are really, really good at shooting ourselves in the foot.

Then of course there was the R-class (top heavy) Point class, 41' (first vessel) 47' (first couple) all suffering from very poor build quality)


----------



## AlexanderM

Top speed of 12 knots??  Stabilizers do work better with some speed, and are not going to work so well on ships with a top speed of 12 knots, although there are now new ones that work at all speeds, especially for ships of that size, that's probably the system they should have.

I think it is ridiculous to be building ships with a top speed of 12 knots and I do not like the 17 knot top speed of the Rasmussen, which would also require the all speed system.  I like the capabilities of the Rasmussen but it is slow, short and heavy for it's length.  So keep the capabilities and find a different hull design.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Most of the fast vessels in the 100+ range eventually suffer metal fatigue from the pounding, it's the nature of the beast, heavily built= weight which requires more HP= higher fuel consumption= less usable internal volume. If you want high speed you are likely going to have throw away any ice requirement. Most nations use small high speed patrol boats to cover off a smallish area operating from a port within that area. 

Case in point
I remember when these came into service to replace the 95'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMHRU2Zs9c4


----------



## AlexanderM

A cruising speed of around 20 knots is reasonable and stabilizers will work well.  I would love to see us use a high quality steel, like an HSLA.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Case in point
> I remember when these came into service to replace the 95'
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMHRU2Zs9c4


This is 168 tons which is too light, something more like 1000 tons to 1500 tons, as someone else was suggesting would be good.  The Rasmussen is 1700 tons, but a faster hull design would be better.


----------



## AlexanderM

Here, $820M USD for 6 ships.  Just under 1000 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynunah-class_corvette


----------



## Edward Campbell

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Here, $820M USD for 6 ships.  Just under 1000 tons.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynunah-class_corvette




Seems reasonable, Oman is paying ST Marine (Singapore) $(US)700 Million for four of the 75 metre _Fearless_ class patrol ships - the RSN's 55 metre _Fearless_ class displace 500 tons and have a top speed of about 30 knots so I'm _guessing_ the _Fearless_ 75s will displace nearly 1,000 tons with a helicopter aboard.


----------



## Kirkhill

Not much ice in the Gulf of Oman

Rasmussen is ice strengthened.

Probably adds a bit of weight and slows her down a bit.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not much ice in the Gulf of Oman
> 
> Rasmussen is ice strengthened.
> 
> Probably adds a bit of weight and slows her down a bit.




I'm still thinking 10 years "out," when the current MCDVs have five to 10 years left before they are scrapped and someone has decided that we really do, still, need a small combatant that can perform a wide range of tasks for which the "heavies," while, obviously, fully capable, are too expensive.

Let's say: six to 10 vessels of 1,000 to 1,500 ton displacement, capable of cruising at 20 knots, with a modern 20-30mm gun main gun, stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs, multi-mission using containerized packages, with a crew of about 30-50 all ranks, and costing no more than $(CA)1.25 Billion in 2013 dollars.


----------



## dapaterson

Given the requirement to buy from Canadian yards and their limited capacity, better to start the planning now - so the MCDV replacements will be only 5-10 years late...


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm still thinking 10 years "out," when the current MCDVs have five to 10 years left before they are scrapped and someone has decided that we really do, still, need a small combatant that can perform a wide range of tasks for which the "heavies," while, obviously, fully capable, are too expensive.
> 
> Let's say: six to 10 vessels of 1,000 to 1,500 ton displacement, capable of cruising at 20 knots, with a modern 20-30mm gun main gun, stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs, multi-mission using containerized packages, with a crew of about 30-50 all ranks, and costing no more than $(CA)1.25 Billion in 2013 dollars.



Seen ERC.

Sorry for short responses - limited to phone comms


----------



## AlexanderM

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm still thinking 10 years "out," when the current MCDVs have five to 10 years left before they are scrapped and someone has decided that we really do, still, need a small combatant that can perform a wide range of tasks for which the "heavies," while, obviously, fully capable, are too expensive.
> 
> Let's say: six to 10 vessels of 1,000 to 1,500 ton displacement, capable of cruising at 20 knots, with a modern 20-30mm gun main gun, stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs, multi-mission using containerized packages, with a crew of about 30-50 all ranks, and costing no more than $(CA)1.25 Billion in 2013 dollars.


$125 million each should get us something decent, put the ESSM's and the ASW in the containers/modules and we're good to go!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> This is 168 tons which is too light, something more like 1000 tons to 1500 tons, as someone else was suggesting would be good.  The Rasmussen is 1700 tons, but a faster hull design would be better.



Here is the USCG other program, one we really don't want to follow judging by  the success rate of their larger vessels (small vessels they do very well)

http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/opc/


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Here is the USCG other program, one we really don't want to follow judging by  the success rate of their larger vessels (small vessels they do very well)
> 
> http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/opc/


I think the way to go is find a current design, one of the new ones, already built, that is proving itself to be a good design, and just go with that.  If there's something out there we can license there isn't any need to re-invent the wheel.


----------



## Kirkhill

Now that I am back at a real key board..... you're all in trouble  >

With respect to a future patrol vessel, I like the idea of a heavier vessel.  By heavier I mean a vessel that has a deep displacement in the same range as the Black Swan and the Hollands, for the reasons I've given before (landing platform size, "inherent" stability).  To those reasons I would add the benefits of a longer waterline yielding more speed and less resistance (more economy), and increased volume which could be translated into more bunkerage (for longer range) or more deadweight payload, or more tonnage.   If you build a vessel that displaces 1500 to 2000 tonnes light displacement but can accomodate an additional 1500 tonnes of deadweight at deep displacement I don't think the cost would be significantly greater than a naval spec vessel of 2000 tonnes displacement with 0 tonnes of deadweight.

Space and steel are relatively cheap.  Just look at the price of the commercial monsters.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now that I am back at a real key board..... you're all in trouble  >
> 
> With respect to a future patrol vessel, I like the idea of a heavier vessel.  By heavier I mean a vessel that has a deep displacement in the same range as the Black Swan and the Hollands, for the reasons I've given before (landing platform size, "inherent" stability).  To those reasons I would add the benefits of a longer waterline yielding more speed and less resistance (more economy), and increased volume which could be translated into more bunkerage (for longer range) or more deadweight payload, or more tonnage.   If you build a vessel that displaces 1500 to 2000 tonnes light displacement but can accomodate an additional 1500 tonnes of deadweight at deep displacement I don't think the cost would be significantly greater than a naval spec vessel of 2000 tonnes displacement with 0 tonnes of deadweight.
> 
> Space and steel are relatively cheap.  Just look at the price of the commercial monsters.


Space and steel are cheap relatively speaking.  Engines to push the extra weight are not as cheap.  Granted I get where you are going here as weapons and sensors are usually the most expensive part.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now that I am back at a real key board..... you're all in trouble  >
> 
> With respect to a future patrol vessel, I like the idea of a heavier vessel.  By heavier I mean a vessel that has a deep displacement in the same range as the Black Swan and the Hollands, for the reasons I've given before (landing platform size, "inherent" stability).  To those reasons I would add the benefits of a longer waterline yielding more speed and less resistance (more economy), and increased volume which could be translated into more bunkerage (for longer range) or more deadweight payload, or more tonnage.   If you build a vessel that displaces 1500 to 2000 tonnes light displacement but can accomodate an additional 1500 tonnes of deadweight at deep displacement I don't think the cost would be significantly greater than a naval spec vessel of 2000 tonnes displacement with 0 tonnes of deadweight.
> 
> Space and steel are relatively cheap.  Just look at the price of the commercial monsters.


The Hollands are 3750 tons!!  That's less than 1000 tons smaller than the Halifax class.  Way too big.  Although they are very sexy!!!


----------



## Kirkhill

Why are they too big?

They only demand a complement of 54 which is on par with most of the other OPVs out there, including the Svalbard AOPS which, like the Canadian AOPS vessels are almost two times that displacement at approximately 6000 tonnes.

The vessels being contemplated to replace the Halifaxes, and in all other navies, are pushing 6000 tonnes with complements of 100 to 150, versus vessels with crews of 200 to 250 in hulls displacing 4000 tonnes.

I get Underway's point about the engines but I believe that it is worth the money - especially given multiple generators in a diesel-electric drive.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why are they too big?
> 
> They only demand a complement of 54 which is on par with most of the other OPVs out there, including the Svalbard AOPS which, like the Canadian AOPS vessels are almost two times that displacement at approximately 6000 tonnes.
> 
> The vessels being contemplated to replace the Halifaxes, and in all other navies, are pushing 6000 tonnes with complements of 100 to 150, versus vessels with crews of 200 to 250 in hulls displacing 4000 tonnes.
> 
> I get Underway's point about the engines but I believe that it is worth the money - especially given multiple generators in a diesel-electric drive.


I just don't see the point in building a 3750 ton vessel that's armed with a couple of guns.  Some of the smaller designs are much more better armed.  Also, let Irving get a look at the size of that vessel and we'll be paying through the nose.  A 1000-1500 ton vessel will do very nicely.


----------



## Kirkhill

Crew 	Displacement
Svalbard OPV	50	6375
AOPS	45	5874
Thor OPV	48	4049
Holland OPV	54	3750
Thetis OPV	47	3500
Black Swan	48	3150
BAM OPV	35	2500
Protector OPV	35	1900
Braunschweig	65	1840
BAE OPV	36	1800
River OPV	28	1700
Baynunnah OPV	37	915

Average	44	3113

The tendency, especially for northern waters, is to build larger OPVs that can stay on station longer with small crews while staying connected to shore by medium helicopters.

About Irving's pricing policies:  completely separate discussion.


----------



## AlexanderM

Never mind, looks like the Germans are having all kinds of problems with the Braunschweig-class corvettes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think that, if I'm a naval commander, I love my "heavies." When they are supported by an AOR they give me (my country) a global, _strategic_, power projection capability ... what's not to love?

What's not to love? They cost an arm and a leg: $billions to build, $millions to crew every month; then $tens of thousands to fuel and maintain every day at sea.

So, if I'm a naval commander, much as I love my "heavies" I need a small combatant - which costs $millions, maybe over $100 Million, to build; $tens of thousands to crew for a month; and only $thousands to send for a day at sea. I want something that costs 10% of a "heavy" and gives me 15% of its capability - which is enough for many, many domestic operations.

If I can have 3,000 tons and 25 knots with a crew of 35 for $150 Million and less than $1,000/hour at sea then fine, I'm happy; but my guess, based on what I've read here, is that my desired 10:1 cost ratio means I have to settle for less than 1,500 tons and 20 knots.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think that, if I'm a naval commander, I love my "heavies." When they are supported by an AOR they give me (my country) a global, _strategic_, power projection capability ... what's not to love?
> 
> What's not to love? They cost an arm and a leg: $billions to build, $millions to crew every month; then $tens of thousands to fuel and maintain every day at sea.
> 
> So, if I'm a naval commander, much as I love my "heavies" I need a small combatant - which costs $millions, maybe over $100 Million, to build; $tens of thousands to crew for a month; and only $thousands to send for a day at sea. I want something that costs 10% of a "heavy" and gives me 15% of its capability - which is enough for many, many domestic operations.
> 
> If I can have 3,000 tons and 25 knots with a crew of 35 for $150 Million and less than $1,000/hour at sea then fine, I'm happy; but my guess, based on what I've read here, is that my desired 10:1 cost ratio means I have to settle for less than 1,500 tons and 20 knots.



I believe that your requirements are not unrealistic.  The difference is dependent on the definition of a "heavy".    When I call for a vessel that displaces 3000 tonnes I don't expect her to have 3000 tonnes of metal permanently bolted to her frame.   I'm calling for a 1500 tonne vessel that can add 1500 tonnes of "cargo".  That "cargo" could be "active cargo" in the form of weapons containers, or it could be smaller vessels, or soldiers and trucks, or it could be fuel, or even ballast.

In addition to the Hollands at about 155 MUSD each, and the 2500 tonne Spanish BAM at 160 MUSD each there are other 3000 tonne class OPVs, notably the Icelandic Thor at 4000 tonnes and the Norwegian Barentshav and Harstads at 3200 tonnes.   Those vessels can operate with crews less than half of your target of 35 and prices published are generally under 100 MUSD each.   The one characteristic that may be harder to achieve, as Underway suggests, is 25 knots.  Engines to supply maximum speeds of 20 knots is generally more common.

In the larger class of ships (frigates proper) the Absolon and the Huitfeld both displace 6500 tonnes at full load.  The Absolon manages a top speed of 24 knots with 2 engines of 8.8 MW each while the Huitfeldt, which carries an additional 2 engines (total of 4x 8.8 MW) can only increase her top speed by an additional 4 knots.    Meanwhile Absolon, has 2000 tonnes of disposable displacement for the mix of cargoes I listed above.

The issue is not the size of the vessel so much as it his the electronic gizmos you pack into her.  If you can manage the risk by controlling deployments and threat environments then not all the vessels need all the weapons and sensors all the time.   Many low risk deployments (Our EEZ, the Caribbean, the Med, the North Atlantic currently - perhaps even the Horn of Africa) don't need all the gear that, say, a South China Seas deployment might need in 5 or 10 years.   If the threat level increases generally then some of that cargo capacity can be sacrificed for more weapons, sensors and unmanned vehicles.


----------



## AlexanderM

The Spanish Bam design looks very nice, 2500 tonnes, lots of room for mission containers, helicopter with hanger, 20 knots, 8700 mile range.  With the ESSM's and ASW kit in the containers and that range, it becomes a vessel that can be deployed, not just for home waters, although a bit more speed would be nice.  If the hull and engines were tweaked for more speed, one could almost build a couple less heavies and more of these, which would increase the budget.  

I didn't see room for mission containers on the Holland, did I miss it?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You can only "tweak" the hull design so much, which really means in almost all cases lengthening it. The effects of hull design are well known and can be fairly easily computer modeled. The problem is that once you reach the hulls maximum speed, any knot beyond that requires a significant increase in power and fuel consumption. You can "cheat" by using non-conventional designs like SWATH. Again nothing comes for free in ship design.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> You can only "tweak" the hull design so much, which really means in almost all cases lengthening it. The effects of hull design are well known and can be fairly easily computer modeled. The problem is that once you reach the hulls maximum speed, any knot beyond that requires a significant increase in power and fuel consumption. You can "cheat" by using non-conventional designs like SWATH. Again nothing comes for free in ship design.


OK so it could at least be looked at to see what might be done, if one was serious about the design.  If 20 knots was it, I'd say use it for home waters, still a good looking design.  However, if one could find a way to get the spedd up to 26 or 28 knots, then it could be deployed meaning less heavies, even go down to 12.


----------



## Kirkhill

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The Spanish Bam design looks very nice, 2500 tonnes, lots of room for mission containers, helicopter with hanger, 20 knots, 8700 mile range.  With the ESSM's and ASW kit in the containers and that range, it becomes a vessel that can be deployed, not just for home waters, although a bit more speed would be nice.  If the hull and engines were tweaked for more speed, one could almost build a couple less heavies and more of these, which would increase the budget.
> 
> I didn't see room for mission containers on the Holland, did I miss it?



No. You didn't miss it.  But given that Damen has that capability in the Holland's smaller sisters (1800 to 2600),  I don't think it would be much of a "stretch" to add the capability.  On the other hand, perhaps the 2600 is all the ship we need as an MCDV replacement.  Or even this Fassmer OPV 2020.  Both those vessels get ERC up towards his 25 knot requirement and keep me happy with a big enough flight deck and flexible mission spaces.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or even this Fassmer OPV 2020.  Both those vessels get ERC up towards his 25 knot requirement and keep me happy with a big enough flight deck and flexible mission spaces.


Kirkhill, this is the sexiest design yet!  Sold!  We'll take at least 10, of the 25 knot model.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Is a helicopter, with the apparent attendant increase in displacement and crew required, really worth it ~ for my "cheap" alternative/MCDV replacement ~ rather than UAVs?


----------



## AlexanderM

If it's going to be deployed for say anti-pirate, and ASW duties then I'd want the helicopter, if it's only for our waters then either UAV or smaller helicopter would be OK.  I like the idea of having a corvette, which is a combatant, and can be deployed like a frigate, at least for some applications, anti-pirate/ASW/escort, so the helicopter works.  Then that would also mean fewer heavies.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is a helicopter, with the apparent attendant increase in displacement and crew required, really worth it ~ for my "cheap" alternative/MCDV replacement ~ rather than UAVs?



I'll stipulate that I believe you will pay a price in displacement to mount a "lily pad" but I believe that to be a _sine qua non_ for any vessel that Canada sends to sea.  The benefits in connectivity and utility are just too great to ignore.

With respect to ongoing costs - well the crew needs only to be increased by the flight det when the helicopter is embarked.  If the mission doesn't require a Medium, or even a Medium-Heavy helicopter then a Flight/Swarm of UAVs and light helo can be carried instead.  Or maybe no helo is embarked at all.

However with the lily pad the vessel can be reconfigured rapidly while 1000 km from shore (not with heavy weapons necessarily although rearming becomes possible).  The vessel can be upgraded from a sentinel, to a troop transport, to a mother ship, without ever coming alongside.

And it adds a FARP node to extend my transport conveyor / checker board, which I believe to be the greatest advantage of a maritime asset.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'll stipulate that I believe you will pay a price in displacement to mount a "lily pad" but I believe that to be a _sine qua non_ for any vessel that Canada sends to sea.  The benefits in connectivity and utility are just too great to ignore.
> 
> With respect to ongoing costs - well the crew needs only to be increased by the flight det when the helicopter is embarked.  If the mission doesn't require a Medium, or even a Medium-Heavy helicopter then a Flight/Swarm of UAVs and light helo can be carried instead.  Or maybe no helo is embarked at all.
> 
> However with the lily pad the vessel can be reconfigured rapidly while 1000 km from shore (not with heavy weapons necessarily although rearming becomes possible).  The vessel can be upgraded from a sentinel, to a troop transport, to a mother ship, without ever coming alongside.
> 
> And it adds a FARP node to extend my transport conveyor / checker board, which I believe to be the greatest advantage of a maritime asset.




Excellent point, thanks.

But, am I correct is thinking that the flight deck and hanger does require a few hundred more tons ~ taking us from my _desired_ <1,500 tons to something like 1,800± tons?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

For smaller ships, you may not require much of a hangar at all.  A flight deck with refuelling facilities is damned useful all on its own with imposing much (if any) weight penalty.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You can put a lightweight pad, in fact you could have a pad mounted on top of containers, but you won't be landing a Sea King on it. 

go to 6:30  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzUTundMaeQ&list=PLf1iBen1P1nwYSxH387g_DGq_UFrdtzho

Of course we could contract the Sea Shepard Society to modify our vessels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1J9get8m6E

Laugh as you will, but it goes to show you what can be done when the need is great. I would not fly with that Tuna pilot, he is a showoff and I have already used up all my luck in helicopters and very picky about with whom, where, when and why i fly.

Here is the CCG helo at work, more in the military comfort level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBoDmzMFKX0


----------



## AlexanderM

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, am I correct is thinking that the flight deck and hanger does require a few hundred more tons ~ taking us from my _desired_ <1,500 tons to something like 1,800± tons?


You can get a flight deck and hanger in 1000 tonnes, but different design.


----------



## Monsoon

Colin P said:
			
		

> Of course we could contract the Sea Shepard Society to modify our vessels
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1J9get8m6E
> 
> Laugh as you will, but it goes to show you what can be done when the need is great. I would not fly with that Tuna pilot, he is a showoff and I have already used up all my luck in helicopters and very picky about with whom, where, when and why i fly.


Stability-alicious


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The wheel has already been invented.

It's 1700 tons, has a helo with "bear trap", is ice capable for Antarctic ops, small crew, 23 kts., small mods could put a 57 bofors on the front instead of an automatic 25 mm chain gun, after deck can accommodate containerized systems for all sorts of things including small missiles, in "war" time, you can mount a tail on that after deck and carry some torps for the help. In use by our "ally" New-Zealand, and best of all: the design belongs to a Canadian company based in Vancouver: STX Marine.

http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV85-br-web.pdf

Should we acquire six to eight of these babies, I am willing to bet that, in case of heightened world tension, Canadian yards could start putting them out at the rate of one or two every month, with a six to eight months first off lead time.


----------



## AlexanderM

23 knots isn't bad, looks very similar to the Spanish BAM design, just a bit smaller.  The Fassmer OPV 2020 is much, much sexier.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The wheel has already been invented.
> 
> It's 1700 tons, has a helo with "bear trap", is ice capable for Antarctic ops, small crew, 23 kts., small mods could put a 57 bofors on the front instead of an automatic 25 mm chain gun, after deck can accommodate containerized systems for all sorts of things including small missiles, in "war" time, you can mount a tail on that after deck and carry some torps for the help. In use by our "ally" New-Zealand, and best of all: the design belongs to a Canadian company based in Vancouver: STX Marine.
> 
> http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV85-br-web.pdf
> 
> Should we acquire six to eight of these babies, I am willing to bet that, in case of heightened world tension, Canadian yards could start putting them out at the rate of one or two every month, with a six to eight months first off lead time.



Aw shucks.  Someone always has to come along and take all the fun out of things.   ;D

Good solution.  What would it take to increase that flight deck to support a Chinook?  I believe the RN's Clyde is Chinook capable.  It can certainly land a  Merlin although it can't hangar it (for that matter it can't hangar anything as a hangar is absent).

One of the other advantages is it would likely put more work on the West Coast given that it is an STX design.  (But there again the AOPS was also an STX design).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A Chinook would be out of its league, unless you accepted to lose the after deck space and extend the landing pad with the attendant loss of containerized equipment.

But the structural changes and hangar adaptations required to handle a Merlin (maybe- who knows now) or a Cyclone is well within the design capacity.


----------



## AlexanderM

If it will handle a Cyclone that's more than good enough.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The wheel has already been invented.
> 
> It's 1700 tons, has a helo with "bear trap", is ice capable for Antarctic ops, small crew, 23 kts., small mods could put a 57 bofors on the front instead of an automatic 25 mm chain gun, after deck can accommodate containerized systems for all sorts of things including small missiles, in "war" time, you can mount a tail on that after deck and carry some torps for the help. In use by our "ally" New-Zealand, and best of all: the design belongs to a Canadian company based in Vancouver: STX Marine.
> 
> http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV85-br-web.pdf
> 
> Should we acquire six to eight of these babies, I am willing to bet that, in case of heightened world tension, Canadian yards could start putting them out at the rate of one or two every month, with a six to eight months first off lead time.




That ship is pretty close to being within my "envelope" - displacement (albeit a bit heavy), speed, complement (35), armament, and it can even carry a rifle platoon, minus, for a few days, but my _Google-fu_ is weak and I cannot find any cost data.

I take you back to my original "requirement:" 10% of the cost of a "heavy" for 15%+ of a heavy's capabilities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Somewhere I have seen a picture of a Lab sitting on the deck of the George E. Darby,  (a oil rig tender turned CCG SAR vessel) I did find this picture of the CCG S61 landing on her deck likely up near Prince Rupert/QCI






http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4090/5073417067_5460ce6041_z.jpg

My suggestion is the Navy lease one of these Ice capable oil rig supply vessels, paint it grey and start playing in the Arctic. By the time you get an ice capable ship you will have Ice capable deck officers and crew. Plus it can act as a floating Depot ship for large helicopters like the Sea King/Cormorant/Chinook for your Northern adventures. I suspect they fear doing this as the TB will say "gee that's way cheaper than building purpose design ships". 

The ship will work in the summers, man it with a mix of Regs/Reserves and a sprinkling of CCG Officers to mentor the Captain on ice navigation. Such a ship can run with a 30 man crew or less depending on mission and the age of the ship.


----------



## Kirkhill

ERC:

How much do you want to budget for a Heavy?  Because I can find numbers all the way from 230 MUSD (the Danes) to 1100 MUSD (the Spanish, Brits and Yanks) with most folks clustered around the 500 to 800 MUSD range (Norwegians, Spanish, Dutch, French, Italians).

For patrol ships, well the Icelanders built a stretched version of the Norwegian Barentshav in Chile for 38.6 MUSD (4000 tonne Thor) while the Spanish paid 160 MUSD for their 2500 tonne BAMs and the Dutch paid 155 MUSD for their 3750 tonne Hollands.

The Clyde cost the RN 50 MUSD (30 MUKP) to charter for 5 or 6 years  including in-service support for that period.

And before people get bent out of shape about leasing military gear, didn't we lease some tanks recently?  And I believe the Czechs are leasing Gripens from the Swedes.  Presumably these are all self-insured.






Thor in Halifax






Merlin aboard Clyde (Image)


According to Wikipedia  the 1450 tonne Leeds  Castle  took a Chinook onboard athwartships.

With respect to the 10:1 ratio I would point out that if the Norwegian Ministry of Defence were in charge of our budget then one of their Nansen class "Heavies" bought from Spain at 710 MUSD apiece would buy 10 6000 tonne Svalbards at 70 MUSD each.  The same ship that prompted the whole AOPS discussion in the first place.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin,

We used to have those. They were known as HMCS MORESBY and HMCS ANTICOSTI. They were used as gap training platform to switch the reservists from the Gate vessels seamanship platforms to the MCDV minesweeping platforms. MORESBY even performed, in the early 90's, a first since WWII by fueling aft at sea.

One of the two, I can't remember which one, was transferred to the CFAV upon its decommissioning, to replace St-Anthony in its ocean going tug/support ship role.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting, will digging around also found pictures of CCG 95' R class in naval service as well, lot's happened on the east coast I was not aware of!


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Colin,
> 
> We used to have those. They were known as HMCS MORESBY and HMCS ANTICOSTI. They were used as gap training platform to switch the reservists from the Gate vessels seamanship platforms to the MCDV minesweeping platforms. MORESBY even performed, in the early 90's, a first since WWII by fueling aft at sea.
> 
> One of the two, I can't remember which one, was transferred to the CFAV upon its decommissioning, to replace St-Anthony in its ocean going tug/support ship role.



Funny OGBD, I was just thinking about those myself and came across this on the Anticosti from May of this year.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting, will digging around also found pictures of CCG 95' R class in naval service as well, lot's happened on the east coast I was not aware of!



I captained Rally for a while, well, OIC'd as they were considered tenders in the Navy, not commissioned ships.


----------



## Kirkhill

Damen

Came across this Damen presentation on an OPV for the Bahamas.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I captained Rally for a while, well, OIC'd as they were considered tenders in the Navy, not commissioned ships.



I served on the Ready and Racer, we did 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off. 6hrs on 6 off and then switched to 12 on 12 off. As I recall we crewed with 11 people. An interesting ride in 80kts off of the North end of Vancouver Island!


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to ERC's question about the budget for the STX Protector proposed by OGBD:

According to this article 500 MNZD (408 MUSD) bought the RNZN the 9000 tonne Canterbury (arguably broadly similar to the Danish Absalon but with less offensive capability), two of the 1900 tonne and 85m  Protectors (Otago and Wellington) and four of the 340 tonne and 55m inshore vessels.

According to Wiki the Canterbury cost 130 MNZD (105 MUSD current) while the IPVs cost 4x 36 MNZD (117 MUSD current).  That leaves the 85m vessels at 408-222 or 186 MUSD the pair or 93 MUSD each.

Interesting question:  Which gives Canada more international heft?  4 CSCs at 500 MCAD each or 4 Flotillas similar in composition to the RNZNs fleet.  Taking 4 CSCs off the board would still leave 11 or 12 Heavies on the board.   The dynamics would be more interesting if the Canterburys were replaced by Barebones Absalon variants of the CSCs.   You then have 15 or 16 Heavy hulls with full suites of weaponry for 11 or 12, 8 of the 85m OPVs and 16 of the 56m IPVs.  Manning costs would be down.  And you would have 23 or 24 lily pads.  Add in the two Berlins and the Karel Doorman and Bob's your uncle.  (Although I understand him to be younger).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks for that, Kirkhill, and, in answer to your earlier question: my _guesstimate_ is that we will pay $1Billion+ (maybe ++) for a "heavy" which is why I _spit-balled_ $125 Million for the small combatants/MCDV replacements a few days ago.

It seems to me that ships that come pretty close to my ideal (for building starting in about 2025) are available right now so, hopefully, Canadian yards will be willing and able to replace the MCDVs when the RCN finally decides to scrap them.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, Kirkhill, and, in answer to your earlier question: my _guesstimate_ is that we will pay $1Billion+ (maybe ++) for a "heavy" which is why I _spit-balled_ $125 Million for the small combatants/MCDV replacements a few days ago.
> 
> It seems to me that ships that come pretty close to my ideal (for building starting in about 2025) are available right now so, hopefully, Canadian yards will be willing and able to replace the MCDVs when the RCN finally decides to scrap them.



As always I enjoy the exercise.

The problem is not the lack of budget, manpower or technology.  All of those exist and can be managed.

I believe the problem is one of managing expectations (a problem known to everyone who has lived through Christmas) and more importantly determining whether the RCN is going to be a full service navy that permits Canada freedom of movement on the High Seas. Or is it going to continue to be an auxiliary force as it was to the RN and is now, to my eye, to the USN.  What the sailors do they do very well and have been reasonably well equipped for those tasks.  But slotting in the Rainbow and Niobe to the RN's order of battle, or taking the load off the RN's heavies by supplying convoy escorts, or adding ASW screens to USN Carrier Groups is not the same as fielding a force that can act truly independently across a broad spectrum of operations.

And a broad spectrum doesn't have to include Guadalcanal.  Adding 1 NZ flotilla to our force mix would broaden our ability to respond.

St-Laurent's navy promised that level of independence but Trudeau sank it.  The Bonnie's not coming back but technology has moved on and I believe helos and lilypads and small mother ships and unmanned or autonomous vessels can substitute for much of the capability that previously only a ship like HMCS Bonaventure could supply.


----------



## AlexanderM

The heavies are going to cost us $1.5+ billion.  $26 billion for 15, equals $1.73 B.  Drop it down to 12 and it frees up $5+ billion so we could budget $300 million per corvette and get something nice.  I would then do 12 heavies and 12 combatant covettes that can be deployed for anti-piracy/ASW/escort duties pretty much anywhere, as well as handle our coastal waters.  There would still be a couple billion left over for 2 amphibious assault ships.  This is me just dreaming, of course, but 12 destroyers/frigates, plus 12 combatant corvettes, plus 2 amphibious assaults ships would be a pretty nice looking fleet.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As always I enjoy the exercise.
> 
> The problem is not the lack of budget, manpower or technology.  All of those exist and can be managed.
> 
> I believe the problem is one of managing expectations (a problem known to everyone who has lived through Christmas) and more importantly determining whether the RCN is going to be a full service navy that permits Canada freedom of movement on the High Seas. Or is it going to continue to be an auxiliary force as it was to the RN and is now, to my eye, to the USN.  What the sailors do they do very well and have been reasonably well equipped for those tasks.  But slotting in the Rainbow and Niobe to the RN's order of battle, or taking the load off the RN's heavies by supplying convoy escorts, or adding ASW screens to USN Carrier Groups is not the same as fielding a force that can act truly independently across a broad spectrum of operations.
> 
> And a broad spectrum doesn't have to include Guadalcanal.  Adding 1 NZ flotilla to our force mix would broaden our ability to respond.
> 
> St-Laurent's navy promised that level of independence but Trudeau sank it.  The Bonnie's not coming back but technology has moved on and I believe helos and lilypads and small mother ships and unmanned or autonomous vessels can substitute for much of the capability that previously only a ship like HMCS Bonaventure could supply.




Now you're talking like Percy Nelles who also wanted a big, "broad spectrum" navy and who, in my _opinion_, was a fool weak and misguided CNS.

What was needed, as Leonard Murray _et al_ understood, was was absolutely essential, was to win the Battle of the Atlantic, and for that we needed a mix of those cheap, _quick and dirty_ corvettes, frigates and aircraft (land and carrier based). Convoy escort wasn't glamorous but it was one of the three big things that Canada did that really, really mattered; the other two were industrial production and the Commonwealth Air Training Plan. 

Our other naval contributions: including the cruisers, fast _Tribals_, and the brave motor torpedo boats were all distractions.







     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



RAdm Leonard Murray who understood the war                                                        &   VAdm Percy Nelles who didn't


----------



## Kirkhill

Circumstances.... they define everything.

Taking the load off in the North Atlantic from 1939 to 45 (and 1914 to 18) made sense.  There was a war on.  Freedom of movement (both political and on the high seas) was constrained by the reality of circumstances.  Absolutely no sense in building cruisers and carriers when corvettes, Liberators and Sunderlands were getting the job done.

Even during the Cold War, the threat (and looking back at it now it is harder to believe it was real) was perceived to be real enough that it made sense to function in concert with our allies.

However our current world, and the one coming, not only presents a multiverse of chaos but also an ever broadening array of opportunities for those equipped to exploit them.  And what better corporate entity to exploit them than a small nation sitting on the world's largest treasure chest.  

Empires are stultifying as they impose order and discipline.  The precursor to the enlightenment was the destruction of imperial order by buccaneers, corsairs, privateers, pirates, sea dogs, sea beggars and Dunkirkers.   The Royal Navy arose out of policing that miserable mob.

Canada doesn't have to aspire to policing the world's seas, although I believe it should contribute to the attempt.  But it should aspire to being able to project force to defend Canadian interests across as much of the globe as it can and, while its at it take Canadian values and laws along with it.

That ability to act globally in a variety of scenarios (not everywhere and not in every situation) demands a general purpose, broad spectrum fleet.

Percy Nelles could rightly be accused of aggrandisement (I don't necessarily accuse him of self-aggrandisement) at an inappropriate juncture in history.  On the other hand, he wasn't the first or even the only WW2 figure who kept a weather-eye on the end of the war and decided that the opportunity to make hay while the sun shone should be exploited.

Before WW2 Percy's navy was small.  After WW2 Percy's navy was small.  In neither period had or has the government or the navy been able to  make the case to prairie farmers for the need for a naval force.  During WW2, all of a sudden, prairie farmers were heading to sea in their tens of thousands.  There was money to build ships.

In 1939 to 1943 the requirement was to cover the ocean with sentinels to protect the convoys (range of action was a far as a corvette could chuck a depth charge while motoring along at 16 knots).  By the end of 1943, and with the Reich being put on its back foot, a case could be made for converting some of that effort into building up an independent post-war force.

Circumstances today not only permit a Broad Spectrum force, they demand it. 

Your servant sir.  

Edit to add a PS:

With respect to the New Zealand Flotilla I would swap the four 55m vessels for a third 85m and then equip all the ships in the flotilla with both a flight deck and a pair of CB-90s.  1x Absolon CSC, 3x Protector 1900, 8x CB-90 and a mixed air fleet ranging from Scaneagles to Cyclone/Merlins (connected to friendly shores by Chinooks) could police a very large bit of real estate.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Now you're talking like Percy Nelles who also wanted a big, "broad spectrum" navy and who, in my _opinion_, was a fool weak and misguided CNS.
> 
> What was needed, as Leonard Murray _et al_ understood, was was absolutely essential, was to win the Battle of the Atlantic, and for that we needed a mix of those cheap, _quick and dirty_ corvettes, frigates and aircraft (land and carrier based). Convoy escort wasn't glamorous but it was one of the three big things that Canada did that really, really mattered; the other two were industrial production and the Commonwealth Air Training Plan.
> 
> Our other naval contributions: including the cruisers, fast _Tribals_, and the brave motor torpedo boats were all distractions





Fully agree with the highlighted part there ... and the post in general.

BTW, another plus for the Otago's should they be put in Canadian service: Room to train reservists. Those 30 bunks for embarked force will necessarily be unused the majority of the time. That gives you 30 bunks on each ship to fill with reservists trying to get their sea time in for OJT without depriving the ships of their normal crew. If you make the normal crewing a mix of regulars and reserves, you have the perfect situation of having the regulars ensuring the maintenance of high standards and the reservist being able to demonstrate on an ongoing basis their capabilities and usefulness to the future leaders of the Navy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Edit to add a PS:
> 
> With respect to the New Zealand Flotilla I would swap the four 55m vessels for a third 85m and then equip all the ships in the flotilla with both a flight deck and a pair of CB-90s.  1x Absolon CSC, 3x Protector 1900, 8x CB-90 and a mixed air fleet ranging from Scaneagles to Cyclone/Merlins (connected to friendly shores by Chinooks) could police a very large bit of real estate.



Unfortunately Kirkhill, the CB-90's are NOT davit carried boats They operate from wells or they could be slung from cranes on large ships - but not small ones like Otago class vessels. If you modified the Otagos to host them in a stern well, then you would have to trade in both the containerized systems AND the embarked force cabins, and then what would be the point of carrying them?


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Unfortunately Kirkhill, the CB-90's are NOT davit carried boats They operate from wells or they could be slung from cranes on large ships - but not small ones like Otago class vessels. If you modified the Otagos to host them in a stern well, then you would have to trade in both the containerized systems AND the embarked force cabins, and then what would be the point of carrying them?



You mean they can't be hoisted aboard like this?  






The trials were conducted by the Dutch and Royal Marines with the Rotterdam.  Admittedly she's a bit heavier than the Otago.

The CB90s are 13.3 tonnes dry and are 15.9m long.

Perhaps a deck arrangement more like the Damen 2600 (or even the AOPS) would be more in keeping. (Click on the OPV 2600 entry to access the PDF brochure).


Edit:  Came across this tidbit on the sea-keeping capabilities of the CB-90



> The LCVP MK5 can carry, at relatively good speed, some 35 soldiers or a light utility vehicle, but these capabilities are now regarded as secondary. The CB90 seats 18 Marines and takes their kit (and one of her good points is that said 18 Marines were able to all but sleep while riding out in Sea State 4, while people in a LCVP MK5 in the same sea conditions would throw up) but the RM requirement is for as few as 8, which means that some of the troops space on the CB90 in the Force Protection Craft will be likely “sacrificed” for fitting a few commodities and kit to enable longer unsupported sorties.



And there is always the pint-sized version operated by the Danes as an arctic SAR and general LCP.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Exactly my point.

First. The Rotterdam in an amphibious assault ship that, in marine terms is eight time the size of the Otago (not quite just a bit heavier).

Second: See how she is shipped in. That is known as a Portico crane. It has two independent cranes facing one another on an I-beam. See how the forward one is rated for 10 tons and the after one for 15. They can also each be moved individually along their half of the I-beam so as to adjust to different types of objects to hoist. I suspect they could accommodate different models of LCVP's or large RHIB or two normal RHIB's.

You could easily put them on HMCS VIMY RIDGE, however


----------



## Kirkhill

I yield....  

Suffice it to say we can afford to do a lot more with the Navy than keep Russian subs away from American carriers.

I look forward to the day that troops bounce from Trenton to Singapore to Vimy Ridge to a CSC to an OPV to a shore lodging to establish an Airhead and  be resupplied by C130s and C177s

Trenton-Singapore by CC150
Singapore to Vimy by CH-147 (CH-147s delivered to Singapore by CC177)
Vimy to shore by CH-148(9) alighting on lily pads along the way.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I believe the problem is one of managing expectations (a problem known to everyone who has lived through Christmas) and more importantly determining whether the RCN is going to be a full service navy that permits Canada freedom of movement on the High Seas. Or is it going to continue to be an auxiliary force as it was to the RN and is now, to my eye, to the USN.



In an effort to change your perception just a few example from recent (last 20yrs) history

1991 - The Gulf War.  Canada held the only non-US command for naval matters.  We were in charge of the resupply lanes just outside the Straits of Hormuz including US, British, French and Argentine ships.  
2001 Sept 11 - HMCS IROQUOIS was the first ship in North America to respond and cover NY airspace.
2002-3  - OP ATHENA.  Canada deployed a full TG of a CC Destroyer and 2 Frigates adding in an AOR as well as MPA.   The commodore was in command of a number of US ships and was tasked with protecting LPD's, LPH's etc... of the US Marine Corps as they moved troops back and forth by helo to Afghanistan
2011 Libya - HMCS CHARLOTTETOWN was in command of a NATO task group patrolling off of Libya where they became the first ship since Korea to take enemy fire.

Not to mention the War in Iraq where we were not in conflict but "helping" quite a bit with command and control of US assets again.

There are other good examples of Canadian Naval leadership or independence in action.  Yes we plug into NATO and the US groupings quite a bit, but the Task Group concept is key to ensuring we are not just an auxiliary formation.  This is extremely important, as demonstrated by the Australian commitment to OP ATHENA (or whatever they called it) required them to embark their TG command team aboard a US destroyer (incidentally that embarrassment and the obvious "best practice" demonstrated by the RCN lead to the requirement for the HOBART's).

The issue here is "full service".  There are things we will never do because we can't afford them or have a requirement for them strategically, they are even listed in Leadmark 2020:
-Strategic attack
-Amphibious assault (vice sealift)
-Maritime pre-positioning
-Fleet Air (carrier) capability (vice organic air or helo's/UAV's embarked on smaller ships)
-Force Mine Countermeasures - aka having a ship be part of the Standing NATO Response Force Mine Countermeasures Group 1
-Offensive and defensive mine laying
-Nuclear, chemical, biological weapons
-Submarine salvage

IMHO the largest concern here is the capability gap caused by the eventual retirement of the Tribals and the timeframe for the Berlins to arrive.

As for choosing an MCDV replacement I noticed that so far all of the examples do not have a MCM or route survey capability.  Mayhaps that be a requirement as well?  Certainly some of the designs out there could do MCM well could they not?


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway:

I take your point and want to make it clear that I was not denigrating the work the RCN has done, is doing and is capable of doing.   The RCN, like the rest of the CAF, has a long tradition of doing things with the tools at hand and not the tools they want/need.

For me the particular question is:  Do you have the right array of tools available to perform the operations likely to be encountered in the (un)foreseeable future?

I don't want to deny you the tools that will permit you to continue with your current capabilties.  What I would like is to modify the tools at hand to permit a greater range of utility, especially in joint operations.

With respect to the latter I have mixed feelings about Big Honking Ships because they will always be few in number, as a result will never be in the right place, will take weeks to get where they are required and make marvelous targets.

I prefer an approach that permits the RCN to contribute to the ability of the RCAF to move CA troops around the world by providing moveable heliports with short-stay hotels.

When the Army is not in residence then the RCN and RCAF can spread out and enjoy their bigger cabins.

The same heliport facilities permit crew changes / capability modifications at sea and longer times on station.

The intent is to try to add a flight deck to an MCM capable vessel and not to replace the MCM with a troop transport.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It seems to me (a landlubber) that if we decide we need mine countermeasure vessels then we ought to build a few good ones and they can, probably, also do coastal defence duties (FishPats, etc) until there are mines to counter. A helipad is not a necessity for either mine warfare coastal defence duties, as far as I can see ~ nice to have, I guess, but not a "must have."

Now, maybe we need, and can afford: (8-12) heavies + (6-10) middleweight _corvettes_ (fast, small crews, multi-role, can carry a helicopter) + (6) AOPS + (4-8) mine warfare ships, real small combatants with small crews and no flight deck + (2 or 3) AORS + (4-6) submarines + assorted tenders and training vessels.


----------



## Kirkhill

I generally try to stretch the planning envelope as far as I can until somebody says "You can't do that!".

Your fleet gives me 22 to 31 "lily pads" without including the mine warfare ships but including the AOPS.  That works for me.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I recall, albeit through the mists of time, a rater frightening staff college discussion about mine warfare. One of our Canadians (later VAdm Lynn Mason) started by haranguing the assembled multitudes, including the guest lecturer (USN RAdm) and some other visiting firemen, for ignoring the mine threat and failing to take the (pretty cheap, especially compared to the then brand new 280s) actions (new minesweepers) needed. I recall that he and another Canadian student (Barry Ridgewell, a diver) more or less took over the USN admiral's session and scared the living you know what out of us with an impromptu lecture on what mines can (and cannot) do to us ... especially in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and in Halifax.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think the "bottom of the sea" is going to become a much more interesting place:

DARPA Falling Upwards
DARPA Hydra Drones

Add in the conventional threats like moored mines, bottom dwelling mines and captors and you are facing "brilliant" minefields over much larger areas than the traditional choke points.

On the other hand the counter battle is well underway.

MCM Drones

One of the more interesting images is of a RHIB lauching an MCM AUV.  








> An 11 meter Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat launched from Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) Interim (I) USS Ponce equipped to carry the Mk 18 Mod 2 Kingfish mine hunting UUV. ( U.S. Navy photo by Chief Aerographer's Mate Jamie McClain/Released)




To return to something that OGBD said about having to choose between a stern trawlway and a working deck - I return to the Black Swan concept 










That's with a designed beam of 15.5 m vice the 11.3 m beam of the Kingstons and the 14.6 m beam of the Rasmussens (which also use stern recovery for their SAR boats).


----------



## MilEME09

This article has some weight here so revive.

*Two more navy defence ships taken out of service
*
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/two-more-navy-defence-ships-taken-out-of-service-1.1571859



> Two military coastal defence ships have quietly been taken out of service in an effort to cut costs, CTV News has learned.
> 
> The Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels were docked as a cost-saving measure, according to the Department of National Defence.
> 
> In total, five navy ships are no longer patrolling Canada's coasts.
> Related Stories
> 
> Defence bureaucracy still bloated 2 years after report
> DND to 're-examine' cut to danger pay for troops in Afghanistan
> DND HQ admin costs rising, despite pressure to cut back: PBO
> 
> In a statement to CTV News, the DND said the vessels' activities have been reduced for the short-term, "resulting in cost-savings related to operational maintenance and in-service support related expenditures."
> 
> "Defence experts that I've spoken to are questioning how this is going to affect the navy's operations," CTV's Mercedes Stephenson told News Channel on Tuesday. "The navy maintains that there will be no impact on maritime security, even though they will have two fewer ships."
> 
> In 2010, the head of Canada's navy ordered half of the country's maritime coastal defence vessels to be docked indefinitely, but the decision was reversed following intense political pressure.
> 
> The navy operates 12 Kingston-class vessels, but only seven are currently operational.
> 
> The ships are responsible for patrolling Canada's coasts, enforcing fisheries laws and participating in search-and-rescue operations.
> 
> The latest cuts mean that one less ship will be patrolling each coast.



five ships total are now docked due to budget cuts. Which ships and which coasts is unknown


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This article has some weight here so revive.
> 
> *Two more navy defence ships taken out of service
> *
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/two-more-navy-defence-ships-taken-out-of-service-1.1571859
> 
> five ships total are now docked due to budget cuts. Which ships and which coasts is unknown



It says on the article that one ship per coast is getting stood down.


----------



## TwoTonShackle

Two MCDVs have been consistently tied up (extended readiness) for several years on the East Coast, (since shortly after KIN electrical fire in '09?).  One has been zero manned, with only the two Regular force billets being filled (when possible) and the other with whatever crew could be salvaged/filled by NRCC and used as a manning pool for the rest of the fleet.  It would be nice if the billets on these ships were still filled/offered to Reservists and in turn managed by PCC as all ships in the fleet seem to be sailing with some departments at or below minimum manning these days.


----------



## Stoker

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> Two MCDVs have been consistently tied up (extended readiness) for several years on the East Coast, (since shortly after KIN electrical fire in '09?).  One has been zero manned, with only the two Regular force billets being filled (when possible) and the other with whatever crew could be salvaged/filled by NRCC and used as a manning pool for the rest of the fleet.  It would be nice if the billets on these ships were still filled/offered to Reservists and in turn managed by PCC as all ships in the fleet seem to be sailing with some departments at or below minimum manning these days.



This was expected with the current state of manning and fiances unfortunately. I expect with the fall out of this more funds will be made available. Ship's do no good alongside.


----------



## MilEME09

Dimsum said:
			
		

> It says on the article that one ship per coast is getting stood down.



Of those two yes, but how about the total five that are down?


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Of those two yes, but how about the total five that are down?



Looks like 3 ships operating each coast.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> This was expected with the current state of manning and fiances unfortunately. I expect with the fall out of this more funds will be made available. Ship's do no good alongside.



Probably not, there are other higher priority navy priorities also not funded, and the sweeping funding cuts are driven by politics in the first place.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Probably not, there are other higher priority navy priorities also not funded, and the sweeping funding cuts are driven by politics in the first place.



Well we can always hope right. Its a shame that they were tied up as they were very busy. I might add that the ships being  "tied up" are fully manned and maintained and most likely will be sailing in April.


----------



## Stoker

Briefed today on the broad strokes of the plan for the ship's, without going into too much detail,  2 ships west coast and 1 ship east coast will go into extended readiness.  So that's 3 ship's total on each coast with a 4th crew each coast that will rotate through to prevent crew fatigue. This is a cost cutting measure on maintenance costs.  Everything will be reexamined in April when new money is released. No crew will lose their jobs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no more new money coming for a few more years, so this isn't for a few months.  Budget allocations are roughly set out for the next 3 fiscal years, so don't expect much to change before the next election, unless they do a complete 180 on the funding cuts that are part of DRAP.

It's all compounded by the work on the subs and the MLRs, and the rest of the fleet are unfortunate side effects.  As the MCDVs are maintained under the ISSC, there are significant short term NP savings associated with parking the boats in extended readiness.

There are obvious operational impacts, but when the other alternatives are the harbour tugs, fire boats or the other auxiliaries that are needed for normal operations, it's the lesser evil (weevil?).


----------



## blacktriangle

National Defence will never enjoy more than token support in Canada despite the valiant work of our men and women in uniform. I expect the war on terror/war in Afghanistan to be the high point of our military history for at least another generation, if not more. 

At this point we should feel fortunate to have jobs - ships, or no ships.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no more new money coming for a few more years, so this isn't for a few months.  Budget allocations are roughly set out for the next 3 fiscal years, so don't expect much to change before the next election, unless they do a complete 180 on the funding cuts that are part of DRAP.
> 
> It's all compounded by the work on the subs and the MLRs, and the rest of the fleet are unfortunate side effects.  As the MCDVs are maintained under the ISSC, there are significant short term NP savings associated with parking the boats in extended readiness.
> 
> There are obvious operational impacts, but when the other alternatives are the harbour tugs, fire boats or the other auxiliaries that are needed for normal operations, it's the lesser evil (weevil?).



No real operational impact really as the solution is to still do the allocated 500 sea days with 3 hulls vice 4. Savings are not that significant , a drop in the bucket really. As for money, who knows. The problem is money still need to be spent maintaining the hulls, certain ones will be better maintained than others. Ships will still go into refits. There is no plan in place to get rid of the MCDV's. Most people are glad, that no employment will be cut, billets are still funded.


----------



## Navy_Pete

There is actually significant savings between maintaining only what is required for being safe alongside and being fully capable to go to sea (most of the generators, radar/comms, and normal wear and tear repairs).  There will eventually be a cost on the other end to reactivate the gear on the other end but such is life.  We don't have money right now to do all the maintenance to keep them at sea, so not really an option.

Also, the article in the paper is probably more accurate then the briefing you saw on the coast.  There may not be any layoffs in the reserves but I'm sure there will be layoffs in the ISSC and the local contractors, which will take time to recover from if the funding is restored in a few years.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There is actually significant savings between maintaining only what is required for being safe alongside and being fully capable to go to sea (most of the generators, radar/comms, and normal wear and tear repairs).  There will eventually be a cost on the other end to reactivate the gear on the other end but such is life.  We don't have money right now to do all the maintenance to keep them at sea, so not really an option.
> 
> Also, the article in the paper is probably more accurate then the briefing you saw on the coast.  There may not be any layoffs in the reserves but I'm sure there will be layoffs in the ISSC and the local contractors, which will take time to recover from if the funding is restored in a few years.



Yes some of the local contractors have been indeed laid off. Maintenance is continuing on a smaller scale, weekly turning of machinery and monthly basin trials on at least one of the down hulls.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Looks like 3 ships operating each coast.




Rumour: the realities of *a)* budgets and *b)* the availability of _heavies_ have convinced the admirals that they need five MCDVs per coast; they don't _want_ them, they want destroyers and frigates, but they haven't got servicable destroyers any more and the available frigates are too few.


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Rumour: the realities of *a)* budgets and *b)* the availability of _heavies_ have convinced the admirals that they need five MCDVs per coast; they don't _want_ them, they want destroyers and frigates, but they haven't got serviceable destroyers any more and the available frigates are too few.



There has been so many changes since Dec on this its not funny. The taps have been turned on for PM and upgrades that you very well may see 5 ships each coast operating soon. Not sure on the crew make up of the 5th hull, most likely with a mix of reg and reserves as certain trades don't have the expertise to operate the ship yet. Hulls alongside no matter what they are do the Navy no good. Just goes to show you how things change fast.


----------



## Stoker

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> There has been so many changes since Dec on this its not funny. The taps have been turned on for PM and upgrades that you very well may see 5 ships each coast operating soon. Not sure on the crew make up of the 5th hull, most likely with a mix of reg and reserves as certain trades don't have the expertise to operate the ship yet. Hulls alongside no matter what they are do the Navy no good. Just goes to show you how things change fast.



Looks like 5 ships operating per coast is a go, with a 60/40 res/reg split eventually.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Looks like 5 ships operating per coast is a go, with a 60/40 res/reg split eventually.




That's a good move; it's the _smart_ move in the current circumstances. It will be a long while before there is anything like the number of _heavies_ the admirals want; they will have to get used to seeing the small combatants as the _workhorses_ of the fleets while the _heavies_ are cycled through far away theatres of operations. *Maybe* it would also be _smart_ to revisit the RCN's strategy to verify the fleet mix needed for, say, 2050.


----------



## Journeyman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's a good move......


One of the things I admired about the Navy was how they revisited _Leadmark_ on a regular basis to keep it (roughly) in-sync with reality.  Maybe it's time for Mahan and Corbett's protégé's to kick the dust off.


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's a good move; it's the _smart_ move in the current circumstances. It will be a long while before there is anything like the number of _heavies_ the admirals want; they will have to get used to seeing the small combatants as the _workhorses_ of the fleets while the _heavies_ are cycled through far away theatres of operations. *Maybe* it would also be _smart_ to revisit the RCN's strategy to verify the fleet mix needed for, say, 2050.



Absolutely the Arctic is not going away and with Russia sabers rattling about a increased presence the importance of sending naval assets to the North each year is,a good fit for the MCDV'S which they have done for years. OP Caribbe is another good fit and of course fisheries and other domestic ops. As I understand it force generation for the res and regs will be important and the bigger naval assets cycle in and out. What is being concentrated on now is PM and EC's to upgrade various systems to allow better capabilities.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Interestingly enough, at the time we were getting ready to move from the Gate Vessels to the MCDV's, the predominant view of the GV captains that had come up from the reserve ranks was that, after a 2-3 years full time manning blitz to get the reserve kick-started up the learning curve and accumulation of corporate knowledge base, steady state manning should be something like four MCDV per coast with a 50/50 split reg/res.

The only small difference was that we also envisioned that the "full" time reservists and the regulars would concentrate their career courses and leave in the summer so that bunks and billets would be available for "at units" reservists in that  higher period of availability for sea time.

We also figured that  equivalent billets should be available in alternance (i.e. one ship reg CO then res XO, the next ship res CO and reg XO, and so forth down the line). This would provide a capacity to maintain a high standard - set by the regulars - by providing reservists in any position with  a counterpart on another ship that he/she could measure himself/herself against. Also, should the need to deploy in an area/operation where it would be politically unpalatable to send reservists arise, you could quickly merge the regulars from two ships to form an all reg ship's company.

Are we there yet ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Absolutely the Arctic is not going away and with Russia sabers rattling about a increased presence the importance of sending naval assets to the North each year is,a good fit for the MCDV'S which they have done for years. OP Caribbe is another good fit and of course fisheries and other domestic ops. As I understand it force generation for the res and regs will be important and the bigger naval assets cycle in and out. What is being concentrated on now is PM and EC's to upgrade various systems to allow better capabilities.



leasing a smaller Icebreaker and manning it with Reserves/regs and a few CCG officers for ice experience would be useful to buildup a capacity that has been missing in the RCN since the Labrador days.

http://www.maritimedenmark.dk/?Id=16383

this site gives just an idea of what is out there http://commercial.apolloduck.com/advert.phtml?id=272324


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> leasing a smaller Icebreaker and manning it with Reserves/regs and a few CCG officers for ice experience would be useful to buildup a capacity that has been missing in the RCN since the Labrador days.
> 
> http://www.maritimedenmark.dk/?Id=16383
> 
> this site gives just an idea of what is out there http://commercial.apolloduck.com/advert.phtml?id=272324



I know we been sending pers on a arctic operations course, not sure what exactly that entails though and I believe we're sent officers on ice breakers to gain ice experience. I envision CCG officers sailing on A/OPS when they deploy until we gain the required experience.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That would be a logical and practical thing to do, no doubt something/someone will come along to F*** it up.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Reuters is reporting that "The U.S. Navy on Wednesday asked U.S. and foreign weapons makers for technical and cost data on the design and weapons for a new possible small warship to succeed the Navy's current Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) by 2019."

The report says that "the Navy is reassessing the $34 billion LCS program that is building small and fast warships to hunt and fight mines, submarines and surface ships," and it "was not asking companies to launch a new design effort but to share data on present systems and capabilities, as well as designs that would be ready by 2019."

As I understand it our MCDVs would need replacing in the same time frame if, big *IF*, the admirals decide that they need a _balanced_ fleet of major combatants (destroyers and frigates) and small combatants (under 2,500 tons) plus support ships and submarines.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First of all, I would not call the American LCS "small" combatant, except in U.S.N. terms where it is a lot smaller than their smallest current warship: the Arleigh Burke Destroyers.

The two existing LCS (Freedom and Independence class) are as big as the old St-LAurent's were. I would not call those "small" combatant in a Navy such as ours and they would definitely exceed by orders of magnitude the complexity and manning requirements of the MCDV's.

I just don't see those as a good fit for Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First of all, I would not call the American LCS "small" combatant, except in U.S.N. terms where it is a lot smaller than their smallest current warship: the Arleigh Burke Destroyers.
> 
> The two existing LCS (Freedom and Independence class) are as big as the old St-LAurent's were. I would not call those "small" combatant in a Navy such as ours and they would definitely exceed by orders of magnitude the complexity and manning requirements of the MCDV's.
> 
> I just don't see those as a good fit for Canada.




I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.

I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of  German vessel, built by _Fassmer_.






Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel

I believe there is a role for small combatants in a _blue water_ navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even _foreign_ missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a _heavy_.


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.
> 
> I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of  German vessel, built by _Fassmer_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
> The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel
> 
> I believe there is a role for small combatants in a _blue water_ navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even _foreign_ missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a _heavy_.



Actually a nice little ship with a top speed of 22 knots, able to operate in cold weather environments. Price to build one I believe was cheaper than a MCDV. That would be a nice fit and a suitable replacement for the KINGSTON Class.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That I can agree with ERC.

There are numerous designs available in the 75m to 85m range of size, some even developed in B.C. by Tenix.

You do realize, however, that what you are advocating (and which most of us in the Navy have been secretly advocating - shhhhhhht!) is that the A and O be split in "AOPS".

No doubt in my mind that it would be better to have three real light-breaker Arctic patrol vessels and six real offshore patrol vessel, than 6 to 8 AOPS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Very nice looking ship, small helo deck and can be fitted with a 76mm gun. Plus it's a already gone through the design process. They can support CCG ops, but not land the bigger Cormorants, wonder if the deck would take a Griffon? Dauphin is 9500lbs max takeoff and Griffion is 12500lbs


_The third ship, the “Fuentealba” will be armed with a 76 mm Oto Melara gun also from a Type 148 missile boat. Some sources indicate its secondary armament will be up to 6 x 20 mm guns (probably old Oerlikon 20mm/70). This third ship has an ice strengthened hull and a different communications set, details have not been released yet. With these modifications “Fuentealba” will cost 43% more than the first two ships of the class, whose cost was less than $50M US each.   The flight deck and hangar are optimized for medium helicopters. Normally an AS-365 N2 Dauphin helicopter, similar to the MH-65, will be embarked. Typically it will be used for MIO and rescue operations. _

http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2014/04/13/three-nations-share-german-opv-design/

another picture


----------



## George Wallace

Yes.  A nice looking ship......Would make a nice yacht.  

Comments:  No Bear Trap for rough seas.  M2's on roof of Hangar are wide open to enemy fire, and really in an unsafe location.


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.  A nice looking ship......Would make a nice yacht.
> 
> Comments:  No Bear Trap for rough seas.  M2's on roof of Hangar are wide open to enemy fire, and really in an unsafe location.



Not every navy operates a haul down device, however I would imagine something could be fitted. As for the .50 cals very easy to reconfigure or even add a RCHMG or two.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Neither does the Coast Guard. It would limit usage, but in coastal waters, the ship can likely find sheltered water to launch and recover, which is what the CCG does, or the helio lands somewhere and waits for a better time to return to the ship.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.
> 
> I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of  German vessel, built by _Fassmer_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
> The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel
> 
> I believe there is a role for small combatants in a _blue water_ navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even _foreign_ missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a _heavy_.




This report, coupled with the RCN's experience with MCDVs on Op CARRIBE, _suggests to me_ that minor war vessels (displacing 1,000 to 2,000 tons) are an important _standing_ component  of the fleet, not just an adjunct that earns its keep every now and again.

I think the CF made a mistake, back in the 1980s when it decided that the MCDVs would be 'reserve force' ships; they are, almost automatically, _seen_ by the "real" Navy as nothing more than modernized gate boats: reserve training vessels. They have demonstrated that they are _operational_, not, necessarily, as well designed or equipped for _operations_ as one might like, but able to _operate_ in, many situations, where a 'heavy' cannot.

The AOPS, as I understand the _requirement_ is not, at 5,500+ tons and 100 m in length, a "minor war vessel" or "small combatant." I _believe_ the RCN needs a mix of vessels including, in the surface fleet, general purpose destroyers/frigates, special purpose warships like AOPS, and _operational_ small combatants/minor war vessels.


----------



## Infanteer

I would concur with your assessment Edward.  Corvettes (to use the broad term for the 500-2000 ton vessels) have a useful role to play in Continental aspects of maritime projection, allowing the larger warships to focus on expeditionary operations and I think the RCN's new policy of Reg/Res integration seems, on the face of things to this uneducated landlubber, to be a step in the right direction.


----------



## Kirkhill

Re "expeditionary":

Corvettes can also operate in the littorals of foreign countries - with appropriate support.  The MCDVs have regularly demonstrated this capability.  They too are expeditionary tools.

The appropriate question is at what points in the conflict spectrum do they become assets and, conversely, when do they become liabilities.

There is an awful lot of work out there for small vessels in the current array of conflict zones - most of which are low intensity.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Concur that we need small ships too.

And for those commenting on the absence of haul-down system, look at the length required to accommodate the flight deck + hangar on a HAL: It is not that long. With some design ingenuity, it is quite feasible to fit into a 75-85 meters, 1400-2000 tons design. We must not confuse the fact that many nations see a helicopter on a ship simply as a nice little adjunct, when weather permits, as opposed to Canada, where we see maritime helicopters as an integral part of the naval combat systems of any warship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus US and Canadian CG have used helo's without hauldowns for decades. Very true it limits usage without it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Especially for skid-equipped helicopters...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Skids are for kids... 8)


----------



## daftandbarmy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I would concur with your assessment Edward.  Corvettes (to use the broad term for the 500-2000 ton vessels) have a useful role to play in Continental aspects of maritime projection, allowing the larger warships to focus on expeditionary operations and I think the RCN's new policy of Reg/Res integration seems, on the face of things to this uneducated landlubber, to be a step in the right direction.



The Visby looks nice... and it's 'northern capable'

The Swedish Defence Procurement Agency (FMV) has delivered the final version of the first Visby-class corvette, HMS Visby (K31), to the Swedish Navy.

The 41st Corvette Division commander Anna-Karin Broth said: "There remain several trials and exams before we can start using HMS Visby fully, but right now it feels good that the ship is finally delivered to the Armed Forces.

"The vessel has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding results."

Currently, a crew of 43 are undergoing training to handle the ship and its systems.

The Kockums-built 73m-long HMS Visby has been designed for mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare (ASW), as well as to support attack and anti-surface warfare operations.

"The vessel has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding results."

Featuring a suite of ASW equipment, 127mm rocket-powered grenade launchers, depth charges and torpedoes, the Visby-class ships have a beam of 10.4m, a displacement capacity of 640t and can cruise at a maximum speed of 35k.

Visby (K31) was originally handed over to the Swedish FMV in June 2002; in June 2006, the second and third HMS Helsingborg (K32) and Harnosand (K33) were officially delivered.

FMV had taken delivery of the fourth vessels of the class, Nykoping (K34), in September 2006, while the fifth Visby-class vessel, Karlstad (K35), was launched in August 2006.

Visby-class corvettes have been developed to minimise the optical and infrared signature, underwater electrical potential and magnetic signature, above water acoustic and hydroacoustic signature, as well as radar cross section and actively emitted signals.

All five modernised ships are scheduled to be delivered to the Swedish Navy by 2014.

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsswedish-armed-forces-receives-first-visby-class-corvette


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> Plus US and Canadian CG have used helo's without hauldowns for decades. Very true it limits usage without it.



Is this, the RN's experiment a potential answer to shipborne aircraft for small combatants?











I know 14 feet is a lot of space on a small combatant, but the current _Kingston_ class ships have fairly spacious decks, don't they? (That's a serious question for the sailors.)


----------



## TwoTonShackle

When we tested the ScanEagle on the Glace Bay ~2010, the launcher, catcher took up the whole sweep deck (quarterdeck) of the MCDV.  The legs of the devices were criss-crossed as well, making it interesting to maneuver around them.  The units themselves were tied down with chain ties, (borrowed from the Toronto Helo Det if I remember correctly), and were done in the best manner possible.  So it basically looked like spider-men went nuts with chain webbing, as we did not have the optimal tie down points for the equipment.  The pod section was used as the control station for it, so basically one unit used pretty much occupied the whole aft end.  It didn't impede launching the rescue boat, but line handlers had to take more care when moving around at night due to the legs and chains on deck.
I remember speaking to the commodore at the time about further use of the drones and MCDV's.  His response was although it was viable, it would be more advantageous to deploy them from a frigate that could operate 4-6 at a time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Visby looks nice... and it's 'northern capable'
> 
> The Swedish Defence Procurement Agency (FMV) has delivered the final version of the first Visby-class corvette, HMS Visby (K31), to the Swedish Navy.
> 
> The 41st Corvette Division commander Anna-Karin Broth said: "There remain several trials and exams before we can start using HMS Visby fully, but right now it feels good that the ship is finally delivered to the Armed Forces.
> 
> "The vessel has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding results."
> 
> Currently, a crew of 43 are undergoing training to handle the ship and its systems.
> 
> The Kockums-built 73m-long HMS Visby has been designed for mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare (ASW), as well as to support attack and anti-surface warfare operations.
> 
> "The vessel has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding results."
> 
> Featuring a suite of ASW equipment, 127mm rocket-powered grenade launchers, depth charges and torpedoes, the Visby-class ships have a beam of 10.4m, a displacement capacity of 640t and can cruise at a maximum speed of 35k.
> 
> Visby (K31) was originally handed over to the Swedish FMV in June 2002; in June 2006, the second and third HMS Helsingborg (K32) and Harnosand (K33) were officially delivered.
> 
> FMV had taken delivery of the fourth vessels of the class, Nykoping (K34), in September 2006, while the fifth Visby-class vessel, Karlstad (K35), was launched in August 2006.
> 
> Visby-class corvettes have been developed to minimise the optical and infrared signature, underwater electrical potential and magnetic signature, above water acoustic and hydroacoustic signature, as well as radar cross section and actively emitted signals.
> 
> All five modernised ships are scheduled to be delivered to the Swedish Navy by 2014.
> 
> http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsswedish-armed-forces-receives-first-visby-class-corvette



Seems their range is half that of the Kingston class and appears to be tailored for the shorter range stuff they do.


----------



## Edward Campbell

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> When we tested the ScanEagle on the Glace Bay ~2010, the launcher, catcher took up the whole sweep deck (quarterdeck) of the MCDV.  The legs of the devices were criss-crossed as well, making it interesting to maneuver around them.  The units themselves were tied down with chain ties, (borrowed from the Toronto Helo Det if I remember correctly), and were done in the best manner possible.  So it basically looked like spider-men went nuts with chain webbing, as we did not have the optimal tie down points for the equipment.  The pod section was used as the control station for it, so basically one unit used pretty much occupied the whole aft end.  It didn't impede launching the rescue boat, but line handlers had to take more care when moving around at night due to the legs and chains on deck.
> I remember speaking to the commodore at the time about further use of the drones and MCDV's.  His response was although it was viable, it would be more advantageous to deploy them from a frigate that could operate 4-6 at a time.




Thanks for that, but ... assuming that I'm right and that there is a valid operational requirement for a mixed, balanced fleet that includes several small combatants, say in the 1,500 ton range: is the UAV a suitable replacement for (not adjunct at) the helicopter?

(I know I'm "situating the appreciation," but I was in Ottawa for a long time so I learned that's how policy is made.)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems their range is half that of the Kingston class and appears to be tailored for the shorter range stuff they do.



Concur. The Visby's are basically a combination of an overgrown Fast Attack Craft with an Inshore ASW ship. They are not what we need, and they are miserable ships in a good storm offshore due to their very shallow draft, fairly flat bottom and high beam.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, but ... assuming that I'm right and that there is a valid operational requirement for a mixed, balanced fleet that includes several small combatants, say in the 1,500 ton range: is the UAV a suitable replacement for (not adjunct at) the helicopter?
> 
> (I know I'm "situating the appreciation," but I was in Ottawa for a long time so I learned that's how policy is made.)



Even on the MCDV's they would be a useful kit and could be accommodated on a smaller foot print, by moving the control station to the ops room or the bridge in a more permanent manner and using a smaller , container mounted launch rail. But in every case, you would have to trade in the capacity to carry out mine warfare. If you are going down on OP CARIBE, that is a fair trade in capability, but if you are going up North, you probably want the route survey/underwater detection gear capability at the same time as the Scan Eagles if you could (which you can't).

In a new 1500 tons + small combatant like the ones we all mentioned and put pics of above, the set up used by the Brits would work wonderfully as the launch ramp is wheel mounted to go in the hangar and just be rolled on the flight deck, and you can probably store three or four birds at the same time in the hangar easily.

I would be weary of leaving any of that gear exposed on the upper deck for long period of time (because sea salt spray plays havoc on airforce equipment).


----------



## Monsoon

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> I remember speaking to the commodore at the time about further use of the drones and MCDV's.  His response was although it was viable, it would be more advantageous to deploy them from a frigate that could operate 4-6 at a time.


A symptom of what you could call "small ship blindness" of the sort alluded to by Edward. Is the best way to operate six UAVs in a CARIBBE-style operation from a single platform with a crew of 220 and a unit cost of $1B, or from six ships with crews of 36 that cost $50M apiece that can be spread across the AOR? By any measure, the latter is the sounder approach. Maybe now that the Kingston class are being blended-crewed, mindsets will start to change about how they can be employed.


----------



## Kirkhill

Given that buddy has slung the Scan Eagle over his shoulder (fully loaded and fueled weight is 22 kg)






isn't there room enough to permanently mount a launch rail on the foredeck or even on the deck above the wheelhouse?






This is where the Scan Eagle began life, as a spotter for tuna boats, and that boat appears to be a lot smaller than an MCDV.

The vehicle cruises for over 24 hours (compared to 3 to 5 hours for a Cormorant/Cyclone and 10 to 17 hours for an Aurora) at an altitude of 19,500 ft (15,000 for the Cormorant and 35,000 for the CP-140) 

http://www.insitu.com/systems/scaneagle
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/aw101-helicopter/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/cp-140-aurora-maritime-surveillance-aircraft/

I don't see why an MCDV couldn't host a flight of 4 Scan Eagles and keep 2 to 3 of them on station on a permanent basis.

Add in Swarm Technology, where the birds talk to each other and adjust their search patterns autonomously and the MCDV becomes a great little reconnaissance and sovereignty platform.  Convert the Bofors to an RWS-40 and you could even add on something like Sea Ram to heavy up the punch and add a little Anti-Surface / Anti-Air capability.

Edit to add:

What Hamiltongs said.

Here's the smallest Boat-Launcher combination I could find (courtesy of Wiki)






A US Special Operations Craft.


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> A symptom of what you could call "small ship blindness" of the sort alluded to by Edward. Is the best way to operate six UAVs in a CARIBBE-style operation from a single platform with a crew of 220 and a unit cost of $1B, or from six ships with crews of 36 that cost $50M apiece that can be spread across the AOR? By any measure, the latter is the sounder approach. Maybe now that the Kingston class are being blended-crewed, mindsets will start to change about how they can be employed.



You heretic you.  Next you'll want to build a fleet of corvettes at a reliable offshore shipyard off a proven design with no customization to effectively patrol at a fraction of the cost.  Will no one think of the bloated, overpaid contractors and inefficient Canadian shipyards?


----------



## Kirkhill

DAP 

I was just talking to a buddy in Seattle that supplies RO systems to something like 70% of the Cruise ship market.  I asked him if he was in contact with Irving and Washington Marine. The answer was Washington yes, Irving not so much.  

Even in the States, no strangers to bloated defence contracts, Canada is considered in a league of its own. Nobody can figure out how we Canadians manage to suck up so much money and deliver so little.  Titans of capitalism us.  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You heretic you.  Next you'll want to build a fleet of corvettes at a reliable offshore shipyard off a proven design with no customization to effectively patrol at a fraction of the cost.  Will no one think of the bloated, overpaid contractors and inefficient Canadian shipyards?



How could you possibly propose something like that? Don't you know that there is no way you can't serve the ego of Admirals with a bunch of tiny little ships?  ;D


----------



## Stoker

Scan Eagle is certainly a great piece of kit, but no room on the sweepdeck of a MCDV with a accommodations module and LE Det/Utility pod. That being said the new Scan eagle 2 with the compact Mark 4 launcher could be accommodated fwd easily. http://www.insitu.com/scaneagle2


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How could you possibly propose something like that? Don't you know that there is no way you can't serve the ego of Admirals with a bunch of tiny little ships?  ;D



You mean like this guy?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_W._Murray

 ;D


----------



## Privateer

Northrop Grumman to Provide Gyrocompass Navigation Systems for the Royal Canadian Navy

Per news release: http://investor.northropgrumman.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112386&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2040117



> DARTMOUTH, Nova Scotia, April 27, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE: NOC) Sperry Marine business unit has been selected to design and supply gyrocompass navigation systems for 12  Kingston Class coastal defence vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy, as a subcontractor to SNC-Lavalin Defence Programs Inc.
> Northrop Grumman Corporation logo.
> 
> The contract will include Dual NAVIGAT X MK1™ gyrocompass systems, NAVITWIN IV™ Heading Management Systems and a complete suite of Heading Repeaters. Installation will start in June 2015 and extend through early 2017. Six of the vessels being upgraded are based in Esquimalt, British Columbia and six are based in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, where the first field tests will be conducted this summer.
> 
> Beyond the supply of equipment, the contract will also include system design and configuration, factory acceptance testing, commissioning, harbor acceptance testing, site acceptance testing as well as familiarization training, which will involve 12 trainers.
> 
> "Northrop Grumman's advanced gyrocompass systems will modernize the navigation capabilities of these Royal Canadian Navy coastal defence vessels, ensuring fleet readiness," said Jeanne Usher, managing director, Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine.
> 
> Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in unmanned systems, cyber, C4ISR, and logistics and modernization to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit www.northropgrumman.com for more information.
> 
> Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20121024/LA98563LOGO
> 
> To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/northrop-grumman-to-provide-gyrocompass-navigation-systems-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-300072249.html
> 
> SOURCE Northrop Grumman Corporation


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How could you possibly propose something like that? Don't you know that there is no way you can't serve the ego of Admirals with a bunch of tiny little ships?  ;D



I think those same Admirals saw that a more capable MCDV were a threat to the existence and replacement of larger ships. To be fair with a government willing to replace a tank with a MGS, it was a valid concern.


----------



## Stoker

Privateer said:
			
		

> Northrop Grumman to Provide Gyrocompass Navigation Systems for the Royal Canadian Navy
> 
> Per news release: http://investor.northropgrumman.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112386&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2040117



One of many upgrades for the Class that's planned and currently being implemented.


----------



## Underway

So what is the plan for the MCDV's going forward.  There's no "mid life" refit planned.  Their operational timeframe trails off to 2020+.  Are we just going to operate them until they fall apart (SOP) or is their contribution to the Navy important enough to replace with another platform.  Is the AOPS considered a partial replacement?

Its seems like there is no plan, as the RCN is dealing with putting out some critical fires (FELEX, JSS, AOPS) and the MCDV's are critical in ensuring that some international obligations are met (OP CARIBE).  

There's a role for cheap, smallish patrol ships.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> So what is the plan for the MCDV's going forward.  There's no "mid life" refit planned.  Their operational timeframe trails off to 2020+.  Are we just going to operate them until they fall apart (SOP) or is their contribution to the Navy important enough to replace with another platform.  Is the AOPS considered a partial replacement?
> 
> Its seems like there is no plan, as the RCN is dealing with putting out some critical fires (FELEX, JSS, AOPS) and the MCDV's are critical in ensuring that some international obligations are met (OP CARIBE).
> 
> There's a role for cheap, smallish patrol ships.



Even though the MCDV's had their midlife refit cancelled, many of the ships systems have been updated and many more planned. The ships are in very good shape with lots of years left in them,  as we saw before with the announcement that up to four would be tied up caused quite a bit of controversy  I can see AOPS doing some of the things the MCDV doing i.e. OP Caribbe/OP Nanook but they excel in their versatility and operating costs. With the loss of the Quest the MCDV's are stepping up again with DRDC tasks which AOPS won't be a waste to use doing. MCDV's are extremely busy force generating and whatever else they throw at us.


----------



## Infanteer

Hey, its the RCNs version of "Light Forces"!

I can see the value of a Corvette project for naval projection in the hemisphere and domestic operations duties.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hey, its the RCNs version of "Light Forces"!
> 
> I can see the value of a Corvette project for naval projection in the hemisphere and domestic operations duties.



Worked for the Battle of the Atlantic. 8)


----------



## Edward Campbell

The initial corvette was a true _desperation play_: it was cheap, a proven design, cheap and easy to build, not too difficult to sail and even fight with an inadequately trained/experienced crew, and so on.  But, very early in the war, the admirals recognized that the design was deficient and most corvettes were refitted with a much longer fo'csle. Midway through the war it was appreciated that the corvette was too small, too slow, just plain "not good enough" and the frigate was built, starting in 1941. It offered the size, speed, and endurance required for mid ocean escort duties, while using the inexpensive, easy to operate, reciprocating machinery of corvettes.











          An original, short fo'csle corvette                         A refitted corvette with a long fo'csle                      A River class frigate, bigger and better than corvette
             In common use until 1942/43                                  In use until then end of the war                       In use from about 1943 onwards, and in peacetime, too
                                                         _The evolution of the RCN's North Atlantic escort vessels from 1939 to 1945_

The corvette was a useful vessel, but not good enough; but we had good, tough, admirals, especially Sir Max Horton in Liverpool (HQ of the Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches) and Leonard W Murray in Halifax (HQ of the Commander-in-Chief, Canadian Northwest Atlantic) who knew what they needed and drove the engineering and procurement processes (thank all the gods for CD Howe!)* to get what they wanted in a timely manner. 

_____
* Canada had a more efficient shipbuilding process, albeit not as professional, than the UK; when (1943) Lord Beaverbrook tried to introduce some modern efficiencies and management into British shipbuilding, Ernest Bevin, the Minister of Labour and National Service, and a Labour member who was protecting the trade unions, even in a war that Britain was still in danger of losing, challenged him and won ~ because Churchill needed Atlee and Labour to keep his war coalition going. CD Howe did not face any such partisan obstructionism in Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Maybe they might take another look at MTB down the road for close to home operations.


----------



## hugh19

Maybe they might take another look at MTB down the road for close to home operations.


Spoken like someone who has never sailed in a small ship. Plus what the heck for? Cannot go far? Cannot handle any sea state. Who shall the shoot at the American's?


----------



## jollyjacktar

There were two camps I am told, back when the decision process was in the works for replacement of the gate boats.  MCDV and MTB,  both camps made their respective pitches of pros and cons with valid points for both.  The MTB idea lost out. 

Yes, you're correct.  I've not sailed little, only big.  My personal opinion is we should have a small platform that is faster than the Dartmouth Ferry.  Corvette or what have you.


----------



## hugh19

Well if you want a fast ship it will have to be somewhat large. I have sailed in several classes of small ships. Gate's, Kingston, YAG and Orca. You need a somewhat larger  vessel to be able to handle any kind of sea state and still have a functioning crew. But a 200 foot Corvette with say a payload package capability (read ASuw or ASW). I would agree to that.


----------



## Infanteer

The German Magdeburg and the Swedish Visby are both over 200 ft.  The thing doesn't have to be a dingy to be smaller than a Frigate and yet still effective, does it?


----------



## jollyjacktar

sledge said:
			
		

> Well if you want a fast ship it will have to be somewhat large. I have sailed in several classes of small ships. Gate's, Kingston, YAG and Orca. You need a somewhat larger  vessel to be able to handle any kind of sea state and still have a functioning crew. But a 200 foot Corvette with say a payload package capability (read ASuw or ASW). I would agree to that.



I did a half NATO with this girl in our group, F356 Peter Tordenskiold.  She, and her crew, left a very positive impression on us with what she could do for her size as a Corvette classed vessel.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think it's a mug's game to specify this or that design.

_It appears to me_ that the Navy and the bureaucracy have agreed a _plan_ that looks _something like_:

     1. Two, maybe even three AORs;

     2. About a dozen major combatants (destroyer/frigate);

     3. Six AOPS which, at 5,500+ tons, are not minor war vessels;

     4. Four submarines; and

     5. Sundry training and utility vessels.

I believe there is a need for and a _niche_ for a small combatant that is in the, say, 75 metre and 1,500+ ton range and which:

     1. Costs less than 25% of the cost of a major combatant to build;

     2. Costs less than 25% of the cost of a major combatant to operate, at sea; and

     3. Does about 75% of the chores we ask of warships.


----------



## MarkOttawa

E.R. Campbell: "3. Six AOPS which, at 5,500+ tons, are not minor war vessels..."

RCN says:



> ...
> BAE Mk 38 Gun
> 
> Remote controlled 25 mm gun to support domestic constabulary role...
> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/aops-home.page



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell: "3. Six AOPS which, at 5,500+ tons, are not minor war vessels..."
> 
> RCN says:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Aren't they classed as a Patrol Vessel, not a minor warship.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).

Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:

You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.

Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.

Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons. 

Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.

As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).
> 
> Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:
> 
> You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.
> 
> Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.
> 
> Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons.
> 
> Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.
> 
> As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.



They will also have additional icebreaking requirements, such as an navigator qualified for the ice, plus time driving under an experienced watch.  I think the incoming CO and XO are in the process of sailing with the CG icebreakers, and we aleady have qualified NavOs for the various Op Nanooks.

Fun fact, currently the AORs and 280s are managed by the 'Minor War Vessel and Auxiliary' section as DGMEPM on the material side, so really depends on how you define it.  Tonnage doesn't really equal capability anymore, nor does crew size so 'minor war ship' is in the eye of the beholder and depends from what perspective you are looking at it.  AOPs is a non-combatant though, which is why it's being built to (mostly) civilian standards.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Tonnage doesn't really equal capability anymore, nor does crew size .



Maersk's Triple E Container Ships, lifting 18,270 TEU, are driven by a crew of 19.







That is one crew member more than the complement of the Danish OPV Knud Rasmussen






Sister ship Einar Mikkelsen seen here taking a Danish Lynx on board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC2XIGMI2kM



> Built by:
> Karstensens Ship Yacht A/S, Skagen (The hull is built at the Polish Stocznia Pólnocna (Northern Shipyard) in Gdansk)
> Design:
> Karstensens Ship Yacht A/S in cooperation with the Danish Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organization
> Displacement:
> 1,720 tons
> Dimensions:
> Length:
> Beam:
> Draught:
> -
> (LOA) 71.80 m
> (LWL) 61.00 m
> 14.60 m
> 4.95 m
> Complement:
> 18 men (lodging capacity for 43)
> Propulsion:
> 2 ea B&W ALPHA 8L27/28 á 2.720 kW v/800 rpm
> 1 ea Propeller (CP)
> RENK reduction gear "Twin in/single out"
> Range:
> 3,000 nautical miles
> Armament:
> 2 ea 12,7 mm Heavy Machine Guns M/01 LvSa
> Additional space for:
> 1 ea SAR/Landing Crafts of the LCP Class
> Speed:
> 17 knots



http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/KnudRasmussen_Class(2007).htm


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).
> 
> Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:
> 
> You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.
> 
> Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.
> 
> Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons.
> 
> Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.
> 
> As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.




Thanks for that explanation, OGBD.  :facepalm: 

Is, say, 2,500 tons a _reasonable_ "cut off" for a "minor war vessel" or "small combatant?" Does having an embarked helicopter matter in deciding if a ship is a large or small combatant?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

My opinion as a former Air O- once you add Air Ops to a Ship, you have sufficiently complicated the operations of a ship that it can no longer be considered a minor war vessel- regardless of tonnage.


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My opinion as a former Air O- once you add Air Ops to a Ship, you have sufficiently complicated the operations of a ship that it can no longer be considered a minor war vessel- regardless of tonnage.




That was my _guess_, so, going back to this:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.
> 
> I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of  German vessel, built by _Fassmer_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
> The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel
> 
> I believe there is a role for small combatants in a _blue water_ navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even _foreign_ missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a _heavy_.




It's a pretty small, less than 2,000 ton (crew of less than 60, including the Air Det) ship, and we both agree that it's not a "minor" war vessel, but isn't it, still, a "small combatant" (whatever that means)?

Let's not fall, again, into the trap of _Regular_ vs _Reserve_ fleets* ~ the whole "blue water Navy" must be a single, composite force in which reservists can serve as they can manage the time commitment and have been adequately trained. So we're not talking about "_shad_ boats" vs the "real Navy" but we are talking large vs small combatants and I'm wondering about the rank to command a <2,000 ton warship. Does it really need a three ring commander with several tours in major combatants?

_____
* That doesn't mean I don't think the RCN Reserve ought not to have its own "fleet" but I think that fleet should look like this:






 or this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     Suitable "reserve" vessels: less than 500 tons, useful for weekend exercises in coastal waters, on large lakes or on large rivers, inland.


----------



## jollyjacktar

ER, I have had the pleasure of sailing with Reserve sailors in the past they're genuinely excellent folks.   As a matter of fact most of my colleagues during my last tour in the sandbox were Shads as well.  We can and do work well together as a team in my personal experience.  

My trade isn't represented on the little boats but if we had something along the lines of a Corvette class I'd love the chance to try it.  Mixed crews are, I think, going to become more common down the road.  I am good with that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just wondering - 

If a big vessel like Maersk Triple Es can be managed with the same size crew as  the Danish OPV, could a crew of the same size, manning all the same duty stations be trained on something the size of the Orcas which, as ERC seems to  suggest, could be floated in any large body of water?

Could a common bridge work for all vessels from something the size of an Orca all the way up to AOR? Or bigger?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Mr Campbell,

I don't think a small combatant/OPV/whatever we call these things needs to be commanded by a three ringer. A sufficiently experienced and appropriately command qualified 2 and a half can probably do it. I am agnostic about reservist or reg force. The problem today is that the giant suck of HQ staffs is pulling MARS Officers thru seagoing postings so fast, there is not a deep well of driving experience at that rank level (IMHO, only- others may beg to differ). 

I would like to see these drives given to promising 2 and a halfs before they are promoted and given a frigate or CSC. Not sure what the RCN has in mind.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just wondering -
> 
> If a big vessel like Maersk Triple Es can be managed with the same size crew as  the Danish OPV, could a crew of the same size, manning all the same duty stations be trained on something the size of the Orcas which, as ERC seems to  suggest, could be floated in any large body of water?
> 
> Could a common bridge work for all vessels from something the size of an Orca all the way up to AOR? Or bigger?



The bridge layouts on the Frigates, MCDVs and ORCAs all look remarkably similar, so that is probably not an accident.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The bridge layouts on the Frigates, MCDVs and ORCAs all look remarkably similar, so that is probably not an accident.



Sorry. 

I'm not used to planning.   

Do they include the engine room controls, or are they separate?


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Mr Campbell,
> 
> I don't think a small combatant/OPV/whatever we call these things needs to be commanded by a three ringer. A sufficiently experienced and appropriately command qualified 2 and a half can probably do it. I am agnostic about reservist or reg force. The problem today is that the giant suck of HQ staffs is pulling MARS Officers thru seagoing postings so fast, there is not a deep well of driving experience at that rank level (IMHO, only- others may beg to differ).
> 
> I would like to see these drives given to promising 2 and a halfs before they are promoted and given a frigate or CSC. Not sure what the RCN has in mind.


From everything I can understand the RCN likes the way that the Britts and Aussies use their smaller boats, as command development platforms.  You can be a CO on an AOPS, MCDVS, or future patrol boat before or just after your frigate XO tour.  With the smaller crew sizes and minimal combat systems these budding "major combatant" COs can get their feet wet.  It also provides a place for those 2 1/2s that somehow missed their chance the first time around.
.





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just wondering -
> 
> If a big vessel like Maersk Triple Es can be managed with the same size crew as  the Danish OPV, could a crew of the same size, manning all the same duty stations be trained on something the size of the Orcas which, as ERC seems to  suggest, could be floated in any large body of water?
> 
> Could a common bridge work for all vessels from something the size of an Orca all the way up to AOR? Or bigger?
> [/qoute]
> Bridge layouts are generally similar from the simulators at NOTC to the frigates.  Gyro, COs chair, radar displays, electronic charts, sound powered phone, VHF, all nav equipment are basically in the same places. The helmsman might be on a different side.  Changes come when you look at ancillary stations that are not navigation related, like the bridge Navcom stations.
> 
> Engineering equipment is also different, ORCAs can sail with a crew of 5.  So their engineering is monitored from the bridge by the helmsman and bridge crew.  So much more can go wrong in the other ships that an MCR needs to be manned.  No real control of that on the bridge for the rest of the ships.
> 
> Though not a bad idea it's not that big of a deal switching between classes even though they layouts vary a little.  Bigger challenges lie in remembering what functions this particular navigation radar has, and then remembering how to use it. ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:
			
		

> ...You can be a CO on an *AOPS*, MCDVS, or future patrol boat before or just after your frigate XO tour.  With the smaller crew sizes and minimal combat systems these budding "major combatant" COs can get their feet wet.  It also provides a place for those 2 1/2s that somehow missed their chance the first time around...



Does the RCN have enough command billets for a streamer to command both an AOPS then CSC?  Would not a command of a 6,000 ton, weaponized, Northern passage-capable ship not in and of itself qualify as a command of a warship for the RCN's purposes?  While not quite a parallel, something like how the CA had Battalion/Regiment commands and school commands, but you would rarely see a School Cmdt then go to Battalion or Regiment command.

Thanks in advance.

G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Mr Campbell,
> 
> I don't think a small combatant/OPV/whatever we call these things needs to be commanded by a three ringer. A sufficiently experienced and appropriately command qualified 2 and a half can probably do it. I am agnostic about reservist or reg force. The problem today is that the giant suck of HQ staffs is pulling MARS Officers thru seagoing postings so fast, there is not a deep well of driving experience at that rank level (IMHO, only- others may beg to differ).
> 
> I would like to see these drives given to promising 2 and a halfs before they are promoted and given a frigate or CSC. Not sure what the RCN has in mind.



I think you are contradicting yourself here SKT. In an earlier post you stated that once air ops are added to a ship - any size - it is not a "minor" warship anymore. Now you say it requires an "appropriately command qualified" person. And my question here is what do you know of the requirements made of a Minor Warship Command candidate to qualify that would not make it "appropriate" for air ops? 

The "Minor" command syllabus is constantly modified to add whatever new knowledge is required of its candidate, just like the Surface Command one. When the reserves went from the Gate Vessels to the MCDV's, the syllabus was adjusted to add all of the new engineering, all of the new underwater mine warfare operations and the new communications knowledge; just as the Surface Command was adjusted up when the old steamers were replaced by the HAL's. I surmise that, from an operations point of view, it was as much of a step up for one as for the other. 

Yet, all command qualified personnel at the time were "grandfathered" but given a chance to pick up the extra operational knowledge. Why would that be? It is because, unlike the Air Force, where you qualify  by type of aircraft, the Navy does not qualify MARS officers by ship class. You talk about "driving experience" and I know that we often call the C.O's "ship-drivers". But in practice, all C.O. know that while we are given command of a ship, it is the crew that we really command. CO's, unlike pilots in their plane, hardly touch anything: They have a crew to do it for them. 
So if you add air ops to a small combatant, there is no reason to believe that, if it wanted to keep it a "Minor Command", the RCN could not incorporate it into the Minor Warship Command program. 

BTW, I agree with you that a 2 1/2 is sufficient for those small combatants ERC has in mind. After all, the crew is only about 60  people, which makes a good "junior" command step. It was unfortunate, in my mind, that the Regular Forces lost such junior commands for its officers when they retired the PB's on the West Coast at the time the MCDV came into service and went "all reserve". The return of some MCDV to being available for regular MARS officers is a good thing in my mind. Anyone who has commanded ships will tell you that nothing - not the command certification process; not years as a Mars officer; not even a tour as XO - prepares you for your own command. Even commanding something as small as an ORCA has more bearing on showing if you have the character for command. In that sense, the junior commands are a good place to find out earlier in one's career if he/she has what it takes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OGBD,

I did not contradict myself. A Ship that has air ops is sufficiently complex that it requires someone who has passed that major combatant command board. Note that I did not specify the rank of the CO. I know of Lt(N)s that have passed the Command Boards for a Major warship.

This is all my humble opinion. But, since I have commanded HELAIRDETs on three ships, I think I have an idea about what I speak.


----------



## Kirkhill

Digression?

I thought that traditionally, in the RN, sailing (or driving) the ship was the responsibility of the Warrant Officers, starting with the Master.  The Commissioned Officers were charged with directing and fighting the ship. 

I know the Master has gone the way of the Dodo but has the Master's role been replaced or has it been subsumed into the Captain's role?


----------



## Stoker

Under the 60/40 split there are several MCDV's who now have major warship Command qualified CO's including mine. My CO was recently promoted to LCdr and will only be CO for a one year posting. The other 40% billets are pretty much the same, one year posted and gone again. It is interesting to note that the ships with the reg CO's are the only ones doing OP Nanook, presumably to get arctic time for the CO's until they could be posted to a AOPS in the future.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Digression?
> 
> I thought that traditionally, in the RN, sailing (or driving) the ship was the responsibility of the Warrant Officers, starting with the Master.  The Commissioned Officers were charged with directing and fighting the ship.
> 
> I know the Master has gone the way of the Dodo but has the Master's role been replaced or has it been subsumed into the Captain's role?



MARS officer job alone.  NavOs department.  You have to learn to sail the ship before you are allowed to command and direct it in battle.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> OGBD,
> 
> I did not contradict myself. A Ship that has air ops is sufficiently complex that it requires someone who has passed that major combatant command board. Note that I did not specify the rank of the CO. I know of Lt(N)s that have passed the Command Boards for a Major warship.
> 
> This is all my humble opinion. But, since I have commanded HELAIRDETs on three ships, I think I have an idea about what I speak.


Command quals are being merged when possible.  The command course is the same for reg and reserve MARS.  2nspots were saved for PRES billets.  Command boards are a different thing and can be dependant on the class of ship.  Command of MCDVs is a different board then Command of a frigate or an Orca.  To drive an AOR you need to have your deep draught qualification.  AOPs might require an Ice operations qualification.  The system is flexible enough you could easily have an AOPS command board that didn't include all the extra war fighting stuff but included all the requirements for an air detachment. 

AOPs is going to be a very different beast, with all that mini support to forces ashore capability.  I wouldn't be surprised if they added that extra req package to any aspiring AOPS COs.  I also wouldn't be surprised if they entirely cut out the PRES entirely unless you got your major surface combatant board qualification.

Initially I think that they will stick with the major combatant qual and then re-visit after a few years.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> OGBD,
> 
> I did not contradict myself. A Ship that has air ops is sufficiently complex that it requires someone who has passed that major combatant command board. Note that I did not specify the rank of the CO. I know of Lt(N)s that have passed the Command Boards for a Major warship.
> 
> This is all my humble opinion. But, since I have commanded HELAIRDETs on three ships, I think I have an idea about what I speak.



I am not questioning whether you know anything about commanding Helairdets or what CO's with a Surface Command ticket are all about. What I am questioning is what you know about what CO's that have a Minor Warship Command ticket are all about, and what makes you think they are any less capable of handling air ops IF IT WAS PART of their training and curriculum.

I see you mention ship's complexity. As I tried to explain, that is not relevant to command of a ship because we have technical personnel to handle all that for us. What matters is leadership, handling of people, a good tactical sense and knowledge, which you are presumed to posses when facing a command board, of the ship's organization.

I note that "Underway" seem to think that command board are different by class. I do not know what his experience is to make such a statement, and it may well be true, but in my experience, I doubt it. That may be so for engineering questions, but those hardly form a large part of the boards. [A side note here, Underway seem to create a third "command" ticket category for the ORCA's. That is not the case. Someone with a Surface or Minor command cert can just step in and take charge of an ORCA on their ticket. People who don't have such command tickets can acquire the required knowledge and challenge a "Charge" board to get their ORCA charge ticket. Something that do not let them assume command, but obtain charge of an ORCA as O.I.C.]

In my experience (my command board and those of a few friends that faced them), the Board takes for granted that  someone who has passed all the command exams [and in my days, six of the eight command exams for Minor Warship command were exactly the same as for Surface command, and were granted towards your surface command if passed] and has been recommended by his ship's captain after serving under him/her for a while (a power of recommendation all Co's I know take very seriously) can be counted on to possess the technical knowledge to command a ship. Therefore, the Boards concentrate on other aspects, such as character, leadership and knowledge and appreciation of the CAF general policies relating to personnel and how to apply them in a shipboard setting.

In my 2 hours command board (minor Warship), we spent about 15 minutes on Rules of the Road questions, another 15 minutes in navigation, engineering and seamanship, before going into 1 and a half hour where we dealt with scenarios concerning how to handle suspected drug use onboard, alleged sexual harassment or general harassment complaints, suspected financial misconduct by the supply officer, scenarios where I would have to order some poor chap to carry out an action that would result in his death, and two scenarios that were designed to see how much imagination I could show in trying to resolve situations more and more dire, and at which point I would conclude it was hopeless and I ordered abandon ship. 

This Minor Warship command Board was chaired by CAPT. Al Davies, onboard Protecteur which he captained at the time, and made up of his Coxn, two destroyers CO and one of the said destroyers Chief ERA. What makes anyone think this board was much different from a full Surface Command one?


----------



## quadrapiper

Very edifying discussion.

On the CO-tour point, is there any value in, or are these people at a point in their training where it would make sense to, place Lts (N) in a CO role on (for example) PCTs? Core crew with a roving cast of reservists and others in need of sea time?

Also, does the Army or Air Force do anything like the command board described above before battalion command?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

In the Maritime Helicopter World, you must pass a board before you can be appointed as a Crew Commander. Probably a legacy of our RCN past.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not questioning whether you know anything about commanding Helairdets or what CO's with a Surface Command ticket are all about. What I am questioning is what you know about what CO's that have a Minor Warship Command ticket are all about, and what makes you think they are any less capable of handling air ops IF IT WAS PART of their training and curriculum.
> 
> I see you mention ship's complexity. As I tried to explain, that is not relevant to command of a ship because we have technical personnel to handle all that for us. What matters is leadership, handling of people, a good tactical sense and knowledge, which you are presumed to posses when facing a command board, of the ship's organization.
> 
> I note that "Underway" seem to think that command board are different by class. I do not know what his experience is to make such a statement, and it may well be true, but in my experience, I doubt it. That may be so for engineering questions, but those hardly form a large part of the boards. [A side note here, Underway seem to create a third "command" ticket category for the ORCA's. That is not the case. Someone with a Surface or Minor command cert can just step in and take charge of an ORCA on their ticket. People who don't have such command tickets can acquire the required knowledge and challenge a "Charge" board to get their ORCA charge ticket. Something that do not let them assume command, but obtain charge of an ORCA as O.I.C.]
> 
> In my experience (my command board and those of a few friends that faced them), the Board takes for granted that  someone who has passed all the command exams [and in my days, six of the eight command exams for Minor Warship command were exactly the same as for Surface command, and were granted towards your surface command if passed] and has been recommended by his ship's captain after serving under him/her for a while (a power of recommendation all Co's I know take very seriously) can be counted on to possess the technical knowledge to command a ship. Therefore, the Boards concentrate on other aspects, such as character, leadership and knowledge and appreciation of the CAF general policies relating to personnel and how to apply them in a shipboard setting.
> 
> In my 2 hours command board (minor Warship), we spent about 15 minutes on Rules of the Road questions, another 15 minutes in navigation, engineering and seamanship, before going into 1 and a half hour where we dealt with scenarios concerning how to handle suspected drug use onboard, alleged sexual harassment or general harassment complaints, suspected financial misconduct by the supply officer, scenarios where I would have to order some poor chap to carry out an action that would result in his death, and two scenarios that were designed to see how much imagination I could show in trying to resolve situations more and more dire, and at which point I would conclude it was hopeless and I ordered abandon ship.
> 
> This Minor Warship command Board was chaired by CAPT. Al Davies, onboard Protecteur which he captained at the time, and made up of his Coxn, two destroyers CO and one of the said destroyers Chief ERA. What makes anyone think this board was much different from a full Surface Command one?


Fair enough, I was kinda smooshing boards and quals together on my post.  There are no more command exams now.  Just the command course in which you get your Orca OIC ticket as part of the entire package.  But the intention of my post remains, that training and courses prepare you for the ship you are to command, and if you are judged to have the proper training then you can command the ship, assuming the board has been passed.


----------



## Cronicbny

For the sake of clarity - the draft  NAVORD 4500-28, Sea Command Boards, has within the following useful nuggets:

2.4 Warship	One of HMC ships, under the command of a commissioned officer.

2.5 Major Warship	Surface warships carrying over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, or which operate aircraft. 

2.6 Minor Warship (MWS)
	Surface warships which do not carry over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, and which do not operate aircraft.


And

3.1
Aim	The examination for Surface and MWS Command Qualifications shall be a Command Board. 

The aim of a Surface Command Board is to assess a candidate’s potential to be a successful Executive Officer (XO) tomorrow of a major warship or a successful Commanding Officer (CO) tomorrow of a minor warship. 

The aim of a MWS Command Board is to assess a candidate’s potential to be a successful CO tomorrow of a minor warship. 

Granted, it is in draft form and subject to change, but it may prove useful nonetheless.


----------



## Edward Campbell

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> For the sake of clarity - the draft  NAVORD 4500-28, Sea Command Boards, has within the following useful nuggets:
> 
> 2.4 Warship	One of HMC ships, under the command of a commissioned officer.
> 
> 2.5 Major Warship	Surface warships carrying over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, or which operate aircraft.
> 
> 2.6 Minor Warship (MWS)
> Surface warships which do not carry over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, and which do not operate aircraft.
> 
> 
> And
> 
> 3.1
> Aim	The examination for Surface and MWS Command Qualifications shall be a Command Board.
> 
> The aim of a Surface Command Board is to assess a candidate’s potential to be a successful Executive Officer (XO) tomorrow of a major warship or a successful Commanding Officer (CO) tomorrow of a minor warship.
> 
> The aim of a MWS Command Board is to assess a candidate’s potential to be a successful CO tomorrow of a minor warship.
> 
> Granted, it is in draft form and subject to change, but it may prove useful nonetheless.




So by that definition, my _example_ of a small combatant (German _Fassmer_ OPV 80 at less than 2,000 tons) would, likely, not be a "minor war vessel," is that right?

I'm not sure the designation matters, to me; the point of my question was "what rank is 'right' to command?" and _I think_ I hear that a smaller vessel, with a crew of, say, less than 100, is, probably a LCdr's command ... despite a CF wide tendency to over-rank (although that regrettable habit is most evident in too many, bloated, unnecessary and over-ranked HQs, not in fleet and field units and formations, but that's another matter).


----------



## dimsum

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> For the sake of clarity - the draft  NAVORD 4500-28, Sea Command Boards, has within the following useful nuggets:
> 
> 2.4 Warship	One of HMC ships, under the command of a commissioned officer.
> 
> 2.5 Major Warship	Surface warships carrying over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, or which operate aircraft.
> 
> 2.6 Minor Warship (MWS)
> Surface warships which do not carry over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, and which do not operate aircraft.
> 
> 
> And
> 
> 3.1
> Aim	The examination for Surface and MWS Command Qualifications shall be a Command Board.
> 
> The aim of a Surface Command Board is to assess a candidate’s potential to be a successful Executive Officer (XO) tomorrow of a major warship or a successful Commanding Officer (CO) tomorrow of a minor warship.
> 
> The aim of a MWS Command Board is to assess a candidate’s potential to be a successful CO tomorrow of a minor warship.
> 
> Granted, it is in draft form and subject to change, but it may prove useful nonetheless.



Just curious, why must the "tomorrow" be included and not assumed?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It says tomorrow because if the candidate is then heading for the other coast from his/her board, he/she has to have the time to get there  ;D.

Actually, I agree it is a useless word: You pass the Board, you ought to be able to be given command (or XO's position) immediately. 

As for the rest of the new descriptors they are using to differentiate minor from major warship, I think they are stated in an unfortunate fashion.

First of all: are the criteria an all inclusive requirement, i.e. to be a major warship you have to have all of them: OTH weapons, ASW weapons, AAW weapons and operate aircraft? or if you meet any one of these criteria, you are a major warship?

And does the OTH weapons apply to any weapons or is just an adjective qualifying AAW and ASW weapons? In other words, would a patrol boat with harpoons and a CWIS be a minor warship, because Harpoons are ASuW weapons and the CWIS is anti-air but not OTH?

Similarly, if a single criteria puts the ship into the major category, isn't an all encompassing "operate aircraft" unduly restrictive of a minor warship in an era where UAV's of all sorts are becoming available for small vessels, or if we want to have a "minor" warship that has a landing spot, without bear trap system, to accommodate some limited landings of helicopters if required, from time to time.

Considering this is a NAVORD and, lets face it we are not the US Navy, would it not be simpler to simply state the classes of ship we consider major and the classes of ship we consider minor, and amend the list from time to time (how often do we take in a new class of vessels?) .

For instance: "Major Warship means an AOR, JSS, DDH, FFH or AOPS. Minor Warship means a MM."

Why always make things more complicated than they ought to be?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why always make things more complicated than they ought to be?



Because, it seems to be a hard naval tradition (from what I've seen many times).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You know, it just occurred to me that if the OTH weapon is NOT a qualifier of the AA or AS weapons but a criteria on its own, i.e. if you carry any type of OTH weapon you are a Major Warship, then it would have been a lot simpler to just say: 

"Minor Warship is any warship armed ONLY with ASu weapons for use within line of sight. Anything else NOT a submarine is a Major Warship".


----------



## Infanteer

Is the typical path for a LCdr in the Navy XO of a major warship and than CO of a minor warship (if those billets are available)?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No its not the usual path.

Until recently, the minor warships (read MCDV's) were fully manned by the reserves and thus commanded by reserve officers*. The normal path for a regular force officer was XO of a major surface ship followed by CO of such major warship, with perhaps a short posting ashore between the two.

Regular forces officers now have the opportunity to command minor warship, and as they are a LCDR command, this can count as their "XO" tour instead, or if they are too junior [theoretically one could get a minor warship command certificate  and get command of an MCDV while still a LT] as a precursor to a tour as Major warship XO. Such path used to exist before the MCDV's came on line, when there were six reserve ships (the GVs and FS) and four or five regular force PB's in the minor warship category.

*: In fact, for a long time, there was no such distinction as a "minor" vs "major" warship for tickets purposes. You had the Surface Watch Keeping and Command certificates on the one hand and the Reserve Watch Keeping and Reserve Command certificates, which let you stand watch or command any warship assigned to the reserves. My BWK was under the old system, became grandfathered as a MWBWK and my command certificate was a minor warship one right off the bat.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You know, it just occurred to me that if the OTH weapon is NOT a qualifier of the AA or AS weapons but a criteria on its own, i.e. if you carry any type of OTH weapon you are a Major Warship, then it would have been a lot simpler to just say:
> 
> "Minor Warship is any warship armed ONLY with ASu weapons for use within line of sight. Anything else NOT a submarine is a Major Warship".



OGBD, I confirmed with my English-major writer wife, and the text of the draft NAVORD is clear, the "or" in the Major Warship description represents an unrestrictive union phrasing, i.e. means that if you have any one of the three capabilities, you're Major.  The Minor Warship is logically defined in the opposite sense with a restrictive, intersecting phrasing, meaning that all capabilities must be not present for the vessel to be Minor.  This grammatical phrasing is also supported by Venn diagrams...some of your Naval colleagues we either very deliberate with their phraseology (which I suspect to be the case) or they stumbled upon a logically consistent phraseology by accident.

[/2nd-person grammatical pedant] 

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I suspected as much. But then it means my simplified explanation, which you quoted, is the correct one [_"Minor Warship is any warship armed ONLY with ASu weapons for use within line of sight."_], which is another way to say that the regs still don't trust the reserves to do anything other than shooting with light guns at targets they can actually see, and if they get attacked by air, then let them sink. :nod:

Did it occur to someone working on those definitions that, if for any reason (technological development unforeseen, for instance) it was decided to do away with the helicopter pad on the AOR's, they would qualify as minor warship  ;D

In my mind, this attempt at defining the reserves out of the ships the regulars don't want reserves to drive to make it look "non-discriminatory" is ridiculous: As I proposed, just specifically name the classes of ships in each category and be done with it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Many decades ago I went to staff college with three, count 'em three, LCdrs (still in "jolly green jumpers" ~ it was _*that*_ long ago) who had commanded Bay class minesweepers (plus one who had commanded a submarine). Two of the three were Comm/EW experts (one retired as a commodore, the other as a captain (N)), the other was a deep diver ~ fellow named Barry Ridgewell if that means anything to anyone. It was explained to us that the Bay class ships were _"reserved"_ for semi-technical types who were likely to be _"streamed"_ into technical staff jobs as three and four stripers ~ as Comm/EW guys were. They (some of them, anyway) were thought to _merit_ sea command, as long as they could pass the exams, and those who would be sent to staff college and promoted in their area of expertise were thought to _need_ sea command experience. So we were told, anyway ...







   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                        _Bay Class Minesweeper                                                                                                                                               Kingston Class MCDV_
            Length:     152 ft                                                                                                                                                                                  181 ft
             Beam:        28 ft                                                                                                                                                                                   37 ft
  Displacement:     390 tons                                                                                                                                                                              970 tons
              Crew:       38                                                                                                                                                                                     31 to 47

Maybe that sort of policy makes sense for the modern RCN, too.

          (Are Log officers (and helicopter pilots) (still) allowed to have upped deck watch-keeping qualifications? If YES and IF they can pass the sea command exams would it not make sense to give a small combatant command to very highly selected
           Log officers and Maritime Helicopter pilots .. for both moral/service pride and _expertise_ reasons?)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Negative to both, Mr Campbell. The watch keeping regs are written to explicitly exclude non-MARS Officers.

Even though I am aware of one case where a HELAIRDET is composed of a couple former MARS Officers, sufficiently senior that in case of accident onboard a frigate that took out both the CO and XO, either of them would be the next logical choice for command (given their seniority and experience) over every other officer onboard.

Neither the RCAF nor the RCN particularly want helicopter aircrew as watchkeepers. The RCN has an institutional memory of the old Naval Aviation branch making a better than average showing at commanding ships (which is both embarrassing and career limiting, if you are a surface fleet officer) and the RCAF has seen too many attempts by the RCN to mis-employ Air Detachments, to the point where there is actually very little trust between the two services.


----------



## Good2Golf

OGBD, I concur with your approach of explicit designation.  The grammatical-Venn method reeks of people wanting to develop all-encompassing regs (and who are most often shocked when an exceptional case arises they they, the smart folks, had missed in their deliberations).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Many decades ago I went to staff college with three, count 'em three, LCdrs (still in "jolly green jumpers" ~ it was _*that*_ long ago) who had commanded Bay class minesweepers (plus one who had commanded a submarine). Two of the three were Comm/EW experts (one retired as a commodore, the other as a captain (N)), the other was a deep diver ~ fellow named Barry Ridgewell if that means anything to anyone. It was explained to us that the Bay class ships were _"reserved"_ for semi-technical types who were likely to be _"streamed"_ into technical staff jobs as three and four stripers ~ as Comm/EW guys were. They (some of them, anyway) were thought to _merit_ sea command, as long as they could pass the exams, and those who would be sent to staff college and promoted in their area of expertise were thought to _need_ sea command experience. So we were told, anyway ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Bay Class Minesweeper                                                                                                                                               Kingston Class MCDV_
> Length:     152 ft                                                                                                                                                                                  181 ft
> Beam:        28 ft                                                                                                                                                                                   37 ft
> Displacement:     390 tons                                                                                                                                                                              970 tons
> Crew:       38                                                                                                                                                                                     31 to 47
> 
> Maybe that sort of policy makes sense for the modern RCN, too.
> 
> (Are Log officers (and helicopter pilots) (still) allowed to have upped deck watch-keeping qualifications? If YES and IF they can pass the sea command exams would it not make sense to give a small combatant command to very highly selected
> Log officers and Maritime Helicopter pilots .. for both moral/service pride and _expertise_ reasons?)



Ah! THUNDER me old mate. Nice to see you again.

Truly Mr. C., I don't know to what you would be referring exactly. Unlike the RN, we did not have "Radio Officers" in  Maritime Command. Comms and EW were handled by  the seaman and C&PO's under the MARS officers of appropriate rank and training (Comm O  or Ops Room officer or Combat officer courses) on their normal career progression. On the technical/electronics side of things, the Combat Systems Engineering officers handled things, but I have never heard of or seen a CSE getting any command, and only know of one MSE officer who managed the feat, onboard CHAUDIERE.

On the other hand, from the moment I joined, mid-seventies, to the days the PB's retired, I have only known MARS officers to be given command of them, and in most cases, "up and coming" mars officers that got major surface commands later and often went on to a flag of their own.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well, there was, in the 1970s (and well into the 1990s, when I retired) a strong Comm/EW _grouping_ in the Navy. The N6 in Halifax was a four striper with a very strong Comm EW background, and a couple of other Comm EW four stripers had desks in Ottawa: all MARS, some with sea command experience, all in charge of Comm EW policies for the Navy or the CF. I don't know if they had any formal designation, but they, and everyone else, apparently, knew who (and what) they were.


----------



## Old Sweat

Was there not an order or something of Old Crows that was sort of a "club" of naval EW guys?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Was there not an order or something of Old Crows that was sort of a "club" of naval EW guys?




Old Crows is _joint_ ~ all three services, and _combined_ ~ international.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not to be confused with the "Crow's Nest", which was (is?) a Naval officer's club in St-John's  ;D.

And ERC, you are confirming my info: They were MARS officers, so they were perfectly competent to sit their boards and have command of PB. BTW, while wearing greens, we did not have an N6 in Maritime Command (that came in during the late 80's). The jobs you had in mind would have been SSO Comms and under him, SO EW, the first was a four ringer post and the second a three ringer IIRC.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Pedantic (and tangent) possibly but the Crow's Nest is NO LONGER restricted to just Officers though it is still referred to as the "Crows Nest Officers Club" but from their website:

_"Membership is open to all persons who are interested in maintaining The Crow’s Nest Club’s character and purpose. All membership applications are reviewed by the membership committee and approved by the Board of Directors."_


----------



## Stoker

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Pedantic (and tangent) possibly but the Crow's Nest is NO LONGER restricted to just Officers though it is still referred to as the "Crows Nest Officers Club" but from their website:
> 
> _"Membership is open to all persons who are interested in maintaining The Crow’s Nest Club’s character and purpose. All membership applications are reviewed by the membership committee and approved by the Board of Directors."_



I have been a member for some years now, excellent place to have a pint and a quiet conversation.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Many times I go there, i don't recall (clearly) leaving! Must be a time warp or something!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I have been a member for some years now, excellent place to have a pint and a quiet conversation.




Me, too ... and I am a member of _Old Crows_, too! 

 ... pins, pins, pins ...

     ... this one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 provoked a few questions here on Army.ca a few years ago.


----------



## cupper

I've seen the Old Crows office in Alexandria VA whenever I was taking the Metro into DC. Always wondered what that was until I googled them.


----------



## MMSS

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Many times I go there, i don't recall (clearly) leaving! Must be a time warp or something!



Funny, sounds like the last time I was there...


----------



## Stoker

It looks like the Kingston Class demise may be premature. A design life of 25 years they are about 5 years away from losing their Loyd's certification. Apparently there is a study being conduced the feasibility of extending the platform for a further 10 to 15 years beyond its service life. The class is constantly being upgraded with new equipment and this is very doable. Plans to remove and replace all main DA's and alternators is in the works. They only recently received a new machinery monitoring system. These ships are constantly busy and are the workhorses of the fleet. Recently the 60/40 split in manning was rescinded and if a reserve is able to take a billet, they will get it.


----------



## kratz

Wow ! That's some big news on a couple of items. Thanks for the update.
Now if the budget follows to fund these changes.


----------



## Stoker

kratz said:
			
		

> Wow ! That's some big news on a couple of items. Thanks for the update.
> Now if the budget follows to fund these changes.



Upgrading the class would be relatively cheap I would imagine with ships being upgraded at the end of their 60 month maintenance cycle during their docking.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm hearing the same thing from the class desk.  They're not going away soon.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to the discussion on smaller warships: - this from SMA http://army.ca/forums/threads/64325/post-1452711.html#msg1452711

Which leads to this on Naval Technology

Key points re the River Class OPVs



> The offshore patrol vessel is intended to carry out a range of economic exclusion zone management tasks such as maritime security, border control, routine patrols, anti-smuggling, counter-terrorism, counter-piracy, and fishery protection, as well as effective disaster relief. It can also be used for the protection of natural resources.
> 
> BAE Systems received a £348m *($529m) *contract from the UK Ministry of Defence *to build three new OPV* class ships for the UK Royal Navy in August 2014.





> The patrol ship has a *length of 90.5m, width of 13m and a displacement of 2,000t*. It provides accommodation for 60 personnel, including a crew of 34. The vessel can also carry up to 50 embarked troops or passengers.
> 
> The OPV boasts of an enhanced *flight deck at the aft to operate the latest Merlin helicopters*. It is capable of carrying two Pacific 24 rigid inflatable boats (RIBs). A 16t crane will be attached to lift equipments. The vessel also features large storage, accommodation, and medical facilities.





> The *main armament* of the UK Royal Navy's new 90m offshore patrol vessel is *a 30mm cannon*. The vessel will be fitted with small calibre machine guns. It can also be mounted with a 12.7mm gun location and a 25mm secondary armament on both the port and starboard sides.



Not suggesting building or acquiring.  Just taken with the design parameters and the discussion about "small ships".

By contrast the Holland OPV displaces 3750 tons deep with similar accommodation over similar range but a bit slower.  She also has a hangar and heavier armament.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It looks like it can take the Merlin, just...


----------



## Kirkhill

A miss is as good as a mile.....


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> It looks like it can take the Merlin, just...



Which is fine when it's just for a short duration, but you'd need a hangar for anything long-term.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If you are going to go with something that big (yes, I said "big" - 2000 tons is almost the same size as the old Saint-Laurent's, who were 2400 tons, and at 90 meters, is only 21 meters shorter than the Saint-Laurent), I would go just as touch larger (98 meters - 2500 tons), and get a POVZEE. It has hangar and can be made to support a Cyclone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaiquer%C3%AD-class_patrol_boat


----------



## Kirkhill

What do you think about the price-point vs capabilities?

529 MUSD / 3 = 176 MUSD


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The price point is certainly reasonable for a hybrid ship like that (half mil specs/half civ spec).

The nice comparison is looking at it in relation to the old Saint-Laurent's:

UK River class Batch 2: l.o.a 90.5 m / width 13.5 m / g.t. 2000 t / sp. 25 Kts

Can. Saint-Laurent class: l.o.a. 111.6 m / width 12.8 m / g.t. 2240 t / sp 28.5 Kts 

I am putting an interesting picture of a Saint-Laurent below.

You can see that, if you take the last 21 meters off the stern in your mind, it brings you a few meters aft of the flight deck, and then you can see the size of hangar sufficient to handle a Sea King. The Cyclones are in the same size class as the Sea kings.

On the River class batch 2, the flight deck - so to speak - goes all the way to the stern.

The Batch 2 are also slightly wider than the St-Laurent. Therefore, if you split the funnel of the Batch 2, you can easily fit a hangar big enough for the Cyclone and with enough room left on either side for the 24 foot Rhibs.

They could be very useful "little" ships for training, North American ops (read Caribbean, Arctic and local support to other government departments/agencies), and could be of good use in other foreign waters for things like anti-piracy ops.

I suspect you would have little trouble getting volunteers to man them: They have, for the crew, a very high level of habitability. the lowliest seamen have double berth cabin with ensuite heads and wash places; the officers and Chiefs and PO's have single cabins. Moreover, on ships like that with small crew, the crew is tighter as they are more familiar with one another than on larger crew, and they also get trusted with more responsibility faster than on larger crew.

I would take 8 of them for $1.6 b Canadian.


----------



## Stoker

Its been very busy for the MCDVs with all the upgrades they are receiving. As others have mentioned the ships are getting back into Mine Warfare in a big way. Lots of cool toys like the AUV.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not knowing they were kinda ''out'' of that business, I'd be interested in why the refocus on the (intended?) bread and butter of the class...


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not knowing they were kinda ''out'' of that business, I'd be interested in why the refocus on the (intended?) bread and butter of the class...



When we first received the class we mostly focused on the mechanical mine sweeping for the first 5 years or so as time went on less and less until the equipment was mothballed. In fact the gear was recently divested. The new concept of operations have the class moving more into a mine warfare role as most countries taking advantage of AUV technology. We are reconstituting capability and the end state will be actual overseas operations. When AOPS comes on the scene some of the roles traditionally done by the Kingston Class will be scaled back allowing the class to refocus on what it was intended for.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

roger that, tks.


----------



## Edward Campbell

kratz said:
			
		

> The RCN just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the MCVD hulls, so we should get another 15 years out of them.  [




Yes, and good on 'em for far exceeding the expectations of those who conceived, designed, funded and approved the "little _reserve_ ships" ... but if my own (25 years old) and many of your recent experience with defence procurement is any guide then isn't it time to see some action in NDHQ to conceive, design, fund and approve a new "small combatant?" Or does someone think that this, Liberal, government is going to come up with enough money (another $25 billion?) to build as many ships as the RCN's strategic plan ~ they actually have (had) one, called _*Leadmark*_, but it's been pulled from official sites  ~ says they need?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Leadmark was pulled as soon as it was deemed no longer achieveable. In particular, the forecasted need for ship to shore landings and a surface combatant that can do more than just show up, fly the flag and basically only defend itself. 
Leadmark was visionary, balanced and gave a very accurate long term appraisal of what Canada needed to remain relevant in the blue ocean at the year 2020.
AOPS was not part of Leadmark. Retiring the 280 and AOR without replacements in the water or in the slips was not even contemplated by Leadmark.
I don't believe the Cyclone was even selected when the first draft was circulated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the design team and the navy people that brought us the MCDV's deserve a pat on the back, it's one of the unsung success stories in ship procurement we have had.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think the design team and the navy people that brought us the MCDV's deserve a pat on the back, it's one of the unsung success stories in ship procurement we have had.



It was on time and on budget however much political interference that led to a watered down design, some subpar equipment and fitted for but not with.


----------



## Kirkhill

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Leadmark was pulled as soon as it was deemed no longer achieveable. In particular, the forecasted need for ship to shore landings and a surface combatant that can do more than just show up, fly the flag and basically only defend itself.
> Leadmark was visionary, balanced and gave a very accurate long term appraisal of what Canada needed to remain relevant in the blue ocean at the year 2020.
> AOPS was not part of Leadmark. Retiring the 280 and AOR without replacements in the water or in the slips was not even contemplated by Leadmark.
> I don't believe the Cyclone was even selected when the first draft was circulated.



Somebody name of VAdm Norman published Leadmark 2050 in May under the auspices of the Naval Association.

http://navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Leadmark-2050-13-May-2016.pdf

The drum is still being beaten - with ship to shore support figuring high on the wish list.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Leadmark was pulled as soon as it was deemed no longer achieveable. In particular, the forecasted need for ship to shore landings and a surface combatant that can do more than just show up, fly the flag and basically only defend itself.
> Leadmark was visionary, balanced and gave a very accurate long term appraisal of what Canada needed to remain relevant in the blue ocean at the year 2020.
> AOPS was not part of Leadmark. Retiring the 280 and AOR without replacements in the water or in the slips was not even contemplated by Leadmark.
> I don't believe the Cyclone was even selected when the first draft was circulated.



Sadly, this type of defence...I don't know what word to use...stuff is the norm and accepted by our political masters and their bosses'; our neighbors and relatives not in the Service.

Something will have to go very bad for a change in the way this country operates our (ever shrinking and rusting) military.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Here's something of(maybe)interest of what we're working on in the Netherlands:

Uuv's that are working in team,scanning for mines.Which are in constant contact with each other and don't come back until the job is done.All sounds a bit futuristic/Star Warsie but the dutch DMO(Defensie Materieel Organisatie) and technology institute(TNO)are working together feverishly just to accomplish that.

https://magazines.defensie.nl/materieelgezien/2017/01/mg201701onderwaterdrones


It's all in dutch but you'll get the picture .   [


----------



## Stoker

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Here's something of(maybe)interest of what we're working on in the Netherlands:
> 
> Uuv's that are working in team,scanning for mines.Which are in constant contact with each other and don't come back until the job is done.All sounds a bit futuristic/Star Warsie but the dutch DMO(Defensie Materieel Organisatie) and technology institute(TNO)are working together feverishly just to accomplish that.
> 
> https://magazines.defensie.nl/materieelgezien/2017/01/mg201701onderwaterdrones
> 
> 
> It's all in dutch but you'll get the picture .   [




The Kingston Class are using UUV's now for mine warfare, we conducted trials last year using a US navy model.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And the first one has been found.  Well done.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/avro-arrow-found-unveiling-1.4280537


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And the first one has been found.  Well done.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/avro-arrow-found-unveiling-1.4280537



I was on the original search in 2005, its amazing how far the technology has come.


----------



## NavyShooter

And I ended up working at Route Survey for a year as the Side-scan SONAR tech.

Good times.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 11?
> 
> So at 12 MCDV, does that mean Canada’s Navy has more of something than the USN? ???



And they're (slightly) newer!  



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well that gives us an opportunity to be a very useful card in the deck, send a Halifax and say 3 MCDV's to the gulf, two on duty, one in reserve. I am no expect but I feel like we would become a very crucial coalition asset if tensions flared up.



Yes, except that our MCDVs are steel hulled and the engines aren't shock-mounted, so we'd sweep acoustic and magnetic mines once.  The Avenger-class is wooden hulled and (I think) engines are dampened specifically to try and prevent acoustic mine detonation.  

I'm not nearly as swept up (haha) as I should be on the MCDVs anymore but I doubt people are still training on the actual MCM side of things?


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And they're (slightly) newer!
> 
> Yes, except that our MCDVs are steel hulled and the engines aren't shock-mounted, so we'd sweep acoustic and magnetic mines once.  The Avenger-class is wooden hulled and (I think) engines are dampened specifically to try and prevent acoustic mine detonation.
> 
> I'm not nearly as swept up (haha) as I should be on the MCDVs anymore but I doubt people are still training on the actual MCM side of things?



We actually haven't swept using mechanical mine sweeping gear in many years. We have however brand new degausing gear and have the REMUS AUV's for mine detection. Two MCDV's deployed to Europe last year and was attached the NATO mine sweeping group. My ship is currently getting ready to do a MCM WUP's later this month. We do have the ability to this however I doubt the adults would send us over.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> We actually haven't swept using mechanical mine sweeping gear in many years. We have however brand new degausing gear and have the REMIS AUV's for mine detection. Two MCDV's deployed to Europe last year as was attached the NATO mine sweeping group. My ship is currently getting ready to do a MCM WUP's later this month. We do have the ability to this however I doubt the adults would send us over.



That’s a shame, Chief! :not-again:


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That’s a shame, Chief! :not-again:



Then again I never thought they would be sending our ships to Africa either, you never know. I did hear talk about sending ships over that way.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Then again I never thought they would be sending our ships to Africa either, you never know. I did hear talk about sending ships over that way.



We sent Iltis to Afghanistan... for a short period of time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> We actually haven't swept using mechanical mine sweeping gear in many years. We have however brand new degausing gear and have the REMUS AUV's for mine detection. Two MCDV's deployed to Europe last year and was attached the NATO mine sweeping group. My ship is currently getting ready to do a MCM WUP's later this month. We do have the ability to this however I doubt the adults would send us over.



If they do, hopefully they install a 35mm in a RWS to discourage visitors.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> If they do, hopefully they install a 35mm in a RWS to discourage visitors.



A hunter-killer submarine in the area would be more to my liking but, then again, I'm a 'one way soldier' and shouldn't be connected with maritime strategy in any way


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yes, except that our MCDVs are steel hulled and the engines aren't shock-mounted, so we'd sweep acoustic and magnetic mines once.



One of the main issues inhibiting the use of the MCDV's is the 1944 public (and politicians by default) perceive naval mine warfare as not having advanced since then.  

With all these new UXV's why would anyone actually go into a minefield, when UAV's can look for surface mines and UUVs can look for bottom mines.  Ship stays out of the minefield and sends its minions in.  If you want to mechanically sweep you use a helicopter for that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well the public/politicians think that all sea mines float on chains with pointy things all over them and subs travel through the sea making a lovely "pinging" noise.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> If they do, hopefully they install a 35mm in a RWS to discourage visitors.



Why 35mm?  Do we have other weapons that use that calibre?  Why not 25mm to be in line with the LAVs or 20mm for CIWS?  

It'd be much easier on common parts, ammo, etc.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> One of the main issues inhibiting the use of the MCDV's is the 1944 public (and politicians by default) perceive naval mine warfare as not having advanced since then.
> 
> With all these new UXV's why would anyone actually go into a minefield, when UAV's can look for surface mines and UUVs can look for bottom mines.  Ship stays out of the minefield and sends its minions in.  If you want to mechanically sweep you use a helicopter for that.



Thats exactly what we do.


----------



## Cloud Cover

“One of the main issues inhibiting the use of the MCDV's is the 1944 public (and politicians by default) perceive naval mine warfare as not having advanced since then.”

You’re right, and it’s especially a shame since it was the US that mined Haiphong harbour, and thus re-proved the relevancy of naval mines, and mine hunting, since it was the USN which removed the very same mines in short order as a commitment to the Peace Accords.


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Thats exactly what we do.



 ;D I was being a bit tongue in cheek with my comments there.   ;D


----------



## Dale Denton

Saw a photo of Glace Bay in Cutlass Fury and wondered what that green container might be.

Photo of HMCS Glace Bay with unknown container:
http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/en/photo-search.page#ipa_assetDetail=%7BB1AD8358-4B58-431B-ACDC-7265C99D916D%7D



I suspect it may be this:

*Elbit Systems Canadian Subsidiary Completes Tests of a Second Sonar System with the Royal Canadian Navy*

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/206201/elbit%E2%80%99s-canadian-unit-completes-tests-of-second-sonar-system.html



> NOVA SCOTIA, Canada --- Elbit Systems’ Canadian subsidiary, GeoSpectrum Technologies (GTI), announces the successful Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) trial of its Towed Reelable Active Passive Sonar (TRAPS) on board the HMCS Glace Bay of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), completing final assessment of a second TRAPS onboard RCN’s vessels (tests of GTI’s TRAPS onboard HMCS Shawinigan were competed during September 2018). The performance trials of TRAPS with HMCS Glace Bay were conducted by the Department of National Defence’s science and technology organization and the Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC).
> 
> Easily deployed and recovered by a single operator, the sonar system showed great potential through the trials period, meeting predicted ranges in target detection, in both passive and active modes against different targets.
> 
> TRAPS is a Low Frequency (LF) variable-depth-sonar intended for detection, tracking and classification of submarines, midget submarines, surface vessels and torpedoes. Its’ “wet-end” towed arrays’ acoustic elements are a vertical projector and a receive array. TRAPS’ unique advantage is that its’ projector array is reel-able and stows on the winch drum with the receive array and tow cable. This system enables the Royal Canadian Navy to expand the capabilities of ships like the Kingston and Henry (?) Dewolfe Class into an Anti-submarine role.




Elbit info: https://elbitsystems.com/landing/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GEOSPECTRUM-TECHNOLOGIES-INC.-BROCHURE-TRAPS.pdf


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Saw a photo of Glace Bay in Cutlass Fury and wondered what that green container might be.
> 
> Photo of HMCS Glace Bay with unknown container:
> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/en/photo-search.page#ipa_assetDetail=%7BB1AD8358-4B58-431B-ACDC-7265C99D916D%7D
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it may be this:
> 
> *Elbit Systems Canadian Subsidiary Completes Tests of a Second Sonar System with the Royal Canadian Navy*
> 
> https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/206201/elbit%E2%80%99s-canadian-unit-completes-tests-of-second-sonar-system.html
> 
> 
> Elbit info: https://elbitsystems.com/landing/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GEOSPECTRUM-TECHNOLOGIES-INC.-BROCHURE-TRAPS.pdf



Nothing to do with TRAPS.


----------



## Spencer100

All fixed and ready to go

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/canadian-warship-nears-completion-of-5m-upgrade-1.4789224?fbclid=IwAR17aV2SH3hV9L6aRm4WlrPZpPV44Ddlv8f5UiC3OA2Cya0bbP-whQKesa8


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dang that picture got me all excited that they had re-installed a new gun system on it, then realized it's just an old photo.


----------



## Stoker

Well according to the Commander of the RCN, the Kingston Class will be extended instead of being paid off.


----------



## CBH99

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Well according to the Commander of the RCN, the Kingston Class will be extended instead of being paid off.




As an experienced Navy guy, what are your thoughts on that Chief Engineer?  (Or Underway, or any other Navy folks on here?)


----------



## FSTO

CBH99 said:
			
		

> As an experienced Navy guy, what are your thoughts on that Chief Engineer?  (Or Underway, or any other Navy folks on here?)



Things I don't know - the condition of the MCDVs. They have been rode pretty hard over the past 25 years. How much longer can they last? But then again we pushed PRO and PRE until the ships themselves said 'ENOUGH FOR CRYN OUT LOUD! I'M DONE!"

Things I do know - If we do reverse the decision the choice will be slow, undergunned and will do jobs it was never designed to do. That's the Canadian way.


----------



## MARS

Colin P said:
			
		

> Dang that picture got me all excited that they had re-installed a new gun system on it, then realized it's just an old photo.



It is from Oct 1998, our inaugural entrance to Esquimalt Hbr following the coastal transfer from the East Coast.  I'm on the bridge wing in the photo.



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> As an experienced Navy guy, what are your thoughts on that Chief Engineer?  (Or Underway, or any other Navy folks on here?)



While it may be strategically imprudent, there are immediate Operational-level effects that can be achieved by MARLANT/MARPAC by keeping them going, particularly cost savings.
Take a low-impact mission like Op CARIBBE - a KINGSTON-Class MM can only do maybe 40-50% of what a HALIFAX-Class frigate could do on the same mission - but it can do it at 10% of the cost of a Frigate. (Those numbers are just ROM numbers for illustration purposes - except the 10% bit.  My annual fuel budget in 2014 was 10% of what a friend's annual FFG fuel budget was). The same goes for SAR Patrols, Sovereignty Patrols, Fisheries Patrols, MARPATs, etc.  All stuff that is currently assigned to the RCN - some of which are part of official burden-sharing agreements with OGDs, so not something that the RCN can easily divest ourselves of.

Training is another aspect.  With so many recent years where junior officers spent their times as 2nd, 3rd and 4th Officers-of-the-Watch because of a limited number of FFGs, MCDVs provide more platforms for junior officers to get their basic navigation and OOW training done and somewhat consolidated. Sure, no one is launching or recovering a helo on an MCDV or the other high-speed, low drag stuff, but a Sub-Lieutenant gets to drive a ship.  Heck, I deployed to the Arctic with a Pre-NOPQ officer as my NavO.  He was standing his own watches about 3 weeks after leaving Halifax.

The Command development opportunities at the XO and CO-level for pre-FFG XO officers are also worth their weight in training gold, I think.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> Things I don't know - the condition of the MCDVs. They have been rode pretty hard over the past 25 years. How much longer can they last? But then again we pushed PRO and PRE until the ships themselves said 'ENOUGH FOR CRYN OUT LOUD! I'M DONE!"
> 
> Things I do know - If we do reverse the decision the choice will be slow, undergunned and will do jobs it was never designed to do. That's the Canadian way.



The ships are in what I would say good shape. They have a pretty robust civilian maintenance program and every 60 months the ship is dry docked for inspections and implementation of some of the more invasive Engineering Changes (ECs). I would suspect they have at least another 10 years in them. As systems age out we get newer systems and our ships have never been laid up due to parts shortages. I just had a new digital steering system installed which is part of a wider EC for a dynamic positioning system which is very similar to what a offshore supply ship has. According to the contractor it has a 200% redundancy. MARS will attest the importance of a new steering system 

As MARS said , very economical and I would add very hard to replace. Since Jan I was to Africa and the equator and to the Arctic Circle with very little maintenance issues. We went home early due to COVID, fueled in Cape Verde and had no issues crossing the Atlantic on the fuel.


----------



## MARS

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> MARS will attest the importance of a new steering system


*shudder*

A genuine testament to your leadership and the performance of your team, Chief.  The flurry of helm and engine orders I issued in that (aborted) departure from Cartagena would have been enough for the SSD Helmsman to have earned his pay that day.  The fact that you and your team were able to respond to them quickly and correctly from Secondary Steering still amazes me, and reminds me how fortunate I was.  

 :cheers:

But we digress....back on topic


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:
			
		

> Things I do know - If we do reverse the decision the choice will be slow, undergunned and will do jobs it was never designed to do. That's the Canadian way.



Ain't that the truth and in some respects the Army does the same thing - the exceptions being The Leopards and The LAVs.


----------



## dimsum

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Ain't that the truth and in some respects the Army does the same thing - the exceptions being The Leopards and The LAVs.



Ditto with RCAF.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Ain't that the truth and in some respects the Army does the same thing - the exceptions being The Leopards and The LAVs.



WRT the LAVs - 25mm isn't 40mm.  Or even 35mm.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MARS said:
			
		

> It is from Oct 1998, our inaugural entrance to Esquimalt Hbr following the coastal transfer from the East Coast.  I'm on the bridge wing in the photo.
> 
> While it may be strategically imprudent, there are immediate Operational-level effects that can be achieved by MARLANT/MARPAC by keeping them going, particularly cost savings.
> Take a low-impact mission like Op CARIBBE - a KINGSTON-Class MM can only do maybe 40-50% of what a HALIFAX-Class frigate could do on the same mission - but it can do it at 10% of the cost of a Frigate. (Those numbers are just ROM numbers for illustration purposes - except the 10% bit.  My annual fuel budget in 2014 was 10% of what a friend's annual FFG fuel budget was). The same goes for SAR Patrols, Sovereignty Patrols, Fisheries Patrols, MARPATs, etc.  All stuff that is currently assigned to the RCN - some of which are part of official burden-sharing agreements with OGDs, so not something that the RCN can easily divest ourselves of.
> 
> Training is another aspect.  With so many recent years where junior officers spent their times as 2nd, 3rd and 4th Officers-of-the-Watch because of a limited number of FFGs, MCDVs provide more platforms for junior officers to get their basic navigation and OOW training done and somewhat consolidated. Sure, no one is launching or recovering a helo on an MCDV or the other high-speed, low drag stuff, but a Sub-Lieutenant gets to drive a ship.  Heck, I deployed to the Arctic with a Pre-NOPQ officer as my NavO.  He was standing his own watches about 3 weeks after leaving Halifax.
> 
> The Command development opportunities at the XO and CO-level for pre-FFG XO officers are also worth their weight in training gold, I think.



It will be interesting to compare those estimates with the AOP's where you might double the fuel costs over the MCDV but increase the versatility significantly. I suspect that in about 3-5 years enough experience to compare the 3 types.


----------



## Cronicbny

Colin P said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to compare those estimates with the AOP's where you might double the fuel costs over the MCDV but increase the versatility significantly. I suspect that in about 3-5 years enough experience to compare the 3 types.



You will more than double fuel costs. The HDW class at 95% take some 716CUM of fuel which is 4 1/3 times the capacity of the KIN Class. While the range of HDW is 20% better, and the endurance at sea much longer (which makes sense given the significant size difference) I have to think the fuel budget will be much higher. While I agree that versatility will be greatly improved, the HDW class will be magnitudes more expensive to operate and maintain than the KIN Class.


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The ships are in what I would say good shape. They have a pretty robust civilian maintenance program and every 60 months the ship is dry docked for inspections and implementation of some of the more invasive Engineering Changes (ECs). I would suspect they have at least another 10 years in them. As systems age out we get newer systems and our ships have never been laid up due to parts shortages. I just had a new digital steering system installed which is part of a wider EC for a dynamic positioning system which is very similar to what a offshore supply ship has. According to the contractor it has a 200% redundancy. MARS will attest the importance of a new steering system
> 
> As MARS said , very economical and I would add very hard to replace. Since Jan I was to Africa and the equator and to the Arctic Circle with very little maintenance issues. We went home early due to COVID, fueled in Cape Verde and had no issues crossing the Atlantic on the fuel.



All I can do is back up these two knowledgeable gentlemen.  From the engineering side the MCDV's were not "rode hard and put away wet" like the frigates were so many times in the past.  The contractor support for the systems and the reduced complexity of these vessels has done them quite well.  No combat systems to speak of means their cost is very low from a maintenance perspective, not just an operational perspective.

As for their usage, since the "big idea" I think the RCN is using them correctly with the development path for Officers.  It's not just the NWO types who are getting leadership exposure/development at a lower rank than what was traditional but they are also now trialing Jr. Engineering officers (just off PHVI) onboard as HODs for the Eng Dept on the East Coast.  A valuable experience for these folks as normally their sea time is limited depending on their first ship posting.  And early exposure to departmental work and the divisional system will make them far better/more confident officers for their AHOD and HOD tours.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> All I can do is back up these two knowledgeable gentlemen.  From the engineering side the MCDV's were not "rode hard and put away wet" like the frigates were so many times in the past.  The contractor support for the systems and the reduced complexity of these vessels has done them quite well.  No combat systems to speak of means their cost is very low from a maintenance perspective, not just an operational perspective.
> 
> As for their usage, since the "big idea" I think the RCN is using them correctly with the development path for Officers.  It's not just the NWO types who are getting leadership exposure/development at a lower rank than what was traditional but they are also now trailing Jr. Engineering officers (just off PHVI) onboard as HODs for the Eng Depton the East Coast.  A valuable experience for these folks as normally their sea time is limited depending on their first ship posting.  And early exposure to departmental work and the divisional system will make them far better/more confident officers for their AHOD and HOD tours.



Yes looking forward to the NTO's coming in and taking over of the mounds of paperwork and extra duties such as environmental officer that I have to deal with. I'm glad that I can mentor them.


----------



## FSTO

Okay, I'm humbly bowed by my previous statement. MCDV's are a decent training and benign operational environment platform.


----------



## Underway

Some updates on the MCDV's.  As they have now are starting to reach the end of their design life the RCN is working on life extensions.  No surprise here, it's literally in LEADMARK 2050 that this was the goal.

More importantly, there is a discussion on standing up a replacement OPV project within the next few years (it's all watercooler stuff right now). That would likely be to do some sort of options analysis, requirements analysis, lessons learned etc...

Now I'm not sure where that sort of analysis would end up.  LEADMARK lists Mine Countermeasures as an important task for the class and that retention of that capability within the RCN is important.  It also points out how valuable the MCDV's have been on peace support and security missions from Africa to the Mexican west coast.  There is also the discussion that any such replacement vessel would need to complement the AOPS.

However, the RCN really hasn't invested into MCM heavily like say the Belgians or Swedes have.  We don't embarrass ourselves but it's not what I would call a strong capability outside of the Clearance diver trade.  It's not like the Kingston class is a specialized MCM vessel.  It's basically just a maneuverable hull that you slap equipment on.

Now the fun.  A replacement (@Colin Parkinson  get in here, you love this stuff...)
Given the two mission sets inherent to the Kingston Class there are two general ways to go.  A single class replacement or two class replacement.

 6-8 ships to replace 12, as the AOPS will be doing some of the security missions.

Looking at some of the options out there the MCMV that the Belgians/Dutch are looking to use seems like quite the package.  It is however listed at ~2800 tons and ~82m in length.  It's a much more substantial ship than the MCDV, but with that likely comes better seakeeping and legs.  What I like about it that those large MCM vehicle launch bays could also carry boats for security missions.  It has a cruise speed of 15 knots.

One of the things that stand out with this ship is that its a package of systems.  Without all the other systems (or ones like it) its not nearly as effective.  If the RCN wants to take MCM seriously this is the type of direction they should head.

If OPV is the goal then River Class stands out to me.  It's literally designed for the Northern Latitudes.  It's twice the size of an MCDV but goes about twice as fast as well.  The fact it can take ISO containers makes it flexible for some of the interesting trials that MCDV's do.  Also it would be a good platform for the TRAPS to add some ASW capabilities to an OPV.  Using a similar ISO container capability to makeover the ship to be an MCM platform could be done but it doesn't have the station-keeping abilities likely needed of a proper MCM (with thrusters etc...).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Great post, first initial thoughts:

The MCDV as is has done Yeoman service and almost exact copy is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's good they are not replacing them now, I think the RCN is going to need 5 years to wrap themselves around what the AOP's brings to the table and what it does not. 

Mine hunting and clearance is going to be a important asset in the coming future as mines get smart and blur the lines between mine/torpedo/loitering munitions.

Speed is a harsh mistress, you always give up something for it, be careful of the allure of speed at the expense of many things. 

Accommodations and crew comfort/safety are going to be critical to maintaining people in the fleet. Build in spare capacity

Flexible cargo is nice but how much do we really use it? How often do we change out modules? 

Flight ops, are we looking at a ship that can land a helicopter, if so what size? Or our we looking for a small pad to support UAV's and vertical transfers from helicopters. 

Training: How much of the role will be training future Naval Personal? That impacts on ships services, accommodations.

6" high angle automated guns in a dual high speed turret and 12 VLS   (I have a rep to maintain  )  Forward gun mount designed to accommodate up to 57 or 76mm gun with protected magazine space and power/comms. Even if they put the same weapon system and comms as the AOP's but have the built in ability to rearm it. Hard points and services for countermeasures midships both sides and RWS (.50cal/25mm protecting the aft. Aligning the combat systems with the AOP's has value both in training and parts. A lot depends on the size and layout of the vessel.

Does it need ice strengthening?

Towing, since Canada does not have dedicated support ships, can these also fulfil the role of rescue tug for the fleet?

That's all I can think of now, I also like the new River Class OPV, but wonder about the mine hunting being lost with them?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Can you minehunt with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles? How close to a mine do you actually have to get and is precision station keeping mandatory?


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> Can you minehunt with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles? How close to a mine do you actually have to get and is precision station keeping mandatory?



Autonomous not to sure.  I don't think so yet.  From my convo's with clearance divers over the years a mine could look like anything (underwater IED for example).  Or partially burried in mud.  I think an autonomous system that drives a grid with a sensor to find objects (route survey) would be a good idea.  Then send in UUV's to check out what they are and a human can make an assessment if that was a mine or just a barrel.

UUV's do the identification, placement of the explosive to disable the mine, and then post explosion inspection to see if it worked.  Which means a ship/boat needs to be close enough for that tether back to the control station.  If divers are used I'm sure they want to return to approx where they left from.  I can only conclude that ideally excellent dynamic station keeping would be required for that.  But that doesn't have to be the ship, it could be a boat the ship launches while the ship cruises around safely away from the minefield.



This image may explain it better.  You can see where the tech is going and infer for yourself where an autonomous vehicle might fit in best.  The Belgians are likely the best MCM experts in NATO. Its a valuable nitch they fit in given their countries size.

Of note most mines do NOT look like those pictured here.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Autonomous not to sure.  I don't think so yet.  From my convo's with clearance divers over the years a mine could look like anything (underwater IED for example).  Or partially burried in mud.  I think an autonomous system that drives a grid with a sensor to find objects (route survey) would be a good idea.  Then send in UUV's to check out what they are and a human can make an assessment if that was a mine or just a barrel.
> 
> UUV's do the identification, placement of the explosive to disable the mine, and then post explosion inspection to see if it worked.  Which means a ship/boat needs to be close enough for that tether back to the control station.  If divers are used I'm sure they want to return to approx where they left from.  I can only conclude that ideally excellent dynamic station keeping would be required for that.  But that doesn't have to be the ship, it could be a boat the ship launches while the ship cruises around safely away from the minefield.
> 
> View attachment 65341
> 
> This image may explain it better.  You can see where the tech is going and infer for yourself where an autonomous vehicle might fit in best.  The Belgians are likely the best MCM experts in NATO. Its a valuable nitch they fit in given their countries size.
> 
> Of note most mines do NOT look like those pictured here.


Thanks. I don’t follow MCM all that closely, so I wasn’t sure where the tech was today/near future. It does seem to me that the “mother platform” can be quite a bit less specialized than it was in the past, if it is carrying the appropriate mission payload and the requisite autonmous vehicles (tethered or not) that can do the search/ID/neutralization work, without risking mom (too much).

And I get that mines don’t much look like their WW2 grandparents anymore.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I'd imagine the question would be whether it was deemed necessary to invest more heavily into a dedicated mine warfare/clearance capability or are we satisfied with how we do it now? It's been stated in this forum before that mechanical sweeping has not been done by the MCDV's for some time and that they are trending towards using drones and standing off a bit. If we feel that this is as much as we need to do, then we leave it to other NATO members to do the specialized stuff and we pivot towards a more OPV biased solution. Given our coastlines and the area of operations where a replacement OPV would be regularly tasked, I would suggest a larger, faster and more capable vessel is the preferred option. A RIVER class OPV is a major step forward for our coastal patrol needs, but there are a few drawbacks. Lack of hangar of any size for either help or UAV has drawn considerable criticism in the UK. It also is not currently equipped with a bow thruster. That would make dynamic positioning/manoeuvring difficult for the times it would be involved with mine related operations. Personally, I'm a fan of the RNZN OTAGO class. It has a hangar, bow thruster, multiple smaller boat capabilities and is ice strengthened. It has decent range at 15kts and can make 22 as required. Moreover, I believe it was originally designed in Canada by STX marine.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAYegQINBAC&usg=AOvVaw19MHU068-m-cTQWeBU3HHt


----------



## Swampbuggy

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/protectorclassoffsho/&ved=2ahUKEwjM-f_ZzvvwAhVUOs0KHdeUCqwQFjAYegQINBAC&usg=AOvVaw19MHU068-m-cTQWeBU3HHt


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> And I get that mines don’t much look like their WW2 grandparents anymore.


No offense was intended. That addendum wasn't directed at you, more for the general audience who might not know much about naval mines in general.   🍻


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> I'd imagine the question would be whether it was deemed necessary to invest more heavily into a dedicated mine warfare/clearance capability or are we satisfied with how we do it now?





SeaKingTacco said:


> It does seem to me that the “mother platform” can be quite a bit less specialized than it was in the past, if it is carrying the appropriate mission payload and the requisite autonmous vehicles (tethered or not) that can do the search/ID/neutralization work, without risking mom (too much).


This is the question.  What's the true requirement?  MCDV's have spent most of their time in OPV roles.  That being said they have done plenty of route survey, MCM jobs in the past.  With AOPS coming online there may be less need for OPVs.  A swing into mines might be useful.  But that would require an investment outside of the ship in tech and training to do that properly.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> This is the question.  What's the true requirement?  MCDV's have spent most of their time in OPV roles.  That being said they have done plenty of route survey, MCM jobs in the past.  With AOPS coming online there may be less need for OPVs.  A swing into mines might be useful.  But that would require an investment outside of the ship in tech and training to do that properly.


I feel like the AOPS are already going to be stretched pretty thin. With only 6 and lots of potential taskings on 3 coasts and abroad, their dance card is looking pretty full already. I also wonder if they'll be sent to do more frigate style work as the CPF's need more and more down time for maintenance. Another OPV that can take some of the load, maybe even patrol in the Gulf, for example, could be of great benefit. The AOPS are amazing, flexible ships, but they're also 7000 tonnes of displacement to push around. That has to be expensive if compared to something in the 2000 tonne range. 

I've wondered before, if the MCDV'S had their operational tempo reduced somewhat, could you save 4-6 of them to keep as MCM units for another 20 years? Genuinely curious as to how feasible that would be, if they weren't being sent to Africa or the Caribbean as often. If it were possible, maybe there is a place for another 5-6 new OPVS, along with the 6 AOPS and 4 MCDV's? It would certainly cover a lot of bases.


----------



## Underway

AFAIK 10 more years for them isn't out of the question.  Given a replacement project would have to be stood up and all that stuff 10 years is likely.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MGBs!  Brings back the MGBs!


----------



## dapaterson

Medium Girder Bridges?


----------



## CBH99

Swampbuggy said:


> I feel like the AOPS are already going to be stretched pretty thin. With only 6 and lots of potential taskings on 3 coasts and abroad, their dance card is looking pretty full already. I also wonder if they'll be sent to do more frigate style work as the CPF's need more and more down time for maintenance. Another OPV that can take some of the load, maybe even patrol in the Gulf, for example, could be of great benefit. The AOPS are amazing, flexible ships, but they're also 7000 tonnes of displacement to push around. That has to be expensive if compared to something in the 2000 tonne range.
> 
> I've wondered before, if the MCDV'S had their operational tempo reduced somewhat, could you save 4-6 of them to keep as MCM units for another 20 years? Genuinely curious as to how feasible that would be, if they weren't being sent to Africa or the Caribbean as often. If it were possible, maybe there is a place for another 5-6 new OPVS, along with the 6 AOPS and 4 MCDV's? It would certainly cover a lot of bases.


My only concern about that would be having 3 different fleets of surface vessels, all more or less performing overlapping duties.  From a training and maintenance perspective, it could add complexities and challenges that the RCN doesn't need.


----------



## Halifax Tar

CBH99 said:


> My only concern about that would be having 3 different fleets of surface vessels, all more or less performing overlapping duties.  From a training and maintenance perspective, it could add complexities and challenges that the RCN doesn't need.


I would like to see something that would use common to fleet machinery systems to make the logistics of supporting the fleet that much easier.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> This is the question.  What's the true requirement?  MCDV's have spent most of their time in OPV roles.  That being said they have done plenty of route survey, MCM jobs in the past.  With AOPS coming online there may be less need for OPVs.  A swing into mines might be useful.  But that would require an investment outside of the ship in tech and training to do that properly.


I feel like the AOPS are already going to be stretched pretty thin. With only 6 and lots of potential taskings on 3 coasts and abroad, their dance card is looking pretty full already. I also wonder if they'll be sent to do more frigate style work as the CPF's need more and more down time for maintenance. Another OPV that can take some of the load, maybe even patrol in the Gulf, for example, could be of great benefit. The AOPS are amazing, flexible ships, but they're also 7000 tonnes of displacement to push around. That has to be expensive if compared to something in the 2000 tonne range.

I've wondered before, if the MCDV'S had their operational tempo reduced somewhat, could you save 4-6 of them to keep as MCM units for another 20 years? Genuinely curious as to how feasible that would be, if they weren't being sent to Africa or the Caribbean as often. If it were possible, maybe there is a place for another 5-6 new OPVS, along


Halifax Tar said:


> I would like to see something that would use common to fleet machinery systems to make the logistics of supporting the fleet that much easier.





Halifax Tar said:


> I would like to see something that would use common to fleet machinery systems to make the logistics of supporting the fleet that much easier.


Definitely agree. Same CMS 330 version as the AOPS, maybe even same propulsion set up. If the timing was right, maybe you could also repurpose equipment from the CPF's as they come off line. Fire control, 57mm etc.


----------



## blacktriangle

Underway said:


> Of note most mines do NOT look like those pictured here.


That's something I wonder about - the blurring of lines between what most people consider to be naval mines, and weaponized UUVs. How many mines are going to be more akin to floating or submerged loitering munitions than conventional mines? Anti-submarine mines that are essentially torpedoes in waiting have been around for some time, and the USN is continuing to push ahead with programs like Hammerhead...

Do we need to really disarm each one of these sort of systems, or can we find a way to seduce some of them into attacking an expendable decoy that produces an attractive signature?


----------



## Underway

Some mines rise and sink on a timer.  Some float free, some are tethered and some rest on the bottom.  Some listen for a specific sonar signature, some explode after a specific number of magnetic signatures have passed.  Some are command-detonated.  And some like you said wait to shoot a torpedo at you.  They already are the original loitering munition.



reveng said:


> Do we need to really disarm each one of these sort of systems, or can we find a way to seduce some of them into attacking an expendable decoy that produces an attractive signature?



Yes.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> I would like to see something that would use common to fleet machinery systems to make the logistics of supporting the fleet that much easier.


I would not.  As soon as you write requirements that have a specific piece of equipment instead of a specific performance goal you have just created a situation where your solution is obsolete before the ship is built.  It still happens particularly with communication systems, cryptography and networks. 

In service support contracts to allow for reduced fleet logistical support is a better way to go for the smaller ships IMHO.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> I would not.  As soon as you write requirements that have a specific piece of equipment instead of a specific performance goal you have just created a situation where your solution is obsolete before the ship is built.  It still happens particularly with communication systems, cryptography and networks.
> 
> In service support contracts to allow for reduced fleet logistical support is a better way to go for the smaller ships IMHO.


There is actually a clause in the AJISS contract that gives incentives if they can find maintenance savings by going towards common equipment (ie during obsolescence replacements), but unless the ships are built at the same time it's difficult for the practical reasons you outlined. We tried doing it for AOPS and JSS but didn't work because the contracts were with different yards, and there was pretty tight limitations with specifying equipment.

Suspect when both are in service we'll probably see some common equipment as things go obsolete (like what happened with the 280s as they slowly got more common equipment with the CPFs), but definitely doesn't work across the board.

Would be strongly against repurposing CPF equipment; we'll beat the crap out of it and run it well past it's useful life, so would cost more to overhaul it and figure out the legacy issues than just buy new (see 280s VLS system).


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> There is actually a clause in the AJISS contract that gives incentives if they can find maintenance savings by going towards common equipment (ie during obsolescence replacements), but unless the ships are built at the same time it's difficult for the practical reasons you outlined. We tried doing it for AOPS and JSS but didn't work because the contracts were with different yards, and there was pretty tight limitations with specifying equipment.
> 
> Suspect when both are in service we'll probably see some common equipment as things go obsolete (like what happened with the 280s as they slowly got more common equipment with the CPFs), but definitely doesn't work across the board.
> 
> Would be strongly against repurposing CPF equipment; we'll beat the crap out of it and run it well past it's useful life, so would cost more to overhaul it and figure out the legacy issues than just buy new (see 280s VLS system).


I did not know AJISS had that incentive, that's very interesting (_adds a note to his AJISS ppt slide..._).
     -for those who don't know AJISS is the AOPS JSS In-Service Support contract

Government-supplied material is generally the main way to get common equipment.  So the CIWS and NRWS which are on the frigates are also being fitted on JSS as we have them in inventory.

And I completely agree with repurposing older CF equipment.  It's a capital project.  If you can afford it, buy new.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> I did not know AJISS had that incentive, that's very interesting (_adds a note to his AJISS ppt slide..._).
> -for those who don't know AJISS is the AOPS JSS In-Service Support contract
> 
> Government-supplied material is generally the main way to get common equipment.  So the CIWS and NRWS which are on the frigates are also being fitted on JSS as we have them in inventory.
> 
> And I completely agree with repurposing older CF equipment.  It's a capital project.  If you can afford it, buy new.


Fair enough. In that case, what would be your baseline requirements for a new OPV, with regards to size, compliment, speed, armament, sensor fit etc? I also wonder about your opinion on ISO capacity, hangar and ability to upscale as need demands?


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> I would like to see something that would use common to fleet machinery systems to make the logistics of supporting the fleet that much easier.


I am a neophyte here in this realm. If we adopt the common to fleet approach, do we not run the risk of single supplier failure, much like the brass valves problem that we encountered?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> No offense was intended. That addendum wasn't directed at you, more for the general audience who might not know much about naval mines in general.   🍻


Oddly enough some mines released by the Iranians and which damaged USN ships was an Ottoman era mine, perhaps from the Dardanelles minefields?  Talk about value for money! Two Navy Ships Strike Mines In Persian Gulf, 7 Injured


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Swampbuggy said:


> I'd imagine the question would be whether it was deemed necessary to invest more heavily into a dedicated mine warfare/clearance capability or are we satisfied with how we do it now? It's been stated in this forum before that mechanical sweeping has not been done by the MCDV's for some time and that they are trending towards using drones and standing off a bit. If we feel that this is as much as we need to do, then we leave it to other NATO members to do the specialized stuff and we pivot towards a more OPV biased solution. Given our coastlines and the area of operations where a replacement OPV would be regularly tasked, I would suggest a larger, faster and more capable vessel is the preferred option. A RIVER class OPV is a major step forward for our coastal patrol needs, but there are a few drawbacks. Lack of hangar of any size for either help or UAV has drawn considerable criticism in the UK. It also is not currently equipped with a bow thruster. That would make dynamic positioning/manoeuvring difficult for the times it would be involved with mine related operations. Personally, I'm a fan of the RNZN OTAGO class. It has a hangar, bow thruster, multiple smaller boat capabilities and is ice strengthened. It has decent range at 15kts and can make 22 as required. Moreover, I believe it was originally designed in Canada by STX marine.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAYegQINBAC&usg=AOvVaw19MHU068-m-cTQWeBU3HHt


However reading the wiki article, it appears the desire to ice strengthen the design ended up making the design  300 tons heavier and wiped out any growth, so a good lesson that any design have growth potentiel worked in at launching.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> No offense was intended. That addendum wasn't directed at you, more for the general audience who might not know much about naval mines in general.   🍻


No offence taken.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> However reading the wiki article, it appears the desire to ice strengthen the design ended up making the design  300 tons heavier and wiped out any growth, so a good lesson that any design have growth potentiel worked in at launching.


Yes, I understand it was quite the battle to get that sorted. IIRC it cost them a heavier main gun too, but I can't recall if that was a weight issue or a budgetary one due to the cost of the strengthening. I'd sure love to have that hangar though. I think it's worth it even for UAVs. I wonder if you could fit a telescopic hangar to a RIVER?


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Yes, I understand it was quite the battle to get that sorted. IIRC it cost them a heavier main gun too, but I can't recall if that was a weight issue or a budgetary one due to the cost of the strengthening. I'd sure love to have that hangar though. I think it's worth it even for UAVs. I wonder if you could fit a telescopic hangar to a RIVER?


Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go.  It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.  
However, something in that tonnage range, with TEU spots like @SeaKingTacco suggested earlier.  A warship forward, a flexible space aft would likely be the best way to do it.  



As you can see from this roughly correctly scaled River class a TEU doesn't take up much space.  If the "flight deck" was repurposed as a workdeck like on the MCDV's it could be very flexible.  Loading UAV's, TRAPS, and any minehunting gear that could be packaged in a TEU could be very useful. 

I would hope for a fully electric motor which would allow it to have a quiet signature.  Mainly so that it doesn't set off mines should that be required but also so that any sonar equipment the ship uses will have less ambient noise.  Flexible accommodations and operations space to run plug-in equipment from.  Generous power margins for those add ons.  

Other than that radar needs to meet the requirements to safely land a helicopter.

Pretty simple actually.  A River Class might be a bit too robust a warship, we could likely get by with something more industrial and workman-like.


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> I am a neophyte here in this realm. If we adopt the common to fleet approach, do we not run the risk of single supplier failure, much like the brass valves problem that we encountered?



All approaches have risk.  Bespoke parts from multiple suppliers? Cost risk because we buy a few from each of a number of different suppliers, and end up carrying more inventory as we need distinct parts for each.  Single supplier? Business continuity risk from the manufacturer as you noted (see also: HLVW fleet).  Off the shelf industry standard part? Quality control from multiple vendors, changing standards.  Outsource support to industry completely? Higher fixed costs, reducing your flexibility to move money around to address emergent issues.

Ideally, your design plan includes sustainment planning so you can assess the risks and identify where you are willing to take risk through the lifecycle.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go.  It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.
> However, something in that tonnage range, with TEU spots like @SeaKingTacco suggested earlier.  A warship forward, a flexible space aft would likely be the best way to do it.
> 
> View attachment 65352
> 
> As you can see from this roughly correctly scaled River class a TEU doesn't take up much space.  If the "flight deck" was repurposed as a workdeck like on the MCDV's it could be very flexible.  Loading UAV's, TRAPS, and any minehunting gear that could be packaged in a TEU could be very useful.
> 
> I would hope for a fully electric motor which would allow it to have a quiet signature.  Mainly so that it doesn't set off mines should that be required but also so that any sonar equipment the ship uses will have less ambient noise.  Flexible accommodations and operations space to run plug-in equipment from.  Generous power margins for those add ons.
> 
> Other than that radar needs to meet the requirements to safely land a helicopter.
> 
> Pretty simple actually.  A River Class might be a bit too robust a warship, we could likely get by with something more industrial and workman-like.


Off the top of my head I can't think of too many other options that would be considered a lower end vessel than the RIVER. SAMUEL BECKETT class maybe? I think anything more workman like would probably wind up being a clean sheet design, unless you found something like a Sea Truck design from somebody to use as a starting point.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One nice thing about the MCDV's is that they seem to hit the sweet spot for deployabilty , yet can get into places none of the other ships can get into.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Swampbuggy said:


> Off the top of my head I can't think of too many other options that would be considered a lower end vessel than the RIVER. SAMUEL BECKETT class maybe? I think anything more workman like would probably wind up being a clean sheet design, unless you found something like a Sea Truck design from somebody to use as a starting point.


Well that class would give us this option and the pipe " All hands to hull scraping stations"


----------



## CBH99

Talking about an MCDV replacement a decade or so down the road... what would you change, what would you keep the same, etc with the replacement?

Reading up on them, they have been incredible little ships.  Extremely useful for deployments to west Africa & Caribbean, great for training & gaining experience, fairly cheap to both operate and maintain, etc etc.  By all means, their simplicity seems to be one of their best features.

Assuming we would be replacing the MCDV with something similar, hull for hull -- what are some of the changes you experienced folks would like to see in the "MCDV 2.0"?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> One nice thing about the MCDV's is that they seem to hit the sweet spot for deployabilty , yet can get into places none of the other ships can get into.


That's certainly true, but I think the replacement has to be a bit more substantial. Sea keeping, speed and flexibility in mission profile would be better served by a longer, larger displacement vessel. For myself, I'd prefer to see something that makes at least 20kt, has a landing pad, ability to store unmanned systems (either hangar, bay or TEU) and can deploy multiple RHIBS. Ideally, I'd like whatever armament to have at least a bit of air defense potential (say 40mm Bofors) with the fire control director to back it up. I'd also like to see positions for smaller NRWS (room to grow from .50 to 30mm if need dictated). Now that I'm talking it out, it seems I'm describing the ARAFURA class, almost. It's a German design, modified for the RAN. They're building them right now and they will have the ability to perform all the duties of their current patrol, survey and dive tender vessels. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAcegQIOxAC&usg=AOvVaw2RwKZy7Z05bAq6bz1zkecz


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go.  It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.
> However, something in that tonnage range, with TEU spots like @SeaKingTacco suggested earlier.  A warship forward, a flexible space aft would likely be the best way to do it.
> 
> View attachment 65352
> 
> As you can see from this roughly correctly scaled River class a TEU doesn't take up much space.  If the "flight deck" was repurposed as a workdeck like on the MCDV's it could be very flexible.  Loading UAV's, TRAPS, and any minehunting gear that could be packaged in a TEU could be very useful.
> 
> I would hope for a fully electric motor which would allow it to have a quiet signature.  Mainly so that it doesn't set off mines should that be required but also so that any sonar equipment the ship uses will have less ambient noise.  Flexible accommodations and operations space to run plug-in equipment from.  Generous power margins for those add ons.
> 
> Other than that radar needs to meet the requirements to safely land a helicopter.
> 
> Pretty simple actually.  A River Class might be a bit too robust a warship, we could likely get by with something more industrial and workman-like.


I don’t think I would bother with trying to engineer a flight deck for a Cyclone. That is an awfully small amount of tonnage to handle a 30,000lb helicopter. I don’t think it would ever be workable.

A large VERTREP/RPAS launch and recovery area (up to an including an MQ-8 firescout sized vehicle)? Certainly.

An ability to HIFR larger helicopters? Maybe- again, it depends on weight/engineering trade-offs. Everything in shipbuilding has a price.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Regarding helo ops, it's kind of a lost  opportunity in some respects to not have a lesser aircraft to deploy from ships than the Cyclone. I believe the AOPS are to be sent north with a CCG help and airdet at least initially. I think something like a bell 429 tasked for AOPS or new OPV missions would have been great. It would have been a nice follow on from the earlier CCG purchase. I'm sure that UAVs like the Skeldar for example, will be a useful alternative to this, though.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go.  It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.
> However, something in that tonnage range, with TEU spots like @SeaKingTacco suggested earlier.  A warship forward, a flexible space aft would likely be the best way to do it.
> 
> View attachment 65352


Why would we need a 40mm?  No other ship or gun in the CAF uses it anymore.  That just means more types of ammo (which we have, but we should consolidate our ammo types if possible).

Make it 57mm in line with the CPFs, or 25mm in line with AOPS.


----------



## Swampbuggy

dimsum said:


> Why would we need a 40mm?  No other ship or gun in the CAF uses it anymore.  That just means more types of ammo (which we have, but we should consolidate our ammo types if possible).
> 
> Make it 57mm in line with the CPFs, or 25mm in line with AOPS.


I was using it as sort of a low bar for something that has an air defense and anti surface capacity. Naturally, I would prefer a 57mm for the reason you mentioned and also for its impact. I'm still of the opinion that the 25mm is a bit light, but it's probably good for 90% of what the vessel would be expected to deal with. There's also the 30mm that will be the secondary gun in CSC too, to consider.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> I don’t think I would bother with trying to engineer a flight deck for a Cyclone. That is an awfully small amount of tonnage to handle a 30,000lb helicopter. I don’t think it would ever be workable.
> 
> A large VERTREP/RPAS launch and recovery area (up to an including an MQ-8 firescout sized vehicle)? Certainly.
> 
> An ability to HIFR larger helicopters? Maybe- again, it depends on weight/engineering trade-offs. Everything in shipbuilding has a price.



MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).  

The open-source does say that the River Class flight deck is engineered for a Merlin, which IIRC is bigger/heavier than a Cyclone.  Of course, that might be a glossy brochure, designed for and capable of operating with is not the same thing.  Same reason I'm always skeptical of brochures that say Chinook-sized.  Who lands a chinook on a destroyer?


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> Why would we need a 40mm?  No other ship or gun in the CAF uses it anymore.  That just means more types of ammo (which we have, but we should consolidate our ammo types if possible).
> 
> Make it 57mm in line with the CPFs, or 25mm in line with AOPS.


That image was  "modified" CASR style.  The River Class itself has either a 20 or 30mm depending on the batch.  I was just using the image to illustrate how a TEU could fit onto the ship, and the amount of space available.  The full article link speaks about variants to the River class.

I fully agree with you regarding the gun. 25mm like the HDW would be perfect as it's designed for icing and has an excellent EOIR that moves independently of the gun.  A 30mm will be going on the CSC so it could be that style as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 57mm packs a fair bit of punch without a major weight or footprint. A somewhat longer hull does generally give you a speed bonus without to much penalty.

This is a good shot of the telescoping hanger on the 1100's, if you go for a helipad, it's a useful option


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am also a fan of stern launch systems over cranes and davits, gives you more launching and recovery options, but does come with its own set of design limitations and impacts.

Here is a paper on some the launching and recovery options https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc252/p804722_A1b.pdf


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).


Yeah, but SKELDAR is just a temporary stop-gap, no?  I thought the RCN has a program going on to get other UAS.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> Yeah, but SKELDAR is just a temporary stop-gap, no?  I thought the RCN has a program going on to get other UAS.


Not that I was aware of, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.  I know HMCS Toronto had her stbd torpedo magazine modified into storage and workshop for the Skeldar.  The control station was supposed to go where the Combat Systems Engineering office was normally located.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).
> 
> The open-source does say that the River Class flight deck is engineered for a Merlin, which IIRC is bigger/heavier than a Cyclone.  Of course, that might be a glossy brochure, designed for and capable of operating with is not the same thing.  Same reason I'm always skeptical of brochures that say Chinook-sized.  Who lands a chinook on a destroyer?


I am just saying plan for that size category of an RPAS, not specifically a Firescout (although, it does look pretty good…)


----------



## quadrapiper

Underway said:


> MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).
> 
> The open-source does say that the River Class flight deck is engineered for a Merlin, which IIRC is bigger/heavier than a Cyclone.  Of course, that might be a glossy brochure, designed for and capable of operating with is not the same thing.  Same reason I'm always skeptical of brochures that say Chinook-sized.  Who lands a chinook on a destroyer?


Is/was there a USN design preference somewhere for that, related to escorts working with their amphibious groups, as an emergency recovery option or similar?


----------



## blacktriangle

Halifax Tar said:


> MGBs!  Brings back the MGBs!


You might be able to get some gently used MK VIs right now if you ask nice! Not sure what you'd do with them, but perhaps if you put some in Toronto, Hamilton, or Kingston you might at least attract more kids to join the Navy...


----------



## Weinie

reveng said:


> You might be able to get some gently used MK VIs right now if you ask nice! Not sure what you'd do with them, but perhaps if you put some in Toronto, Hamilton, or Kingston you might at least attract more kids to join the Navy...


Not knowing what either of you were talking about, I googled MGB and Mk VI. Imagine my confusion with the result. 

mgb mkvi - Bing images


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mark VI patrol boat - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> Mark VI patrol boat - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Ok.  Let's get some.


----------



## CBH99

I was thinking 'if' we built an MCDV replacement 10yrs down the road, more or less along the same lines as the current MCDV - what are some improvements that could be made?  (


Weinie said:


> Ok.  Let's get some.


I don't care what the rational heads say, I agree!  Let's just wait until next year, when the US Navy divests itself of them & we can acquire them for dirt cheap (If they don't go to the USCG, which I hope they do.)

Wouldn't be the first time we've bought kit & found a purpose for it after, these would be good times!  Feature some of these with some catchy PR, would help boost recruiting


----------



## blacktriangle

I like how they let O-3s command them, that's pretty cool...

I realize they aren't MCDV replacements, though. Maybe useful for NST?


----------



## JMCanada

Back to mcm and unmanned tools, many of you must have seen this recent article, may be not...








						Autonomous systems – the future of Royal Navy mine warfare | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




...and this, older one about Venari-85








						BMT introduces Venari 85 – candidate for future Royal Navy mine warfare vessel? | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




This one also lacks hangar for a cyclone and stern ramp, but the work area independent of the heli-pad seems nice.


----------



## dimsum

reveng said:


> I like how they let O-3s command them, that's pretty cool...
> 
> I realize they aren't MCDV replacements, though. Maybe useful for NST?


Those things are probably about ORCA-sized (armed, mind you) and we let LT(N) command them...


----------



## Underway

JMCanada said:


> Back to mcm and unmanned tools, many of you must have seen this recent article, may be not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Autonomous systems – the future of Royal Navy mine warfare | Navy Lookout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navylookout.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and this, older one about Venari-85
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BMT introduces Venari 85 – candidate for future Royal Navy mine warfare vessel? | Navy Lookout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navylookout.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one also lacks hangar for a cyclone and stern ramp, but the work area independent of the heli-pad seems nice.


Excellent find.   This is in the realm of what I think the RCN should be looking at for MCM.  Some systems autonomous, others tethered and a mothership.  This makes me wonder if the AOPS could do this role.  It has plenty of space and cranes.  So then the question, if any ship with cranes and space can carry the robotic systems and boats needed for MCM is there a need for a specialized MCM vessel anymore.

And if that's the case maybe the RCN needs to look at a specialized OPV instead of a MCM vessel.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dimsum said:


> Those things are probably about ORCA-sized (armed, mind you) and we let LT(N) command them...



Actually, they are about a third the size of the Orcas, at about 70 tons displacement to the Orca's 210. And at 86 feet long by 20 wide for a draft of four feet, they are only slightly bigger than the old YAG's used to be. Also, a section of them is commanded by  a LT, but most of them are actually  "skippered" by E-7 and E-8's.

With the YAG's, we used to also have that: PO2 and above could attend and pass a tender command and become OIC of those boats when not used for training. And, yes, it did occur, not just a theoretical. I have been out in winter on the West coast with three or four YAG's to do community relations and day cruises for schools, and we crewed the YAG's with three person crew, with only one or two of them out of four having an officer on board and the others being OIC'd by PO2 and PO1's. I think they made the Orca's too large and sophisticated (in terms of equipment) for this to take place today. Shame.


----------



## GR66

Weinie said:


> Ok.  Let's get some.


I read somewhere that one of the reasons that the USN was getting rid of them was that they are maintenance hogs.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Excellent find.   This is in the realm of what I think the RCN should be looking at for MCM.  Some systems autonomous, others tethered and a mothership.  This makes me wonder if the AOPS could do this role.  It has plenty of space and cranes.  So then the question, if any ship with cranes and space can carry the robotic systems and boats needed for MCM is there a need for a specialized MCM vessel anymore.
> 
> And if that's the case maybe the RCN needs to look at a specialized OPV instead of a MCM vessel.


It would also fit in a CSC mission Bay, I'm guessing. Though, I'm not sure you'd want a frigate babysitting a mine clearance operation, but at least the option is there.


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:


> Excellent find.   This is in the realm of what I think the RCN should be looking at for MCM.  Some systems autonomous, others tethered and a mothership.  This makes me wonder if the AOPS could do this role.  It has plenty of space and cranes.  (...)
> 
> And if that's the case maybe the RCN needs to look at a specialized OPV instead of a MCM vessel.



Unless RCN thinks of using civilian ships for MCM (I guess that's not the case), the need for ships with a working area for UUVs and TEUs (TRAPS for instance) is still there. An hybrid OPV+working deck like Venari may be a good option, freeing AOPS to do her Arctic duties.

Besides, the tonnage, speed and hull form of AOPS may be not the best ones to send them to the Caribbean or Africa. Not saying she cannot perform the role, just that it is not optimized for such duties as an OPV could be.

IMHO however, if the OPV is required to have a cyclone pad and hangar (telescopic or not), plus a working deck, we'll rather be in the 2600-3000 tonnes range. Both Damen (NL) and Navantia (SP) have made something in that range.


----------



## Swampbuggy

dimsum said:


> Yeah, but SKELDAR is just a temporary stop-gap, no?  I thought the RCN has a program going on to get other UAS.


Update: Canada issues Royal Canadian Navy ISTAR UAS request for information 

I think you are referring to this current tender. I'm not sure if it's to replace SKELDAR or compliment it. If the latter, that means the RCN would be fielding 3 different UAV systems, including the PUMA used by MCDV'S.


----------



## suffolkowner

maybe another scandinavian ship like the 








						Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




1700t
72m
18 crew
helicopter deck
stern launch and recovery
ice class 6


----------



## Swampbuggy

suffolkowner said:


> maybe another scandinavian ship like the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1700t
> 72m
> 18 crew
> helicopter deck
> stern launch and recovery
> ice class 6


It's a very nice vessel, but not the speediest thing around at 17kt. Range (according to wiki FWIW) is 3000 NM compared with 5500 NM for the RIVER class, too.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Update: Canada issues Royal Canadian Navy ISTAR UAS request for information
> 
> I think you are referring to this current tender. I'm not sure if it's to replace SKELDAR or compliment it. If the latter, that means the RCN would be fielding 3 different UAV systems, including the PUMA used by MCDV'S.


Currently, the SKELDAR contract for the RCN was to have UAS operated by contractors.  There were only a few systems AFAIK, and the concept was trialed.  Now it looks like a 20 year contract for systems to expand the sensor envelope of the frigates out to their weapons ranges.   SKELDAR is likely able to bid on the new contract.  Perhaps this needs to be cut an paste into the Navy UAV discussion thread or the future capability thread.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> maybe another scandinavian ship like the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1700t
> 72m
> 18 crew
> helicopter deck
> stern launch and recovery
> ice class 6


People/Politicians will ask why we need a baby AOP's. The replacement is going to have to be distinct from the AOP's and fill other roles.

So far we all seem to agree on:

Range: must be ocean capable and cross the Atlantic, Sea State? 
Size: No smaller than MCDV, but no bigger than 2500DWT
Roles: Mine hunting is a critical function the RCN needs to maintian and improve
Speed: Faster than the current MCDV
Ice: Ice Strengthened


----------



## JMCanada

I would dare to add to that:

Range: minimum 5000 nm
Speed min. 18 kts. That is 20% above MCDV's 15 kts (wikip.).
Complement: 40-60
Main Gun: minimum 40mm, best 57mm (anti-aerial role)
Propulsion: electric motor for at least up to 12-15 kts.

I think there is no agreement yet on wether hangar is required or not. IMO small-medium helicopters (3 to 6 tons) would be very useful. Bell 429 or 412 (griffon), as someone has already mentioned, would be nice candidates.
Is there a marinized version of them?, i mean, foldable rotor, corrosion-resistant, strenghtened landing gear and so on.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> People/Politicians will ask why we need a baby AOP's. The replacement is going to have to be distinct from the AOP's and fill other roles.
> 
> So far we all seem to agree on:
> 
> Range: must be ocean capable and cross the Atlantic, Sea State?
> Size: No smaller than MCDV, but no bigger than 2500DWT
> Roles: Mine hunting is a critical function the RCN needs to maintian and improve
> Speed: Faster than the current MCDV
> Ice: Ice Strengthened


Also, it would be beneficial to start with a design that has some support from Allies, a class with more than 2 other vessels, say. The RIVER batch 2 is a 5 ship class and is built by BAE. We certainly have some experience with the company and the ship is a big leap over the MCDV. The ARAFURA class of the RAN is just being built now and looks to be about 14 hulls (18 if you count the 4 ships built for Brunei of the same design). It's about 1700 tonnes, makes 22kts,  has a fight/work deck, 4000kt range and will have an MCM biased subclass. It carries and deploys 3 RHIBS. The RAN arms it with a 40mm Bofors and a pair of .50 cal. On paper, it looks good to tick off all the boxes.


----------



## Underway

Ice strengthened - not necessary and will cost too much in speed and range.  AOPS is the ice ship, missions where ice is an issue we can use AOPS.
Gun - 25mm like AOPS or 30mm like CSC will have.  The commonality is important here, and targeting systems for those weapons are contained with the weapon.  Current 40mm or higher require targeting radar particularly if you want to get any effectiveness out of the new ammunition types (3P for example).
Complement - honestly think that this can be cut down to 30 or so for the core crew, of course with spaces for many more.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Ice strengthened - not necessary and will cost too much in speed and range.  AOPS is the ice ship, missions where ice is an issue we can use AOPS.
> Gun - 25mm like AOPS or 30mm like CSC will have.  The commonality is important here, and targeting systems for those weapons are contained with the weapon.  Current 40mm or higher require targeting radar particularly if you want to get any effectiveness out of the new ammunition types (3P for example).
> Complement - honestly think that this can be cut down to 30 or so for the core crew, of course with spaces for many more.


That being the case, I feel the 30mm is the better choice. Higher max elevation to engage air UAVS or helo, higher rate of fire, hitting power and more ready rounds in mount storage. Plus, CSC program would be ordering 30 + units of the weapon, there's likely a cost saving in adding another 7-8 units.


----------



## CBH99

JMCanada said:


> I would dare to add to that:
> 
> Range: minimum 5000 nm
> Speed min. 18 kts. That is 20% above MCDV's 15 kts (wikip.).
> Complement: 40-60
> Main Gun: minimum 40mm, best 57mm (anti-aerial role)
> Propulsion: electric motor for at least up to 12-15 kts.
> 
> I think there is no agreement yet on wether hangar is required or not. IMO small-medium helicopters (3 to 6 tons) would be very useful. Bell 429 or 412 (griffon), as someone has already mentioned, would be nice candidates.
> Is there a marinized version of them?, i mean, foldable rotor, corrosion-resistant, strenghtened landing gear and so on.


The upgraded and new build Twin Hueys the USMC operates are marinized, so it's definitely doable.


----------



## JMCanada

Let me reply one point after another...

Arafura class looks nice, however her short-legs (4000 nm, 21 days) and diesel propulsion do not tick the boxes. As far as it's based on Lurssen OPV-80, going one step beyond to OPV-85 would add hangar, electric drive and maybe higher endurance at the cost of about aditional 300 tons (total 1900). This being all theoretically, as these ships are always tailored to customer request.





						OPV 85 - Lürssen Defence | Lürssen Shipyard - german quality-shipbuilding
					

The OPV 85 Offshore Patrol Vessel is a versatile, flexible and tailor-made platform to meet a wide range of demands in territorial waters and the EEZ.



					luerssen-defence.com
				




Second, a crew of 30 for a MCM vessel may be ok, but, not being an expert, I believe not enough for an OPV.

I may agree to the 30 mm gun, considering that MCDVs are performing their roles without their original 40 mm guns. However the Arafura shows a 40mm... there must be good reasons for that.

Finally, new Hueys (UH-1Y, about 8 tons) may well be the solution, despite I was rather thinking of smaller helicopters (bell 412 or 429), including also Wildcat or the new Airbus' H-160.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 429 is Canadian made and already owed by Canada. I would hire TC to provide the helicopter and crew to provide for the domestic and humanitarian ops. Even the CCG 1100's struggle to handle the 412/414.


----------



## Swampbuggy

JMCanada said:


> Let me reply one point after another...
> 
> Arafura class looks nice, however her short-legs (4000 nm, 21 days) and diesel propulsion do not tick the boxes. As far as it's based on Lurssen OPV-80, going one step beyond to OPV-85 would add hangar, electric drive and maybe higher endurance at the cost of about aditional 300 tons (total 1900). This being all theoretically, as these ships are always tailored to customer request.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPV 85 - Lürssen Defence | Lürssen Shipyard - german quality-shipbuilding
> 
> 
> The OPV 85 Offshore Patrol Vessel is a versatile, flexible and tailor-made platform to meet a wide range of demands in territorial waters and the EEZ.
> 
> 
> 
> luerssen-defence.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, a crew of 30 for a MCM vessel may be ok, but, not being an expert, I believe not enough for an OPV.
> 
> I may agree to the 30 mm gun, considering that MCDVs are performing their roles without their original 40 mm guns. However the Arafura shows a 40mm... there must be good reasons for that.
> 
> Finally, new Hueys (UH-1Y, about 8 tons) may well be the solution, despite I was rather thinking of smaller helicopters (bell 412 or 429), including also Wildcat or the new Airbus' H-160.


I think the 40mm on the ARAFURA is a byproduct of Australia's geographic location in relation to Chinese activities. Our situation is not as tense, realistically, and when the RCN does operate in hot spots (SCS fonops etc) they will send a frigate. It's telling that the RN uses a 30mm on the RIVER class, rather than something larger.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I largely assume that most armament decisions in the West for anything less than a "capital ship"  is driven by "What is the least we can get away with" rather than "What is the best system we can fit on a vessel that size". Throw in budgetary pressures, manning issues and lack of good fleet maintenance support and you can see why they go with the former.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I largely assume that most armament decisions in the West for anything less than a "capital ship"  is driven by "What is the least we can get away with" rather than "What is the best system we can fit on a vessel that size". Throw in budgetary pressures, manning issues and lack of good fleet maintenance support and you can see why they go with the former.


There's always that fall back position that weapons systems can be upscaled as need demands. Though true, it's unclear how long that would take if the situation required it. Between procurement time, installation and associated systems (radar, fire control directors etc), it's not likely to be a very quick turnaround. Hopefully that doesn't come back to haunt anyone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If you build it to the standards for 57/76mm gun, with all the cabling, strengthening, dedicated spaces, Combat support systems and power requirements. Then stick a 30mm on it, you can very quickly up gun it if needed. but if you don't, then you face a very large and expensive hill to climb later. In fact you could buy a few 57mm guns and turrets packed away in grease for such an occasion.


----------



## Underway

How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship?  An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm.  And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.

What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role?  A 57mm is for air defense.  To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar.  All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.

I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.

You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat.  No defence, just offence.  Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.

_Edit:_  In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater.  This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping.  Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship?  An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm.  And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.
> 
> What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role?  A 57mm is for air defense.  To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar.  All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.
> 
> I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.
> 
> You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat.  No defence, just offence.  Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.
> 
> _Edit:_  In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater.  This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping.  Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.





Underway said:


> How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship?  An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm.  And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.
> 
> What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role?  A 57mm is for air defense.  To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar.  All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.
> 
> I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.
> 
> You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat.  No defence, just offence.  Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.
> 
> _Edit:_  In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater.  This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping.  Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.


The RN has also trialled MARTLET light missiles from their DS30M chain gun mounts. That would be an option to up the game a little if needed that wouldn't be too difficult to add on.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjANegQIFRAC&usg=AOvVaw0qVW2uOunML3RksPTW1Rn-


----------



## Underway

They have but the trial ended... oddly.  The missiles were removed and nothing was said about how they worked.  That's usually a sign that they needed to go back to the drawing board (or it was too expensive).

I like the idea, very Russian of them. 

OT- I wonder if MANPADS might be a better choice there.  Really be able to cheaply deal with UAV's that get too close.  Of course, that might be to expensive or not enough range when the 30mm could hit them itself.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin Parkinson said:


> I largely assume that most armament decisions in the West for anything less than a "capital ship"  is driven by "What is the least we can get away with" rather than "What is the best system we can fit on a vessel that size". Throw in budgetary pressures, manning issues and lack of good fleet maintenance support and you can see why they go with the former.


 Unfortunately, history would agree with you. 

Another note, is that few here have thought of _new _jobs for a theoretical MCDV replacement vessel. We must anticipate what new jobs will be asked of this class for the next few decades, and not solely focus on what they do now. Otherwise, gov't will follow the Kingston-Class blueprint and make a slightly newer version that can't do anything well jack-of-a-couple-trades. A flag-waving vessel, armed similarly to an AOPS.

I think it's just as important for us to set the bar at its highest for this new class, while also being stuck with the affordability 'bar' of the MCDVs. If we run down the list of jobs this thing has to be able to do well, we put ourselves in another (compromising) situation. The class isn't even able to do what its named after... exactly how have the Kingston-Class ships been doing coastal defence?? 

Shoulda built 12 AOPS and be done with it. Not possible now, so we'll be stuck with a River-Class Batch 2, that will show up, say hi, wave the flag, and go. And, we'll probably buy 6 to do the job of 12 across 2 coasts.


----------



## Dale Denton

Similarly, forget about the tech specs, as gov't doesn't really care at the end of the day what the tonnage is, just about jobs. 

Would've been smart to do another 6 AOPS, but that's not possible anymore due to CSC timelines/priority.

Call it an Restigouche-Class, make it a light-frigate UAS mothership. Give it all the jobs the CSC is too fancy for (but not able to replace), make it cheap to run, and arm it lightly. Hack up the Halifax's as they come offline, give them the old 57mm and harpoons or ESSMs. Make it an even cheaper Type 31e.

Guarantee if we get River Class B2s we'll be asking what they bring to the table (like we did for AOPS)?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Except that with 15 CSC, we won`t really need a cheapo type 31, what we will need is a patrol vessel that can go places even a AOPs can`t, a vessel to conduct mine clearance and route survey from and something to train on that is cheap to run. I would add that the Naval Reserve Units in the major harbours should also get a 50-70' patrol boat to conduct training and harbour security.


----------



## Stoker

Currently sailing in a Kingston Class on a major NATO MCM exercise in the Baltic. One ship operates the REMIS AUV to identify mines and the other has the diving payload to inspect and destroy. We both employ ROVs and have updated degausing systems.

In the regards to the future of the class more than likely another 10 years or more due to the ships being in such good shape, the ships are well maintained using the ISSC model and are constantly upgraded and maintained better than the CPFs. HMCS Kingston has had her structural certification extended past their original design life and just came out of refit. 

Something people have to realize that any replacement will cost much more than the original and will never reach the low operating costs of the Kingston Class. AOPS is also compared to the Kingston class way more expensive to operate. The Kingston class fills a niche that is not easily replaceable unless you want to spend the dollars.


----------



## Underway

Stoker said:


> Currently sailing in a Kingston Class on a major NATO MCM exercise in the Baltic. One ship operates the REMIS AUV to identify mines and the other has the diving payload to inspect and destroy. We both employ ROVs and have updated degausing systems.
> 
> In the regards to the future of the class more than likely another 10 years or more due to the ships being in such good shape, the ships are well maintained using the ISSC model and are constantly upgraded and maintained better than the CPFs. HMCS Kingston has had her structural certification extended past their original design life and just came out of refit.
> 
> Something people have to realize that any replacement will cost much more than the original and will never reach the low operating costs of the Kingston Class. AOPS is also compared to the Kingston class way more expensive to operate. The Kingston class fills a niche that is not easily replaceable unless you want to spend the dollars.


Thanks @Stoker for the update on what you are using now.  I can add my voice to the 10 year timeframe.  The O&M world fully expects this to be the case, particularly as only just recently have they started talking about standing up a replacement project (which kicked off our recent discussion here of course).  Which we all know if it started tomorrow would likely take 10 years...

I like that you bring up operating costs.  It's something like 10 thousand a day to operate an MCDV (including pers costs).  That is ridiculously inexpensive.  Dollars for the value they're easily the best ship in the fleet.  This might be a better goal for the RCN than a 2-3 thousand ton OPV.  An MCDV 2.0 design, maybe slightly increased in size to improve seakeeping/speed/payload.


----------



## Swampbuggy

MCDV 2.0 would have to be almost a new design, in the same way as a Super Hornet is to a legacy Hornet. To get better speed and seakeeping, the hull  would have to be lengthened and probably move away from the hard chine form. Keep the Z drives, add a bow thruster and dynamic positioning. Propulsion ideally would be diesel/electric. The added length could make it feasible to have a combo helo/ UAV pad and an expanded work deck at the stern. I think it would be beneficial to have 2 RHIBS on those side launch/retrieve davits. I'd suggest using the same SCANTER style radar as the AOPS, for the commonality and if you needed it for helo ops in a pinch. Armament as mentioned before, with 30mm and .50 cal.  Say 30-40 officers and crew, plus room for LEDET or OGD teams to embark. 

With all that considered, you're probably in the 250-300 ft and 1500-2000 tonne range. So, potentially very close to a RIVER or OTAGO class vessel in terms of size. I'm sure that's more expensive to operate than an MCDV, but with a more hydrodynamic hull form, maybe not exorbitantly so? It would be much cheaper to send out than an AOPS or frigate, and you could conceivably use it for operations like CTF 150 patrols or even send it to RIMPAC. That frees up a CSC to do other things. 

So, if all that is close to being feasible, is it really cheaper to redesign a ship based on the MCDV and go through all the teething pains associated with that, or just pick something that already exists?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> How about we arm to the role that is expected of the ship?  An OPV in Canadian, Caribean or African waters would be perfectly safe with 2x50 cal remote weapon systems and a 30mm.  And if the threat level rises beyond what it is capable of then it leaves.
> 
> What is a 57mm going to do that a 30mm can't in the OPV/Minehunter role?  A 57mm is for air defense.  To have air defence you need an air search radar and a targeting radar.  All a 57mm does on an OPV is make it much more expensive with little capability improvement for its job.
> 
> I honestly think that a lot of the world navies bolt these things on their ships because of prestige, politics, or the fact they have no understanding of what is required for proper missile defence.
> 
> You would be better off with ASM attached to it and make it a missile boat.  No defence, just offence.  Use an over the horizon UAV for targeting and let fly.
> 
> _Edit:_  In addition, the 30mm has APFSDS-T ammunition available that is designed to supercavitate, thus it can shoot things underwater.  This makes it particularly effective at sinking things as the rounds can penetrate things below the waterline instead of shattering or skipping.  Mines would be an example of this, as would boat hulls.


Looking at how well threats have been anticipated in the past, I would not rely heavily on that approach. Building the vessel with some ability to up gun/arm is better than trying to cram on stuff later because things have changed. The world could get very interesting in the next 20+ years and threats are evolving quickly. Defensive lasers might also be in the mix and that would require some forethought to the power requirements and cabling.


----------



## suffolkowner

How about this Gowind Class derivative?









						ARA Piedrabuena (P-52) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




1450 tonnes
87m long
21 kts
8000nm
30 crew
helicopter hanger for 5 ton helicopter
armed with 30mm and two 50 cal
stern ramp


----------



## MTShaw

suffolkowner said:


> How about this Gowind Class derivative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARA Piedrabuena (P-52) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1450 tonnes
> 87m long
> 21 kts
> 8000nm
> 30 crew
> helicopter hanger for 5 ton helicopter
> armed with 30mm and two 50 cal
> stern ramp


That’ll never happen. During the CSS RFP process, the Naval Group decided to try to take over the NSS because Irving is not to be trusted.


----------



## suffolkowner

MTShaw said:


> That’ll never happen. During the CSS RFP process, the Naval Group decided to try to take over the NSS because Irving is not to be trusted.


it'll have to be built by heddle then


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, the Gowind class offshore patrol vessels of the Argentinian navy are not "derivatives" but the original Gowind vessel. The first of class is the ex-French navy L'Adroit, which was built by DCNS at its own request for evaluation by the French navy. The French navy decided it did not need that type of vessel after the expiry of the five years evaluation lease. It was sold to Argentine in 2018, with an order for three more new built versions. The rest of the Gowind corvettes are derivatives of this first design and led to a later build of the Egyptian navy 2500 tons Gowind corvettes. 

In any event, if the RCN ever wants to buy and operate vessels in that general category, I can almost certainly guarantee it will have to be a Canadian designed and built ship - as it should be - because if we can't do that little for our own naval defence, we may as well surrender to the Americans right away.


----------



## MTShaw

suffolkowner said:


> it'll have to be built by heddle tDamen‘s OPVs.


Sure. Damen offers great OPV concepts.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> That’ll never happen. During the CSS RFP process, the Naval Group decided to try to take over the NSS because Irving is not to be trusted.


Not how I heard it.  More like Naval Group wanted full control over their IP.  Which was a no-no from Canada's perspective.  We want to be able to repair our own ships.

It's also not like Naval Group is a trustworthy organization themselves.  The current Australian sub-program is held up because Naval Group wants access to Australian IP in exchange for theirs.  Apparently, they were not happy when Australia informed them that wasn't how this was going to work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One would think that IP access would have been a big part of the early negotiations?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The electronic voice is annoying, but the subject plays into the discussion about the replacement for the MCDV's


----------



## suffolkowner

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Actually, the Gowind class offshore patrol vessels of the Argentinian navy are not "derivatives" but the original Gowind vessel. The first of class is the ex-French navy L'Adroit, which was built by DCNS at its own request for evaluation by the French navy. The French navy decided it did not need that type of vessel after the expiry of the five years evaluation lease. It was sold to Argentine in 2018, with an order for three more new built versions. The rest of the Gowind corvettes are derivatives of this first design and led to a later build of the Egyptian navy 2500 tons Gowind corvettes.
> 
> In any event, if the RCN ever wants to buy and operate vessels in that general category, I can almost certainly guarantee it will have to be a Canadian designed and built ship - as it should be - because if we can't do that little for our own naval defence, we may as well surrender to the Americans right away.


I just stumbled upon the vessel and it seemed to fit the objectives stated by many on here pretty decently. Do you expect that Canada will be able to or be willing to design its own ships again?


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> One would think that IP access would have been a big part of the early negotiations?


Australia and NG are still in negotiations.  It's gone a little sideways based on the press, but the Aussie press is a bit like the UK press.  They get pretty tabloidy.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> I just stumbled upon the vessel and it seemed to fit the objectives stated by many on here pretty decently. Do you expect that Canada will be able to or be willing to design its own ships again?


I do.  There are patrol boats in other countries designed by Canadian companies.  Also a OPV/minesweeper are not that complicated if you want a "cheap and nasty".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Gowind class look a bit to much like Frigate which would likely make the senior navy types assessing designs nervous, because some idiot in TB or the PMO, or a politician will go "Well this looks like a CSC, why do you need the expensive ones when your buying these?" Now a faster MCM vessel perhaps based on the River Class hull might be the way to go. Not really convinced that you need a hanger now that you have the AOP's, AOR's and CSC in the future.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Gowind class look a bit to much like Frigate which would likely make the senior navy types assessing designs nervous, because some idiot in TB or the PMO, or a politician will go "*Well this looks like a CSC, why do you need the expensive ones when your buying these?*" Now a faster MCM vessel perhaps based on the River Class hull might be the way to go. Not really convinced that you need a hanger now that you have the AOP's, AOR's and CSC in the future.


QFTT!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That being said it is an interesting design L’Adroit Offshore Patrol Vessel, France


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Gowind class look a bit to much like Frigate which would likely make the senior navy types assessing designs nervous, because some idiot in TB or the PMO, or a politician will go "Well this looks like a CSC, why do you need the expensive ones when your buying these?" Now a faster MCM vessel perhaps based on the River Class hull might be the way to go. Not really convinced that you need a hanger now that you have the AOP's, AOR's and CSC in the future.


I wouldn't mind a hangar for UAVs, not necessarily a full sized helo, TBH. I believe the GERMAN BRAUNSCHWEIG class corvette has a UAV hangar to service/maintain/house a Camcopter.


----------



## suffolkowner

Swampbuggy said:


> I wouldn't mind a hangar for UAVs, not necessarily a full sized helo, TBH. I believe the GERMAN BRAUNSCHWEIG class corvette has a UAV hangar to service/maintain/house a Camcopter.


I think the 
Braunschweig-class corvette - Wikipedia 
River-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia and the
ARA Bouchard (P-51) - Wikipedia are all very comparable ships but I think the Gowind corvette/OPV is a better fit 

1100-1450 tonnes  displacement versus 1700-2000 tonnes
30 vs 50 crew
should make it a cheaper platform to operate
plus the stern ramp and hanger


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I wouldn't want any of those.

Let's go back to first principles here: What mission are we getting the ship for? If, as I suspect everyone here is trending towards, we are getting replacement mine warfare vessels, then I suggest the solution is in the "mothership/remote operated systems" concept being worked on by the RN or the Dutch and Belgian Navies (see following info: The future of Royal Navy mine hunting | Navy Lookout , 




If that is the case, why start with a design built for another purpose and try to make it fit? Just build a mothership from scratch designed around the combat system/remote piloted/controled mine warfare equipment. Like the envisioned British/Dutch/Belgian solutions, I suspect it would come in around 2000 tons displacement and capable of 20 Kts - lightly armed. We can design and build something like that right here in Canada, we don't even have to look somewhere else for it.


----------



## Pelorus

I think we need to ask ourselves if mine warfare is actually the primary mission we're looking for. Maybe it is, but I don't know if that's a foregone conclusion.

Is some level of mine warfare capability important for Canada? Sure, if for nothing else than to be an important tool in the toolbox and likely to meet some obligations we've previously agreed to with allies (just an assumption on the second point, not my area).

The mission fit nature of modern containerized MW systems means that any ship with a large enough sweep deck and some specialized equipment like a large utility crane can be a mine warfare vessel, and doesn't necessarily need to be purpose built. There are certainly advantages to a vessel specialized for one task, but it's not as critical for MW as it used to be IMO.

What's the current ratio of MW-specific missions vs. other tasks (e.g., Op Carribbe/Tradewinds/ComRel/general FG, etc.) that the MCDVs currently do while at sea? 10-90? 20-80? Certainly not the majority.

Once all the AOPS are operational that will change the dynamic as the AOPS will share the load of some of those other tasks. But there will always be a role in the RCN for a small, lightly crewed, cheaply operated vessel which has the legs to go abroad.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If someone starts mining the entrances to commercial harbours of an ally, then mine hunters are going to be in short supply, just the risk of it happening is likely to force the government to "Do something". It's a task to be prepared for. Mine hunters can come in 2 sizes, ocean going ones that can go overseas on their own to support a mission and Coastal/inland ones. Have the Naval Reserve units based around large commercial harbours tasked to provide a patrol boat and limited mine hunting capability. Giving them those missions in local areas gives them a chance to practice their skills and provide a quick response if required.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> If someone starts mining the entrances to commercial harbours of an ally, then mine hunters are going to be in short supply, just the risk of it happening is likely to force the government to "Do something". It's a task to be prepared for. Mine hunters can come in 2 sizes, ocean going ones that can go overseas on their own to support a mission and Coastal/inland ones. Have the Naval Reserve units based around large commercial harbours tasked to provide a patrol boat and limited mine hunting capability. Giving them those missions in local areas gives them a chance to practice their skills and provide a quick response if required.



Is it too late to buy these back?

YAG training vessel​








						YAG training vessel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One for sale right now, start your own navy! Hey it worked for the Premier of BC....


----------



## quadrapiper

daftandbarmy said:


> Is it too late to buy these back?
> 
> YAG training vessel​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAG training vessel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


That size definitely has something going for it. Handy, manageable little ships. I've heard from various people who were around during the replacement process that the Orcas (successors to the YAGs) were originally meant to be more or less a steel YAG, versus the much more massive final result. I'm sure someone on here has more definitive knowledge.


----------



## blacktriangle

Colin Parkinson said:


> One for sale right now, start your own navy! Hey it worked for the Premier of BC....


How much is it going for?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Custom YAG 75 1955 Used Boat for Sale in Ucluelet, British Columbia - BoatDealers.ca
					

1955 Used Diesel Custom YAG 75 Motor Yachts Power Boat for Sale in British Columbia From United City Yachts Inc.




					www.boatdealers.ca
				




Beyond the MCDV replacement, I would equip certain Naval Reserve Unit with 3 vessels each, A fast RHIB with a pintle mount for MG or a RWS for an MG, along with an enclosed wheelhouse. A commercial based hull for mine hunting 50-70' and overnight capable simple training vessel similar to the YAG, for the unit and local Cadet corps to training on. Have them all serviced in commercial yards nearby.


----------



## blacktriangle

We should buy that thing, scuttle it for an artificial reef, and have current & former CAF members swim to shore in return for donations to Soldier On or something.

What a hunk of trash!


----------



## daftandbarmy

reveng said:


> We should buy that thing, scuttle it for an artificial reef, and have current & former CAF members swim to shore in return for donations to Soldier On or something.
> 
> What a hunk of trash!



Ever the romantic....

I know a few senior sailors who wax lyrical about learning their trade on the open bridge of one of these. 

I recall that, in cadets, we used to deploy on exercises on these occasionally around Vancouver. They were great for loading up with about 30 people and going places to do things in pretty tricky 'littoral' regions, and crappy weather. They were pretty fast in some rough conditions too.

I assume that the wooden hull helped with the anti-mine role, but am not sure if that was one of the tasks they were charged with.


----------



## Good2Golf

Not sure if that one was the one that I fed the fish on, out at W601 many, many years ago on an environmental experience day via NOTC.  I’m not a naval architect by any stretch, but the hull seemed to be a half barrel profile with minimal separation between CofG and CofB, hence a name of ‘_Rolly McRollboat_’ wouldn’t have been wrong…should be a YAK…not YAG. 🤮


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> I know a few senior sailors who wax lyrical about learning their trade on the open bridge of one of these.


Open bridges are only fun when the weather is nice.  

Trust me on this.


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> Ever the romantic....
> 
> I know a few senior sailors who wax lyrical about learning their trade on the open bridge of one of these.
> 
> I recall that, in cadets, we used to deploy on exercises on these occasionally around Vancouver. They were great for loading up with about 30 people and going places to do things in pretty tricky 'littoral' regions, and crappy weather. They were pretty fast in some rough conditions too.
> 
> I assume that the wooden hull helped with the anti-mine role, but am not sure if that was one of the tasks they were charged with.


I wax lyrical about it.  The time it was so cold that when the spray hit the open bridge it was frozen into ice pellets that blinded me while trying to take a fix.  The time a seagull did what seagulls do to my carefully prepared chart.  The time during a fire ex we ripped the manual pump in half because the deck was so rotten under the paint.  The fact the gyro was off by 6 degrees high on a regular basis.  The time we were stranded up island because the electrical shorted out and we had no navigation at all, had to wait for the other YAG to make a run for supplies so we could fix it.

Hmmm, maybe it wasn't always good...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's some good learning there. Gives you appreciation for the guys that ran the MTB/MGB's during the war. An open bridge gives you excellent visibility and awareness to your immediate surroundings, but for extended ops, will wear down the crew quickly. Better to have the option. The Bridge on the YFP/YAGs generally was used for lookouts and the CO was in the wheelhouse in my day.

Back to the subject, with the AOP's coming on line, perhaps time to split the roles of the MCDV into two hull sizes, one coastal, the other capable of going overseas, but still smaller than the AOP's. Supplementing the newer MCDV with small craft that can be built to commercial standards and maintained in local yards and manned mostly by reservists seems to a potentiel way to go.


----------



## Maxman1

What about the USS _Freedom_ class? Designed specifically to be modular and adaptable to a long number of missions, including mine countermeasures, while being larger and faster with the same or less crew size and plenty of accommodation, and a similar armament to the _Halifax_ frigates. We could tack on an order of six or a dozen direct from the US, since our shipyards will be busy with the AOPS and CSC.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Maxman1 said:


> What about the USS _Freedom_ class? Designed specifically to be modular and adaptable to a long number of missions, including mine countermeasures, while being larger and faster with the same or less crew size and plenty of accommodation, and a similar armament to the _Halifax_ frigates. We could tack on an order of six or a dozen direct from the US, since our shipyards will be busy with the AOPS and CSC.


Please god,  no.

The USN opted for an un trialed gearbox/engine combination and literally eat up gearboxes at a shocking rate. They are ditching the entire class because it does not work.


----------



## Maxman1

No, they're retiring the _Freedom_ and _Fort Worth_ because they decided in 2015 they, along with the _Independence_ and _Coronado_ would be test ships.



> "We made a decision a number of years ago. … In order to give capability to LCS 5 and beyond, particularly the block buys we did in 2015, we decided we needed to do much more testing and use those first four hulls, so that we could better understand what were the issues with respect to hull maintenance and engineering that kept plaguing us and kept us from getting those ships to sea. … We used those first hulls to test and we put no money into upgrading them like the rest of the fleet. … Those first four ships are not bringing lethality to the fight. … I just didn’t see the return on investment.”
> - Admiral Mike Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations



They've paused construction of new ships while they fix the transmission issue. There are no plans to cancel any orders or decommission any more than the first two.

What about the French Gowind corvette/frigate class?


----------



## Kirkhill

Maxman1 said:


> No, they're retiring the _Freedom_ and _Fort Worth_ because they decided in 2015 they, along with the _Independence_ and _Coronado_ would be test ships.
> 
> 
> 
> They've paused construction of new ships while they fix the transmission issue. There are no plans to cancel any orders or decommission any more than the first two.
> 
> What about the French Gowind corvette/frigate class?



If buying a US LCS I would sooner you referenced the Independence class trimaran as an option.  It has a better record.   But it isn't a blue water ship.  And all Canada's waters are blue water.


----------



## Underway

I'm with @SeaKingTacco on this.  Those ships have a reputation for expensive lemons that lead to overworked crews.  I've met a few crew and they say yes while shaking their heads no.  I don't even know if they can properly handle northern latitude sea states.  Also so much aluminum...

Besides after AOPS and JSS whatever is the replacement will be relatively simple to build in Canadian yards.  The Kiwi's are currently sailing a Canadian-designed OPV which would likely fit the bill (as mentioned earlier in the thread) and is already in service in two countries.


----------



## YZT580

perhaps resurrecting the Bras D'Or.  Except they do burn through a lot of fuel, but then again we need a market for our Western Oil anyways since there are no pipelines to ship it through to market.  Heddle could crank them out in both Port Weller and in Thunder Bay which would ease the employment crunch there with Bombardier slashing everything


----------



## Underway

Bras D'Or was a great technology demonstrator.  But it could carry very few crew and the hydrofoil couldn't handle the pressure it was under. It also had no space for any weapons or equipment at all. You can go see it in Quebec. It's like the Avro Arrow.  Super cool, good new tech, not developed enough for a practical application.  Which of course leads to a myth about how it was super amazing without looking at the negatives.


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> Bras D'Or was a great technology demonstrator.  But it could carry very few crew and the hydrofoil couldn't handle the pressure it was under. It also had no space for any weapons or equipment at all. You can go see it in Quebec. It's like the Avro Arrow.  Super cool, good new tech, not developed enough for a practical application.  Which of course leads to a myth about how it was super amazing without looking at the negatives.


This.


----------



## YZT580

Weinie said:


> This.


I am going to have to try and master the sarcasm button.  Over the last two weeks I think it has been suggested that we buy one of everything going except the Queen Elizabeth.


----------



## Maxman1

Underway said:


> I'm with @SeaKingTacco on this.  Those ships have a reputation for expensive lemons that lead to overworked crews.  I've met a few crew and they say yes while shaking their heads no.  I don't even know if they can properly handle northern latitude sea states.  Also so much aluminum...
> 
> Besides after AOPS and JSS whatever is the replacement will be relatively simple to build in Canadian yards.  The Kiwi's are currently sailing a Canadian-designed OPV which would likely fit the bill (as mentioned earlier in the thread) and is already in service in two countries.



What about the Israeli _Sa'ar 6 _version of the _Braunschweig_ corvette? Or the (suspiciously large) Finnish _Pohjanmaa_ corvette?


----------



## Swampbuggy

I suppose one answer to the question of deployable ships would be to take the 2 CCG AOPS (if they even still intend to build them) and repurpose them to the RCN. I'm dubious about how much you can expect 6 hulls to handle (re: AOPS) when considering their intended missions, taking over some MCDV stuff AND possibly spelling off frigates. Maybe take advantage of the hot line and get something that the Navy is already familiar with, without having to do a rush RFP purchase job?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As soon as the senior staff figure how comfortable the AOP's are, they be Command function ships.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> As soon as the senior staff figure how comfortable the AOP's are, they be Command function ships.


Yah, that's gonna be JSS well before AOPS even gets a sniff.  However, the CONOPS for AOPS includes flotilla command for an MCM squadron.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> Yah, that's gonna be JSS well before AOPS even gets a sniff.  However, the CONOPS for AOPS includes flotilla command for an MCM squadron.


Is there any reason that the AOPS can't act as a mothership for mine warfare especially with UUWV?


----------



## Kirkhill

Swampbuggy said:


> I suppose one answer to the question of deployable ships would be to take the 2 CCG AOPS (if they even still intend to build them) and repurpose them to the RCN. I'm dubious about how much you can expect 6 hulls to handle (re: AOPS) when considering their intended missions, taking over some MCDV stuff AND possibly spelling off frigates. Maybe take advantage of the hot line and get something that the Navy is already familiar with, without having to do a rush RFP purchase job?


The original  Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations both called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters


----------



## Swampbuggy

That number makes more sense, to me. Particularly if the current plan is to have 2 Pacific based and the other 4 Atlantic fleet. If the maintenance requirement have one down for servicing at all times, I think it's asking a lot of the other west coast unit to be tasked with all these other possible missions. With 3 on that coast and 5 on the opposite, it seems more feasible.


----------



## suffolkowner

Swampbuggy said:


> That number makes more sense, to me. Particularly if the current plan is to have 2 Pacific based and the other 4 Atlantic fleet. If the maintenance requirement have one down for servicing at all times, I think it's asking a lot of the other west coast unit to be tasked with all these other possible missions. With 3 on that coast and 5 on the opposite, it seems more feasible.


I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced


----------



## Swampbuggy

suffolkowner said:


> I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced


Well, it's not ideal, that much is true. But, if the issue is that an impactful number of your frigates are unavailable/untenable due to fatigue and the bandaids are no longer enough, it may be a partial solution. There's not enough time, perhaps, to ram through a purchase of a more suitable OPV before you could build two more AOPS. As far as it goes for the MCDV'S, I would keep them doing the things they have been doing, including CARRIBOPS, Africa deployments etc, and save an AOPS or 2 for a mission that is suitable for them, is beyond an MCDV and saves some mileage on a CPF. Something like CTF 150, maybe or possibly RIMPAC? That, combined with a newfound availability of a trio of VIC"S, might take the load off enough to focus on keeping the in better order, or at least as many as possible. 

Its a sort of stop gap, to be sure, but it may allow the best 9-10 CPF's to get the sort of maintenance time that is needed to keep them relevant until the CSC's start to arrive.


----------



## Halifax Tar

suffolkowner said:


> I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced


It does if youre a Canadian politician and you want to give the shallow impression that you are invested in securing the north.


----------



## Maxman1

Colin Parkinson said:


> Custom YAG 75 1955 Used Boat for Sale in Ucluelet, British Columbia - BoatDealers.ca
> 
> 
> 1955 Used Diesel Custom YAG 75 Motor Yachts Power Boat for Sale in British Columbia From United City Yachts Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boatdealers.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond the MCDV replacement, I would equip certain Naval Reserve Unit with 3 vessels each, A fast RHIB with a pintle mount for MG or a RWS for an MG, along with an enclosed wheelhouse. A commercial based hull for mine hunting 50-70' and overnight capable simple training vessel similar to the YAG, for the unit and local Cadet corps to training on. Have them all serviced in commercial yards nearby.



Bahh! Just add an enclosed bridge to the Fairmile D torpedo boat! And use the 6 pounder from the Mosquito.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> Is there any reason that the AOPS can't act as a mothership for mine warfare especially with UUWV?


No inbuilt degaussing system and no acoustic signature management are strikes against it.  MCDV's do have degaussing.  However with autonomous vehicles lots fo things that were not possible years ago might be possible now.  It certainly has the cranes and space.


Kirkhill said:


> The original  Statement of Requirement and Concept of Operations both called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters


_The original government direction _called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters.  The SOR and CONOPS when the RCN got ahold of the project became more.


Swampbuggy said:


> That number makes more sense, to me. Particularly if the current plan is to have 2 Pacific based and the other 4 Atlantic fleet. If the maintenance requirement have one down for servicing at all times, I think it's asking a lot of the other west coast unit to be tasked with all these other possible missions. With 3 on that coast and 5 on the opposite, it seems more feasible.



Ships 1, 2, 4, 6 will be Atlantic and ships 3, 5 Pacific.  The Pacific fleet has less need for the AOPS.  More need for a JSS however so they will be getting HMCS Protecteur as compensation  



suffolkowner said:


> I don't know if it does make sense. Do we really need 8 very lighty armed, very light icebreakers? It sorta depends on whether the AOPS will be tasked with everything the Kingstons are doing or if the Kingstons carry on or are replaced



Kingston's will carry on and as earlier in the thread, there are discussions for their replacement starting. No project office yet though. 

Yes, we do need all sorts of ships and the AOPS are armed for their CONOPS.  The term "light" icebreaker is misleading.  We finally put to bed the "slushbreaker" misnomer after ice trial videos were released.  1.2m ice with power to spare as well as multiyear ice inclusions.

I'm not saying its all singing and dancing, I'm just saying it's the right tool for the job.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> Yes, we do need all sorts of ships and the AOPS are armed for their CONOPS.  The term "light" icebreaker is misleading.  We finally put to bed the "slushbreaker" misnomer after ice trial videos were released.  1.2m ice with power to spare as well as multiyear ice inclusions.
> 
> I'm not saying its all singing and dancing, I'm just saying it's the right tool for the job.



Not being a Navy guy I'm guessing that this is the key and might be roughly equivalent to putting a pair of good tires and chains on your truck, to extend the range of terrain and conditions it can cover so you can get into more remote backcoutry areas to do stuff.


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> Not being a Navy guy I'm guessing that this is the key and might be roughly equivalent to putting a pair of good tires and chains on your truck, to extend the range of terrain and conditions it can cover so you can get into more remote backcoutry areas to do stuff.


That's not a bad analogy, but it's more like buying a Jeep Gladiator vs F150.  It's a fundamental design difference for different terrain right from the start.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> _The original government direction _called for 8 ships to be built for the navy and to be solely deployed in Canadian arctic waters.  The SOR and CONOPS when the RCN got ahold of the project became more.
> 
> 
> Ships 1, 2, 4, 6 will be Atlantic and ships 3, 5 Pacific.  The Pacific fleet has less need for the AOPS.
> 
> Yes, we do need all sorts of ships and the AOPS are armed for their CONOPS.  The term "light" icebreaker is misleading.  We finally put to bed the "slushbreaker" misnomer after ice trial videos were released.  1.2m ice with power to spare as well as multiyear ice inclusions.
> 
> I'm not saying its all singing and dancing, I'm just saying it's the right tool for the job.



Unfortunately Acrobat has decided it won't let me open my older files on  the SOR and CONOPS so you will have to take my word for this   

My sense of the original government plan was that they wanted a vessel that could operate from the Grand Banks of Newfoundland all the way  north to Tuktoyaktuk.   Given that ice starts off of St John's, where the Titanic sank, an ice-capable hull seems to be a reasonable requirement to me.







The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet capable of transiting the Arctic Archipelago when conditions permitted and over-wintering in Victoria prior to returning North and Halifax.  The fleet would have the Nanisivik harbour as a refueling depot to extend its range.    The primary function, in my opinion, was to maintain a constabulary watch over the navigable waters of the North and maintain Peace, Order and Good Governance with the ability to keep foreign fishers, shrimpers and bear hunters under control and be able to operate more aggressively, in the sense of being able to penetrate the ice farther, sooner and faster, than commercial interests  likely to operate in the area.

They were also to be able to call on the resources of the CAF, at priority call, in the event of military/para-military incursions: the advantage of having an RCN vessel in the area rather than a CCG vessel which would have to go to its masters to launch an Aid to the Civil Power request and then not have the skills to direct military forces to the area of interest.

As Underway and D&B both point out - these ships are not about breaking ice.  They are about aggressive operations in waters contested by ice and foreign interests.  And I believe that 8 was the right number and that the last two being built should be painted Grey, not Red.  There is no reason why an AOPS patrol shouldn't start with being the first ship up the St Lawrence Seaway or end with being the last one out.  Or being the first into, and last out of, Churchill.

The MCDVs, when they finish their time, they should be replaced by a similarly sized blue-water capable Patrol Vessel for Southern operations - but that would only require 2 or three to co-operate with allies in the Caribbean.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Bras D'Or was a great technology demonstrator.  But it could carry very few crew and the hydrofoil couldn't handle the pressure it was under. It also had no space for any weapons or equipment at all. You can go see it in Quebec. It's like the Avro Arrow.  Super cool, good new tech, not developed enough for a practical application.  Which of course leads to a myth about how it was super amazing without looking at the negatives.



On the curiosity front - I have a 1976-1977 vintage copy of Jane's Surface Skimmers - bought new when I was young and enthralled with all things nautical.

The Bras D'Or, or more precisely the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd FHE-400, was contracted in 1961. Approvals came in April 1963 to construct the Fast Hydrofoil Escort warship. "The programme had two fundamental objectives: (a) to establish in practice the feasibility of an *ocean-going *hydrofoil of the proposed size and characteristics (b) to evaluate the prototype as an ASW system."

The notion was the possibility of utilizing the FHE-400 as a replacement for the Flower Class Corvettes of WW2.   The concept, as I understood it, was to chug along at convoy speed on her hull at 12 knots or less towing a variable depth sonar.  Every now and then she would stop and listen.  Reputedly the hydrofoils gave stability to a relatively small craft in high sea states.  She would go up onto her foils to prosecute attacks and evade or out run torpedoes.   Torpedoes of the era were 40 knot craft. The Bras D'or, in the right seas, could achieve 50 to 60 knots.  Jane's reported a top speed in trials of 63 knots.  The general concept of operations was known as "Sprint and Drift".  She was to be a blue water MGB/MTB.

Trials were conducted in 1968 and 1969.  She achieved over 40 knots foilborne in Sea State 5.  She operated hullborne (displacement mode) in higher sea states.

According to Jane's, 8 years later,:

"While objective (a), to confirm operations feasibility in open ocean conditions was met, objective (b) ASW system operation was suspended because of a change in Canadian defence priorities, requiring priority attention to territorial and coastal surveillance"

Regardless of the prototype's issues with material technology and design which caused the foils to crack and fail,  hydrofoils were not compatible with the bergy bits floating in Canadian waters.  Enter the AOPS?

Bras D'Or was 44m long at the waterline (45.9 OA), 212 long tons GT, 165 long tons Light, Maximum Take Off Displacement of 235 long tons with a useful load (crew, fuel, military load) of 70 tons.  She had a crew of 20 (8 Offrs, 12 POs and Ratings).  She had two power plants - a 2000 shp diesel for hullborne ops and a 22,000 shp gas turbine foilborne.

Once the Canadian government withdrew from the FHE programme  De Havilland proceeded with a private enterprise effort and produced designs for the DHC-MP-100 which claimed to draw interest overseas for "oil rig resupply, coast guard patrol, search and rescue, customs and excise, gunboat, missilecraft and ASW patrol"

The MP-100 was to be a 36m highspeed coastal interceptor with a crew of 14 (2 Offrs, 3 POs, 9 Ratings).  Although she only displaced 106 tons "the foil system stabilizes the vessel and gives it the seakeeping characteristics of a ship of 1000/1500 tons (edit - MCDV class) thus improving accuracy of shot and crew performance for a craft of this size".

MP-100 Gunboat

"For coastal patrol, interdiction or for escorting larger ships or convoys a 57mm Bofors gun can be fitted.  For self-defence a Vulcan gun can be fitted within weigh and c of g limits"

MP-100 Missilecraft

"To complement the gunboat role, the MP-100 may be fitted with missiles like the Harpoon and Exocet  (2x 4?  maybe according to my read of a photograph of a model)".  The Vulcan was retained on the afterdeck, with the missiles, for self-defence.

MP-100 ASW Patrol Craft

"The craft can cruise at convoy speed on its displacement propulsion units (12 knots) while using variable-depth sonar to search for submarines.  On making contact it can attack at high speed."

The weapons fit was to be a lightweight VDS on the after deck along with 2x triple tube torpedo launchers and a Vulcan on the foredeck but with the sensors mounted above the bridge.

The DHC system never took off.  (  I kill me).

However many other countries adopted similar coastal boats and hydrofoils.   The Norwegian Skjold with its air cushioned hull evolved from this era of Skimmer experimentation.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder if the hull form combination wouldn't make a great starting point for a USV escort for the RCN.  Sprint and Drift with no sea-sick sailors.  VDS and Torpedoes.


----------



## Czech_pivo

"The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet"

Would there be any logic in basing the Atlantic ships in St. John's instead of Halifax?  St. John's is closer to where they will be primarily active.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> "The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet"
> 
> Would there be any logic in basing the Atlantic ships in St. John's instead of Halifax?  St. John's is closer to where they will be primarily active.



The sailors can correct me but I think it is only 24 hours or so from Halifax to St John's and Halifax has all the infrastructure.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Kirkhill said:


> Unfortunately Acrobat has decided it won't let me open my older files on  the SOR and CONOPS so you will have to take my word for this
> 
> My sense of the original government plan was that they wanted a vessel that could operate from the Grand Banks of Newfoundland all the way  north to Tuktoyaktuk.   Given that ice starts off of St John's, where the Titanic sank, an ice-capable hull seems to be a reasonable requirement to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other sense I had was that the fleet would be a Halifax based fleet capable of transiting the Arctic Archipelago when conditions permitted and over-wintering in Victoria prior to returning North and Halifax.  The fleet would have the Nanisivik harbour as a refueling depot to extend its range.    The primary function, in my opinion, was to maintain a constabulary watch over the navigable waters of the North and maintain Peace, Order and Good Governance with the ability to keep foreign fishers, shrimpers and bear hunters under control and be able to operate more aggressively, in the sense of being able to penetrate the ice farther, sooner and faster, than commercial interests  likely to operate in the area.
> 
> They were also to be able to call on the resources of the CAF, at priority call, in the event of military/para-military incursions: the advantage of having an RCN vessel in the area rather than a CCG vessel which would have to go to its masters to launch an Aid to the Civil Power request and then not have the skills to direct military forces to the area of interest.
> 
> As Underway and D&B both point out - these ships are not about breaking ice.  They are about aggressive operations in waters contested by ice and foreign interests.  And I believe that 8 was the right number and that the last two being built should be painted Grey, not Red.  There is no reason why an AOPS patrol shouldn't start with being the first ship up the St Lawrence Seaway or end with being the last one out.  Or being the first into, and last out of, Churchill.
> 
> The MCDVs, when they finish their time, they should be replaced by a similarly sized blue-water capable Patrol Vessel for Southern operations - but that would only require 2 or three to co-operate with allies in the Caribbean.


I think 2-3 hulls to replace the MCDV'S would be a bit light, especially if there are only 6 AOPS built. I'd say 5 would be the minimum number, but I'd also suggest they be all ported west coast, while the AOPS as a class move to Halifax, were that to come to pass.


----------



## Kirkhill

Depends  on how much mine warfare we want done and how much time we want to spend patrolling the Caribbean I suppose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The AOP's have great crane capacity, can take a number of helicopters and has room for a number of remotely operated vessels. If we had a mine heavy tasking, two MCDV with an AOP's as the 'Mother ship" or flotilla leader/AOR would work and give the crews an area to stretch out on a long mission.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Kirkhill said:


> Depends  on how much mine warfare we want done and how much time we want to spend patrolling the Caribbean I suppose.


IMHO, I believe the CARRIBOPS stuff is as huge success story. It's tangible, impactful, can be carried out by lesser capability vessels, is appreciated by our neighbours and is (possibly most importantly) an easy story for John Q Public/que to understand. With the advent of standoff capability to handle mine warfare duties, I'd suggest the next generation of OPV be biased towards the mission profile of OP CARIBBE.


----------



## Kirkhill

Probably particularly popular after a tour in the AOPS fleet.


----------



## dapaterson

I'd rather we do an objective assessment of future threats and tailor the OPV to meet those, with flexibility and expandability to address other current and future missions.

Designing a military to fight the last battles / last wars rarely ends well - see the Maginot Line.


----------



## Kirkhill

Which "we"?  And whose facts?

My problem is that no bugger in power agrees with me.  They insist in doing whatever they damned well please.

"Boris Johnson was “like a shopping trolley” that could not be guided, Dominic Cummings has told MPs."

Indeed.

You would think that the people making the decisions had been elected or something.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:


> I'd rather we do an objective assessment of future threats and tailor the OPV to meet those, with flexibility and expandability to address other current and future missions.
> 
> Designing a military to fight the last battles / last wars rarely ends well - see the Maginot Line.


Actually despite being disarmed and undermanned the Maginot did it's job. The failure is squarely on the French military and political leadership, along with poor performance by the Belgiums


----------



## Swampbuggy

dapaterson said:


> I'd rather we do an objective assessment of future threats and tailor the OPV to meet those, with flexibility and expandability to address other current and future missions.
> 
> Designing a military to fight the last battles / last wars rarely ends well - see the Maginot Line.


I don't think those aims need be mutually exclusive. I believe a vessel that's well suited for drug enforcement/area patrol need not be built without flexibility or growth in mind. Containerized mission packages can be applied across the fleet for use in AOPS, OPV or CSC. I certainly agree with your point re: the Maginot line, but consider why it let the French down. It was designed as a deterrent and a path closure, and it worked in that capacity. The French didn't anticipate that the Germans would try the Ardennes, so that even when their own intelligence and surveillance told them a large number of German units were massing near there, Gamelin didn't believe it and ignored the warning. I think that's also a lesson, trust your intelligence. So, maybe don't send an OPV somewhere a frigate would be better suited based on threat assessment, or at least kit your OPV out accordingly with a mission package. I believe the basic design should have more in common with a true OPV (RIVER class, for example) then a mine sweeper/hunter. I think that distinction alone buys flexibility.


----------



## Underway

Arafura class is going to have a MCM variant.  It's about 2000 ton OPV that is a good example.  The Ozzies are arming them with a 40mm.



Fancy video of it here...


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Arafura class is going to have a MCM variant.  It's about 2000 ton OPV that is a good example.  The Ozzies are arming them with a 40mm.
> 
> View attachment 65613
> 
> Fancy video of it here...


Were the RCN to purchase a number of these, it would at least be staving off the unpleasantness of an orphan fleet. The Aussie's are meant to build 14+ units, so lots of supply/support for quite some time, for a possible Canadian ARAFURA derivative.


----------



## Underway

I'm not entirely sure they are good for our environment as that quarterdeck is pretty open to the elements.  But that's fixed easily enough.  I was using them as an example of something that is both OPV and MCM.

Whatever ship we choose will be pretty simple with little concern for an orphan class,  COTS diesel, electric motor, COTS nav equipment. All the military equipment (Comms, deck gun etc...) would be government-supplied so most of the stuff would match.  At least it wouldn't be an orphan if we built 6 or more...


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> I'm not entirely sure they are good for our environment as that quarterdeck is pretty open to the elements.  But that's fixed easily enough.  I was using them as an example of something that is both OPV and MCM.
> 
> Whatever ship we choose will be pretty simple with little concern for an orphan class,  COTS diesel, electric motor, COTS nav equipment. All the military equipment (Comms, deck gun etc...) would be government-supplied so most of the stuff would match.  At least it wouldn't be an orphan if we built 6 or more...


But they would be fine for the Caribbean and similar places with warm climates we might like to offer assistance.


----------



## YZT580

Kirkhill said:


> But they would be fine for the Caribbean and similar places with warm climates we might like to offer assistance.


Caribbean in January good, transiting from Halifax to Caribbean in January with an open cockpit is not so good.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I thought we decided to port them all on the West Coast, no?


----------



## Kirkhill

On Canada Day, a different view of Canada.

Now what would it take to clear a deep water channel from Tuk to Yellowknife?  Or even Fort MacMurray?


----------



## Kirkhill

A Future?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> Now what would it take to clear a deep water channel from Tuk to Yellowknife?  Or even Fort MacMurray?


Well you could arm these, be a tad bit cheaper


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well you could arm these, be a tad bit cheaper




True.  But I just think it would be neat to sail in one ocean going hull from Yellowknife to T-Bay.  Being able to sail into Fort Mac would be a bonus.  And think of the shipping possibilities.  Even if we were limited to the three months of hard sledding.


----------



## Kirkhill

Besides.  Infrastructure!


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> View attachment 65641
> 
> On Canada Day, a different view of Canada.
> 
> Now what would it take to clear a deep water channel from Tuk to Yellowknife?  Or even Fort MacMurray?


Ummm, did we revert back to April 1st today?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> True.  But I just think it would be neat to sail in one ocean going hull from Yellowknife to T-Bay.  Being able to sail into Fort Mac would be a bonus.  And think of the shipping possibilities.  Even if we were limited to the three months of hard sledding.


CCG did sail a number of these vessels up the West coast, around Alaska to get there. I have heard that the voyages were "interesting"


----------



## lenaitch

Kirkhill said:


> View attachment 65641
> 
> On Canada Day, a different view of Canada.
> 
> Now what would it take to clear a deep water channel from Tuk to Yellowknife?  Or even Fort MacMurray?



May have to do the Thunder Bay leg disarmed:  

(Rush-Bagot Treaty)



			Avalon Project - British-American Diplomcay : Exchange of Notes Relative to Naval Forces on the American Lakes


----------



## Kirkhill

lenaitch said:


> May have to do the Thunder Bay leg disarmed:
> 
> (Rush-Bagot Treaty)
> 
> 
> 
> Avalon Project - British-American Diplomcay : Exchange of Notes Relative to Naval Forces on the American Lakes




I think that ship may have sailed already.






news.usni.org/2018/04/02/littoral-combat-ship-uss-little-rock-leaves-montreal-three-months-trapped-ice

"A Canadian Foreign Affairs official said Ottawa has agreed to read the treaty in such a way that coast guard vessels may be mounted with guns by considering them weapons of law enforcement rather than war.

Canada reserves the right to arm its own vessels as well, the official told CBC News.

Under the reinterpretation, which both sides say honours the spirit of the original treaty, vessels may be outfitted with machine-guns of sizes up to .50-calibre. That would be big enough to bring down a helicopter and shoot through a light-armoured vehicle.

Colclough said the United States has no intention of equipping the vessels with .50-calibre machine-guns at this point.

Frederick Stonehouse, a Michigan-based historian who has written 26 books on the Great Lakes, said the Rush-Bagot treaty's references to wooden ships and cannons have long been obsolete.

However, Stonehouse said the spirit of the treaty remains both clear and respected by both sides.

"Certainly *the Great Lakes [have] not had any military vessels stationed on [them]* since â gosh, really since the advent of that treaty.""



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-puts-machine-guns-on-great-lakes-coast-guard-vessels-1.622621
		


I think the key word is "stationed".  Transit seems to be permitted.


----------



## Maxman1

Underway said:


> I'm not entirely sure they are good for our environment as that quarterdeck is pretty open to the elements.  But that's fixed easily enough.  I was using them as an example of something that is both OPV and MCM.
> 
> Whatever ship we choose will be pretty simple with little concern for an orphan class,  COTS diesel, electric motor, COTS nav equipment. All the military equipment (Comms, deck gun etc...) would be government-supplied so most of the stuff would match.  At least it wouldn't be an orphan if we built 6 or more...



The Finns are developing a pretty interesting corvette, the _Pohjanma_ class. It will be about 3,900 tons, 374 feet overall and 52 feet beam, have a crew of 70, CODLAG propulsion with a total of 40,000 HP, a Bofors 57mm and eight Mk 41 VLS cells, and be the equivalent of Polar Class 7.





Or there's the _Braunschweig_ and _Sa'ar 6 _corvettes.


----------



## Underway

_Modern_ corvettes are a trap.  All the cost of a frigate with none of the survivability or range.  Canada doesn't need corvettes. Canada needs OPV's and proper warships.  The in-betweens have no role in our context.


----------



## quadrapiper

Kirkhill said:


> I think that ship may have sailed already.
> 
> I think the key word is "stationed".  Transit seems to be permitted.


IIRC, haven't RCN frigates done Lakes tours as well?


----------



## Maxman1

With the Braunschweig/_Sa'ar 6 _and _Pohjanma_, nobody is really sure how to classify them, with "corvette" being more of a placeholder than a proper designation. The Finnish, German and Israeli navies' descriptions and intended missions are more in-line with OPVs than standard warships.


----------



## lenaitch

quadrapiper said:


> IIRC, haven't RCN frigates done Lakes tours as well?


Yes they have.  My original comment was largely tongue-in-cheek with the image posting Thunder Bay as part of an AOPS "patrol zone".


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> People/Politicians will ask why we need a baby AOP's. The replacement is going to have to be distinct from the AOP's and fill other roles.
> 
> So far we all seem to agree on:
> 
> Range: must be ocean capable and cross the Atlantic, Sea State?
> Size: No smaller than MCDV, but no bigger than 2500DWT
> Roles: Mine hunting is a critical function the RCN needs to maintian and improve
> Speed: Faster than the current MCDV
> Ice: Ice Strengthened


Is RAS capability a must in this list of requirements, I wonder?


----------



## Maxman1

Anything can be a minesweeper, _once._


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Is RAS capability a must in this list of requirements, I wonder?


Likely not a deal breaker if the range is good enough.  In order to keep crew numbers down a light jackstay ability is probably good enough.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Does the RCN still do astern fuelling?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Short answer is: no.

Last time we did this was in the mid-90's when one of the Anticosti class minesweeping auxiliaries was fitted to refuel astern and practiced with the other ship in class. This was done as proof of concept to demonstrate that : (1) it could still be done if need be; and, (2) it's not that complicated.

Gear was stowed away after proof of concept, and I have no idea what has been done with it (though, this being the CAF, it is probably in a dark corner of a supply depot, labelled "war stock only - do not issue in peacetime" and so will remain there forever with no one remembering what its for).


----------



## Underway

MCDV's tried it once.  Immediately discarded as everyone was terrified through the whole trial (or so I heard).  But it was better to just tie the MCDV up beside the ship it was fueling from and drop the fuel lines down to the sweep deck.  Old school destroyer fueling from a battleship style...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting it was one of the more common ways to refuel escorts back in WWII, but they were less concerned about spillage back then! Considering most of the roles of a MCDV, finding a sheltered bay to come alongside to refuel from an AOP/AOR/Barge would not be difficult.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I believe I saw a video once about a Northern deployment where GOOSE BAY, I believe, was refuelled by PIERRE RADISSON in that way.


----------



## Pelorus

One of the frigates, _Montreal_ I believe, did an astern RAS a few years ago. IIRC it was because they had an engineering casualty which would have made a standard RAS risky.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin Parkinson said:


> Interesting it was one of the more common ways to refuel escorts back in WWII, but they were less concerned about spillage back then! Considering most of the roles of a MCDV, finding a sheltered bay to come alongside to refuel from an AOP/AOR/Barge would not be difficult.



Actually, Colin, there were two reasons why it was the most common form of refuelling in the WWII convoys:

(1) They didn't have the self-tensioning hydraulic systems we now use for refuelling at sea in those days, so refuelling "side-by-side" was a complex operation that required cranes and extensive wires and tackles on the supplying ship. Those were only found on cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers of the time, so they could refuel their escorting destroyers. Very few if any such ships sailed as escort to convoys, so side-by-side RAS was not an option - especially since no cargo ship ever practiced such evolution.

(2) The method in use for side-by-side refuelling required extremely precise and lengthy station keeping by the receiving ship. Such precision was near impossible in the Atlantic for small ships like the corvettes and frigates that were tossed around like corks.

Those are the reason that led, yes, led, because they invented the technique during WWII as a result of the limitations above, to the said development of astern refuelling.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Does the RCN still do astern fuelling?



Dude... no one wants to watch RCN porn


----------



## Monsoon

Swampbuggy said:


> I believe I saw a video once about a Northern deployment where GOOSE BAY, I believe, was refuelled by PIERRE RADISSON in that way.


It was indeed GBY - I was the Officer of the Watch! They've done it on subsequent northern deployments. Not much to it at all.


----------



## Stoker

Monsoon said:


> It was indeed GBY - I was the Officer of the Watch! They've done it on subsequent northern deployments. Not much to it at all.


I did it a bunch of times as well but in the past the CCG doesn't like the hassle of giving us fuel and often its hard to make an RV when the CCG is looking after commercial traffic and are constantly moving.
In the arctic I fueled with another MCDV, CCG as mentioned, at Thule and of course in NUUK which is the preferred method. I also came back from an Arctic trip with 12% fuel because we couldn't get fuel. I doubt if we'll ever get it from an AOPS as they have a setup for the Kingston Class at the Arctic fueling depot which hopefully be operational next year.
For WC ships the lack of refueling points means Dutch harbor, and getting it from a barge on the Fraser and by CCG. Even getting fuel in Churchill has been difficult over the years.
As for being nothing to it, well that's all fine and dandy until you spill and I assure you the consequences for that are severe. All fueling evolutions are high risk in the Arctic.


----------



## Monsoon

Yes, we embarked a fuel boom I recall. The MARPOL special area requirements were a challenge - but refuelling alongside was not.


----------



## Stoker

Monsoon said:


> Yes, we embarked a fuel boom I recall. The MARPOL special area requirements were a challenge - but refuelling alongside was not.


All ships going to the Arctic have to embark a fuel boom and interestingly enough now each Kingston Class has to embark fueling hose in case they have to share fuel between ships as one year the ships were short of fuel. The evolution itself is not challenging but all fueling is inherently high risk and extra precautions such as extra absorbent pads, extra socks should be used in case of minor spill in the Arctic.

The MARPOL requirements in the Arctic is actually not that bad, basically zero discharge of pulped and non pulped waste. GW and treated BW allowed. We have stricter requirements for a Great Lakes Deployment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can see our MCDV or AOP's working with this ship.








						Navy Sea Base Arrives In Nigeria For Anti-Piracy Push
					

By Tope Alake (Bloomberg) USS Hershel “Woody” Williams, the first ship permanently assigned to Africa, arrived in Nigeria’s commercial capital city of Lagos on Saturday as part of the U.S....




					gcaptain.com


----------



## Stoker

Was in a briefing about the Kingston Class and its retention past design life.  So in a nutshell ABS ( American Bureau of Shipping) did a cost analysis and survey of the Kingston Class as they have reached their design life end and determined they can go another 15 years. Currently all Kingston Class have been extended 5 years past their 25 years. In the next few years the decision will be made to extend for the another 10 years or not.

Quite a bit of money is being targeted on obsolescence items, new items being installed are new AC, new refrigeration, already had new degaussing, new steering and so forth. The feeling on the street that they will be extended with the eventual Kingston Class replacement being stood up and I saw the concept art of its replacement which is very interesting. In the grand scheme of things, the Kingston Classes maintenance budget is very small compared to say the Halifax Class. Some ships eventually may get paid off although its safe to say they will be around for some time to come.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The great thing about the Kingstons is that they are small enough to get into place the bigger ships cannot and do things the bigger ships cannot, but are not so small that they are restricted to coastal waters.


----------



## MARS

Stoker said:


> ....new steering and so forth.


would this 'new steering' alleviate the issues you and I faced with the thrusters suddenly, wildly and randomly operating on its own, spinning through all 360 degrees?  Fun times...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Friend of mine had his tug go out of control while towing a barge on the Fraser, turns out someone was leaning onto one of the steering toggles on the bridge wings.


----------



## dimsum

Stoker said:


> I saw the concept art of its replacement which is very interesting


Can you elaborate on that?


----------



## Stoker

MARS said:


> would this 'new steering' alleviate the issues you and I faced with the thrusters suddenly, wildly and randomly operating on its own, spinning through all 360 degrees?  Fun times...


Yes the cards were all replaced with PLC's (Programmable Logic Controller's), digital directional control valves and other updates. Some teething issues on software but the days of the dreaded "crazy Ivan " are over.


----------



## Stoker

dimsum said:


> Can you elaborate on that?


At some point, I may be able to post a picture but a good bit faster.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Was in a briefing about the Kingston Class and its retention past design life.  So in a nutshell ABS ( American Bureau of Shipping) did a cost analysis and survey of the Kingston Class as they have reached their design life end and determined they can go another 15 years. Currently all Kingston Class have been extended 5 years past their 25 years. In the next few years the decision will be made to extend for the another 10 years or not.
> 
> Quite a bit of money is being targeted on obsolescence items, new items being installed are new AC, new refrigeration, already had new degaussing, new steering and so forth. The feeling on the street that they will be extended with the eventual Kingston Class replacement being stood up and I saw the concept art of its replacement which is very interesting. In the grand scheme of things, the Kingston Classes maintenance budget is very small compared to say the Halifax Class. Some ships eventually may get paid off although its safe to say they will be around for some time to come.


Genuine question, where are the sailors coming from?

We currently don't have enough to actually crew the existing fleet up to remar, with numbers trending downwards, and more ships coming, and that's without an MCDV replacement in the plan.

I don't know where the MCDV obsolescence money is coming from either, but none of that matters when we're out of martechs.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> Genuine question, where are the sailors coming from?
> 
> We currently don't have enough to actually crew the existing fleet up to remar, with numbers trending downwards, and more ships coming, and that's without an MCDV replacement in the plan.
> 
> I don't know where the MCDV obsolescence money is coming from either, but none of that matters when we're out of martechs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmmm I should start a Martech training program in Navy League, plus the kids will fit into the tight spots better. "Here son, 3 full size chocolate bar once you finished cleaning out the inside of the boiler....."


----------



## OldSolduer

MARS said:


> would this 'new steering' alleviate the issues you and I faced with the thrusters suddenly, wildly and randomly operating on its own, spinning through all 360 degrees?  Fun times...


Now that sounds like a fun ride at Disney!! Market that idea.....


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Genuine question, where are the sailors coming from?
> 
> We currently don't have enough to actually crew the existing fleet up to remar, with numbers trending downwards, and more ships coming, and that's without an MCDV replacement in the plan.
> 
> I don't know where the MCDV obsolescence money is coming from either, but none of that matters when we're out of martechs.


You very well may see an op pause or reduction at some point and some ships designated force generators as the fleet is reaching burnout. AOPV can go to sea with 44 crew and the Kingston class with 35 and as low as 16 for day running. 

Money for the Kingston Class is coming from the same pot of money as the Halifax Class I believe. Its just that the Kingston Class is not rusted out. In the grand scheme of things the amount of money spent on the Kingston Class is a mere pittance compared to the money spent on the CPF's.


----------



## Underway

OldSolduer said:


> Now that sounds like a fun ride at Disney!! Market that idea.....


You could add the "loses power in the middle of a turn and continues to move towards danger"


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> You could add the "loses power in the middle of a turn and continues to move towards danger"



Landlubber question: Is that like....


----------



## Maxman1

dimsum said:


>



And if that doesn't work:


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't know where the MCDV obsolescence money is coming from either, but none of that matters when we're out of martechs.


I was chatting with a chief on Thursday and the MARTECH trade issues came up. This is just watercooler talk, but it appears that the RCN will commence walking back the changes they made to the engineering world. I'm concerned that it may be too late and there will be a long time of pain until the trade gets out of the ICU.


----------



## Underway

It won't help.  Literally closing the barn after the horses have fled.  The trade restructure is not the reason people are leaving or not joining.  It's easy to point to it but skill trades everywhere are hurting.  Not just the navy. 

Between the "classism" of going to university vice trade school and a shrinking working demographic, there is going to be a pain for everyone.

Not really the thread for it but when do we ever follow threads properly.  This whole website is half stream of consciousness... which is why I love it!

Back to MCDV replacement, what do y'all think should be the requirements?  Now we know somewhat what the AOPS can do, are we thinking that remote minehunting can be done from them?  Given increased speed is on the table perhaps a proper fast patrol boat is on the table?


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Back to MCDV replacement, what do y'all think should be the requirements?  Now we know somewhat what the AOPS can do, are we thinking that remote minehunting can be done from them?  Given increased speed is on the table perhaps a proper fast patrol boat is on the table?


Personally I'd be in favour of an ASW Corvette to complement the CSCs.  Ideally with the facilities to at least land and rearm/refuel the Cyclone (I don't have any real hope that we'll expand our MH fleet enough to actually have an air detachment on them) plus their own UAVs.  Anti-surface missiles plus AD missiles for both self-defence and that can be directed by our CSC's for area defence.

An OPV however is the more likely outcome unfortunately.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> It won't help.  Literally closing the barn after the horses have fled.  The trade restructure is not the reason people are leaving or not joining.  It's easy to point to it but skill trades everywhere are hurting.  Not just the navy.
> 
> Between the "classism" of going to university vice trade school and a shrinking working demographic, there is going to be a pain for everyone.
> 
> Not really the thread for it but when do we ever follow threads properly.  This whole website is half stream of consciousness... which is why I love it!
> 
> Back to MCDV replacement, what do y'all think should be the requirements?  Now we know somewhat what the AOPS can do, are we thinking that remote minehunting can be done from them?  Given increased speed is on the table perhaps a proper fast patrol boat is on the table?



'Littoral' seems a popular term these days. Maybe we should try to keep up with the Joneses down south 

The *littoral combat ship* (*LCS*) is a set of two classes of relatively small surface vessels designed for operations near shore by the United States Navy. It was "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals."[1] Littoral combat ships are comparable to the corvettes found in other navies.[2][3]









						Littoral combat ship - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## FSTO

daftandbarmy said:


> 'Littoral' seems a popular term these days. Maybe we should try to keep up with the Joneses down south
> 
> The *littoral combat ship* (*LCS*) is a set of two classes of relatively small surface vessels designed for operations near shore by the United States Navy. It was "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in the littorals."[1] Littoral combat ships are comparable to the corvettes found in other navies.[2][3]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Littoral combat ship - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Good heavens no!!!!!!!!

They are called Little Crappy Ships for a reason.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I suppose it depends on what we want to do with them. Will they be primarily deployed in our waters, or do we need them to go beyond that. If so, how far? Africa, Gulf of Aden or limited to Caribbean ops? I know that the AOPS are capable of any of the above, but with a fleet size of 6, I believe it will be difficult to schedule in many overseas missions. So, IMHO, you need a vessel that can serve any where, short of major combat operations. I'd suggest it be longer, faster and larger displacement than a KINGSTON. Ability to land a helo and UAV, but have a bay/hangar where the later could be maintained/housed. An area for containerized kit/cargo is a must as are two quickly deployable and recoverable RHIBS. 

Weapons suite wouldn't have to be too crazy, for it's role. I'd prefer a 57mm main gun and a pair of RWS, but realistically a 25-30mm would probably suffice. 

As far as existing examples go, I keep looking at the Kiwi OTAGO class. I know there were weight problems, but I believe that was largely due to special ice shielding for Ross Sea and Antarctic operations. Outside of that, it's a competent ship that would be a good fit.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> Back to MCDV replacement, what do y'all think should be the requirements?  Now we know somewhat what the AOPS can do, are we thinking that remote minehunting can be done from them?  Given increased speed is on the table perhaps a proper fast patrol boat is on the table?



MGBs.  Base some in the Carribean for Ops rotating crews and support pers; some on either coast and a couple in the Great Lakes and other coastal reserve units.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> a couple in the Great Lakes and other coastal reserve units.


Wouldn't that impact the Rush-Bagot Treaty though?


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> Wouldn't that impact the Rush-Bagot Treaty though?



That's a good question, I don't know.  I just want to engage the reserves where they are as much as possible.


----------



## Underway

Some interesting route survey news here:

KRAKEN Tests Equipment with RCN


----------



## Maxman1

Swampbuggy said:


> I suppose it depends on what we want to do with them. Will they be primarily deployed in our waters, or do we need them to go beyond that. If so, how far? Africa, Gulf of Aden or limited to Caribbean ops? I know that the AOPS are capable of any of the above, but with a fleet size of 6, I believe it will be difficult to schedule in many overseas missions. So, IMHO, you need a vessel that can serve any where, short of major combat operations. I'd suggest it be longer, faster and larger displacement than a KINGSTON. Ability to land a helo and UAV, but have a bay/hangar where the later could be maintained/housed. An area for containerized kit/cargo is a must as are two quickly deployable and recoverable RHIBS.
> 
> Weapons suite wouldn't have to be too crazy, for it's role. I'd prefer a 57mm main gun and a pair of RWS, but realistically a 25-30mm would probably suffice.
> 
> As far as existing examples go, I keep looking at the Kiwi OTAGO class. I know there were weight problems, but I believe that was largely due to special ice shielding for Ross Sea and Antarctic operations. Outside of that, it's a competent ship that would be a good fit.



Or there's the German _Braunschweig_ and the Finnish _Pohjannma_.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Maxman1 said:


> Or there's the German _Braunschweig_ and the Finnish _Pohjannma_.



Who cares, as long as we call them 'Corvettes' and cover them in dazzle-flage


----------



## JMCanada

Depending on what we want them to do...
a) for patrolling in Africa, gulf of Aden or anti-piracy ... something between the AOPS and the CSC. Either the Type 31 or the next EPC (south-European Patrol Corvette). Crew about 100.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451169802660233217
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/European-Patrol-Corvette-EPC-768x598.png


b) for mine clearance, anti-drug ops. and training, ... better a 1,500-2,500 tonnes OPV, crew of a few dozens (thirty-six to sixty?) as earlier discussed (few months ago) in this thread.


----------



## Underway

I think this was posted here before but its worth repeating.  

The UK River Class OPV are a very good example of an OPV for northern lattitudes.

I want to highlight is the following commentary.



> The Batch I OPVs are only armed with a single, manually-aimed 20mm cannon and a few GMPGs. Although it might be nice for them to be armed to the teeth in case of all eventualities, this would be a poor use of resources as they spend most of their time policing fishing boats. When tasked primarily to provide surveillance, conduct boarding operations and provide a presence in UK waters, having additional heavy weapons would be almost pointless.





> There is a strong argument that if the RN has any ‘spare funds’ (looking increasingly unlikely again!) then it might be better invested in adding more capability to the Type 31 frigates which are more suited to going into harm’s way. In an ideal scenario, all vessels would be permanently equipped with a full spectrum of armament, allowing them to be rapidly redeployed at very short notice and able to cope with the highest level threats. With constrained resources, the RN already has to share some equipment between ships as they rotate in and out of high threat areas. Enhancing the OPVs in a modest way makes sense but equipping them to corvette standard would appear to be an unnecessary luxury.



This is the exact commentary that needs to be understood for RCN "non-combatant" ships.  Stick to the non-combatant shelf.  Canada won't/don't have the resources for corvettes (all the cost with none of the survivability of a frigate) type ships. Both AOPS and MCDV clearly fit into this mandate.

I would be over the moon if a ship with the capabilities of the River Class (Type 2) were something we decided upon.  Decent seakeeping, good range, 25knots, flight deck for equipment/helo ops, 25-30mm, room for passengers, 16-ton crane.


----------



## Stoker

The design that saw for the replacement took the original requirements for the Kingston class and made a few changes, one was a top speed of 25 knots and it does have a gun.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Without worrying, for even a _μ_second, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:

Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .
I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the _largish_ Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.

So, at a guess:

_n_ amphibious ships;
8-12 major surface combatants ~ the (7,500+ ton) Type 26 ships;
4 AORs;
10-15 smaller combatants ~ 3,000± ton ships (called something other than littoral combat ships);
5-10 small (less than 1,000 ton?) mine warfare ships;
6-12 under-ice capable submarines;
_nn_ tenders and tugs and training vessels and, and, and ....

The only real problems involve finding:

Enough money to build, operate and maintain them; and
Enough properly trained (and organized and well led) sailors to serve in them.


----------



## GR66

Edward Campbell said:


> Without worrying, for even a _μ_second, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:
> 
> Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
> Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
> Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .
> I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the _largish_ Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.
> 
> So, at a guess:
> 
> _n_ amphibious ships;
> 8-12 major surface combatants ~ the (7,500+ ton) Type 26 ships;
> 4 AORs;
> 10-15 smaller combatants ~ 3,000± ton ships (called something other than littoral combat ships);
> 5-10 small (less than 1,000 ton?) mine warfare ships;
> 6-12 under-ice capable submarines;
> _nn_ tenders and tugs and training vessels and, and, and ....
> 
> The only real problems involve finding:
> 
> Enough money to build, operate and maintain them; and
> Enough properly trained (and organized and well led) sailors to serve in them.


Nothing to argue about in my mind about that other than the possibility that the role of the dedicated mine warfare ships could possibly be taken over by USVs and UUVs as appears to be the general direction that this technology appears to be going.  As long as the small combatants and the AOPS have the capability of deploying these units a separate class may possibly not be required.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> I think this was posted here before but its worth repeating.
> 
> The UK River Class OPV are a very good example of an OPV for northern lattitudes.
> 
> I want to highlight is the following commentary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the exact commentary that needs to be understood for RCN "non-combatant" ships.  Stick to the non-combatant shelf.  Canada won't/don't have the resources for corvettes (all the cost with none of the survivability of a frigate) type ships. Both AOPS and MCDV clearly fit into this mandate.
> 
> I would be over the moon if a ship with the capabilities of the River Class (Type 2) were something we decided upon.  Decent seakeeping, good range, 25knots, flight deck for equipment/helo ops, 25-30mm, room for passengers, 16-ton crane.


As I recall the RN is sending their newest OPV's (River Class 2) to SE Asia and the Persian Gulf, mainly as they are short of frigates and funding. It's an interim solution, but shows how unplanned mission creep can happen.

I like the River Class as well, but I suspect we would be giving up the ice strengthened hull for it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> The design that saw for the replacement took the original requirements for the Kingston class and made a few changes, one was a top speed of 25 knots and it does have a gun.


Speed is great but it always comes at a price, depends what that price is?


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:


> I think this was posted here before but its worth repeating (...)
> 
> Canada won't/don't have the resources for corvettes (all the cost with none of the survivability of a frigate) type ships. Both AOPS and MCDV clearly fit into this mandate.


Do you think that other countries, such as UK, France or Italy do have spare resources to invest in corvettes or general purpose frigates? Or might it be that, precisely due to the scarcity of resources, have opted instead for a more economical, mixed fleet of AAW/ASW/GP frigates?

Note: call them AAW destroyers, ASW frigates and corvettes or whatsoever.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> It won't help.  Literally closing the barn after the horses have fled.  The trade restructure is not the reason people are leaving or not joining.  It's easy to point to it but skill trades everywhere are hurting.  Not just the navy.
> 
> Between the "classism" of going to university vice trade school and a shrinking working demographic, there is going to be a pain for everyone.
> 
> Not really the thread for it but when do we ever follow threads properly.  This whole website is half stream of consciousness... which is why I love it!
> 
> Back to MCDV replacement, what do y'all think should be the requirements?  Now we know somewhat what the AOPS can do, are we thinking that remote minehunting can be done from them?  Given increased speed is on the table perhaps a proper fast patrol boat is on the table?


I know more than a few former HTs and ELs that left specifically because of the restructuring, and others that are on their way out for the same reason. Actually, can think of a few former ERs that left as well. Bad news for the navy, but handy for the public service and ISSCs.

The actual plan the RCN choose was the bullcrap throwaway COA, but now that folks that made the decision are gone we can finally relook at the disaster. The idea was bad (and the RN specifically told us not to do that because they did and it didn't work), but politics and saving face were a lot of it. It would have needed a tranformation of the training system to support, and we're still trying to define the martech training requirements 6 years later (with only a small portion done).


----------



## Czech_pivo

Edward Campbell said:


> Without worrying, for even a _μ_second, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:
> 
> Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
> Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
> Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .
> I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the _largish_ Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.
> 
> So, at a guess:
> 
> _n_ amphibious ships;
> 8-12 major surface combatants ~ the (7,500+ ton) Type 26 ships;
> 4 AORs;
> 10-15 smaller combatants ~ 3,000± ton ships (called something other than littoral combat ships);
> 5-10 small (less than 1,000 ton?) mine warfare ships;
> 6-12 under-ice capable submarines;
> _nn_ tenders and tugs and training vessels and, and, and ....
> 
> The only real problems involve finding:
> 
> Enough money to build, operate and maintain them; and
> Enough properly trained (and organized and well led) sailors to serve in them.


I’d like to hear from those in the know on here, if the CSC’s were reduced to 12 from 15, in terms of Amphibious and/or the smaller combatants ~3,000+- ton ships, what would the money and manpower savings buy? 
The crew of a Mistral, how similar to a fitted out, with air detachment, CSC is it?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> As I recall the RN is sending their newest OPV's (River Class 2) to SE Asia and the Persian Gulf, mainly as they are short of frigates and funding. It's an interim solution, but shows how unplanned mission creep can happen.
> 
> I like the River Class as well, but I suspect we would be giving up the ice strengthened hull for it.


Don’t they station one of them down in the Falklands?


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> The crew of a Mistral, how similar to a fitted out, with air detachment, CSC is it?


Not at all.  Mistral is an LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), whereas CSC is like a destroyer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:


> Don’t they station one of them down in the Falklands?


yes that as well, but the Argies are much less of a threat now.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dimsum said:


> Not at all.  Mistral is an LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), whereas CSC is like a destroyer.


Sorry I might not have been clear, in terms of crew, total crew needs, how close are the numbers


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I read years ago, that the base crew was 240, I see wiki gives it as 20 officers, 80 petty officers, 60 quarter-masters. I suspect that's just to keep the ship running, no aviation or hospital.

They are also offering a smaller version as well AAD2014: DCNS markets the Mistral 140 in Africa - Shephard Media


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> yes that as well, but the Argies are much less of a threat now.



Um, kinda....

Falklands are OURS! Argentina renews threat to tear islands away from UK – angry warning​ARGENTINE President Alberto Fernández has renewed threats to tear the Falkland Islands away from the UK during a major speech.​​Falklands: Former Argentine senator calls for fresh talks with UK​
Speaking at the 76th United Nations General Assembly, Mr Fernández claimed sovereignty over the Falklands, known in Argentina as Malvinas, as well as other islands in the Souh Atlantic. The 62-year-old claimed the British overseas territory was “illegally occupied by the UK” and hit out at the lack of talks between the two nations.


In a virtual address on Tuesday, he renewed Argentina's claim for "legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces that make up part of the Argentine national territory."

Mr Fernández added: “These territories have been illegally occupied by the UK for more than 188 years.


“There is no reason other than the intention of the UK to maintain the illegitimate colonial situation so that the bilateral dialogue is not resumed right now on the Malvinas issue.”









						Falklands are OURS! Argentina renews threat over islands
					

ARGENTINE President Alberto Fernández has renewed threats to tear the Falkland Islands away from the UK during a major speech.




					www.express.co.uk


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmm government must be in trouble again....









						List of active Argentine Navy ships - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Argentine Air Force - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> Without worrying, for even a _μ_second, about what they are called, OPV or corvette or something else, it seems to me that Canada needs a mixed fleet:
> 
> Ideally some (say two or three) amphibious ships ~ helicopter carriers ~ which can bye the centre of a true power projection capability. No service can project power as well as the Navy does and a joint (amphibious) force is, I think, the epitome of power projection;
> Ships to escort those "high value" amphibious ships ~ that likely means at least eight to twelve combatant ships and a couple of oilers; and
> Aircraft to fly long range patrol/ASW and CAP over that force .
> I suspect that the amphibious ships are just some commodore's or commander's wet dream but the major surface combatants ~ reported to be weighing in at more than 7,500 tons (when Canada last had a "cruiser" she displaced less than 9,000 tons) ~ are real but will we have more than six to eight of them? It seems to me that the _largish_ Type 26 "frigate" should be augmented by some smaller, more economical, but still capable ships: maybe a dozen or so vessels displaying less than 3,500 tons ~ built and armed to full military standards and carrying organic, multi-role shipborne UAVs. In addition I believe Canadians should have a force of dedicated, purpose built, mine warfare vessels which can be double hatted a training ships. Finally, we need submarines ~ in my opinion under-ice-capable submarines.


First, @Edward Campbell it's great when you come out of lurker mode and post.  I always look forward to your thoughts!

The real reason Canada doesn't have an amphib capability... the army doesn't want one.  It's that simple.  They are super agnostic about how they get to theatre.  They don't care because they've always gotten where they needed to go.  No one in the army is pushing for navy procurement to get them where they need to go, unlike the C17 procurement for example.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> I know more than a few former HTs and ELs that left specifically because of the restructuring, and others that are on their way out for the same reason. Actually, can think of a few former ERs that left as well. Bad news for the navy, but handy for the public service and ISSCs.
> 
> The actual plan the RCN choose was the bullcrap throwaway COA, but now that folks that made the decision are gone we can finally relook at the disaster. The idea was bad (and the RN specifically told us not to do that because they did and it didn't work), but politics and saving face were a lot of it. It would have needed a tranformation of the training system to support, and we're still trying to define the martech training requirements 6 years later (with only a small portion done).


We (the RCAF) also tried to warn you. We amalgamated the 500 series trades in the early 2000s…and de-amalgamated 5 years later because it did not work.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> We (the RCAF) also tried to warn you. We amalgamated the 500 series trades in the early 2000s…and de-amalgamated 5 years later because it did not work.


And so did the RAN, RNZN, ourselves, ourselves again....

This whole is pretty crazy, going to eventually make a pretty brutal writeup by a future Granastein on how crappy of an idea this was, and how many people knew it was a terrible idea, and how we did it anyway..


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> First, @Edward Campbell it's great when you come out of lurker mode and post.  I always look forward to your thoughts!
> 
> The real reason Canada doesn't have an amphib capability... the army doesn't want one.  It's that simple.  They are super agnostic about how they get to theatre.  They don't care because they've always gotten where they needed to go.  No one in the army is pushing for navy procurement to get them where they need to go, unlike the C17 procurement for example.


Their tune might have changed if that RO/RO had turned around and docked in Pakistan or similar, selling off the equipment to cover the costs.


----------



## suffolkowner

daftandbarmy said:


> Um, kinda....
> 
> Mr Fernández added: “These territories have been illegally occupied by the UK for more than 188 years.


Ha! Argentina can't even be 188 yrs old! Always brings me back to those days being glued to the television as we* took back the Falklands. Almost made us like Thatcher too.

*My family is/was very British as my wife was born there and pretty much half of every generation going backwards. It took a long time for us to fly the new flag


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting way to do on the hip moves


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> And so did the RAN, RNZN, ourselves, ourselves again....
> 
> This whole is pretty crazy, going to eventually make a pretty brutal writeup by a future Granastein on how crappy of an idea this was, and how many people knew it was a terrible idea, and how we did it anyway..


Sunk Cost Fallacy is a helluva thing.


----------



## Maxman1

JMCanada said:


> b) for mine clearance, anti-drug ops. and training, ... better a 1,500-2,500 tonnes OPV, crew of a few dozens (thirty-six to sixty?) as earlier discussed (few months ago) in this thread.





Underway said:


> I would be over the moon if a ship with the capabilities of the River Class (Type 2) were something we decided upon.  Decent seakeeping, good range, 25knots, flight deck for equipment/helo ops, 25-30mm, room for passengers, 16-ton crane.





Stoker said:


> The design that saw for the replacement took the original requirements for the Kingston class and made a few changes, one was a top speed of 25 knots and it does have a gun.



Again, sounds like the _Braunschweig_ fits the bill.
1,800 tonnes
Top speed 26 knots
Range of 4,000 nautical miles
Crew of 65
Oto Melara 76mm main gun
4 RBS-15 anti-ship missiles and two Mauser BK-27 cannons and two RIM-116
Flight deck large enough for Sea Kings and hangar large enough for two Gargoyle UAVs, but the Israeli _Sa'ar 6_ increased the hangar to accommodate an MH-60 Seahawk

Just replace the RBS-15s with Harpoons, the BK-27s with Bushmaster M242/Mk 38s, add some M2s and Mk 32 torpedo launchers and expand the hangar to accommodate a Cyclone (the Israeli version also has VLS cells, which would probably be unnecessary on an OPV).


----------



## Good2Golf

Stoker said:


> Yes the cards were all replaced with PLC's (Programmable Logic Controller's), digital directional control valves and other updates. Some teething issues on software but the days of the dreaded "crazy Ivan " are over.


…so it’s true that MCDVs always swerved to port in the bottom of the hour?


----------



## Underway

Maxman1 said:


> Again, sounds like the _Braunschweig_ fits the bill.
> 1,800 tonnes
> Top speed 26 knots
> Range of 4,000 nautical miles
> Crew of 65
> Oto Melara 76mm main gun
> 4 RBS-15 anti-ship missiles and two Mauser BK-27 cannons and two RIM-116
> Flight deck large enough for Sea Kings and hangar large enough for two Gargoyle UAVs, but the Israeli _Sa'ar 6_ increased the hangar to accommodate an MH-60 Seahawk
> 
> Just replace the RBS-15s with Harpoons, the BK-27s with Bushmaster M242/Mk 38s, add some M2s and Mk 32 torpedo launchers and expand the hangar to accommodate a Cyclone (the Israeli version also has VLS cells, which would probably be unnecessary on an OPV).


Braunschweig class hull and engines would fit the bill.  It would need to be stripped down for Canada's needs.

No need for 76mm. Too heavy of a gun to deal with Op Caribbe type operations, and EEZ patrolling.
Definitely no need for missiles of any type.  Expense with no advantage in our case.  An OPV won't have the sensors to locate a target for ASM in the North Pacific or Atlantic and would need to rely upon other assets.  Those same other assets could just take the shot themselves.
Crew a bit high, numbers closer to 40 might be better.

Given those changes likely the range could be increased as the weight comes down and the crew comes down (no need to operate/maintain all those combat systems).

The Braunschweig class was designed for operations in the North Sea and Baltic, which means it doesn't need legs and needs to be heavily armed for its size to deal with the Baltic threats.  War in the Baltic is a knife fight in a phone booth in naval terms.  With Sweden and Russia stabbing swords at each other through it.

Of course, all of this is assuming a certain "non-combatant" status for an MCDV replacement.  Keep them cheap, good seakeeping, and relatively fast and I bet it's a winner.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Braunschweig class hull and engines would fit the bill.  It would need to be stripped down for Canada's needs.
> 
> No need for 76mm. Too heavy of a gun to deal with Op Caribbe type operations, and EEZ patrolling.
> Definitely no need for missiles of any type.  Expense with no advantage in our case.  An OPV won't have the sensors to locate a target for ASM in the North Pacific or Atlantic and would need to rely upon other assets.  Those same other assets could just take the shot themselves.
> Crew a bit high, numbers closer to 40 might be better.
> 
> Given those changes likely the range could be increased as the weight comes down and the crew comes down (no need to operate/maintain all those combat systems).
> 
> The Braunschweig class was designed for operations in the North Sea and Baltic, which means it doesn't need legs and needs to be heavily armed for its size to deal with the Baltic threats.  War in the Baltic is a knife fight in a phone booth in naval terms.  With Sweden and Russia stabbing swords at each other through it.
> 
> Of course, all of this is assuming a certain "non-combatant" status for an MCDV replacement.  Keep them cheap, good seakeeping, and relatively fast and I bet it's a winner.


As we're re-entering a period of great power competition with Russia and China both boosting their naval capabilities why would we want to double down on non-combatant ships to replace the MCDVs?


----------



## Underway

GR66 said:


> As we're re-entering a period of great power competition with Russia and China both boosting their naval capabilities why would we want to double down on non-combatant ships to replace the MCDVs?


Because small combatants in non-literal environments have extremely low survival chances when the shooting starts.  A Braunschweig class survives at the pleasure of the allied airforce or its ability to hide in the many fjords and islands of Norway and Sweden. 

Australia and the UK get it.  Big frigates for warfighting, OPV's for EEZ and "policing" type Ops.

However, I can see a minor ASW role for an MCDV replacement, or counter mine warfare.  Or even a UXV carrier which could have lots of specialized jobs that might be critical for operations.

Also, CSC is going to eat the budget for combatants.  Something needs to be cheap and easy to operate to do all those other dirty jobs.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I also wonder about numbers. If we were to go "all out" on the MCDV replacement and give it missiles, torpedoes etc, how many could there be built? I doubt that even if it were armed similarly to an AOPS, we'd get a one for one replacement, let alone armed like a frigate. Given its perceived role, I'd rather have 10 or so adequately equipped vessels that can be used frequently than 4-5 heavily armed units that have to be scheduled very carefully in their taskings.


----------



## Underway

I would not be surprised if an MCDV replacement was 6-8 ships.  AOPS are a thing and will be tasked with some current MCDV jobs and eating up crew from the MCDV fleet.  8 ships is probably a good number.  6 is the minimum.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Because small combatants in non-literal environments have extremely low survival chances when the shooting starts.  A Braunschweig class survives at the pleasure of the allied airforce or its ability to hide in the many fjords and islands of Norway and Sweden.
> 
> Australia and the UK get it.  Big frigates for warfighting, OPV's for EEZ and "policing" type Ops.
> 
> However, I can see a minor ASW role for an MCDV replacement, or counter mine warfare.  Or even a UXV carrier which could have lots of specialized jobs that might be critical for operations.
> 
> Also, CSC is going to eat the budget for combatants.  Something needs to be cheap and easy to operate to do all those other dirty jobs.


In my initial comment on my preference for a replacement was:

"Personally I'd be in favour of an ASW Corvette to complement the CSCs. Ideally with the facilities to at least land and rearm/refuel the Cyclone (I don't have any real hope that we'll expand our MH fleet enough to actually have an air detachment on them) plus their own UAVs. Anti-surface missiles plus AD missiles for both self-defence and that can be directed by our CSC's for area defence."

Specifically ASW because:

1) In a major conflict with Russia a major deciding factor will likely be the ability of the US to deliver its heavy military forces to Europe by sea.  Russia would use its substantial submarine fleet to try and interfere so a robust ASW capability would be a significant contribution.  With the size of the ocean numbers matter so 12 x CSCs won't be enough.

2) In a war with China the US will likely try to keep its carriers out of range of Chinese area denial weapons while it uses its aviation to weaken their surface fleet and air power.  China will likely try to use their subs to try and take out the carriers, so again ASW assets will be in great demand.

3) In defence of Canada it is unlikely that any enemy surface fleet will approach our coastline due to the strong US naval and air forces so any likely attacks from the sea will be from subs.  Again the need for plentiful ASW assets.

While I don't see putting these Corvettes up against enemy surface fleets you can't assume that they won't face enemy attack so as I said, they should have self defence missile capabilities (and having extra missiles on dispersed launchers that can be controlled by a CSC would give a task force greater survivability).

My dream configuration would be a Mistral-type flagship with Cyclones heading an ASW task force of 3-4 ASW Corvettes and 1-2 CSCs to provide area air defence.  One can dream can't they???


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> I would not be surprised if an MCDV replacement was 6-8 ships.  AOPS are a thing and will be tasked with some current MCDV jobs and eating up crew from the MCDV fleet.  8 ships is probably a good number.  6 is the minimum.


Like the Kingston Class we need an all around pickup truck that's thrifty on fuel and maintenance, nothing too fancy. At 2% fuel a day, AOPS is not that economical. 25mm gun, 50 cals, a full size Rhib, ability to operate drones, take payloads ,25 knot speed with a min ice capability. Probably 35 to 40 crew with 10 training bunks for force generation.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I've a question re:25mm...Is it possible to sink/halt a large vessel with that weapon? I'm thinking about a ship up to container vessel size.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Braunschweig class hull and engines would fit the bill.  It would need to be stripped down for Canada's needs.
> 
> No need for 76mm. Too heavy of a gun to deal with Op Caribbe type operations, and EEZ patrolling.
> Definitely no need for missiles of any type.  Expense with no advantage in our case.  An OPV won't have the sensors to locate a target for ASM in the North Pacific or Atlantic and would need to rely upon other assets.  Those same other assets could just take the shot themselves.
> Crew a bit high, numbers closer to 40 might be better.
> 
> Given those changes likely the range could be increased as the weight comes down and the crew comes down (no need to operate/maintain all those combat systems).
> 
> The Braunschweig class was designed for operations in the North Sea and Baltic, which means it doesn't need legs and needs to be heavily armed for its size to deal with the Baltic threats.  War in the Baltic is a knife fight in a phone booth in naval terms.  With Sweden and Russia stabbing swords at each other through it.
> 
> Of course, all of this is assuming a certain "non-combatant" status for an MCDV replacement.  Keep them cheap, good seakeeping, and relatively fast and I bet it's a winner.


I know that I've beaten this drum here before, but save money, training and time and just re-purpose the 57's when they start coming off the Halifax's. Add a BAE Mk38 or CIWS and a pair of 50's and be done with it.
Why build a ship to meet just today's existing operations, Op Caribbe and EEZ?  Build a ship to meet those operations and potential new ones over the horizon yet to be adequately seen or perceived. Some light weight ASW work should be a min. consideration as well. These ships will not see surface threats but air and underwater threats are most likely to be considered. 
Eight would be nice, 10 better, once you have to divide by 2 for each coast, 4 means 2 ready, 1 in work ups and 1 in maintenance, so what can 2 ships really do in the grand scheme of things among thousands of km of coastline? Besides if any shooting ever does begin all the AOPS will be tied to pier because they will have zero value to add.


----------



## Maxman1

Or, put the 57s on the AOPS.


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:


> I would not be surprised if an MCDV replacement was 6-8 ships.  AOPS are a thing and will be tasked with some current MCDV jobs and eating up crew from the MCDV fleet.  8 ships is probably a good number.  6 is the minimum.


I agree with that. Nevertheless I think some of us are mixing ideas by trying to be pragmatic and rational.

If the replacement could be one-to-one, assuming that AOPS are an addition of capabilities, maybe the best option would be to have a mix of a few (6 to 8) small, lightly armed, updated MCDVs, for patrol duties AND a few (4 to 6) small ASW/GP frigates capable to join a task group but mostly intended for ASW patrol in Northern Atlantic and NATO commitments in the Mediterranean for half the cost for crew and fuel of a CSC. For the smaller Pacific coastline, which is also "covered" by the US, the updated MCDVs might use TRAPS and have at least a helipad.

What I try to say is that both types of vessels are necessary and would result into useful tools.
The lighter type being based on the West coast and the latter on the Eastern.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> I've a question re:25mm...Is it possible to sink/halt a large vessel with that weapon? I'm thinking about a ship up to container vessel size.


Halt, possible depending on a number of factors.  The larger the ship the harder it is to hit critical engineering equipment.  You could also threaten the bridge crew.  If you use incendiary rounds and start fires well there you go.  Sink?  Not really.  It takes a lot to sink any ship with even large guns.  Missiles don't even sink ships.  

However, if you really want to halt a container vessel I would recommend a boarding operation.  Much more effective to take control over the ship and crew, with less damage to the scenery.

Which is why I agree with @Stoker.  They stated the initial idea is to have a 25-knot ship.  That's fast enough to get a boarding party on pretty much anything big out there.  And the gun is fast enough to argue the smaller faster stuff stops


----------



## Underway

JMCanada said:


> If the replacement could be one-to-one, assuming that AOPS are an addition of capabilities, maybe the best option would be to have a mix of a few (6 to 8) small, lightly armed, updated MCDVs, for patrol duties AND a few (4 to 6) small ASW/GP frigates capable to join a task group but mostly intended for ASW patrol in Northern Atlantic and NATO commitments in the Mediterranean for half the cost for crew and fuel of a CSC. For the smaller Pacific coastline, which is also "covered" by the US, the updated MCDVs might use TRAPS and have at least a helipad.


Here is an interesting article about modern ASW and what it requires.   The author mirrors my thoughts almost exactly.

Why the Royal Navy Does Not Need New ASW

In particular, the following items which I've quoted below.



> The reality is that modern ASW is not something that can be done cheaply or via a simple platform. A credible and effective ASW frigate requires three key assets, firstly the sonar processing power to identify, track and prosecute an attack against an extremely quiet target that does not want to be found. Secondly, it needs the means to deliver this attack as far away from the escort ship as possible – which calls for a platform capable of operating a long range helicopter capable of prosecuting an attack. Finally to prevent detection and attack, the frigate is required to be as quiet as possible to avoid notifying submarines of its presence – this requires extensive silencing and mounting of machinery to prevent it giving away a ships presence.





> In turn these three characteristics raise the cost of the platform. Modern sonar equipment is incredibly expensive – particularly if you want to opt for things like Towed Array Sonars. If you want it to be able to work effectively against a highly capable target, you need to be prepared to spend a lot of money on it. There may be plenty of ‘cheap’ ASW frigate designs out there, but they almost certainly skimp on the complex underpinning sonar and software architecture required to be effective – and they are not intended to go up against peer threats like the latest Russian SSNs.





> The problem though is Merlin Cyclone is a very big helicopter – when you stand alongside one you realise it is, literally, as tall as a house. This immediately imposes constraints on the design of the ship you want to operate it from – the hangar and support facilities need to be big enough to maintain it. Additionally, to make full use of the phenomenal capability of the Merlin Cylcone,you need to have invested fully in the sensors and systems required to make it effective. A failure to do so means the value and utility of the helicopter and the ships is massively reduced.
> The two problems here are firstly there simply aren’t enough Cylcones in the Fleet to spare for use on a Corvette style platform. The Cyclone is arguably in terms of capability a ‘flying ASW frigate’ and its use at sea is focused on ASW platforms and the Carrier. With limited Cyclones available, and none likely to be available or affordable, putting them on a barely capable ASW corvette makes absolutely no sense.





> In reality, while it sounds impressive to suggest that the Navy acquire a fleet of cheap corvettes to solve its ASW problems, such a suggestion is likely to do more harm than good. These vessels would either be so cheap as to lack capacity to do the job (and thus making them essentially floating targets like the Type 14), or they would grow in cost to the point where they became highly capable and thus vastly more expensive (like the Type 23).





> A corvette construction programme would not solve any of the challenges that the RN RCN has today. It doesn’t solve a gaping hole in the nations defences, nor would it necessarily provide ships for the needs that the Navy has of it. An ASW corvette would be of little use in a winters gale in the North Atlantic tracking a Russian submarine that could threaten our nuclear deterrent if it cannot operate the helicopters needed to find it, or possess the suitable sensors to track it.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> Here is an interesting article about modern ASW and what it requires.   The author mirrors my thoughts almost exactly.
> 
> Why the Royal Navy Does Not Need New ASW


I was going to write some rant until I realized the article said "ASW Corvettes".

Then yes, I agree.  

However, the RN (RCN, etc) does need new ASW capabilities - just maybe not of the "skimmer" variety.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Here is an interesting article about modern ASW and what it requires.   The author mirrors my thoughts almost exactly.
> 
> Why the Royal Navy Does Not Need New ASW
> 
> In particular, the following items which I've quoted below.


Thank you for posting this and laying it out in a clear fashion.

My question is this, pivoting away from the above Euro-centred analysis that is interchangeable between the Motherland and us, how does this analysis hold up if we apply it to our other major coast, the Pacific? Does any of this change? Does the need for some 'light weight' ASW platform become apparent?  Should we (do we??) be looking at the needs of the Pacific coast differently than the Atlantic, more than just putting 7 Halifax's on the East coast and the remaining 5 on the West.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Here is an interesting article about modern ASW and what it requires.   The author mirrors my thoughts almost exactly.
> 
> Why the Royal Navy Does Not Need New ASW
> 
> In particular, the following items which I've quoted below.


My criticism of the article is that he equates modern Corvettes with the Flower Class of WWII.  The word "Corvette" is the only similarity  between a modern Corvette and the Flower Class.

I don't think anybody is looking for a small, slow, poorly armed trawler conversion to go up against SSNs.

The Flower Class was around 1,000 tons, 62m long and had a speed of 16kn.  There are multiple "Corvette" designs out there in the 2,500-3,000 ton range, 100-120m long with speeds of 25+kn, towed array sonars, facilities to handle a 10+ton class helicopter, and their own UAV assets.  They're really what previously would have been called Frigates or even Destroyers.

Should you look at one of these Corvettes as a stand-alone platform in the ASW fight?  No.  You'd pair them with CSCs to give another tail in the water, additional UAV sensors for the hunt and a lilly pad for the CSCs Cyclone to land on for re-arming and refueling to extend their search range and endurance.  You'd also hopefully work together with our own subs (SSK or SSN), MPAs and our Allies assets.

Are these going to be as cheap as a Kingston-type ship?  HELL NO!  But we are the country with the longest coastline in the world.  Is 15 x combatant vessels enough for a country our size and expeditionary commitments along with our own self-defence requirements?  HELL NO!

We as a country need to grow up and stop thinking so small.  The Chinese Navy has 355 ships (74 subs).  The Russian Navy has 606 ships (62 subs).  Personally I don't think 15 x CSCs and a dozen (or less) River-Class OPV equivalents will cut it for us.  The Government may say we don't have enough money to expand our combatant fleet (and MPAs/MHs), but our Admirals (and Generals) should not stop screaming out for our need to increase our fleet until someone hears them.

[end rant]


----------



## Swampbuggy

GR66 said:


> My criticism of the article is that he equates modern Corvettes with the Flower Class of WWII.  The word "Corvette" is the only similarity  between a modern Corvette and the Flower Class.
> 
> I don't think anybody is looking for a small, slow, poorly armed trawler conversion to go up against SSNs.
> 
> The Flower Class was around 1,000 tons, 62m long and had a speed of 16kn.  There are multiple "Corvette" designs out there in the 2,500-3,000 ton range, 100-120m long with speeds of 25+kn, towed array sonars, facilities to handle a 10+ton class helicopter, and their own UAV assets.  They're really what previously would have been called Frigates or even Destroyers.
> 
> Should you look at one of these Corvettes as a stand-alone platform in the ASW fight?  No.  You'd pair them with CSCs to give another tail in the water, additional UAV sensors for the hunt and a lilly pad for the CSCs Cyclone to land on for re-arming and refueling to extend their search range and endurance.  You'd also hopefully work together with our own subs (SSK or SSN), MPAs and our Allies assets.
> 
> Are these going to be as cheap as a Kingston-type ship?  HELL NO!  But we are the country with the longest coastline in the world.  Is 15 x combatant vessels enough for a country our size and expeditionary commitments along with our own self-defence requirements?  HELL NO!
> 
> We as a country need to grow up and stop thinking so small.  The Chinese Navy has 355 ships (74 subs).  The Russian Navy has 606 ships (62 subs).  Personally I don't think 15 x CSCs and a dozen (or less) River-Class OPV equivalents will cut it for us.  The Government may say we don't have enough money to expand our combatant fleet (and MPAs/MHs), but our Admirals (and Generals) should not stop screaming out for our need to increase our fleet until someone hears them.
> 
> [end rant]


That's a fair point, but if you wanted all that capability, why not just build 6-8 more CSC? Seeing as how it's the sensor suite/equipment that drives the cost, not the displacement or length of the hull, is it really any cheaper to go for a corvette over a hot production line of your frigate? Probably not, especially when you factor in the development costs etc. And if the savings are to be felt in crewing, I'd take a long look at USN personnel burnout on minimally crewed yet well armed warships like the LCS. It's seemingly too high a demand on the compliment.


----------



## Underway

GR66 said:


> My criticism of the article is that he equates modern Corvettes with the Flower Class of WWII.  The word "Corvette" is the only similarity  between a modern Corvette and the Flower Class.
> 
> I don't think anybody is looking for a small, slow, poorly armed trawler conversion to go up against SSNs.
> 
> The Flower Class was around 1,000 tons, 62m long and had a speed of 16kn.  There are multiple "Corvette" designs out there in the 2,500-3,000 ton range, 100-120m long with speeds of 25+kn, towed array sonars, facilities to handle a 10+ton class helicopter, and their own UAV assets.  They're really what previously would have been called Frigates or even Destroyers.
> 
> Should you look at one of these Corvettes as a stand-alone platform in the ASW fight?  No.  You'd pair them with CSCs to give another tail in the water, additional UAV sensors for the hunt and a lilly pad for the CSCs Cyclone to land on for re-arming and refueling to extend their search range and endurance.  You'd also hopefully work together with our own subs (SSK or SSN), MPAs and our Allies assets.
> 
> Are these going to be as cheap as a Kingston-type ship?  HELL NO!  But we are the country with the longest coastline in the world.  Is 15 x combatant vessels enough for a country our size and expeditionary commitments along with our own self-defence requirements?  HELL NO!
> 
> We as a country need to grow up and stop thinking so small.  The Chinese Navy has 355 ships (74 subs).  The Russian Navy has 606 ships (62 subs).  Personally I don't think 15 x CSCs and a dozen (or less) River-Class OPV equivalents will cut it for us.  The Government may say we don't have enough money to expand our combatant fleet (and MPAs/MHs), but our Admirals (and Generals) should not stop screaming out for our need to increase our fleet until someone hears them.
> 
> [end rant]


I think you missed the point.  Any modern ASW platform is expensive and requires the ability to carry a helicopter.

We don't have enough helo's to make the ship ASW.  We don't have enough money to make the ship ASW.  There are other jobs the navy does that need cheap ships.

If Canadian ASW is important more MPA's would be a better investment.  As would submarines.  So you make the call.  Submarines or high-end ASW MCDV replacement.  There isn't enough money or people for both.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> I think you missed the point.  Any modern ASW platform is expensive and requires the ability to carry a helicopter.
> 
> We don't have enough helo's to make the ship ASW.  We don't have enough money to make the ship ASW.  There are other jobs the navy does that need cheap ships.
> 
> If Canadian ASW is important more MPA's would be a better investment.  As would submarines.  So you make the call.  Submarines or high-end ASW MCDV replacement.  There isn't enough money or people for both.


To paraphrase Murphy:

If a submarine is in range of an ASW ship's sensors/weapons, the ASW ship is in range of the submarine's sensors/weapons.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> To paraphrase Murphy:
> 
> If a submarine is in range of an ASW ship's sensors/weapons, the ASW ship is in range of the submarine's sensors/weapons.



John would agree. Point to note: Glass half full - the failure of your weapon systems to operate as intended may increase your likelihood of being decorated for bravery 





__





						John Cruickshank - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






> Air Office, 1st September, 1944.





> The King has been graciously pleased to confer the Victoria Cross on the undermentioned officer in recognition of most conspicuous bravery: —
> Flying Officer John Alexander Cruickshank (126700), Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. No. 210 Squadron.





> This officer was the captain and pilot of a Catalina flying boat which was recently engaged on an anti-submarine patrol over northern waters. When a U-boat was sighted on the surface, Flying Officer Cruickshank at once turned to the attack. In the face of fierce anti-aircraft fire he manoeuvred into position and ran in to release his depth charges. Unfortunately they failed to drop.





> Flying Officer Cruickshank knew that the failure of this attack had deprived him of the advantage of surprise and that his aircraft offered a good target to the enemy's determined and now heartened gunners.





> Without hesitation, he climbed and turned to come in again. The Catalina was met by intense and accurate fire and was repeatedly hit. The navigator/bomb aimer, was killed. The second pilot and two other members of the crew were injured. Flying Officer Cruickshank was struck in seventy-two places, receiving two serious wounds in the lungs and ten penetrating wounds in the lower limbs. His aircraft was badly damaged and filled with the fumes of exploding shells. But he did not falter. He pressed home his attack, and released the depth charges himself, straddling the submarine perfectly. The U-boat was sunk.





> He then collapsed and the second pilot took over the controls. He recovered shortly afterwards and, though bleeding profusely, insisted on resuming command and retaining it until he was satisfied that the damaged aircraft was under control, that a course had been set for base and that all the necessary signals had been sent. Only then would he consent to receive medical aid and have his wounds attended to. He refused morphia in case it might prevent him from carrying on.
> During the next five and a half hours of the return flight he several times lapsed into unconsciousness owing to loss of blood. When he came to his first thought on each occasion was for the safety of his aircraft and crew. The damaged aircraft eventually reached base but it was clear that an immediate landing would be a hazardous task for the wounded and less experienced second pilot. Although able to breathe only with the greatest difficulty, Flying Officer Cruickshank insisted on being carried forward and propped up in the second pilot's seat. For a full hour, in spite of his agony and ever-increasing weakness, he gave orders as necessary, refusing to allow the aircraft to be brought down until the conditions of light and sea made this possible without undue risk.





> With his assistance the aircraft was safely landed on the water. He then directed the taxying and beaching of the aircraft so that it could easily be salvaged. When the medical officer went on board, Flying Officer Cruickshank collapsed and he had to be given a blood transfusion before he could be removed to hospital.
> By pressing home the second attack in his gravely wounded condition and continuing his exertions on the return journey with his strength failing all the time, he seriously prejudiced his chance of survival even if the aircraft safely reached its base. Throughout, he set an example of determination, fortitude and devotion to duty in keeping with the highest traditions of the Service.[5]


​


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Here is an interesting article about modern ASW and what it requires.   The author mirrors my thoughts almost exactly.
> 
> Why the Royal Navy Does Not Need New ASW
> 
> In particular, the following items which I've quoted below.


What about a smaller corvette using AUV's to hunt for the subs? Basically the Corvette is the mothership to a couple of AUV's happily making active searches for subs, perhaps they carry 4 AUV's with 2 in the water and 2 being recharged/prepped. Coupled with UAV that investigate contacts and perhaps even a dipping sonar at some point? 
If the sub is chased off or can't make the attack, then it's done it's job. One of the challenges is going to escorting all the other critical targets, including AOR's, amphibious ships, merchant ships, cable layers, etc. With the high end model, you may have super effective ships that can't cover all the potentiel targets, navies may have to live with a high/low mix meaning the lower end cover the 2nd tier targets, while the high end prosecute attacks or guard the critical targets? My guess is that their is no easy answer and budgets/crewing are going to be the primary limitations.


----------



## JMCanada

The article says the Brits don't need more ASW platforms, yet they are building five Type 31 GP (general purpose) frigates to increase the numbers...
and obviously because of a question of resources, both human and financial. Originally they were going to build 13 Type 26 but had to revert and proposed to replace five of them with five Type 31.

Not saying to cancel any single CSC, not saying either that ASW/GP frigates should be prioritized over other platforms such as subs or MPAs. But I insist, the RCN should aim to replace the twelve MCDVs with twelve new vessels, a bunch of OPVs and a bunch of ASW/GP corvettes/frigates.

It must be possible to design and build a good ASW ship, with state of art ASW sensors and silent propulsion which, operating within a task group, or in peace time, or far from enemy land (hence low probability of aerial attack), should not need a top performer radar suite for AAW, nor a impressive multimission bay, nor a crew of some 180-200.

Please consider one CSC paired with one GP frigate. The latter would add an additional helicopter and one more tail in the water (as said above). Consider lower risk scenarios such as those foreseen for Type 31... wouldn't it be cheaper to deploy a GP frigate and keep the CSCs for tougher duties?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That would mean standing up a new Helicopter Squadron, with a completely new airframe, likley either the Merlin or Cougar, not sure about the appetite by anyone to build more Cyclones?

In the meantime buy some more  Bell Textron 412 or429's (same helicopters as the CCG) run them with Transport Canada pilot and maintainers leased to DND to equip the AOP's and AOR's with. they can do transport, SAR, ice recce, Humanitarian, Vertrep and other duties.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> I think you missed the point.  Any modern ASW platform is expensive and requires the ability to carry a helicopter.
> 
> We don't have enough helo's to make the ship ASW.  We don't have enough money to make the ship ASW.  There are other jobs the navy does that need cheap ships.
> 
> If Canadian ASW is important more MPA's would be a better investment.  As would submarines.  So you make the call.  Submarines or high-end ASW MCDV replacement.  There isn't enough money or people for both.


Yes to more MPAs.  Yes to more MH.  Yes to (more) replacement subs.  Yes to more combatant capable ships.

Canada's Defence spending in 2020 as a % of GDP = 1.4151%.  Stated target spending as per NATO agreements = 2%.

The contract for the Cyclones is for 28 helicopters.  We're going to have 15 CSCs and not all are going to be deployed at the same time so if we're pairing Corvettes with CSCs then there should be Cyclones available.  

If the cost of a new ship design is too much and the majority of the cost of the ship is in the systems rather than the hull and mechanical elements then look at a 2nd flight of CSC hulls with the SPY7 radar replaced with a cheaper system and don't install the VLS.  

That being said, a country the size and wealth of Canada CAN afford the above items.  It just needs the will to make that commitment.  And if we have to sacrifice spending in some other areas, then as we are effectively an island nation I'd be willing to prioritize Naval and Air spending over the Army.


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> Yes to more MPAs.  Yes to more MH.  Yes to (more) replacement subs.  Yes to more combatant capable ships.
> 
> Canada's Defence spending in 2020 as a % of GDP = 1.4151%.  Stated target spending as per NATO agreements = 2%.


Minimum of 2% is it not?


GR66 said:


> The contract for the Cyclones is for 28 helicopters.  We're going to have 15 CSCs and not all are going to be deployed at the same time so if we're pairing Corvettes with CSCs then there should be Cyclones available.


About that contact...



GR66 said:


> If the cost of a new ship design is too much and the majority of the cost of the ship is in the systems rather than the hull and mechanical elements then look at a 2nd flight of CSC hulls with the SPY7 radar replaced with a cheaper system and don't install the VLS.


Ugh -- it will get forced into the CSC role regardless 


GR66 said:


> That being said, a country the size and wealth of Canada CAN afford the above items.  It just needs the will to make that commitment.  And if we have to sacrifice spending in some other areas, then as we are effectively an island nation I'd be willing to prioritize Naval and Air spending over the Army.


Bingo


----------



## Maxman1

Colin Parkinson said:


> In the meantime buy some more  Bell Textron 412



No more Griffons. Let's upgrade to big boy helicopters, UH-1Y Venom, and AH-1Z Viper.


----------



## Czech_pivo

GR66 said:


> Yes to more MPAs.  Yes to more MH.  Yes to (more) replacement subs.  Yes to more combatant capable ships.
> 
> Canada's Defence spending in 2020 as a % of GDP = 1.4151%.  Stated target spending as per NATO agreements = 2%.
> 
> The contract for the Cyclones is for 28 helicopters.  We're going to have 15 CSCs and not all are going to be deployed at the same time so if we're pairing Corvettes with CSCs then there should be Cyclones available.
> 
> If the cost of a new ship design is too much and the majority of the cost of the ship is in the systems rather than the hull and mechanical elements then look at a 2nd flight of CSC hulls with the SPY7 radar replaced with a cheaper system and don't install the VLS.
> 
> That being said, a country the size and wealth of Canada CAN afford the above items.  It just needs the will to make that commitment.  And if we have to sacrifice spending in some other areas, then as we are effectively an island nation I'd be willing to prioritize Naval and Air spending over the Army.


Unfortunately we are down to 27 Cyclones when the contract wraps up due to the loss of one last year. So unless it’s replaced we are already down one before we even had 28.


----------



## Maxman1

Czech_pivo said:


> Unfortunately we are down to 27 Cyclones when the contract wraps up due to the loss of one last year. So unless it’s replaced we are already down one before we even had 28.



Maybe we should consider something new to (eventually) replace it and the Cormorant. There's been some new helicopters developed since the Cyclone was *supposed *to be delivered, like the AW149, AW159 Wildcat and Bell 525 Relentless.


----------



## Czech_pivo

A major sticking point to all of the discussions being held above regarding the replacing the MCDV's is the simple, undeniable fact that we do not have the ability to build any more ships here in Canada with the 3 yards (if you include Davie in the mix) currently part of the NSS.

I'm of the belief that Davie is sooner or later going to be brought more and more into the NSS, either to build the 2 CCG AOPS, as well one of the two polar icebreakers, or, building the polar ice breaker and some of the CSC's, or even possibly another converted Astrix and one of the polar icebreakers.  This is on top of their existing ice breaker conversions they have ongoing.

Let's say Davie is given the nod to build 6-10-12 replacements for the MCDV's, When could this be slotted into their delivery schedule? Where is Davie going to get  the additional human resources? Irving spent considered time/effort touring Europe for skilled naval tradesmen (yes I said men), in Belfast, throughout the UK, Romania, Poland, etc, with somewhat limited success.  Where in Europe is Davie going to recruit for French speaking Ville de Quebec?  Sully from Belfast isn't going and neither is Pavel from Poland. That leaves only France and maybe Belgium, though I'm not aware of any large scale french speaking Wallon shipbuilding yards.  Davie is going to have a hard time in find large numbers of skilled naval tradesmen.

The only other option is we bring in Heddle, who has teamed with with Seaspan, to build these ships on the Great Lakes. It almost comes full circle to my previous tongue in cheek post of building subs in Windsor and using autoworkers to build them and float them down the Detroit River, through the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence, except in this case its out of work steel workers in Hamilton and out of work autoworkers from St. Catherines but still sailing the ship across L. Ontario and out the St. Lawrence.

Or these ships are built overseas, can anyone say Gowinds from DCN in France after Trudeau sits down with Marcon?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maxman1 said:


> No more Griffons. Let's upgrade to big boy helicopters, UH-1Y Venom, and AH-1Z Viper.


You will note that these helicopters would belong to the Government of Canada and would be leased along with crews. slightly more expensive but solves a lot of current issues and is inline with what CCG does and our allies do for non-combat helicopters.


----------



## GR66

Czech_pivo said:


> A major sticking point to all of the discussions being held above regarding the replacing the MCDV's is the simple, undeniable fact that we do not have the ability to build any more ships here in Canada with the 3 yards (if you include Davie in the mix) currently part of the NSS.


Yeah, it would be a real shame if we ended up having so much shipyard work to in effect have a permanent flow of government ships coming out of multiple Canadian yards


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> You will note that these helicopters would belong to the Government of Canada and would be leased along with crews. slightly more expensive but solves a lot of current issues and is inline with what CCG does and our allies do for non-combat helicopters.


The difference is most the Allies have a bunch of combat Helicopters...  the CF does not


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:


> A major sticking point to all of the discussions being held above regarding the replacing the MCDV's is the simple, undeniable fact that we do not have the ability to build any more ships here in Canada with the 3 yards (if you include Davie in the mix) currently part of the NSS.
> 
> I'm of the belief that Davie is sooner or later going to be brought more and more into the NSS, either to build the 2 CCG AOPS, as well one of the two polar icebreakers, or, building the polar ice breaker and some of the CSC's, or even possibly another converted Astrix and one of the polar icebreakers.  This is on top of their existing ice breaker conversions they have ongoing.
> 
> Let's say Davie is given the nod to build 6-10-12 replacements for the MCDV's, When could this be slotted into their delivery schedule? Where is Davie going to get  the additional human resources? Irving spent considered time/effort touring Europe for skilled naval tradesmen (yes I said men), in Belfast, throughout the UK, Romania, Poland, etc, with somewhat limited success.  Where in Europe is Davie going to recruit for French speaking Ville de Quebec?  Sully from Belfast isn't going and neither is Pavel from Poland. That leaves only France and maybe Belgium, though I'm not aware of any large scale french speaking Wallon shipbuilding yards.  Davie is going to have a hard time in find large numbers of skilled naval tradesmen.
> 
> The only other option is we bring in Heddle, who has teamed with with Seaspan, to build these ships on the Great Lakes. It almost comes full circle to my previous tongue in cheek post of building subs in Windsor and using autoworkers to build them and float them down the Detroit River, through the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence, except in this case its out of work steel workers in Hamilton and out of work autoworkers from St. Catherines but still sailing the ship across L. Ontario and out the St. Lawrence.
> 
> Or these ships are built overseas, can anyone say Gowinds from DCN in France after Trudeau sits down with Marcon?


The Two CCG AOP's were always filler ships to keep Irving happy, they are not really going to be what the CCG needs without significant modification. See that big hatch on the 1100's, there is a deep hold with a between deck for stores, chains, anchors and extra buoys. That helps keep the well deck clear for hoisting, clean operations.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> A major sticking point to all of the discussions being held above regarding the replacing the MCDV's is the simple, undeniable fact that we do not have the ability to build any more ships here in Canada with the 3 yards (if you include Davie in the mix) currently part of the NSS.
> 
> I'm of the belief that Davie is sooner or later going to be brought more and more into the NSS, either to build the 2 CCG AOPS, as well one of the two polar icebreakers, or, building the polar ice breaker and some of the CSC's, or even possibly another converted Astrix and one of the polar icebreakers.  This is on top of their existing ice breaker conversions they have ongoing.
> 
> Let's say Davie is given the nod to build 6-10-12 replacements for the MCDV's, When could this be slotted into their delivery schedule? Where is Davie going to get  the additional human resources? Irving spent considered time/effort touring Europe for skilled naval tradesmen (yes I said men), in Belfast, throughout the UK, Romania, Poland, etc, with somewhat limited success.  Where in Europe is Davie going to recruit for French speaking Ville de Quebec?  Sully from Belfast isn't going and neither is Pavel from Poland. That leaves only France and maybe Belgium, though I'm not aware of any large scale french speaking Wallon shipbuilding yards.  Davie is going to have a hard time in find large numbers of skilled naval tradesmen.
> 
> The only other option is we bring in Heddle, who has teamed with with Seaspan, to build these ships on the Great Lakes. It almost comes full circle to my previous tongue in cheek post of building subs in Windsor and using autoworkers to build them and float them down the Detroit River, through the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence, except in this case its out of work steel workers in Hamilton and out of work autoworkers from St. Catherines but still sailing the ship across L. Ontario and out the St. Lawrence.
> 
> Or these ships are built overseas, can anyone say Gowinds from DCN in France after Trudeau sits down with Marcon?



There should be any belief, the government already said they are building one of the Polar ice breakers and more than likely other CG ships as well.  Not everyone at Davie speaks French there sport.  They will never build the CSC unless you want to add billions to the cost and that comes straight from Ottawa.
Any MCDV replacement will more than likely be built in 10 to 15 years. These ships are going to be basic and simple as they should be.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> There should be any belief, the government already said they are building one of the Polar ice breakers and more than likely other CG ships as well.  Not everyone at Davie speaks French there sport.  They will never build the CSC unless you want to add billions to the cost and that comes straight from Ottawa.
> Any MCDV replacement will more than likely be built in 10 to 15 years. These ships are going to be basic and simple as they should be.


I’m well aware that a significant portion of the management folks don’t speak French - but the average welder, fitter, electrician speaks French and the language spoken among the small work units will be in French.
As someone who has lived/worked in Belgium, Holland, Czech Republic and in a number of places in the US, I can tell you that it takes a different kind of person to pick up and move to another country where you don’t speak the language. It’s on a whole new level to pick up your family and move school aged kids to another country where they don’t speak the language and will have limited social actives available to them in English. Ville de Quebec is not Montreal.
Building them in 10-15yrs still means that Irving and Seaspan is off the table, circling us back to either Davie or another new yard is added to the mix. 
Or, again they are built offshore as part of some France or other Euro-country political shenanigans.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> I’m well aware that a significant portion of the management folks don’t speak French - but the average welder, fitter, electrician speaks French and the language spoken among the small work units will be in French.
> As someone who has lived/worked in Belgium, Holland, Czech Republic and in a number of places in the US, I can tell you that it takes a different kind of person to pick up and move to another country where you don’t speak the language. It’s on a whole new level to pick up your family and move school aged kids to another country where they don’t speak the language and will have limited social actives available to them in English. Ville de Quebec is not Montreal.
> Building them in 10-15yrs still means that Irving and Seaspan is off the table, circling us back to either Davie or another new yard is added to the mix.
> Or, again they are built offshore as part of some France or other Euro-country political shenanigans.


Unless Irving builds another yard, they are looking buying DND property across Halifax Harbour.....


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:


> Or, again they are built offshore as part of some France or other Euro-country political shenanigans.


I doubt very much the _Kingston_-class replacements are going to be built in a foreign country.  And I doubt very much the two modified _Harry DeWolf_s are going to be built by Davie.  If the two modified _Harry DeWolf_s are going to be built, they will very likely be built by Irving and not any other shipbuilder, _especially_ not Davie.  There is a great amount of hatred between Irving and Davie.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> Unless Irving builds another yard, they are looking buying DND property across Halifax Harbour.....


Nice, now will they ‘buy’ it or be given some sort of 10-20yr forgivable lease to own scheme with vague promises of adding to the local economy. 
But, in the end if it adds significant capacity and capability to their facility it can be a good thing.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Nice, now will they ‘buy’ it or be given some sort of 10-20yr forgivable lease to own scheme with vague promises of adding to the local economy.
> But, in the end if it adds significant capacity and capability to their facility it can be a good thing.


So what? did the money expressively come out of your pocket.? The forgivable loan is probably the best investment the government of NS ever had for the rebuilding of the yard in Halifax, if they get a few dollars to build another facility its money well spent.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> So what? did the money expressively come out of your pocket.? The forgivable loan is probably the best investment the government of NS ever had for the rebuilding of the yard in Halifax, if they get a few dollars to build another facility its money well spent.



That's your opinion.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:


> That's your opinion.


True, I still think its a great investment for NS.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I'm not interested in investing in NS. I'm interested in getting what the Navy needs.  If we can help a province out along the fine, but that should be a spin off effect not the goal.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not interested in investing in NS. I'm interested in getting what the Navy needs.  If we can help a province out along the fine, but that should be a spin off effect not the goal.


Someone is going to get the economic benefits, and I'm good with NS getting them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not interested in investing in NS. I'm interested in getting what the Navy needs.  If we can help a province out along the fine, but that should be a spin off effect not the goal.



What, no pork barrel politics?

You don't get the Federal Government in Canada, do you?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I will add that the MCDV replacements are not that big and that opens a lot of yards to the competition. Likely Irving or Seaspan would subcontract out the builds or a good chunk of it to other yards.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> What, no pork barrel politics?
> 
> You don't get the Federal Government in Canada, do you?



Im an optimist lol  Dreamer, maybe ?



Stoker said:


> Someone is going to get the economic benefits, and I'm good with NS getting them.



And thats where we part ways....


----------



## Uzlu

Colin Parkinson said:


> I will add that the MCDV replacements are not that big and that opens a lot of yards to the competition. Likely Irving or Seaspan would subcontract out the builds or a good chunk of it to other yards.


Irving and Seaspan already have enough.  Let Heddle and Davie have a piece of the action, especially Heddle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would rather that we put a higher tax on ferries built overseas, with the taxes reduced if the buyer can show they made a honest effort to get the ferry made here. The BC shipyards had to stay alive on commercial contracts for a long time, it will be good for the others to follow the same practices.


----------



## Uzlu

Colin Parkinson said:


> I would rather that we put a higher tax on ferries built overseas, with the taxes reduced if the buyer can show they made a honest effort to get the ferry made here. The BC shipyards had to stay alive on commercial contracts for a long time, it will be good for the others to follow the same practices.


Yes.  More should be done so that in the future, more ships are built in Canada.  I definitely do not want, for example, China to be building ships for Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

To Colin's point.

The MCDVs displace 970 tonnes.



> For the construction of smaller ships, Canada has set aside the individual projects for competitive procurements amongst shipyards other than the selected shipyards and their affiliated companies that are building the larger vessels. Smaller vessels represent those with less than 1,000 tonnes of displacement.



That would include yards in Newfoundland and Ontario.

Now if only we could convince NCIS's Jethro Gibbs to relocate to Alberta perhaps he could re-launch the Athabaska Landing boat-building industry.


----------



## suffolkowner

If we "give" the MCDV replacement to Davie that should be enough to balance out with the other yards and allow all 3 yards to compete for federal work going forward. I would worry about spreading it any thinner than that though.

1. Aiviq refit/conversion to cover the gap between the Polar icebreaker coming online
2. Polar icebreaker
3. 6-8 medium icebreakers
4. 6-8 MCDV replacements


----------



## Navy_Pete

Part of signing up for NSS specifically makes them ineligible for the smaller ship builds. There is also Group Ocean and a few other yards along the St. Lawrence that are active, as well as a bunch out in BC.

The nice thing is with the lower value they don't get into the really heavy bureacratic overhead that kicks in at $100M for the ITBs etc. That eats up a few FTEs (that we pay for), but also gets sucked into the morass of DPS that slows down any real decisions. The general amount of overhead just to feed the government non-technical needs is pretty staggering.


----------



## lenaitch

Kirkhill said:


> Now if only we could convince NCIS's Jethro Gibbs to relocate to Alberta perhaps he could re-launch the Athabaska Landing boat-building industry.



But would we end up with a fleet that we can't get out of his basement?


----------



## Uzlu

Kirkhill said:


> The MCDVs displace 970 tonnes.





Kirkhill said:


> That would include yards in Newfoundland and Ontario.


There was some criticism of their small size.

“Despite its ‘Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel’ name, the _Kingston_ class was criticized from the outset – its low top speed and small size making the MCDV ill-suited for patrol duties.”


----------



## Swampbuggy

I strongly doubt an MCDV replacement with the previously stated capabilities of 25kts, mounted main gun (of whatever calibre), with the ability to launch RHIBS and UAV's AND handle the North Atlantic (not to mention possible trips to Africa) would displace less than 1000t.


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:


> If we "give" the MCDV replacement to Davie that should be enough to balance out with the other yards and allow all 3 yards to compete for federal work going forward. I would worry about spreading it any thinner than that though.
> 
> 1. Aiviq refit/conversion to cover the gap between the Polar icebreaker coming online


_Aiviq_ might have a problem with her design making her unsuitable for Canada.

Page 43:

"As the AIVIQ was prepared for this voyage there were two areas that affected the upcoming towing plans. One concern was the vessels design issues, which was identified as water ingress into the winch room and safe deck areas affecting the vent on the fuel system and electrical fittings in the space. The Master of the AIVIQ sent ECO management an email entitled “Storm Damage Lessons Learned” and added a statement from a former crewmember detailing an account of a storm while AIVIQ was towing the KULLUK. In that account the crewmember detailed the AIVIQ taking on a sustained list in the storm due to sea water ingress. As temporary measure to limit water ingress internal openings in the winch room were closed or covered, the hinged freeing port covers were removed and temporary covers were placed over the lower winch room openings to the main deck prior to the voyage commencing.

"54. The other issue was a host of mechanical problems that had occurred on previous voyages. There were issues with the engine room automation, resulting in the overheating of the main diesel engine #4 and complete failure of that engine on the voyage south with the AIVIQ towing the KULLUK to Dutch Harbor. Some of these issues were required to be reported to the classification society, ABS and the U.S. Coast Guard. The major issues are mentioned here and remained unresolved as the AIVIQ was readied for sea."


----------



## NavyShooter

A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.

Visby 
Sa'ar 5
Baynunah

The  Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out.  It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.  

Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...


----------



## FJAG

NavyShooter said:


> A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.
> 
> Visby
> Sa'ar 5
> Baynunah
> 
> The  Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out.  It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.
> 
> Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...


I love it. It's smaller, faster, has a reasonably sized crew and has a whole bunch of weapons. What more could you want. Let's get some.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

NavyShooter said:


> A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.
> 
> Visby
> Sa'ar 5
> Baynunah
> 
> The  Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out.  It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.
> 
> Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...



And Visby was a pretty violent medieval battle, so it has my vote!









						Battle of Visby
					

The Battle of Visby was fought in 1361 near the town of Visby on the island of Gotland, between the forces of the Danish king and the Gutnish country yeomen. The Danish forces were victorious. On 22 July 1361, King Valdemar IV of Denmark (Valdemar Atterdag) sent an army ashore on Gotland's west...




					military.wikia.org


----------



## GR66

NavyShooter said:


> A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.
> 
> Visby
> Sa'ar 5
> Baynunah
> 
> The  Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out.  It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.
> 
> Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...


According to Wikipedia:

Kingston Range:  5,000 nmi
Visby Range:  2,500 nmi
Sa'ar 5 Range:  3,500 nmi
Baynunah Range:  2,400 nmi

I'd say range is a pretty important requirement for an RCN ship


----------



## FJAG

GR66 said:


> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> Kingston Range:  5,000 nmi
> Visby Range:  2,500 nmi
> Sa'ar 5 Range:  3,500 nmi
> Baynunah Range:  2,400 nmi
> 
> I'd say range is a pretty important requirement for an RCN ship


If it reduced is speed from the max of 35 knots to the Kingston's 15 would it double it's range? or would it need a few more fuel tanks? or a replenishment ship?

Not a sailor but the range thing looks like it can be dealt with if necessary - but you can't make a Kingston faster. Not sure if you can weld on more weapon stations and the sensors.

🍻


----------



## GR66

FJAG said:


> If it reduced is speed from the max of 35 knots to the Kingston's 15 would it double it's range? or would it need a few more fuel tanks? or a replenishment ship?
> 
> Not a sailor but the range thing looks like it can be dealt with if necessary - but you can't make a Kingston faster. Not sure if you can weld on more weapon stations and the sensors.
> 
> 🍻


From a bit of further reading the 2,500 nmi range for the Visby is at 15 knots, not 35.  The Kingston's range of 5,000 nmi is at 8 knots. 

Someone far wiser than me would have to comment on the range at full speed, but my gut is telling me that doubling your speed would more than double your fuel consumption.

Edited to add:  This site gives some explanations and examples of the effects of speed on fuel consumption and it seems that increasing speed on a displacement hull can have very large impacts on fuel consumption.


----------



## Swampbuggy

NavyShooter said:


> A few minutes of google tells me that there's 3 easy options already on the market for Corvette type ships of less than 1000 tons.
> 
> Visby
> Sa'ar 5
> Baynunah
> 
> The  Visby is probably most in line with what we'd be after - it even operates the Bofors 57mm gun, so we could rescue them off the Halifax Class and re-use them on this class as the hulls age out.  It even uses the Saab 9LV Combat Management System too.
> 
> Build a few of these instead of the 'extra 2' AOPS hulls, and get them running instead of continuing to drive the Halifax class into the ground...


I'm no expert, but I've been told before on these threads that these type of ships are often very specific to their area of operations. VISBY is for Baltic Ops, relatively small AOO and not the grind that operating a vessel in the North Atlantic can be/is. Same for the other two, being the Med or Gulf respectively. My understanding is that the replacement for a KINGSTON would have be faster with better seakeeping in the places they get sent. Throw in the need to carry sea cans and maybe even future proof the design with some space for growth, and you wind up with something over the 1000t mark, seeing as how an MCDV is already just at that line.


----------



## Underway

Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project.  It's an MCM and OPV replacement project.  Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.

OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping.  They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.

MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.

MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.

25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.

What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:


> Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project.  It's an MCM and OPV replacement project.  Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.
> 
> OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping.  They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.
> 
> MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.
> 
> MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.
> 
> 25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.
> 
> What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?


Are we talking about a full-load displacement of about 1 500 tonnes?  What is the displacement range?  A hangar for one light helicopter and two drones?  Designed, as much as possible, to commercial and not military standards?  An emphasis on low cost to build and operate?


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:


> Are we talking about a full-load displacement of about 1 500 tonnes?  What is the displacement range?  A hangar for one light helicopter and two drones?  Designed, as much as possible, to commercial and not military standards?  An emphasis on low cost to build and operate?


Intentionally vague on my part.  I want to see the industry.... errr forum solutions!  Consider yourself a consultant, look at options, pros and cons. Sell your solution.  Have fun with it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project.  It's an MCM and OPV replacement project.  Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.
> 
> OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping.  They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.
> 
> MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.
> 
> MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.
> 
> 25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.
> 
> What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?


Is there any ships in the water today that are doing both MCM and OPV with 25ish kn of speed?

Why not build the correct ship for the correct task?  

MCM, from what I’ve read, tend to be small, under 1k tons and slow, under 15kn

OPV tend to be 1600+ tons and 22+kn

Why are we thinking of building some mutant hybrid that in the end will most likely perform each task substandard?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Is there any ships in the water today that are doing both MCM and OPV with 25ish kn of speed?
> 
> Why not build the correct ship for the correct task?
> 
> MCM, from what I’ve read, tend to be small, under 1k tons and slow, under 15kn
> 
> OPV tend to be 1600+ tons and 22+kn
> 
> Why are we thinking of building some mutant hybrid that in the end will most likely perform each task substandard?


You're the consultant, you tell me.  Again fun is the point of this.  I think everyone likes a good wishlist.  Let's do it with the constraints that I listed above.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project.  It's an MCM and OPV replacement project.  Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.
> 
> OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping.  They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.
> 
> MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.
> 
> MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.
> 
> 25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.
> 
> What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?


I understand all that but we have limited funds to build a Navy with. We do need small ships for those various functions, but a well designed and well armed ship can perform all of them while a limited purpose ship cannot fight. At the end of the day this is the Canadian "Armed" Forces. It's the last line we have to defend Canada's interests.

When it comes down to it, a limited purpose ship is a wasted hull. Our problem is that because of the cost of the weapon systems we cheap out and spend the money on a few extra hulls which it seems we're unable to properly man anyway. 

I appreciate the need for good range and seakeeping but that doesn't exclude a a weapons platform. IMHO, every ship we own should be able to carry and use anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-air weapon systems.

And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> *And, while I'm on my high horse*, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.
> 
> 🍻



Bring back horses you say? Excellent initiative!

Tally Ho!


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:


> And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.


We did that with the Gate Boats and the MCDVs until fairly recently.  I'm not sure if it changed due to staffing levels and/or the desire to create more Reg F billets, or whatever.


----------



## GR66

FJAG said:


> I understand all that but we have limited funds to build a Navy with. We do need small ships for those various functions, but a well designed and well armed ship can perform all of them while a limited purpose ship cannot fight. At the end of the day this is the Canadian "Armed" Forces. It's the last line we have to defend Canada's interests.
> 
> When it comes down to it, a limited purpose ship is a wasted hull. Our problem is that because of the cost of the weapon systems we cheap out and spend the money on a few extra hulls which it seems we're unable to properly man anyway.
> 
> I appreciate the need for good range and seakeeping but that doesn't exclude a a weapons platform. IMHO, every ship we own should be able to carry and use anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-air weapon systems.
> 
> And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.
> 
> 🍻


My thinking is along the same lines as FJAG on this.  It's exactly BECAUSE we have a limited budget that we need to try and get the most out of each hull we put in the water.  We have a huge coastline to defend, and while many may feel there are no direct threats to Canadian maritime sovereignty at the moment, as we all know warships are not an asset that can quickly be procured if and when we DO have the need.

I'd prefer to see a combatant ship designed to be able to fulfil non-combatant roles where possible rather than having ships specifically designed only for those non-combatant roles.  Unlike the US (or Russia and China) we don't have a large enough fleet to be able to separate the two roles/platforms without giving up combat power which you may end up needing (and not be able to add that capability quickly enough when it is required).  It's the same reason we should be arming our fighters and MPAs with anti-ship missiles so we have that combat capability should it suddenly be needed.

This isn't to minimize the importance of the non-combat roles either.  There are very important missions that the Kingston (and AOPS) do and can perform.  But if the RCN doesn't have the capacity to do both these missions and combat missions then maybe serious consideration should be given to devolving some of these missions to other government agencies (CCG, DFO, RCMP, etc.).  Perhaps they could be done even more cheaply if the ships they use don't have to be built to the same military standards as an RCN ship designed to do the same non-combat roles would be.


----------



## KevinB

What about a K130 - I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I didn't see the downside.






						Corvettes - Naval vessels | NVL
					

NVL Corvettes combine exceptional operational capability with state-of-the-art technology in a confined space.




					nvl.de
				












						K130 Braunschweig Class Corvette
					

In December 2001, Germany placed an order for five K130 corvettes based on the MEKO A design from the Arge…




					www.naval-technology.com
				




26knots
 Variable Weapon suite.
 2500+ NM range
 MH or UAV capable


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project.  It's an MCM and OPV replacement project.  Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.
> 
> OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping.  They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.
> 
> MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.
> 
> MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.
> 
> 25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.
> 
> What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?


An MCM may very well have to clear mines/channels while under threat from other weapon systems. I will argue that at least it is being built to accommodate significant counter measures and some armaments as it is likely to be necessary in future conflict zones. (Covering a minefield with hidden anti-ship missiles would make sense.


----------



## Maxman1

And MCM modules can be added to a ship.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Folks, it's not a combat ship replacement (or creation) project.  It's an MCM and OPV replacement project.  Instead of ignoring the capability gap here is the challenge: Find a ship that fits the following requirements.


If it wears a uniform it is a target.
  Lot of bad people would love a soft target.


Underway said:


> OPV's are not heavily armed, need good range and seakeeping.  They do policing type operations (fisheries, counter-narcotics, security training with 2nd/3rd world nations) and recognized maritime picture operations.


  Your idea of heavily armed is probably different from mine - but what sort of range do you want?


Underway said:


> MCM is kitted out to find, fix and destroy undersea mines. Route survey is also a job that they do.
> 
> MCDV's are used as training and development platforms as well.
> 
> 25knots, 40 crew. 10-15 extra bunks.
> 
> What platform fits those requirements in a single ship?


My K130 went over your crew by 10 - but I do think it's a good idea for a starting point.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> An MCM may very well have to clear mines/channels while under threat from other weapon systems. I will argue that at least it is being built to accommodate significant counter measures and some armaments as it is likely to be necessary in future conflict zones. (Covering a minefield with hidden anti-ship missiles would make sense.


Not really, most MCM ships are lightly armed and will remain so especially in regards to anti-ship missiles. When I was operating with the Baltic MCM group earlier this year a few of the ships had some man portable anti air but most either had .50 Cals or a 25mm. Most of the time the ships would be covered by larger NATO vessels.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Bring back horses you say? Excellent initiative!
> 
> Tally Ho!


And you can eat them!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> Not really, most MCM ships are lightly armed and will remain so especially in regards to anti-ship missiles. When I was operating with the Baltic MCM group earlier this year a few of the ships had some man portable anti air but most either had .50 Cals or a 25mm. Most of the time the ships would be covered by larger NATO vessels.


Clearing and protecting domestic channels there would be no threat, but forcing a channel near a hostile shore could be a very nasty business and reading historical accounts the minesweepers were always heavily targeted.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> You're the consultant, you tell me.  Again fun is the point of this.  I think everyone likes a good wishlist.  Let's do it with the constraints that I listed above.


First question.
The UK is retiring all MCM ships this decade and relying on ‘automated systems’ going forward or utilizing ‘ships of opportunity’ and onboarding the necessary equipment to run MCM operations from these ships and the US using 15 dedicated LCS’s for MCM capability.
My question would be, why don’t we explore the same route that the Brits are? No more MCM ships.

Maritime-executive.com/article/unmanned-systems-set-to-replace-all-royal-navy-mine-warfare-vessels

“The new systems find mines, even in the worst conditions, five to ten times faster than our current ships do,” said First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin. 

As for the true OPV vessel, 
River Class Batch 2 has no UAV capabilities, no helo hanger but has a small crew (34) and accommodation for up to 60, decent range (5,500nmi) and good speed at 24knts.

The NZ Protector Class has a hanger for a helo, slightly better range than the River Class, space for 3 20ft seas containers, a 16ton crane and again no UAV capabilities and awesome sea state abilities.

Arafava Class from Australia is the newest class, being built right now, small range of 4,000nmi, no hanger for helo, a ‘utility’ deck, light UAV capabilities with space for a single UAV, crew of 40, space for another 20 and Link 16 network

Lastly, the new French POM OPV’s look interesting. Range 5,500nmi, speed of 24knts, crew of 30 and space for another 23, stern ramp, flight deck for UAVs.

I’m in favour of one that has a helo hanger that can be used for housing multiple UAV’s with a potential focus on ASW and maybe some anti-ship capabilities. The hanger can accommodate a Cyclone if needed. Go with a stern ramp and 16ton crane and 20ft sea containers. Add either a recycled 57 as they become available or if we continue to want to bring a knife to any potential gun fight, the BAE Mk 38, I would add in a phalanx or a modern equivalent to deal with UAV’s as they will be an issue going forward. 

Oh, and I would write into this MCDV procurement the need for additional Cyclones (8-10) and mark-46 torpedoes.  There should be 10-12 new OPV and no MCM, fellow the British and French route on this.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> What about a K130 - I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I didn't see the downside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corvettes - Naval vessels | NVL
> 
> 
> NVL Corvettes combine exceptional operational capability with state-of-the-art technology in a confined space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nvl.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K130 Braunschweig Class Corvette
> 
> 
> In December 2001, Germany placed an order for five K130 corvettes based on the MEKO A design from the Arge…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.naval-technology.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26knots
> Variable Weapon suite.
> 2500+ NM range
> MH or UAV capable



Hang around long enough and you may see the downside.



> The 1.3 degree starboard list and excess weight, which emerged during testing in September, means the ship is now close to the limit of its design parameters











						Late and overweight: Germany's new frigates found wanting
					

Germany's much-delayed new frigates, built by ThyssenKrupp and Luerssen for at least 650 million euros ($710 million) apiece, are overweight and float with a persistent list to starboard, according to a confidential report seen by Reuters.




					www.reuters.com
				





Anybody know if the Danish outfit OMT is still involved with Irving Shipyards?  OMT brought the Absalon, Huitfeldt and the StanFlex Modular system to the market.

They specialized in economically building ships fitted for, not with.

In a low threat environment (domestic shore patrols) they could supply lots of cheap hulls into which systems could be plugged.  Ships operating in high threat environments would stow the necessary, very expensive, systems.

If the high threat level became generalized then the government could fork out the big bucks for the systems and the extra rounds.


But, initially, the government buys 15 seaworthy hulls at a build price of 500,000,000 a piece - Call it 8,000,000,000 the set.

It can then go all in on one vessel with all the toys and a 25mm on the rest.  As realworld threats increase buy the appropriate systems and bring them aboard.   Don't fit all 15 in 2030 with systems that were mature in 2000 to fight battles in 2050.

Keep churning out cheap hulls and turn them over quickly.  Design them to accommodate any combination of systems.

Just because the USN worked its magic and screwed up a perfectly acceptable concept doesn't mean it isn't workable.  It has already been proven in fleet service by the Danes.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> And you can eat them!


I was fed a sandwich containing horse salami by my Belgian girlfriend at the time. Wasn’t told what it was until after, I was not a happy man.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Clearing and protecting domestic channels there would be no threat, but forcing a channel near a hostile shore could be a very nasty business and reading historical accounts the minesweepers were always heavily targeted.


Well we were on the border of Russian waters and we had the appropriate cover. Even the Russians came out to say hi. Point is that all ships are not armed the same. MCM operates within a larger group that has that protection for us.


----------



## Underway

MCM's are always lightly armed because their job is extremely dangerous.  They are more likely to be blown up by a mine than enemy action.  So in that regard, you don't waste money, resources, and manpower on something that has a low survivability rate.  MCM's generally also operate within permissive(ish) environments because of this.  UXV's are likely changing the calculus on survival rates, which means you can have a specialized UXV mothership.  But when you have a specialist ship the cranes and control stations for UXV displace the guns and missiles.



FJAG said:


> I understand all that but we have limited funds to build a Navy with. We do need small ships for those various functions, but a well designed and well armed ship can perform all of them while a limited purpose ship cannot fight. At the end of the day this is the Canadian "Armed" Forces. It's the last line we have to defend Canada's interests.
> 
> When it comes down to it, a limited purpose ship is a wasted hull. Our problem is that because of the cost of the weapon systems we cheap out and spend the money on a few extra hulls which it seems we're unable to properly man anyway.
> 
> I appreciate the need for good range and seakeeping but that doesn't exclude a a weapons platform. IMHO, every ship we own should be able to carry and use anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-air weapon systems.
> 
> And, while I'm on my high horse, like the Army, the Navy needs redesign its Res F system to properly man many of those ships. There used to be a time when the RCNVR was the backbone of the Navy at a significantly reduced manpower cost. Yes, there are technical skills which require full-timers but many functions can be done by part-timers so that when the need is there, so will be the ships and crews.
> 
> 🍻


Hulls are never wasted.  There is no such thing.  Different tools for different jobs.

It's a fallacy to think that every ship should be armed for all weapon systems.  Do you arm a GWagon with a 120mm or use a tank to just drive out to check wire?  That would be a terrible waste of resources, in some cases a fatal one.

Ships are the same.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> MCM's are always lightly armed because their job is extremely dangerous.  They are more likely to be blown up by a mine than enemy action.  So in that regard, you don't waste money, resources, and manpower on something that has a low survivability rate.  MCM's generally also operate within permissive(ish) environments because of this.  UXV's are likely changing the calculus on survival rates, which means you can have a specialized UXV mothership.  But when you have a specialist ship the cranes and control stations for UXV displace the guns and missiles.
> 
> 
> Hulls are never wasted.  There is no such thing.  Different tools for different jobs.
> 
> It's a fallacy to think that every ship should be armed for all weapon systems.  Do you arm a GWagon with a 120mm or use a tank to just drive out to check wire?  That would be a terrible waste of resources, in some cases a fatal one.
> 
> Ships are the same.



Dude, you don't get 'The Army', do you?


----------



## Maxman1

Kirkhill said:


> Hang around long enough and you may see the downside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Late and overweight: Germany's new frigates found wanting
> 
> 
> Germany's much-delayed new frigates, built by ThyssenKrupp and Luerssen for at least 650 million euros ($710 million) apiece, are overweight and float with a persistent list to starboard, according to a confidential report seen by Reuters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com



Wrong ship. That's the F125 _Baden-Württemberg-_class frigates, which aren't even made at the same shipyards as the _Braunschweig_.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maxman1 said:


> Wrong ship. That's the F125 _Baden-Württemberg-_class frigates, which aren't even made at the same shipyards as the _Braunschweig_.


Sorry and thanks.  Major error.

Cheers.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> MCM's are always lightly armed because their job is extremely dangerous.  They are more likely to be blown up by a mine than enemy action.  So in that regard, you don't waste money, resources, and manpower on something that has a low survivability rate.


Why wouldn't you use smaller RPV's for that?
   Operate them off a larger vessel which has a nice safe standoff.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Sorry and thanks.  Major error.
> 
> Cheers.



Major Error ... a famous Staff Officer who has Corporal Punishment working for him


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Why wouldn't you use smaller RPV's for that?
> Operate them off a larger vessel which has a nice safe standoff.



Meanwhile, on the subject of small boats... maybe we can get a deal from Uncle Sam? 


The Navy Wants To Get Rid Of Its Nearly Brand New Patrol Boats​The Navy is looking to have all of its Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which it acquired just six years ago, decommissioned by the end of the year.​
The U.S. Navy is looking to divest its nearly-new Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which are just six years old, and has already begun laying the groundwork to do so. Barring an order to change course from President Joe Biden's administration or intervention by Congress, the service plans to remove all 12 of these boats, examples of which are based in Guam, as well as in the continental United States, and forward-deployed in the Persian Gulf, from service before the end of the year.

An unclassified General Administration (GENADMIN) message that _The War Zone_ reviewed said that the Navy is presently looking to get rid of the Mk VIs by the end of the 2021 Fiscal Year, or September 30 of this year. The GENADMIN came from the office of Vice Admiral James Kilby, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities, also known as N9, and is dated February 5, 2021. A source familiar with the state of the program says that Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), to which all of these patrol boats are presently assigned, could begin retiring them as early as next month.






USN
A pair of Mk VI patrol boats from the detachment in Guam visit Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia in 2019.

The GENADMIN says that the plans for the Mk VIs are "in accordance with approved budgetary decisions." The message also says "this plan will be adjusted if necessary based on subsequent execution year decisions made by leadership or as required by Congressional action."
When contacted, the Navy would not confirm or deny any plans to divest the Mk IVs or any timeline for doing so. The service did confirm, indirectly, that a proposed decision regarding the future of these boats was part of the upcoming President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022, or PB22. A public version of the annual budget request from the Executive Branch to Congress is typically released in February.

"The PB22 budget request is pre-decisional," Navy Lieutenant Rob Reinheimer, a spokesperson for the service, told _The War Zone_. "We will not comment on future budgetary decisions until the budget request is submitted to Congress later this year."









						The Navy Wants To Get Rid Of Its Nearly Brand New Patrol Boats
					

The Navy is looking to have all of its Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which it acquired just six years ago, decommissioned by the end of the year.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, on the subject of small boats... maybe we can get a deal from Uncle Sam?
> 
> 
> The Navy Wants To Get Rid Of Its Nearly Brand New Patrol Boats​The Navy is looking to have all of its Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which it acquired just six years ago, decommissioned by the end of the year.​
> The U.S. Navy is looking to divest its nearly-new Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which are just six years old, and has already begun laying the groundwork to do so. Barring an order to change course from President Joe Biden's administration or intervention by Congress, the service plans to remove all 12 of these boats, examples of which are based in Guam, as well as in the continental United States, and forward-deployed in the Persian Gulf, from service before the end of the year.
> 
> An unclassified General Administration (GENADMIN) message that _The War Zone_ reviewed said that the Navy is presently looking to get rid of the Mk VIs by the end of the 2021 Fiscal Year, or September 30 of this year. The GENADMIN came from the office of Vice Admiral James Kilby, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities, also known as N9, and is dated February 5, 2021. A source familiar with the state of the program says that Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), to which all of these patrol boats are presently assigned, could begin retiring them as early as next month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USN
> A pair of Mk VI patrol boats from the detachment in Guam visit Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia in 2019.
> 
> The GENADMIN says that the plans for the Mk VIs are "in accordance with approved budgetary decisions." The message also says "this plan will be adjusted if necessary based on subsequent execution year decisions made by leadership or as required by Congressional action."
> When contacted, the Navy would not confirm or deny any plans to divest the Mk IVs or any timeline for doing so. The service did confirm, indirectly, that a proposed decision regarding the future of these boats was part of the upcoming President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022, or PB22. A public version of the annual budget request from the Executive Branch to Congress is typically released in February.
> 
> "The PB22 budget request is pre-decisional," Navy Lieutenant Rob Reinheimer, a spokesperson for the service, told _The War Zone_. "We will not comment on future budgetary decisions until the budget request is submitted to Congress later this year."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy Wants To Get Rid Of Its Nearly Brand New Patrol Boats
> 
> 
> The Navy is looking to have all of its Mk VI patrol boats, the oldest of which it acquired just six years ago, decommissioned by the end of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com


It's heavier armed than an AOPS...


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> It's heavier armed than an AOPS...



Based on where they operate, it needs to be


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> Based on where they operate, it needs to be


Look like all 16 are headed are off to the Ukraine and to skirmish with the Russians.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> MCM's are always lightly armed because their job is extremely dangerous.  They are more likely to be blown up by a mine than enemy action.  So in that regard, you don't waste money, resources, and manpower on something that has a low survivability rate.  MCM's generally also operate within permissive(ish) environments because of this.  UXV's are likely changing the calculus on survival rates, which means you can have a specialized UXV mothership.  But when you have a specialist ship the cranes and control stations for UXV displace the guns and missiles.
> 
> 
> Hulls are never wasted.  There is no such thing.  Different tools for different jobs.
> 
> It's a fallacy to think that every ship should be armed for all weapon systems.  Do you arm a GWagon with a 120mm or use a tank to just drive out to check wire?  That would be a terrible waste of resources, in some cases a fatal one.
> 
> Ships are the same.


Actually I said counter measures and some weapons. As I understand it dedicated MCM vessels are in very short supply in Western navies and we could not sustain many losses. So it makes sense that any in the front line of a conflict have some way of countering a threat, whether it's EW, Chaff dispensers, etc.
MCM for domestic use could easily be based on existing commercial hulls, to ensure important marine shipping routes are not blocked.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Look like all 16 are headed are off to the Ukraine and to skirmish with the Russians.



I was slightly disappointed that they weren't each sporting a couple of torpedoes:


----------



## JMCanada

Czech_pivo said:


> As for the true OPV vessel,
> River Class Batch 2 has no UAV capabilities, no helo hanger but has a small crew (34) and accommodation for up to 60, decent range (5,500nmi) and good speed at 24knts.
> 
> The NZ Protector Class has a hanger for a helo, slightly better range than the River Class, space for 3 20ft seas containers, a 16ton crane and again no UAV capabilities and awesome sea state abilities.
> 
> Arafava Class from Australia is the newest class, being built right now, small range of 4,000nmi, no hanger for helo, a ‘utility’ deck, light UAV capabilities with space for a single UAV, crew of 40, space for another 20 and Link 16 network
> 
> Lastly, the new French POM OPV’s look interesting. Range 5,500nmi, speed of 24knts, crew of 30 and space for another 23, stern ramp, flight deck for UAVs.
> 
> I’m in favour of one that has a helo hanger that can be used for housing multiple UAV’s with a potential focus on ASW and maybe some anti-ship capabilities. The hanger can accommodate a Cyclone if needed. Go with a stern ramp and 16ton crane and 20ft sea containers. (...)



BAE, Vard, Lurssen and Naval Group... Damen is missing, let me bring in its 1800 OPV (even though I'd rather like the 2400 or 2600 designs). A local version is being built in Malaysa.
She provides hangar for up to Sea King or NH90 helicopters, should not be very difficult to redesign for a Cyclone. Otherwise use griffons or similar sized aircraft.
[Damen 1800 pdf]

Crew of 46, 22 knots, 5000 nm range, 30 days endurance, space for 2 containers under heli-deck.

I would also like she had a crane and stern ramp, but it seems not so easy to include all our wishes. Tipycally one has to make the choice between a clear space after the helipad for one to three containers and a crane or the stern ramp (which I like almost as much as #Colin Parkinson).

cheers.


----------



## Swampbuggy

JMCanada said:


> BAE, Vard, Lurssen and Naval Group... Damen is missing, let me bring in its 1800 OPV (even though I'd rather like the 2400 or 2600 designs). A local version is being built in Malaysa.
> She provides hangar for up to Sea King or NH90 helicopters, should not be very difficult to redesign for a Cyclone. Otherwise use griffons or similar sized aircraft.
> [Damen 1800 pdf]
> 
> Crew of 46, 22 knots, 5000 nm range, 30 days endurance, space for 2 containers under heli-deck.
> 
> I would also like she had a crane and stern ramp, but it seems not so easy to include all our wishes. Tipycally one has to make the choice between a clear space after the helipad for one to three containers and a crane or the stern ramp (which I like almost as much as #Colin Parkinson).
> 
> cheers.


That Damen model is sweet. It seems to tick quite a few boxes.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Czech_pivo said:


> First question.
> The UK is retiring all MCM ships this decade and relying on ‘automated systems’ going forward or utilizing ‘ships of opportunity’ and onboarding the necessary equipment to run MCM operations from these ships and the US using 15 dedicated LCS’s for MCM capability.
> My question would be, why don’t we explore the same route that the Brits are? No more MCM ships.
> 
> Maritime-executive.com/article/unmanned-systems-set-to-replace-all-royal-navy-mine-warfare-vessels
> 
> “The new systems find mines, even in the worst conditions, five to ten times faster than our current ships do,” said First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin.
> 
> As for the true OPV vessel,
> River Class Batch 2 has no UAV capabilities, no helo hanger but has a small crew (34) and accommodation for up to 60, decent range (5,500nmi) and good speed at 24knts.
> 
> The NZ Protector Class has a hanger for a helo, slightly better range than the River Class, space for 3 20ft seas containers, a 16ton crane and again no UAV capabilities and awesome sea state abilities.
> 
> Arafava Class from Australia is the newest class, being built right now, small range of 4,000nmi, no hanger for helo, a ‘utility’ deck, light UAV capabilities with space for a single UAV, crew of 40, space for another 20 and Link 16 network
> 
> Lastly, the new French POM OPV’s look interesting. Range 5,500nmi, speed of 24knts, crew of 30 and space for another 23, stern ramp, flight deck for UAVs.
> 
> I’m in favour of one that has a helo hanger that can be used for housing multiple UAV’s with a potential focus on ASW and maybe some anti-ship capabilities. The hanger can accommodate a Cyclone if needed. Go with a stern ramp and 16ton crane and 20ft sea containers. Add either a recycled 57 as they become available or if we continue to want to bring a knife to any potential gun fight, the BAE Mk 38, I would add in a phalanx or a modern equivalent to deal with UAV’s as they will be an issue going forward.
> 
> Oh, and I would write into this MCDV procurement the need for additional Cyclones (8-10) and mark-46 torpedoes.  There should be 10-12 new OPV and no MCM, fellow the British and French route on this.


Curious about your assessment of the NZ PROTECTOR class having no UAV abilities. The ship incorporates a fully functional hangar for a full size manned helo. This should be more than adequate for any manner of either fixed wing or rotary UAVS.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> MCM's are always lightly armed because their job is extremely dangerous.  They are more likely to be blown up by a mine than enemy action.  So in that regard, you don't waste money, resources, and manpower on something that has a low survivability rate.  MCM's generally also operate within permissive(ish) environments because of this.  UXV's are likely changing the calculus on survival rates, which means you can have a specialized UXV mothership.  But when you have a specialist ship the cranes and control stations for UXV displace the guns and missiles.
> 
> 
> Hulls are never wasted.  There is no such thing.  Different tools for different jobs.
> 
> It's a fallacy to think that every ship should be armed for all weapon systems.  Do you arm a GWagon with a 120mm or use a tank to just drive out to check wire?  That would be a terrible waste of resources, in some cases a fatal one.
> 
> Ships are the same.


Except that we have thousands of vehicles and only a few dozen ships. If my GWagon came in at a quarter billion dollars I'd want it to do more than just drive around.

We bought a dozen MCDVs for $650 million in 1992 dollars which don't even have a 40mm anymore. The AOPS sports a 25mm. We only have two minesweeping modules for the 12 ships - Why not up arm the other ten?

The Iranians have motorboats with more complex weapon systems. It was a nice change to see the armament specs on the CSC for a change. I'd hate to see the next class of vessels go back down to weapon systems barely enough to protect them from a WBIED.

🍻


----------



## GR66

It will be interesting to see what come out of the European Patrol Corvette program.  Prototypes due in the 2026-2027 timeframe which might work well with the MCDV replacements.   They're claiming a modular design under 3,000 tons, can support an NH-90 sized helicopter but  with different hull dimensions, armaments, etc.  based on the user's specific requirements.  Plans include one version with a 10,000 nm range.

I fear though that as a multi-nation 'co-operative' development it will end up being too many compromises.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Why wouldn't you use smaller RPV's for that?


I'm pretty sure no one has used the term "RPV" since the 90s.  

It's not incorrect, just that UxV (where x is air, ground, surface, sub-surface) or UxS (S for Systems) is more prevalent now.  Although UAS is Uncrewed Aircraft Systems.  

"Uncrewed" replaced "unmanned" in Canadian usage in May 2021.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We used that term in 1984 or 86 when I was part of the crew supporting RPV trials in Suffield


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> I'm pretty sure no one has used the term "RPV" since the 90s.
> 
> It's not incorrect, just that UxV (where x is air, ground, surface, sub-surface) or UxS (S for Systems) is more prevalent now.  Although UAS is Uncrewed Aircraft Systems.
> 
> "Uncrewed" replaced "unmanned" in Canadian usage in May 2021.



Geez... such a snob


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> I'm pretty sure no one has used the term "RPV" since the 90s.
> 
> It's not incorrect, just that UxV (where x is air, ground, surface, sub-surface) or UxS (S for Systems) is more prevalent now.  Although UAS is Uncrewed Aircraft Systems.
> 
> "Uncrewed" replaced "unmanned" in Canadian usage in May 2021.


I like RPV - as it is just remotely piloted - I could put a Sailor who annoyed me on it - thus it isn't necessarily Unmanned


----------



## Underway

RPV is the official NATO designation. Which automatically means the US doesn't use it...  Canada has for the most part switched our language to reflect that fact.  It's far more accurate if one wants to be pedantic.  An Uninhabited Air Vehicle is also a missile.  Or a bullet for that matter.


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Except that we have thousands of vehicles and only a few dozen ships. If my GWagon came in at a quarter billion dollars I'd want it to do more than just drive around.
> 
> We bought a dozen MCDVs for $650 million in 1992 dollars which don't even have a 40mm anymore. The AOPS sports a 25mm. We only have two minesweeping modules for the 12 ships - Why not up arm the other ten?
> 
> The Iranians have motorboats with more complex weapon systems. It was a nice change to see the armament specs on the CSC for a change. I'd hate to see the next class of vessels go back down to weapon systems barely enough to protect them from a WBIED.
> 
> 🍻




How much is a FOO Tm, a FAC Tm, an STA Tm, a UAS tm,  a Long Range Radar Tm, a Listening Station, a C4 Tm, a FRP, a tanker, a troop welfare facility, a medevac/casualty clearing station facility worth?  Coupled with a Coastwatcher?

If they are operating in Canadian waters (Coastal, EEZ or SAR) are they at any more risk than NAVCan radars in peacetime?

Your 250,000,000 CAD G-Wagen is not just cruising the Cote de la Liesse.    Even if it carried nothing but a couple of Mounties and a Fisheries Officer with side arms it would be a valuable part of the Canada's sovereignty protection scheme.

Most weaponry on board a ship is geared towards protecting the ship to maintain all those other capabilities.    Local offence in defence of ships in convoy (to include Carriers) is probably next.  Launching true offensive capabilities, like Long Range Precision Fires, ....



A ship has value just by being above the water in the middle of the ocean.  It provides a point where people can survive.  Everything else is gravy.


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT the crane vs stern ramp debate?  Is it possible to have one's cake and eat it too?

I know that Damen's Crossover ships are too large to be considered in the 1000 ton OPV category but their deck management system ..... might that be scalable?

Rather than a single swing point crane, a track and trolley gantry system?






With the ability of the beams to be extended beyond the hull to both port and starboard?

That would leave the stern clear for both a stern ramp and towed devices.


----------



## JMCanada

Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.

Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
[Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's a very interesting design, lot's neat features





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=940616193073607


----------



## Kirkhill

Looking at the range of options available, and the fact that the three big yards are getting filled up with vessels over 4000 tonnes, maybe there is room to move the NSS 1000 tonne small boat limit north to 2500 tonnes?


----------



## Underway

Likely by the time the MCDV replacement project goes ahead VSY will no longer have any new ships on the docket.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing. 

The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.


----------



## Czech_pivo

JMCanada said:


> Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.
> 
> Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
> [Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]


We can’t consider that, the guns too big.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Swampbuggy said:


> Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.
> 
> The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia
> 
> I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.


As you mention that's basically a slightly larger Hero Class, not the sort of vessel you want to do long voyages in. I call them R Class 2.0 Hero-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia

Now the Aussies went even further with the Armidale-class patrol boat - Wikipedia


----------



## Cronicbny

Swampbuggy said:


> Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.
> 
> The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia
> 
> I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.


The range and 5 day endurance are not suitable, unfortunately.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I rather thought that might be the case. I was just brainstorming if it were possible given shorter patrol missions and the ability rotate in and out multiple ships. Say, send 3 or 4 on OP CARIBBE with a rotation in and out of port etc. 

Again, probably not the best bet, anyway.


----------



## RedFive

Colin Parkinson said:


> As you mention that's basically a slightly larger Hero Class, not the sort of vessel you want to do long voyages in. I call them R Class 2.0 Hero-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
> 
> Now the Aussies went even further with the Armidale-class patrol boat - Wikipedia


Having spoken to RCMP Shiprider members who have gone out on the Hero's with the CCG, the cost cutting and Canadianization of the vessels pretty much ruined what was supposed to be a good design. The primary complaints were the deletion of the sea keeping ailerons, making them terrible to be aboard even in moderate waters, and the poor construction quality from Irving. Apparently both of these issues have been discussed in the media.

I for one was not surprised to hear this.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cronicbny said:


> The range and 5 day endurance are not suitable, unfortunately.


We used to do 2 week patrols with a 11 people on the R Class, by the 5th day we were out of fresh vegetables as there was no cold storage, except for 1 regular fridge and regular small freezer.


----------



## Cronicbny

Swampbuggy said:


> I rather thought that might be the case. I was just brainstorming if it were possible given shorter patrol missions and the ability rotate in and out multiple ships. Say, send 3 or 4 on OP CARIBBE with a rotation in and out of port etc.
> 
> Again, probably not the best bet, anyway.


Missions like CARIBBE require long "on station" times, as the AO/Patrol Box is usually quite far out to sea (think days of transit) to maximize surveillance. Even once "on top" and successful in an interdiction, the process can take many hours to days. We tend to even stretch the limits of endurance for the KIN Class IOT remain ONSTA.


----------



## KevinB

I still like the K130


The corvettes have a continuous maximum speed of over 26kt and a cruising range of more than 2,500nm. The displacement is about 1,580t, overall length 88m and breadth 13.2m. The K130 corvettes have an endurance of seven days or, with tender support, 21 days.

*from what I have read - the endurance is based solely on field consumption at high speeds, and for the MH.
    If you aren't normally running a MH on it - you don't the fuel or AirDet pers, which should stretch the legs of it a tad.
.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> I still like the K130
> 
> View attachment 66938
> The corvettes have a continuous maximum speed of over 26kt and a cruising range of more than 2,500nm. The displacement is about 1,580t, overall length 88m and breadth 13.2m. The K130 corvettes have an endurance of seven days or, with tender support, 21 days.
> 
> *from what I have read - the endurance is based solely on field consumption at high speeds, and for the MH.
> If you aren't normally running a MH on it - you don't the fuel or AirDet pers, which should stretch the legs of it a tad.
> .


Usually food, fuel, and things like garbage storage are the practical limitations, but with our crewing shortages you also run into fatigue as well. If it was shiny, new and working it wouldn't be so bad, but when you spend of your off-watch time fixing things, you get worn out pretty quick. Not unusual for some key pers to occasionally get ordered to get their head down (or for the XO to get the CO's shakes instead).  Even on a relatively good 12 day stretch lots of folks just kind of collapse the first night in port and sleep for 8 hours (or more).

Operating a helo won't really impact your ship range though; they use a separate marine grade aviation fuel (F-44 aka JP5) instead of the marine diesel the ships run on, and usually if you have empty bunks someone usually fills them. In best case, it's trainees that need sea time but can fill a useful function, worse case it's some kind of VIP rider that needs constant babysitting and has unreasonable demands.  

With the 'optimized' crew numbers we fall behind on preventative maintenance pretty quickly, and that inevitably turns into corrective maintenance, so it's difficult to keep a normal schedule for any of the technicians when you are below the crew levels the ships were designed for.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Cronicbny said:


> Missions like CARIBBE require long "on station" times, as the AO/Patrol Box is usually quite far out to sea (think days of transit) to maximize surveillance. Even once "on top" and successful in an interdiction, the process can take many hours to days. We tend to even stretch the limits of endurance for the KIN Class IOT remain ONSTA.



Definitely a much better tasking for something with legs, then. Should be a good fit for the AOPS range, I'd imagine. Thx for the insight, it's good to have a better idea of how these missions are executed.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:


> Definitely a much better tasking for something with legs, then. Should be a good fit for the AOPS range, I'd imagine. Thx for the insight, it's good to have a better idea of how these missions are executed.


Kingston Class was only meant to have a endurance of 14 days, our only limitation was food and fuel. We got creative with portable deepfreezes, stocking the entire cold room, dairy stores full. Eventually we could go a month and even longer. Eventually fuel and stores was required. AOPS burns about 2% of her fuel a day and a shit load of it around 700 Cums. Without going below 40% around 28 days endurance.


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:


> Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.
> 
> Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
> [Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]


That's actually a pretty nice ship, good range and endurance. I would however redesign the back end and eliminate the stern ramp and have a payload area to stage modular payloads such as TRAPS. Probably go with the ice class option.


----------



## FJAG

Stoker said:


> Kingston Class was only meant to have a endurance of 14 days, our only limitation was food and fuel. We got creative with portable deepfreezes, stocking the entire cold room, dairy stores full. Eventually we could go a month and even longer. Eventually fuel and stores was required. AOPS burns about 2% of her fuel a day and a shit load of it around 700 Cums. Without going below 40% around 28 days endurance.


There's probably lots of room for a 2 month supply of IMPs.

😁


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> That's actually a pretty nice ship, good range and endurance. I would however redesign the back end and eliminate the stern ramp and have a payload area to stage modular payloads such as TRAPS. Probably go with the ice class option.


You don't like your boat crews do you?


----------



## suffolkowner

Uzlu said:


> _Aiviq_ might have a problem with her design making her unsuitable for Canada.
> 
> Page 43:
> 
> "As the AIVIQ was prepared for this voyage there were two areas that affected the upcoming towing plans. One concern was the vessels design issues, which was identified as water ingress into the winch room and safe deck areas affecting the vent on the fuel system and electrical fittings in the space. The Master of the AIVIQ sent ECO management an email entitled “Storm Damage Lessons Learned” and added a statement from a former crewmember detailing an account of a storm while AIVIQ was towing the KULLUK. In that account the crewmember detailed the AIVIQ taking on a sustained list in the storm due to sea water ingress. As temporary measure to limit water ingress internal openings in the winch room were closed or covered, the hinged freeing port covers were removed and temporary covers were placed over the lower winch room openings to the main deck prior to the voyage commencing.
> 
> "54. The other issue was a host of mechanical problems that had occurred on previous voyages. There were issues with the engine room automation, resulting in the overheating of the main diesel engine #4 and complete failure of that engine on the voyage south with the AIVIQ towing the KULLUK to Dutch Harbor. Some of these issues were required to be reported to the classification society, ABS and the U.S. Coast Guard. The major issues are mentioned here and remained unresolved as the AIVIQ was readied for sea."


Could be why its been living the good life in Tampa the last few years


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> That's actually a pretty nice ship, good range and endurance. I would however redesign the back end and eliminate the stern ramp and have a payload area to stage modular payloads such as TRAPS. Probably go with the ice class option.


I keep the stern ramp, way easier recovering in a sea.


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> You don't like your boat crews do you?


That ship is useless  to us without deck space for our modular payloads. 99% of the payloads and capabilities we have to have stern access to the ocean for towed arrays either TRAPS, side scan etc.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> That ship is useless  to us without deck space for our modular payloads. 99% of the payloads and capabilities we have to have stern access to the ocean for towed arrays either TRAPS, side scan etc.


Hmm - I am curious if there was anyway to make the rampdock modular -


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could go with something like this, spanning the stern and lining up flush with the helideck. With gear on either side of the stern ramp.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> You don't like your boat crews do you?


It's their job.  Frankly, the launch and recovery of boats are pretty routine, we do it at least once or twice a day for exercises.  Launch and recovery in under 5min is fleet standard.  

It's a bigger deal when coming alongside in bad weather and you have the upper decks standing there getting rained on in freezing winds for 30min because of "ceremonial traditions".



Colin Parkinson said:


> I keep the stern ramp, way easier recovering in a sea.



Stern launch is a great idea but there are SS restrictions, and then you would have to davit launch anyways.  That aft section for the stern launch is valuable real estate where payloads can go.  But with a creative design, you could have a payload bay above the stern launch, which would only restrict the stern launch when a payload was in the water and tethered.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> Hmm - I am curious if there was anyway to make the rampdock modular -


There is a creative solution right there.  Perhaps a platform over it when not in use to place payloads.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I do like the stern ramps that go under the main weather deck, does place some design limits on your small craft though. Nothing on a smaller ship is without a cost or tradeoff. One has to decide that the sea state that each type of launch and recovery allows is something you can live with.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I do like the stern ramps that go under the main weather deck, does place some design limits on your small craft though. Nothing on a smaller ship is without a cost or tradeoff. One has to decide that the sea state that each type of launch and recovery allows is something you can live with.



Unless you include an internal dock, of course


----------



## Navy_Pete

FJAG said:


> There's probably lots of room for a 2 month supply of IMPs.
> 
> 😁


Ha, this is the same Navy were getting wifi is more critical than meeting basic SOLAS standards, that would be a fun one to present to the operators!

They might start bellowing about keelhauling people or otherwise demoting them.


----------



## FJAG

Navy_Pete said:


> Ha, this is the same Navy were getting wifi is more critical than meeting basic SOLAS standards, that would be a fun one to present to the operators!
> 
> They might start bellowing about keelhauling people or otherwise demoting them.


Do your ships still carry planks? Do they still have yardarms?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, and yes.

The "plank", or gangplank, or gangway, as you wish to call it, is what we use to go from one ship to another in a nest, or from ship to shore.

And we have yardarms on our masts as we still use signal flags for many ceremonial or operational reasons.


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> Do your ships still carry planks? Do they still have yardarms?


A man after my own heart - but I think the stocks and pillories need to be re introduced to society. I like the plank idea.....


----------



## OldSolduer

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Yes, and yes.
> 
> The "plank", or gangplank, or gangway, as you wish to call it, is what we use to go from one ship to another in a nest, or from ship to shore.
> 
> And we have yardarms on our masts as we still use signal flags for many ceremonial or operational reasons.


I think you missed the intent....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, I didn't ... just messing up with my friend FJAG.


----------



## OldSolduer

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> No, I didn't ... just messing up with my friend FJAG.


Well played sir...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> Ha, this is the same Navy were getting wifi is more critical than meeting basic SOLAS standards, that would be a fun one to present to the operators!
> 
> They might start bellowing about keelhauling people or otherwise demoting them.


to be fair the wifi is likely low hanging fruit and has a morale benefit. But yes safety standards are also good and important.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> to be fair the wifi is likely low hanging fruit and has a morale benefit. But yes safety standards are also good and important.


For sure, it's a quick win and helps, but is a bit like buying a sweet stereo instead of fixing your brakes when resources are limited. I guess my point was we prioritize sexy capabilities and creature comforts over things like actual operational capabilities (where safety should be part of the baseline).

Crazy to me that we'll put basic peacetime wave the flag type trips above fundamental basics that a fishing boat or cargo ship would meet, especially with the minimal crews and vastly decreased experience levels. Continually operating below the bare minimum is causing a lot of folks to lose sleep trying to keep their ship limping along and adds to the general pile of things hurting retention.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> For sure, it's a quick win and helps, but is a bit like buying a sweet stereo instead of fixing your brakes when resources are limited. I guess my point was we prioritize sexy capabilities and creature comforts over things like actual operational capabilities (where safety should be part of the baseline).


Can't it be both?  Get the "quick win" out of the way while working on the hard stuff, which will take a lot longer?


----------



## Navy_Pete

dimsum said:


> Can't it be both?  Get the "quick win" out of the way while working on the hard stuff, which will take a lot longer?


There are chokepoints with limited resources. I have a 60 day backlog on some things, but the stupid wifi EC jumped to the top of the pile and people wanted a 7 day turnaround. Which would be fine, if anyone cared why there was a 60 day backlog and wanted to fix that, but once the sacred cow got through it was back to the status quo. Just my $0.02 but quality of life shouldn't take priority over life safety, so if we can find funding and resources so that Bloggins can surf facebook at sea, than we should be able to make sure basic safety systems work before they go to sea. Right now the paradigm is we have to work to show the ship is too unsafe to go anywhere, instead of having to prove it's safe to leave the wall, which is pretty ass backwards. We're working on that on the technical side, but the operational side is really more interested in trending tweets and dog and pony shows.

The only difference between a lot of the USN collisions and fire events and our own is they have a much larger sample size, so their odds are better for that bad initiating event, but basically we're in the same/worse boat when it comes to the actual outcome. The BHR type scenario could easily happen to any of our ships.

Having said all that, the MCDVs are generally in better shape than the CPFs, but can see those getting tied up before the CPFs or AOPs when we hit the wall on the crew shortage side. Waiting for a few CPFs to 'self retire' though, and we're seeing defects that are taking them out of the ops cycle for 6 months - 1 year for repairs already. Just crossing fingers that it happens without folks getting hurt; we got pretty close with ATH and PRE, and in some respects they were in better mechanical shape at 40+ years than the frigates are at 25-30 years (due to the old baseline refits they got for the first 20-25 years of life).


----------



## Dana381

If its as bad as you and others on here say Navy_Pete (And I believe you that it is) then maybe someone needs to get an investigative journalist involved to expose the issues before disaster strikes.

Disasters don't happen because of one event. They are precipitated by a poor safety culture and a series of events. If management isn't listening to technicians concerns about safety then it is a matter of *WHEN* not *IF* a disaster happens. 

This is true in any industry. Management often thinks technicians develop a whiny culture and slowly transition to not believing their concerns are valid. Often a third party validating those concerns can open their eyes to how bad things have gotten. 

I have seen this unfold often in the trucking industry. In trucking it is usually dispatchers or owners ignoring drivers complaints thinking they are being whiny. Then I or another mechanic tells said owner or dispatcher that the truck is a safety nightmare and it isn't going anywhere till repaired. This usually empowers other drivers in the company to then insist their trucks get repaired also.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes the "chain of events" leading up to an accident always makes interesting reading. When we were doing rescue diving in the Coast Guard, one of the big teaching elements was to be able to recognize when a chain of events was forming in order to forestall a bad outcome.


----------



## JMCanada

GR66 said:


> It will be interesting to see what come out of the European Patrol Corvette program.   (...)
> 
> I fear though that as a multi-nation 'co-operative' development it will end up being too many compromises.



Here it is an update:









						Amid high hopes, can the European Patrol Corvette deliver?
					

An industrial source told Defense News that each vessel is expected to cost around €250-300 million, making the Corvette program worth €5-6 billion, even before Greece confirms an order and any new members sign up.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## CBH99

JMCanada said:


> Here it is an update:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amid high hopes, can the European Patrol Corvette deliver?
> 
> 
> An industrial source told Defense News that each vessel is expected to cost around €250-300 million, making the Corvette program worth €5-6 billion, even before Greece confirms an order and any new members sign up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


They can produce hulls efficiently & affordably.  Perhaps thats the best idea for them moving forwards.  

A common hull, power plant, propulsion, etc.  A majority of the systems would be fairly common among participating countries - with some ships coming online ‘designed for, but not with’ some systems for financially strained countries.  (Looking at you, Greece…)


----------



## Czech_pivo

Have to wonder if we’ll still send the Kingston’s into the Nigeria delta / Gulf of Guinea armed with a pair of 50’s and not much else, other than personal weapons, after this. 









						Danish Military Kills Four Pirates During Gun Battle in Gulf of Guinea
					

Danish military forces on a anti-piracy mission killed four pirates in a gun battle in the Gulf of Guinea this week, Denmark’s Defence Command reported. The military forces are embarked...




					gcaptain.com
				




“Danish military forces on a anti-piracy mission killed four pirates in a gun battle in the Gulf of Guinea this week,”
“the frigate’s crew was alerted to reports of an increased risk of piracy in waters south of Nigeria and sent the ship’s Seahawk helicopter to patrol the area.”
“send a military team in a RHIB to board the suspected pirate vessel.”
“When the pirates did not react, the Danish forces fired warning shots, cf. their powers. The pirates then opened fire directly on the Danish soldiers. The Danish soldiers then reacted in self-defense and responded to the fire from the pirates,” the update said.”
A brief firefight ensued and resulted in five pirates being hit, four of whom died. No Danish soldiers were injured.


----------



## Underway

So there was resistance to a boarding party.  Not the same as an attempt on a ship, particularly as pirates by their nature stear well clear of military vessels if they can.
I'm sure the risk assessment will be done.  If anything we should be sending more MCDV's to help out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> So there was resistance to a boarding party.  Not the same as an attempt on a ship, particularly as pirates by their nature stear well clear of military vessels if they can.
> I'm sure the risk assessment will be done.  If anything we should be sending more MCDV's to help out.


With the Same 25mm RWS as the AOP's have, which would be an excellent upgrade of the MCDV's


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> With the Same 25mm RWS as the AOP's have, which would be an excellent upgrade of the MCDV's


Since the assessment of the AOPS area of operations/mission profile called for the RWS, it would seem logical for the same to apply to the MCDV, given that they do cut much of the same grass. Maybe even if there were 6 of the units kept in a rotating pool to be installed for just these sorts of deployment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would rather have more than you need for each vessel, that way you can pull one off, send it for a complete service and put a serviced one on just prior to deployment.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> So there was resistance to a boarding party.  Not the same as an attempt on a ship, particularly as pirates by their nature stear well clear of military vessels if they can.
> I'm sure the risk assessment will be done.  If anything we should be sending more MCDV's to help out.


The frigate had a maritime helo to go out and be its eye’s on target, it then launched the boarding party in a RHIB that goes what, 35-40+ knots? The Kingston’s have neither of these options. 
So in the above scenario they would not have had eyes on target, nor most likely the ability to close with the pirates due to the Kingstons speed limitations. As a result, the pirates would have most likely gotten away and lived to fight another day.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I would rather have more than you need for each vessel, that way you can pull one off, send it for a complete service and put a serviced one on just prior to deployment.


I


Czech_pivo said:


> The frigate had a maritime helo to go out and be its eye’s on target, it then launched the boarding party in a RHIB that goes what, 35-40+ knots? The Kingston’s have neither of these options.
> So in the above scenario they would not have had eyes on target, nor most likely the ability to close with the pirates due to the Kingstons speed limitations. As a result, the pirates would have most likely gotten away and lived to fight another day.


I disagree, to a degree. The MCDV does have a UAV capacity with excellent real time visual coverage. I can't speak to the speed capability for the auxiliary boats carried by the ship, unsure if they are similar or not. 

I would like to see a KINGSTON with some sort of RWS, preferably the same MK 38 as the HDW class. With the wear on the frigates and the small number of AOPS, coupled with their arctic patrol duties, I feel like the MCDV's are going to be leaned on just as heavily, if not more, than they have been/are currently.  

My opinion only, but I think its a big deal to have the ability to remotely fire a weapon from a more secure location inside the vessel.


----------



## Kirkhill

The RCN has already acquired some of these Skeldar UAVs for unarmed recce.  The Poles are looking at arming theirs with a Startstreak HVM derivative, the Martlett LMM, which is also used on the RN's Wildcat and the Royal Artillery's Stormer GBAD vehicles.











						Featured content
					

Featured content




					www.canadiandefencereview.com
				












						UMS Skeldar & QinetiQ Partner for RCN UAV Requirement - MOENCH PUBLISHING GROUP
					

Addressing Both Military & Civil Needs for UAV Capabilities at CANSEC 2018




					monch.com
				




Probably a bit too big for the MCDV though.


----------



## Kirkhill

Althoug maybe not - 1.3 m high with a 4.7 m rotor diameter - the MCDV has a reported beam of 11.3 m.   Could it be deployed from the after deck?


----------



## Underway

MCDV's have and can carry both RHIB and Zodiac's.  The MCDV RHIB used in OP CARIBE seems to do fairly well and getting ahold of drug smugglers.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Have to wonder if we’ll still send the Kingston’s into the Nigeria delta / Gulf of Guinea armed with a pair of 50’s and not much else, other than personal weapons, after this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danish Military Kills Four Pirates During Gun Battle in Gulf of Guinea
> 
> 
> Danish military forces on a anti-piracy mission killed four pirates in a gun battle in the Gulf of Guinea this week, Denmark’s Defence Command reported. The military forces are embarked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gcaptain.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Danish military forces on a anti-piracy mission killed four pirates in a gun battle in the Gulf of Guinea this week,”
> “the frigate’s crew was alerted to reports of an increased risk of piracy in waters south of Nigeria and sent the ship’s Seahawk helicopter to patrol the area.”
> “send a military team in a RHIB to board the suspected pirate vessel.”
> “When the pirates did not react, the Danish forces fired warning shots, cf. their powers. The pirates then opened fire directly on the Danish soldiers. The Danish soldiers then reacted in self-defense and responded to the fire from the pirates,” the update said.”
> A brief firefight ensued and resulted in five pirates being hit, four of whom died. No Danish soldiers were injured.


MCDVs go there for training purposes not to conduct active anti piracy operations. We do train if we encounter them and have protocols in place.


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> Althoug maybe not - 1.3 m high with a 4.7 m rotor diameter - the MCDV has a reported beam of 11.3 m.   Could it be deployed from the after deck?


MCDVs deploy to Op Projection with a 20ft ISO aft. There could be a platform fitted to the top of the 20 ft ISO to operate a UAV.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoker said:


> MCDVs deploy to Op Projection with a 20ft ISO aft. There could be a platform fitted to the top of the 20 ft ISO to operate a UAV.







__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=869543000209563
			




Different UAV than the Skeldar.  This is one of the ones the Royal Marines are playing with.






						Malloy Aeronautics – Revolutionizing Airborne Logistics
					






					www.malloyaeronautics.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's the wind vortexes and such from the superstructure that will cause the issues, the AI of UAV is getting better all the time, but that can still catch them off guard.


----------



## Underway

Puma is doing great on the MCDV's.  UK uses them quite a bit as well.  Easy to launch, extends your LOS, easy to recapture and not the end of the world if they ditch.


----------



## FM07

I always thought that equipping the McDiv's with a  C16 automatic grenade launcher would be a cool idea. Same idea as the US Cyclone class being equipped with the MK 19 launcher. It's good to know the Kingstons can be equipped with payloads and loadouts specific to the mission she's on.


----------



## Underway

FM07 said:


> I always thought that equipping the McDiv's with a  C16 automatic grenade launcher would be a cool idea. Same idea as the US Cyclone class being equipped with the MK 19 launcher. It's good to know the Kingstons can be equipped with payloads and loadouts specific to the mission she's on.


What's the range on that launcher.  50 cal frankly is quite versatile.  

I did a tour of a Cyclone Class once.  Overgunned, overpowered, and underranged.  It was amazing.


----------



## dimsum

Wait wait...

How long is the sweep deck?  And how low can an M777 depress to?    

Imagine being face-to-face with an MCDV, thinking "psh my canoe has more firepower than that", then it spins around 180 and you're looking at a howitzer.


----------



## dangerboy

Underway said:


> What's the range on that launcher.  50 cal frankly is quite versatile.
> 
> I did a tour of a Cyclone Class once.  Overgunned, overpowered, and underranged.  It was amazing.


Open source info says the range of the C16 is 1500 meters: Heckler & Koch GMG - Wikipedia


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The UK Sandown Class have a 30mm cannon, 2x miniguns and 3x GPMGs.  They also carry a nice complement of Royal Marines Commandos

They also have some nice RHIBs for interdictions.  Any vessel sent to an area like the Arabian Sea needs to be heavily armed.  

The AOPS is ill-suited for that theatre of operations.  It would not be able to go anywhere near the Persian Gulf and would be a sitting duck if a War ever broke out.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> What's the range on that launcher.  50 cal frankly is quite versatile.
> 
> I did a tour of a Cyclone Class once.  Overgunned, overpowered, and underranged.  It was amazing.


40mm High Velocity is significantly more versatile than a M2 .50
   Range is near identical - but the payload options for 40mm HV are much more rewarding 
 Plus the GMG has some decent FC options.
The downside to the 40mm HV is ammo storage as .50 is pretty benign (Unless it is Mk211) while 40mm causes absolute mayhem if it goes off in storage.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> 40mm High Velocity is significantly more versatile than a M2 .50
> Range is near identical - but the payload options for 40mm HV are much more rewarding
> Plus the GMG has some decent FC options.
> The downside to the 40mm HV is ammo storage as .50 is pretty benign (Unless it is Mk211) while 40mm causes absolute mayhem if it goes off in storage.


Knowing the Navy they will probably go full autist with 40mm ammunition storage requirements as well.  All in fear of averting a repeat of the Halifax Explosion.  LOL


----------



## Colin Parkinson

40mm offers you all sorts of interesting fuzing arrangement and ammo types, a big part why most armies are going bigger for auto cannons.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Knowing the Navy they will probably go full autist with 40mm ammunition storage requirements as well.  All in fear of averting a repeat of the Halifax Explosion.  LOL


As an actual autist don't really appreciate the implication; the Navy is just straight up dumb with the ammo storage/handling rules, and a lot of processes defy actual logic or facts.

If they got someone on the spectrum to look at it they would probably get a really detailed, non-politic response on why they are wrong, complete with thorough background and research, and some kind of BLUF that could be summed as as 'WTAF?'.

But it's really easy to add safety rules, and really hard to get rid of them, even if they make no actual sense. 🍻


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Knowing the Navy they will probably go full autist with 40mm ammunition storage requirements as well.  All in fear of averting a repeat of the Halifax Explosion.  LOL


You mean what the MCDVs used to do.


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Knowing the Navy they will probably go full autist with 40mm ammunition storage requirements as well.  All in fear of averting a repeat of the Halifax Explosion.  LOL


One of the magazines on JSS is expecting to store 40mm grenade ammunition.  It's not really a big deal as long as the compatibility groups are met, and the racking arrangements are adequate.  But I get you.  I dealt with the ATA and FAI on a regular basis and I've imagined all sorts of horrible things on for them over the years out of frustration.


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> As an actual autist don't really appreciate the implication; the Navy is just straight up dumb with the ammo storage/handling rules, and a lot of processes defy actual logic or facts.
> 
> If they got someone on the spectrum to look at it they would probably get a really detailed, non-politic response on why they are wrong, complete with thorough background and research, and some kind of BLUF that could be summed as as 'WTAF?'.
> 
> But it's really easy to add safety rules, and really hard to get rid of them, even if they make no actual sense. 🍻


The RCN isn't alone on that.
   The CAF M203A1 Grenade Launcher sits apron 1.5" lower than the US (and everyone else's) M203 mount -- because if one fires over 300 rds from a C7 or C8 back to back mag dumps - with a 40mm round in the chamber of the M203 using the plastic hand guards - it is possible to cook off the 40mm Grenade.
  The fact that everyone else using the M4/C8 platform uses a rail (which acts as a heatsink) and maybe the CAF should go that route -- or the fact that no one in their right mind is going to fire 10 mags back to back in combat - and if you did NEED to fire 10 mags like that -- you are probably already OUT of any 40mm ammo you have.

 So CAF solution -- lets make the mount sit lower so it can be more awkward and bulky...

*there is probably still the dent in a door that I banged my head on after my back and forth emails with the LCMM and DLR on that little gem, despite sending them data from Crane, Colt, Picatinny etc.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> The RCN isn't alone on that.
> The CAF M203A1 Grenade Launcher sits apron 1.5" lower than the US (and everyone else's) M203 mount -- because if one fires over 300 rds from a C7 or C8 back to back mag dumps - with a 40mm round in the chamber of the M203 using the plastic hand guards - it is possible to cook off the 40mm Grenade.
> The fact that everyone else using the M4/C8 platform uses a rail (which acts as a heatsink) and maybe the CAF should go that route -- or the fact that no one in their right mind is going to fire 10 mags back to back in combat - and if you did NEED to fire 10 mags like that -- you are probably already OUT of any 40mm ammo you have.
> 
> So CAF solution -- lets make the mount sit lower so it can be more awkward and bulky...
> 
> *there is probably still the dent in a door that I banged my head on after my back and forth emails with the LCMM and DLR on that little gem, despite sending them data from Crane, Colt, Picatinny etc.



Or you can just use one of these tried and true veterans:


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> Or you can just use one of these tried and true veterans:


Everyone who has tried the Underslung GL has gone back to Stand Alones.
  JSOC and the Int community has been using HK69's for years.


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> Everyone who has tried the Underslung GL has gone back to Stand Alones.
> JSOC and the Int community has been using HK69's for years.


Whatever happened to those grenade launchers similar to the one pictured above, but had like a 6-round drum?

I always pictured one could do absolute mayhem with one of those…


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> Whatever happened to those grenade launchers similar to the one pictured above, but had like a 6-round drum?
> 
> I always pictured one could do absolute mayhem with one of those…


The USMC adopted the M32 - and some SOCOM entities have bought into it.








						M32A1-MSGL - Milkor USA Inc.
					

The M32A1 is the USMC/SOCOM 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher of choice. The M321A1 is a hand-held, gas plug operating, semi-automatic, revolving action, 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher (MSGL). The M32A1 has...




					www.milkorusa.com
				



It is bulky - so it is more of a dedicated role than the other GL's


----------



## Weinie

KevinB said:


> The USMC adopted the M32 - and some SOCOM entities have bought into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M32A1-MSGL - Milkor USA Inc.
> 
> 
> The M32A1 is the USMC/SOCOM 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher of choice. The M321A1 is a hand-held, gas plug operating, semi-automatic, revolving action, 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher (MSGL). The M32A1 has...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.milkorusa.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is bulky - so it is more of a dedicated role than the other GL's


If you guys are struggling to come up with my X-Mas gift, le voila.


----------



## NavyShooter

Navy_Pete said:


> As an actual autist don't really appreciate the implication; the Navy is just straight up dumb with the ammo storage/handling rules, and a lot of processes defy actual logic or facts.
> 
> If they got someone on the spectrum to look at it they would probably get a really detailed, non-politic response on why they are wrong, complete with thorough background and research, and some kind of BLUF that could be summed as as 'WTAF?'.
> 
> But it's really easy to add safety rules, and really hard to get rid of them, even if they make no actual sense. 🍻


When I was magazine custodian on MON, I embraced this....we had to do an ammunition transfer within dockyard for 5.56 and 9mm force protection ammo.  

I looked at the rules and regulations.

I proposed a plan that would have seen my sailors walk back to the ship, escorted by the Dockyard's largest fire-truck to ensure fire safety, with MP's to block the roads to make sure we were safe. 

Embrace the stupid.  

Make it so plainly obvious to all that what they're asking for is stupid that they have to, in the end, deny it or look foolish themselves.

In the end, we walked the can, in hand, back to the ship and called it a morning.


----------



## Underway

Love this as an MCM ship.

MCM Ship for Belgian/Dutch


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes that would be very nice, how about 7 of these and 7 River Class 2 OPV's as MCDV replacements?


----------



## Spencer100

Idea fairy time

Well if the government can make the Coast Guard take two red painted AOPS....the they can make the Navy take some MPV's in grey.  This will be largest single class of ships (16 planned) to be built in Canada since WWII.  Add 10 - 12 more in grey and call it a day?  Add a multi mission bay?    Joking...... 









						Building Ships - Seaspan
					






					nss.seaspan.com
				




Hmmm Come to think about it..........

But in all in all honestly what about that idea?  Fact I know they are much larger....but what class of ship has not grown in size with their replacement? They are replacing some 1,500 ton ships in the CCG.   Fuel will be a larger bill but manning is always coming down in new ships which is a large bill.  Hull and propulsion will offer cost saving by more units.   They are commercial standard but so are the MCDV right?  The ship will be well proven out by then. Add multi-mission bay in the bow where the large crane is instead of the back of the ship.  The design has helicopter hanger built in.  I would think not for the CH148 or CH149 but its there for smaller ones.  In the larger picture is there huge difference in buoy tending and the recovery of automatist vehicles or sea drones etc?  I get there are weapon handling and storage issues that would need redesign.   The MCDV are steel hull and don't think there is even though of GFRP hull for their replacement. So that is a non issue.  Plus with the ice class hull they can work with the AOPS.

Anyway I am sure this idea will be torn to pieces but hey why not.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Looking at the document you provided (thank you) it appears that there may be 2-3 designs. Flight 1 and 2 might be the same or very close, flight 3 is to replace smaller vessels with different tasks than the others. My guess is the third flight will be modified OOSV or modified OFSV's.


----------



## Spencer100

I think the document sounds like 3 flights but the change is technology insertion more than change of the basic ship to me.  Like new nav, computers, radars etc.  

But who knows the build is 20 years long.  I just thought it was an idea. My main point is now a class of 25+ similar ships.  That would help and keep the price down plus help with the orphan fleet problem. Companies willing to keep spares etc.


----------



## AirDet

Underway said:


> Love this as an MCM ship.
> 
> MCM Ship for Belgian/Dutch


Ya, I've been looking at that too. Has anyone found and detailed specs. I like the idea that it serves as a mother ship for various drones which do the mine work. The possibilities are endless for us.


----------



## JMCanada

AirDet said:


> Has anyone found and detailed specs.


This report is dated 2019, but guess it may help. A brief toolbox description is included.









						This is what the Future Belgian & Dutch MCM Motherships will Look Like - Naval News
					

The Belgian Ministry of Defense recently contracted the consortium Belgian Naval & Robotics (formed by Naval Group & ECA Group) to supply 12 vessels and associated equipment to the Belgian and Dutch Navies. Naval Group shared some detailed images of the future vessels with us. Here is what can...




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## AirDet

JMCanada said:


> This report is dated 2019, but guess it may help. A brief toolbox description is included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Future Belgian & Dutch MCM Motherships will Look Like - Naval News
> 
> 
> The Belgian Ministry of Defense recently contracted the consortium Belgian Naval & Robotics (formed by Naval Group & ECA Group) to supply 12 vessels and associated equipment to the Belgian and Dutch Navies. Naval Group shared some detailed images of the future vessels with us. Here is what can...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


I reaad that article too. She looks like an excellent candidate for the type of work the MCDV was originally intended for. There's still no raw specs so we'd be guessing if this platform could fulfill the evolved uses of the MCDV.


----------



## Czech_pivo

AirDet said:


> I reaad that article too. She looks like an excellent candidate for the type of work the MCDV was originally intended for. There's still no raw specs so we'd be guessing if this platform could fulfill the evolved uses of the MCDV.


The main gun is too big for us - sarcasm....

I mean is the Belgians/Dutch put a 40mm gun on a ship that is going to be used overwhelming in the English Channel and the North Sea approaches to the Baltic, then there is no reason why we shouldn't recycles the 57's on our new MCDV when the times comes.


----------



## AirDet

Czech_pivo said:


> The main gun is too big for us - sarcasm....
> 
> I mean is the Belgians/Dutch put a 40mm gun on a ship that is going to be used overwhelming in the English Channel and the North Sea approaches to the Baltic, then there is no reason why we shouldn't recycles the 57's on our new MCDV when the times comes.


The 57 is an excellent weapon system. Would such a small ship support almost triple (estimated) the weight for just one weapon system? I'd be willing to bet that this revolutionary ship will catch the eye of the rest of Europe and NATO. Who knows what systems others will choose to integrate into the hull.


----------



## Czech_pivo

AirDet said:


> The 57 is an excellent weapon system. Would such a small ship support almost triple (estimated) the weight for just one weapon system? I'd be willing to bet that this revolutionary ship will catch the eye of the rest of Europe and NATO. Who knows what systems others will choose to integrate into the hull.


Here's some recent news on the steel cutting ceremony and more info on the stats of the ships.










						First Steel Cutting Ceremony For Dutch-Belgian MCM program - Naval News
					

A steel cutting ceremony for the Belgian Navy and Royal Netherlands Navy mine countermeasure vessel (MCM) program was held at Crist Shipyard in Gdynia (Poland), on July 19. The first steel sheet was cut for the Belgian Navy's first-in-class MCM vessel.




					www.navalnews.com
				




First Steel Cutting Ceremony For Dutch-Belgian MCM Program​A steel cutting ceremony for the Belgian Navy and Royal Netherlands Navy mine countermeasure vessel (MCM) program was held at Crist Shipyard in Gdynia (Poland), on July 19. The first steel sheet was cut for the Belgian Navy's first-in-class MCM vessel.​
The mothership itself is 82 meters long with a displacement of 2,500 tons and a crew complement of 30 sailors (total accommodation for 63 people). It is fitted with a Bofors 40Mk4 40m main gun system, FN Herstal’ Sea deFNder 12.7mm remote weapon stations, an NS50 radar by Thales, Sea Eagle EO/IR by Chess Dynamics, Saab TactiCall Communication System, and a platform for SKELDAR V-200 VTOL UAV.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting solution for drones/UAV on smaller vessels 









						DJI Drones for Boats: New Tethered Drone System Enables a Mavic 2 to Take-Off and Land on Small Vessels [VIDEO]
					

A new tethered drone system from Volarious enables DJI drones for boats.  The system allows a commercial off-the-shelf, Mavic 2 drone to autonomously take off, follow, and land safely on small vessels




					dronelife.com


----------



## PuckChaser

DJI drones should not be used anywhere near military assets, full stop. Unless of course you want it feeding ISR directly to China saving them the effort of hacking it out of our networks.


----------



## Navy_Pete

PuckChaser said:


> DJI drones should not be used anywhere near military assets, full stop. Unless of course you want it feeding ISR directly to China saving them the effort of hacking it out of our networks.


I think we should have all of Navy tech 'stolen' by China and see them deal with the impacts of trying to figure out how the hell a mod 9 (of 2) EC with particularizations for each ship (plus non-compliant flow through mistakes as redlines) works. If we could somehow combine that with them 'stealing' our 'procurement best practices' they'd fall apart within weeks.


----------



## Czech_pivo

AirDet said:


> The 57 is an excellent weapon system. Would such a small ship support almost triple (estimated) the weight for just one weapon system? I'd be willing to bet that this revolutionary ship will catch the eye of the rest of Europe and NATO. Who knows what systems others will choose to integrate into the hull.


Turns out that the weight of these Bel/Dut ships is 2,500t, so yes they should be easily handle the weight of a 57 when they are able to handle the weight of the 40's they are installing.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Question: assuming, as I do, that almost every ship ought to have organic aircraft embarked at (almost) all times, and assuming, as I also do, that really capable maritime helicopters are quite large, should we be designing smaller combatants (say 2,000 - 3,000 tons displacement) to embark and use UAVs rather than conventional, human crewed, helicopters?

(I'm also assuming that we actually need 20+ combat ships, that we will be lucky to get 10 of the Type 26 combat ships, that the AOPS are constabulary vice combat ships, and that, therefore, we will need 10+ general purpose small combatants (corvettes or OPS for those who hate the word corvette because it harks back to cheap and dirty).)


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> Question: assuming, as I do, that almost every ship ought to have organic aircraft embarked at (almost) all times, and assuming, as I also do, that really capable maritime helicopters are quite large, should we be designing smaller combatants (say 2,000 - 3,000 tons displacement) to embark and use UAVs rather than conventional, human crewed, helicopters?


For many tasks that is likely the future. Right now UAV's are very specific in their roles.  They do one job.  Helicopters are much more flexible.  But the ship size is not based on the helicopter size.  The ship size is based on all the other things you want a ship to do and what you need to put in it to do those things.  The helicopter is only one part of that equation.  Remember we used to take Sea Kings on 3000t steamers because the steamers were ASW specialists.

I'm waiting for some nation to design the "drone carrier", though likely that would look like an LHD or something anyways.  RoK had a carrier competition and one of the designs has a dedicated space for launch and recovery of smaller UAV's.  Some new ships have a separate hanger bay door for the UAV and helicopter.  Likely the hangar is one big space but that says something about UAV's management.  



> (I'm also assuming that we actually need 20+ combat ships, that we will be lucky to get 10 of the Type 26 combat ships, that the AOPS are constabulary vice combat ships, and that, therefore, we will need 10+ general purpose small combatants (corvettes or OPS for those who hate the word corvette because it harks back to cheap and dirty).)


AOPS are constabulary. The RCN classifies them as non-combatants (like we do with MCDV's).  OPV's (or OPS') and corvettes are different classifications these days as corvettes are supposed to be combatants and OPV's are supposed to be constabulary.  Though the lines blur like they always do between classes as ships seem to refuse to be pigeonholed these days.


----------



## KevinB

Maybe it is just me - but I would think that any Navy ships should be combatant craft - with constabulary duties secondary - and ships designed for non combatant roles be run by the Coast Guard, Ocean and Fisheries, etc...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks, Underway, that's most helpful; but it begs another question: is there a general purpose maritime UAV on the drawing boards, somewhere?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:


> DJI drones should not be used anywhere near military assets, full stop. Unless of course you want it feeding ISR directly to China saving them the effort of hacking it out of our networks.


DJI gets used for this sort of stuff because it is the most common and best retail drone out there for the price. Not to mention a huge forum of people who are trying out new stuff all the time with them. It's the tech they are using, the powered tether and assisted landing that is of interest.


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> Thanks, Underway, that's most helpful; but it begs another question: is there a general purpose maritime UAV on the drawing boards, somewhere?


US most likely has if one exists at all.  The Firescout is an interesting take that does RMP (recognized maritime picture) and can carry weapons.  But even crewed aircraft are fairly specialized.  Cyclone can do PAX transfer, some cargo, RMP and ASW.  There is a door gun as well.   But it can only do most of those roles because it carries people.

There are UAV's that have payload changes.  Swap out the attachments and it does something different.  Right now though for the RCN we seem to just focus on the straightforward RMP, which is completely fine.  Knowing who's who in the zoo is so important.   

I've discussed on this board a few times about a AEW type UAV which could be like CROWSNEST could be very important for RCN task group survival, giving non-carriers a carrier-type capability (not to sidetrack to much on the MCDV thread).


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> Maybe it is just me - but I would think that any Navy ships should be combatant craft - with constabulary duties secondary - and ships designed for non combatant roles be run by the Coast Guard, Ocean and Fisheries, etc...


We would if our CG actually guarded something....


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> AOPS are constabulary. The RCN classifies them as non-combatants (like we do with MCDV's).  OPV's (or OPS') and corvettes are different classifications these days as corvettes are supposed to be combatants and OPV's are supposed to be constabulary.  Though the lines blur like they always do between classes as ships seem to refuse to be pigeonholed these days.


It's also dependent on how willing the country is for the ship to survive combat. The classic combatant includes a lot of recoverability/survivability requirements that include things like shock resistance, compartmentalization, reconfiguarbility etc that significantly exceed SOLAS (which also drives larger crews for the DC side).

Some countries have OPVs built to commercial standards with none of those recoverability standards apply, and basically accept that they are likely to lose the ship if it sustains significant damage, so they just try and make it safe enough for people to evacuate in a damaged scenario, and beef up some countermeasures to try and avoid damage to start with. But with some of the warheads or heavy weight torpedos, it's somewhat academic regardless as they are big enough to render any corvette size ship into shavings and have a big enough shock wave to pulp the crew, even if it's not a direct hit.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> But with some of the warheads or heavy weight torpedos, it's somewhat academic regardless as they are big enough to render any corvette size ship into shavings and have a big enough shock wave to pulp the crew, even if it's not a direct hit.


Yep.

This is what happens when a small destroyer (so still larger than a Corvette) gets hit by one Mk 48 torpedo - the same that the RCN uses:


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> We would if our CG actually guarded something....


Fair point -- but I tend to think in a Navy Canada's size - that any ship has the habit of being pushed into Combatant Craft type work - that one would want from the get go - to have that sort of thing...


----------



## MarkOttawa

KevinB said:


> Fair point -- but I tend to think in a Navy Canada's size - that any ship has the habit of being pushed into Combatant Craft type work - that one would want from the get go - to have that sort of thing...


CCG guards with DFO vs fisheries violations, with  Environment (or whatever it is now) vs marine pollution, and with RCMP vs criminals on our waters.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Pete said:


> It's also dependent on how willing the country is for the ship to survive combat. The classic combatant includes a lot of recoverability/survivability requirements that include things like shock resistance, compartmentalization, reconfiguarbility etc that significantly exceed SOLAS (which also drives larger crews for the DC side).
> 
> Some countries have OPVs built to commercial standards with none of those recoverability standards apply, and basically accept that they are likely to lose the ship if it sustains significant damage, so they just try and make it safe enough for people to evacuate in a damaged scenario, and beef up some countermeasures to try and avoid damage to start with. But with some of the warheads or heavy weight torpedos, it's somewhat academic regardless as they are big enough to render any corvette size ship into shavings and have a big enough shock wave to pulp the crew, even if it's not a direct hit.


That's essentially the approach we took in 1939, right? It was militarily acceptable because the strategic imperative ~ deliver food, fuel and weapons to Britain ~ demanded something, even if it was a bit of a "throw-away."


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> Fair point -- but I tend to think in a Navy Canada's size - that any ship has the habit of being pushed into Combatant Craft type work - that one would want from the get go - to have that sort of thing...


Any navy has their fair share of non combatants and all ships are armed in one manner or another. Its all about what missions we are asking for them to do and the risk assessment. Been to West Africa in a Kingston Class in pirate waters and on the border of Russia doing AUV OPS, not once did I feel unsafe. While arming up every ship to a warship standard would be a welcome thing for some, in my opinion its just not needed.


----------



## KevinB

Personally I wouldn't feel to cozy in West Africa in a Kingston - 2 M2's isn't exactly firepower in that AO.


But it kind of does prove my point - that the RCN will put ships in areas that they are generally not suited for.
   One muppet with an RPG in a speedboat could give you a seriously bad day.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Edward Campbell said:


> That's essentially the approach we took in 1939, right? It was militarily acceptable because the strategic imperative ~ deliver food, fuel and weapons to Britain ~ demanded something, even if it was a bit of a "throw-away."


For sure, and a great approach for something like a torpedo boat, or the small fast boats some countries have with a few anti ship missiles fitted, or other general coastal boats, where you can overlap protection with land based assets (and patrol aircraft).

Not so great for blue water ships that you want to do multiple tasks, so in that case makes sense to invest in the extra effort when you have time in hand to do the build.  Plus we beat the crap out of our ships, so if we don't build them to mil-spec at the start we'll run them into the ground within a few cycles. A 15 year life is less of a worry when you are really only thinking a single convoy crossing at a time, but you could pit a few of our CPFs against our entire WW2 fleet and all they would be are puffs of smoke over the horizon, with breaks when the modern ships went back in to re-ammo.

The technology leap has made an individual ship orders of magnitudes more lethal, so costs a lot more. On the flip side with the modular ship building you can actually pump out a much higher effective production rate than before, but much more at the mercy of the globalized supply chain, so no idea if we could ramp up like that again. From that perspective makes more sense to have a better chance to recover and keep fighting.


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> Personally I wouldn't feel to cozy in West Africa in a Kingston - 2 M2's isn't exactly firepower in that AO.
> 
> 
> But it kind of does prove my point - that the RCN will put ships in areas that they are generally not suited for.
> One muppet with an RPG in a speedboat could give you a seriously bad day.


Ah the RPG in the side of the ship argument. If I had a dime for every time someone said we can't cross the ocean, go the Arctic, go out in that sea state etc, etc. Honestly if we worried about all the potential threats we wouldn't leave the Bedford Basin, let alone conduct OP Caribe and other missions. To be clear the Kingston Class is not there for anti piracy operations, we are there to train other African Coastal Forces and build relations in a poor part of the world and the ships are a pretty good platform to do it in. There is always the potential to stumble into something and that could happen anywhere and I am not discounting that.  We have drills and procedures to combat that and we get paid well to do it. I think we're doing a decent job in managing the risk.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> Ah the RPG in the side of the ship argument. If I had a dime for every time someone said we can't cross the ocean, go the Arctic, go out in that sea state etc, etc. Honestly if we worried about all the potential threats we wouldn't leave the Bedford Basin, let alone conduct OP Caribe and other missions. To be clear the Kingston Class is not there for anti piracy operations, we are there to train other African Coastal Forces and build relations in a poor part of the world and the ships are a pretty good platform to do it in. There is always the potential to stumble into something and that could happen anywhere and I am not discounting that.  We have drills and procedures to combat that and we get paid well to do it. I think we're doing a decent job in managing the risk.


There are old sailors, and bold sailors - but no old bold sailors


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Stoker said:


> Ah the RPG in the side of the ship argument. If I had a dime for every time someone said we can't cross the ocean, go the Arctic, go out in that sea state etc, etc. Honestly if we worried about all the potential threats we wouldn't leave the Bedford Basin, let alone conduct OP Caribe and other missions.


OP CARIBBE is like...the most permissible op area on the planet.  How safe would you feel in a non-permissible op area on an MCDV?   I'm betting you'd feel as safe as I would have if someone said "hey, we're going to penetrate west Syrian airspace!!!!". 

I think the poin_t _trying to be made is....Canada can't really have a small navy, with the majority of the grey hulls being 'constabulary/non-combatant'_ and_ still be taken seriously as a navy internationally.

Don't be upset though, the same applies to our Air Force and Army.  As a nation, we don't really have many teeth to bare...


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:


> OP CARIBBE is like...the most permissible op area on the planet.  How safe would you feel in a non-permissible op area on an MCDV?   I'm betting you'd feel as safe as I would have if someone said "hey, we're going to penetrate west Syrian airspace!!!!".
> 
> I think the poin_t _trying to be made is....Canada can't really have a small navy, with the majority of the grey hulls being 'constabulary/non-combatant'_ and_ still be taken seriously as a navy internationally.
> 
> Don't be upset though, the same applies to our Air Force and Army.  As a nation, we don't really have many teeth to bare...


My friend I do my job and go where they tell me to go with the equipment they give me. Its not lost on me that we are sending non combatants where perhaps a combatant would be more capable but I'm not buying the courting disaster argument and our navy being taken seriously.


----------



## Kirkhill

Royal Navy's River-class OPVs begin 5-year Indo-Pacific deployment - Naval News
					

Royal Navy River-class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) HMS Spey and HMS Tamar have today begun deployment to the Indo-Pacific region to bolster Britain’s presence in the region.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> My friend I do my job and go where they tell me to go with the equipment they give me. Its not lost on me that we are sending non combatants where perhaps a combatant would be more capable but I'm not buying the courting disaster argument and our navy being taken seriously.


I am definitely not try to disparage the Men and Women in the RCN.
    My belief is that the RCN Leadership/Management and the Government are not placing enough thought into what they are procuring given the history of sending assets places that are likely beyond the scope of the intent of the ship.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> I am definitely not try to disparage the Men and Women in the RCN CAF.
> My belief is that the RCN DND Leadership/Management and the Government are not placing enough thought into what they are procuring given the history of sending assets places that are likely beyond the scope of the intent of the ship vehicle


----------



## CBH99

Oh boy…Dimsum it’s so early we can’t even say it’s bright & early.  Put your grammar pen down.  

That’s it…put it down…


----------



## KevinB

@dimsum it was a Navy thread - so I didn't want to point to other Elements too...


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> @dimsum it was a Navy thread - so I didn't want to point to other Elements too...


I thinks he’s been hang out with some pilots, so some of them must have been rubbing off on him… 😉


----------



## Halifax Tar

The MCDVs are appropriately equipped until they are not.  The RPG into the beam is a fair concern.  

And unless your .50cal teams are miraculously better than those on the heavies your ability to stand off is not great @Stoker

The best thing CJOC and the RCN can do is make sure they are only employed in very low threat environments.


----------



## Good2Golf

Can Javelin be used against go fasts?


----------



## Underway

If you can accurately shoot an RPG from a moving boat at an MCDV I will be fairly shocked.  RPG max engagement range is 2000 yards but its accurate range is around 500-1000.  On land. Standing still.

How much 50 cal ammo are you eating to get into that range?  How brave is your boat crew before the bowels loosen and you have to break off or are suppressed?  Despite our media-driven fantasies "pirates" won't risk combat.  And small boat drivers won't risk the fire to get close enough to get a shot off even if they are adversarial.

Besides an RPG into the side of an MCDV will do limited damage.  Those ships have a lot of volume for an RPG to hit a critical system.   So now we are talking about a "golden BB" situation.

Could it kill someone?  Yes. Is it likely to even be a mission kill?  No, not even close.  Maybe starting a fire that could spread is the worst-case scenario. 

If the environment has bad guys with AT missiles on boats and a goal of causing chaos MCDV's won't be deployed.

The NATO MCM doctrine points to MCDV's (and all MCM vessels) being brought into permissive environments. If that environment is not permissive the frigates will make it so before an MCDV enters the area to hunt mines.  If it's still not permissive and MCDV's have to take a risk to do the mission then they do that.  The frigates provide overwatch/topcover and engage threats.

And if the big girls aren't available then we do our f-ing jobs anyways.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> If you can accurately shoot an RPG from a moving boat at an MCDV I will be fairly shocked.  RPG max engagement range is 2000 yards but its accurate range is around 500-1000.  On land. Standing still.
> 
> How much 50 cal ammo are you eating to get into that range?  How brave is your boat crew before the bowels loosen and you have to break off or are suppressed?  Despite our media-driven fantasies "pirates" won't risk combat.  And small boat drivers won't risk the fire to get close enough to get a shot off even if they are adversarial.
> 
> Besides an RPG into the side of an MCDV will do limited damage.  Those ships have a lot of volume for an RPG to hit a critical system.   So now we are talking about a "golden BB" situation.
> 
> Could it kill someone?  Yes. Is it likely to even be a mission kill?  No, not even close.  Maybe starting a fire that could spread is the worst-case scenario.
> 
> If the environment has bad guys with AT missiles on boats and a goal of causing chaos MCDV's won't be deployed.
> 
> The NATO MCM doctrine points to MCDV's (and all MCM vessels) being brought into permissive environments. If that environment is not permissive the frigates will make it so before an MCDV enters the area to hunt mines.  If it's still not permissive and MCDV's have to take a risk to do the mission then they do that.  The frigates provide overwatch/topcover and engage threats.
> 
> And if the big girls aren't available then we do our f-ing jobs anyways.



I feel like you're getting defensive for no reason. 

The MCDVs and their crews have earned their keep and then some.  No one can dispute that.  But advocating that they receive heavier armament isn't a slight.

With the utmost respect, I think you are overly confident in the damage and casualties that and RPG would cause to an MCDV, and its ability to carry on.  If a hole in the side, internal systems disrupted/destroyed; and a depleted (by casualties) watch and station bill isn't a mission kill, I don't know what is. 

Lets both agree that we hope we're just playing the what if game.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Can Javelin be used against go fasts?


Yes.



Underway said:


> If you can accurately shoot an RPG from a moving boat at an MCDV I will be fairly shocked.  RPG max engagement range is 2000 yards but its accurate range is around 500-1000.  On land. Standing still.


Most RPG warheads self detonate around 800m 
    For tank type target around 600m stationary is a reasonable range.

Having played the "launch an RPG from a moving vehicle game - I suspect that around 200m would be the time it gets dangerous to a MCDV.


Underway said:


> How much 50 cal ammo are you eating to get into that range?  How brave is your boat crew before the bowels loosen and you have to break off or are suppressed?  Despite our media-driven fantasies "pirates" won't risk combat.  And small boat drivers won't risk the fire to get close enough to get a shot off even if they are adversarial.


 I didn't say it was significantly likely - but when they do attack - its usually several fast boats - and 2x M2's isn't going to help - specifically the way those guns are positioned - there are arcs they just can't cover.



Underway said:


> Besides an RPG into the side of an MCDV will do limited damage.  Those ships have a lot of volume for an RPG to hit a critical system.   So now we are talking about a "golden BB" situation.


 Uhm - I think you may be being a little optimistic there - hitting the hull would cause a rather significant hole and the warhead would cut fairly deep into the ship - also since the entire rear of the ship cannot be covered by the M2's - you would have a pretty decent opportunity for a stern shot just above the water line.


Underway said:


> Could it kill someone?  Yes. Is it likely to even be a mission kill?  No, not even close.  Maybe starting a fire that could spread is the worst-case scenario.


It would take me about 3 minutes in a 14' aluminum boat to K-Kill that with an RPG, granted the average private wouldn't know all of that.



Underway said:


> If the environment has bad guys with AT missiles on boats and a goal of causing chaos MCDV's won't be deployed.
> 
> The NATO MCM doctrine points to MCDV's (and all MCM vessels) being brought into permissive environments. If that environment is not permissive the frigates will make it so before an MCDV enters the area to hunt mines.  If it's still not permissive and MCDV's have to take a risk to do the mission then they do that.  The frigates provide overwatch/topcover and engage threats.
> 
> And if the big girls aren't available then we do our f-ing jobs anyways.


I understand that -- my simply point was whatever replaces it - should have better defensive armaments.
   The fact that there are several civilians yacht's of similar size with better defensive systems is a little uninspiring.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> I feel like you're getting defensive for no reason.


No, just irritated.  The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me.  Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.

Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky.  Not intended. Love you people!


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> No, just irritated.  The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me.  Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.
> 
> Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky.  Not intended. Love you people!



I get you.  Hence why I said that CJOC and the RCN need to make sure they are sent to very low threat environments.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> No, just irritated.  The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me.  Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.
> 
> Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky.  Not intended. Love you people!


SO not the time for me to recommend a ring of C6's 

I really was not trying to be argumentative - at the same time I am a major proponent of MOR GUNZ 
   Mainly as I see any Naval vessel as a Warship - because they carry the National Flag.   Also because I see a lot of folks getting put into positions where I do not think they are adequately armed for defensive actions.
* By nature I tend to Red Team stuff - and think how I could screw with it.   Also having seen Somali etc pirates - I tend to err on the side of overwhelming firepower and shooting first.

I was surprised that when the 40mm Bofors where pulled - that only what seems to me to be a hard hearted attempt at looking at a replacement for them - the two different RWS with .50's (according to Wikipedia) aren't exactly what I would have opted for (again me and my firepower fetish).
   However I remember years ago talking to some RCN folks who had been on them early and aid they where exceptionally top heavy and ungainly - so I am guessing a CIWS or 25mm cannon was a no go for weight?

 Also remembering  the original Mine Sweeper role - I am guessing the positioning of the M2 where designed for Mine Engagement - and not point defense?   That would explain the placement I guess and why the rear is left without anything.

I still wish you had something like this, because the only think I like more than MOR GUNZ is Missiles and GUNZ


----------



## Kirkhill

5.56 - 6.5 - 7.62 - 8.61 - 12.7 - 14.5 - 20 - 25 - 27 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 57 - 76 -127 

Something of an interesting sliding scale for RWS systems available for vessels at sea.
If we take the calibre out of the discussion for the moment and go back and address Kevin's point about arcs and coverage two questions occur to me.

How many arcs do you need?  My suggestion is three based on an isosceles triangle with one forard and two back aft mounted as close to outboard as possible.

The second question is how many gunners do you need?  And do they all need to be on watch at the same time?

And as for missiles?









						Moog Turreted Weapon Systems
					

The Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform or (RIwP) is a flexible, scalable remote turret providing tailored overmatch and improved survivability against current and emerging threats across the full spectrum of conflict.




					www.moog.com
				














						Missile Launcher to Counter Swarm Boat Tactics
					

A great idea for naval ships. This new missile launcher could help naval ships defend against swarm boat tactics.




					www.military.com


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:


> No, just irritated.  The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me.  Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.
> 
> Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky.  Not intended. Love you people!



You're the reason we're not mounting Harpoon missiles on Zodiacs.  "Engineering" and "Physics" and "This isn't a video game" and "It would destroy the vessel immediately" and all those other excuses.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> You're the reason we're not mounting Harpoon missiles on Zodiacs.  "Engineering" and "Physics" and "This isn't a video game" and "It would destroy the vessel immediately" and all those other excuses.


You mean like this thing?



I can't even.  I mean what's its radar horizon anyways?  This is specifically designed to knife fight in the Aegean and nothing else.  I've stood on its deck.  It's freeboard is akin to that door they were floating on in Titanic.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> You mean like this thing?
> 
> View attachment 67587
> 
> I can't even.  I mean what's its radar horizon anyways?  This is specifically designed to knife fight in the Aegean and nothing else.  I've stood on its deck.  It's freeboard is akin to that door they were floating on in Titanic.


What's the freeboard if it was to fire everything anything?   It looks like maybe 8' in calm water less than 6' in the minor swell it's in - 

 I will say that even for me that seem a little too niche.



dapaterson said:


> You're the reason we're not mounting Harpoon missiles on Zodiacs.  "Engineering" and "Physics" and "This isn't a video game" and "It would destroy the vessel immediately" and all those other excuses.


You totally could mount a Harpoon on a Zodiac - they are roughly 1,500 lbs - depending on your mounting platform you'd be under weight for most of their line - even the inflatable non RHIB's, and while you couldn't fire it without destruction of the craft, it would look totally Bad Ass for onshore static demo's.
      You could make a RP/Autonomous variant - and clad it with stuff to make a fairly low vis deep strike setup.  A few of our less friendly countries have played with similar setups with some other missiles.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> You mean like this thing?
> 
> View attachment 67587
> 
> I can't even.  I mean what's its radar horizon anyways?  This is specifically designed to knife fight in the Aegean and nothing else.  I've stood on its deck.  It's freeboard is akin to that door they were floating on in Titanic.



Insh'Allah.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I go back to my _belief_  (grounded in what admirals and officials said 15, 25 and even 35 years ago) that Canada needs a blue-water Navy with 20-30 combatant surface ships. I also _believe_ that we will be lucky to afford more than 8 to 12 of the new Type 26 major combatants. Therefore I _believe_ that Canada will need 10 to 20 small combatants.

My "model" for the small combatant is based on our history. In 1940 it was clear, after only a year or war, that the _Flower class_ _corvette_ was inadequate. There were two competing views: slightly bigger, somewhat better _corvettes_ (which did materialize in 1943 as the _Castle Class_) or a twin-screw "super-corvette" which was named the_ frigate_ and was ordered, initially, in 1940.

There was a difference: the first _frigates_ (River Class) were bigger and better but more difficult to build and to crew than were the improved _corvettes_. That mattered in 1941/42/43 when the Royal Canadian Navy, especially, had 'trained' too may people too quickly and entire ships' companies needed retraining in everything from engineering to ship handling. But, despite being more difficult to build and to crew, the frigates were better ships by almost every measure: seakeeping, armament and protection and habitability.

It occurs to me that our current MCDVs are most akin to _Flower Class_ corvettes: cheap, simple, civilian pattern ships pressed into military service. The _Flowers_ were selected because they could be easily (and quickly and cheaply) built in small yards that could not build a warship. The _Kingston_ class was ordered as a stopgap to keep the Atlantic shipbuilding industry afloat (pun intended). Some admirals actually wanted real minesweepers but Canadian yards couldn't build a proper minesweeper hull. They became "shad-boats" because the RCN didn't really want them; they were an engineer's solution to a political problem.

I _think_ we need to make a 1940 choice today. The right choice is to build a 2030s version of the old _River Class_ rather than a upscaled MCDV. It will still be a small combatant but it needs to be a real warship, not a civilian vessel done up in "war paint." That means it needs to de designed, from the bottom up, as a warship, with the right mix of weapons and systems, including, in my _guesstimate_, an organic/embarked, multi-purpose UAV, and a global, blue-water, range.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> I go back to my _belief_  (grounded in what admirals and officials said 15, 25 and even 35 years ago) that Canada needs a blue-water Navy with 20-30 combatant surface ships. I also _believe_ that we will be lucky to afford more than 8 to 12 of the new Type 26 major combatants. Therefore I _believe_ that Canada will need 10 to 20 small combatants.
> 
> My "model" for the small combatant is based on our history. In 1940 it was clear, after only a year or war, that the _Flower class_ _corvette_ was inadequate. There were two competing views: slightly bigger, somewhat better _corvettes_ (which did materialize in 1943 as the _Castle Class_) or a twin-screw "super-corvette" which was named the_ frigate_ and was ordered, initially, in 1940.
> 
> There was a difference: the first _frigates_ (River Class) were bigger and better but more difficult to build and to crew than were the improved _corvettes_. That mattered in 1941/42/43 when the Royal Canadian Navy, especially, had 'trained' too may people too quickly and entire ships' companies needed retraining in everything from engineering to ship handling. But, despite being more difficult to build and to crew, the frigates were better ships by almost every measure: seakeeping, armament and protection and habitability.
> 
> It occurs to me that our current MCDVs are most akin to _Flower Class_ corvettes: cheap, simple, civilian pattern ships pressed into military service. The _Flowers_ were selected because they could be easily (and quickly and cheaply) built in small yards that could not build a warship. The _Kingston_ class was ordered as a stopgap to keep the Atlantic shipbuilding industry afloat (pun intended). Some admirals actually wanted real minesweepers but Canadian yards couldn't build a proper minesweeper hull. They became "shad-boats" because the RCN didn't really want them; they were an engineer's solution to a political problem.
> 
> I _think_ we need to make a 1940 choice today. The right choice is to build a 2030s version of the old _River Class_ rather than a upscaled MCDV. It will still be a small combatant but it needs to be a real warship, not a civilian vessel done up in "war paint." That means it needs to de designed, from the bottom up, as a warship, with the right mix of weapons and systems, including, in my _guesstimate_, an organic/embarked, multi-purpose UAV, and a global, blue-water, range.



A complement of "marines" as well?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> A complement of "marines" as well?



lol Oh god the Royal Canadian Marines!  Isn't there a thread about that ? lol


----------



## kratz

Halifax Tar said:


> lol Oh god the Royal Canadian Marines!  Isn't there a thread about that ? lol


Yes... Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> Most RPG warheads self detonate around 800m
> For tank type target around 600m stationary is a reasonable range.
> 
> Having played the "launch an RPG from a moving vehicle game - I suspect that around 200m would be the time it gets dangerous to a MCDV.
> 
> I didn't say it was significantly likely - but when they do attack - its usually several fast boats - and 2x M2's isn't going to help - specifically the way those guns are positioned - there are arcs they just can't cover.
> 
> 
> Uhm - I think you may be being a little optimistic there - hitting the hull would cause a rather significant hole and the warhead would cut fairly deep into the ship - also since the entire rear of the ship cannot be covered by the M2's - you would have a pretty decent opportunity for a stern shot just above the water line.
> 
> It would take me about 3 minutes in a 14' aluminum boat to K-Kill that with an RPG, granted the average private wouldn't know all of that.
> 
> 
> I understand that -- my simply point was whatever replaces it - should have better defensive armaments.
> The fact that there are several civilians yacht's of similar size with better defensive systems is a little uninspiring.


Actually another potentiel threat might be Anti-tank rifles like the PRTD 41. I suspect that 14.5mm AP round could go through most of a MCDV and out the other side, if it did not hit anything major on the way through.

The Last Hurrah of the Boys Anti-Tank Rifle; When the IRA Shot a Royal Navy Torpedo Boat! - Military History - Military Matters


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:


> No, just irritated.  The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me.  Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.
> 
> Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky.  Not intended. Love you people!



I think many of us have seen kit designed for a purpose, end up in areas it wasn't intended for, sometimes to the fatal detriment of those on board.

Iltis + Afghanistan jumps into my head immediately.   What's the more important point, to me at least, is that Canada and our government will send kit into areas it was never really designed for.


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> SO not the time for me to recommend a ring of C6's
> 
> I really was not trying to be argumentative - at the same time I am a major proponent of MOR GUNZ
> Mainly as I see any Naval vessel as a Warship - because they carry the National Flag.   Also because I see a lot of folks getting put into positions where I do not think they are adequately armed for defensive actions.
> * By nature I tend to Red Team stuff - and think how I could screw with it.   Also having seen Somali etc pirates - I tend to err on the side of overwhelming firepower and shooting first.
> 
> I was surprised that when the 40mm Bofors where pulled - that only what seems to me to be a hard hearted attempt at looking at a replacement for them - the two different RWS with .50's (according to Wikipedia) aren't exactly what I would have opted for (again me and my firepower fetish).
> However I remember years ago talking to some RCN folks who had been on them early and aid they where exceptionally top heavy and ungainly - so I am guessing a CIWS or 25mm cannon was a no go for weight?
> 
> Also remembering  the original Mine Sweeper role - I am guessing the positioning of the M2 where designed for Mine Engagement - and not point defense?   That would explain the placement I guess and why the rear is left without anything.
> 
> I still wish you had something like this, because the only think I like more than MOR GUNZ is Missiles and GUNZ
> View attachment 67580


The 40mm was put on as a low cost solution as we owned a bunch in order to keep the cost of the ship on budget. It was supposed to be used for mine destruction similar to MCM ships of the time. The idea was you swept mines using mechanical minesweeping gear and you detonated it when it floated to the surface. After a few years minesweeping was discontinued and the gun stayed until a few years ago when they were removed because of a shortage of parts and it was determined that we really didn't need the gun and the cost saved from useless trials and maintenance.

Since then we trialed two RWS .50 Cals, the first in 2005 for the CPF's and the other a couple of years ago using surpluses RWS mounts that were marinized. I was there for both trials. The second trial gun wasn't found suitable.

As a person who was in them at the beginning and a engineer they are certainly not top heavy. Placing a CWIS which is an 13000 lb high weight on the foscile which is not resigned for that whatsoever would create all kinds of issues in stability. Placing a 3000 lb MK38  or similar no issues.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So is the 13000lb CWIS the one from the AOP's?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> So is the 13000lb CWIS the one from the AOP's?


I think he's referring to a PHALANX, Colin. They're about that weight, IIRC.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> I think he's referring to a PHALANX, Colin. They're about that weight, IIRC.


Close In Weapon System is indeed the Phalanx.  The one on the AOPS is a 25mm IIRC.


----------



## GR66

Edward Campbell said:


> I go back to my _belief_  (grounded in what admirals and officials said 15, 25 and even 35 years ago) that Canada needs a blue-water Navy with 20-30 combatant surface ships. I also _believe_ that we will be lucky to afford more than 8 to 12 of the new Type 26 major combatants. Therefore I _believe_ that Canada will need 10 to 20 small combatants.
> 
> My "model" for the small combatant is based on our history. In 1940 it was clear, after only a year or war, that the _Flower class_ _corvette_ was inadequate. There were two competing views: slightly bigger, somewhat better _corvettes_ (which did materialize in 1943 as the _Castle Class_) or a twin-screw "super-corvette" which was named the_ frigate_ and was ordered, initially, in 1940.
> 
> There was a difference: the first _frigates_ (River Class) were bigger and better but more difficult to build and to crew than were the improved _corvettes_. That mattered in 1941/42/43 when the Royal Canadian Navy, especially, had 'trained' too may people too quickly and entire ships' companies needed retraining in everything from engineering to ship handling. But, despite being more difficult to build and to crew, the frigates were better ships by almost every measure: seakeeping, armament and protection and habitability.
> 
> It occurs to me that our current MCDVs are most akin to _Flower Class_ corvettes: cheap, simple, civilian pattern ships pressed into military service. The _Flowers_ were selected because they could be easily (and quickly and cheaply) built in small yards that could not build a warship. The _Kingston_ class was ordered as a stopgap to keep the Atlantic shipbuilding industry afloat (pun intended). Some admirals actually wanted real minesweepers but Canadian yards couldn't build a proper minesweeper hull. They became "shad-boats" because the RCN didn't really want them; they were an engineer's solution to a political problem.
> 
> I _think_ we need to make a 1940 choice today. The right choice is to build a 2030s version of the old _River Class_ rather than a upscaled MCDV. It will still be a small combatant but it needs to be a real warship, not a civilian vessel done up in "war paint." That means it needs to de designed, from the bottom up, as a warship, with the right mix of weapons and systems, including, in my _guesstimate_, an organic/embarked, multi-purpose UAV, and a global, blue-water, range.


Agree 100%.  And two other factors to consider in my opinion. 

1) When we get into a real shooting war and decide that we need more combatant ships we will not have the capability to produce them as quickly as we did in WW2.

2)  In a real shooting war ships will be lost.  If you only have 12-15 combatants you will quickly end up with no effective fighting force.  You need enough ships to take losses.  Since we can't afford 30 x CSCs then we will need to supplement them with small combatants.  Adding non-combatant OPVs to a fleet the size of ours is basically wasting resources on ships and crews that can't contribute to the fight.  Non-combatants that can directly contribute capabilities during wartime (dedicated MCMV's, Support Vessels, etc.) are another story, but I don't see the value of an OPV in a Navy our size if we are serious about being able to fight a war.


----------



## suffolkowner

Swampbuggy said:


> I think he's referring to a PHALANX, Colin. They're about that weight, IIRC.





Colin Parkinson said:


> So is the 13000lb CWIS the one from the AOP's?



CIWS for AOR
25mm for AOPS
30mm for CSC
???? for MCDV replacement


Underway said:


> You mean like this thing?
> 
> View attachment 67587
> 
> I can't even.  I mean what's its radar horizon anyways?  This is specifically designed to knife fight in the Aegean and nothing else.  I've stood on its deck.  It's freeboard is akin to that door they were floating on in Titanic.


It's amazing the firepower other navies cram on their ships


----------



## dimsum

suffolkowner said:


> It's amazing the firepower other navies cram on their ships


I'd be more concerned about the thing shaking itself apart if it fired the 76mm, 2x 35mm, and Harpoon at the same time.   😬


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> It's amazing the firepower other navies cram on their ships


I am reminded of a story about the Canadian crewed Patrol Boats in the English channel during WW2 (real or made up, no idea).  They had very high accuracy rates with their 50 cal and other guns against german PTs of similar size.  When it was asked what they did to improve the accuracy the response was simply "we have no gun shields". 

If you are accurate with your weapons you don't need more of them.



> I'd be more concerned about the thing shaking itself apart if it fired the 76mm, 2x 35mm, and Harpoon at the same time



That's its job.  Kill more stuff before it gets killed.  Falling apart is fine as long as the missiles are away!  Lol


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> I'd be more concerned about the thing shaking itself apart if it fired the 76mm, 2x 35mm, and Harpoon at the same time.   😬


It would be half underwater at that point - so it the water would dampen the vibrations...



Underway said:


> I am reminded of a story about the Canadian crewed Patrol Boats in the English channel during WW2 (real or made up, no idea).  They had very high accuracy rates with their 50 cal and other guns against german PTs of similar size.  When it was asked what they did to improve the accuracy the response was simply "we have no gun shields".


Well I guess you couldn't hid behind the shield - so you would aim, and incentivized to aim, as you couldn't hide behind a shield,


Underway said:


> If you are accurate with your weapons you don't need more of them.


 Screaming Red Chinese horde begs to differ.  Some times you really do need MOR GUNZ 
     Generally I do agree with you premise though.

I'm a firm believer in range bands and 360 coverage - I have no idea what a reasonable range band would be for a ship - but I'm familiar with small team ground work.   When a 12-14 Man Det has a larger range band with its organic weapons than a Naval Ship does - I cry a little.


I really wish you could find 2 or more C6's in pintle mounts to cover the 6.
    Wouldn't solve my range concerns - but would solve the rear security potential issue.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> It would be half underwater at that point - so it the water would dampen the vibrations...
> 
> 
> Well I guess you couldn't hid behind the shield - so you would aim, and incentivized to aim, as you couldn't hide behind a shield,
> 
> Screaming Red Chinese horde begs to differ.  Some times you really do need MOR GUNZ
> Generally I do agree with you premise though.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in range bands and 360 coverage - I have no idea what a reasonable range band would be for a ship - but I'm familiar with small team ground work.   When a 12-14 Man Det has a larger range band with its organic weapons than a Naval Ship does - I cry a little.
> 
> I really wish you could find 2 or more C6's in pintle mounts to cover the 6.
> Wouldn't solve my range concerns - but would solve the rear security potential issue.



I presume the ship has small arms like C6s, etc that can be brought to the sweepdeck to do that.  It's not like an MCDV _only_ has the .50s.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> It would be half underwater at that point - so it the water would dampen the vibrations...
> 
> 
> Well I guess you couldn't hid behind the shield - so you would aim, and incentivized to aim, as you couldn't hide behind a shield,
> 
> Screaming Red Chinese horde begs to differ.  Some times you really do need MOR GUNZ
> Generally I do agree with you premise though.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in range bands and 360 coverage - I have no idea what a reasonable range band would be for a ship - but I'm familiar with small team ground work.   When a 12-14 Man Det has a larger range band with its organic weapons than a Naval Ship does - I cry a little.
> 
> View attachment 67610
> I really wish you could find 2 or more C6's in pintle mounts to cover the 6.
> Wouldn't solve my range concerns - but would solve the rear security potential issue.


Story time:
Once we did an exercise with SOF who were trying to do an opposed boarding onto the MCDV with their new RHIBs.  As they approached from the stern the CO went over behind the helmsman and quietly stated "steer by both thrusters".  The whole bridge team looked over at him and nodded.  He had taken control of the con.

The next thing out of his mouth was "green nine zero" which means the thrust from the propellers is directly 90 degrees from the stern.  The ship within its own length spun around hard.  As we were rotating the CO stated "Green one eight zero".  

The final position within 20 seconds was a full Rockford turn in reverse,  both 50 cals, overlapping arcs on the RHIBs who were chasing.  "Gotcha..."

There are no out-of-fire arcs on those ships, they can turn just too damn fast.  Lots of fun.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> I presume the ship has small arms like C6s, etc that can be brought to the sweepdeck to do that.  It's not like an MCDV _only_ has the .50s.


Yes, I've sailed on them with C6 and C9's embarked for opposed exits and entries.  Not sure if C6 is a normal issue or if it's for heightened security threats or not on them these days.

OP CARIBE IIRC the USCG bring onboard sharpshooters as well.  The NTOG folks if embarked also have sharpshooters.


----------



## Stoker

dimsum said:


> I presume the ship has small arms like C6s, etc that can be brought to the sweepdeck to do that.  It's not like an MCDV _only_ has the .50s.


Yes we have C9's onboard and are available if needed.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> There are no out-of-fire arcs on those ships, they can turn just too damn fast.  Lots of fun.


Well there are out of fire arcs still - but you are mitigating those due to its rate of turn.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> Yes we have C9's onboard and are available if needed.


Secondary anchors?


  While a fan of 5.56mm for many things, anti-vehicle usages aren't on that list.    But against soft craft - they can be very useful - as well as anti-personnel...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> I am reminded of a story about the Canadian crewed Patrol Boats in the English channel during WW2 (real or made up, no idea).  They had very high accuracy rates with their 50 cal and other guns against german PTs of similar size.  When it was asked what they did to improve the accuracy the response was simply "we have no gun shields".
> 
> If you are accurate with your weapons you don't need more of them.
> 
> 
> 
> That's its job.  Kill more stuff before it gets killed.  Falling apart is fine as long as the missiles are away!  Lol



Wrote a report on Thomas Fuller for a course a few years back.  Dude was just made different.

Canadian MGB and MTB operations fascinate me. 

Back on track, sorry


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A good question was raised on social media, why does a MCDV need two tugs to dock?


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> A good question was raised on social media, why does a MCDV need two tugs to dock?


My guess is "cold move".


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> I am reminded of a story about the Canadian crewed Patrol Boats in the English channel during WW2 (real or made up, no idea).  They had very high accuracy rates with their 50 cal and other guns against german PTs of similar size.  When it was asked what they did to improve the accuracy the response was simply "we have no gun shields".
> 
> If you are accurate with your weapons you don't need more of them.
> 
> 
> 
> That's its job.  Kill more stuff before it gets killed.  Falling apart is fine as long as the missiles are away!  Lol


There is an awesome book called “The Champagne Navy” which covers RCN Patrol boats Ops during WW2.

Suffice it to say that the stuff they pulled off was hair-raising and should be the subject of a feature length movie.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> There is an awesome book called “The Champagne Navy” which covers RCN Patrol boats Ops during WW2.
> 
> Suffice it to say that the stuff they pulled off was hair-raising and should be the subject of a feature length movie.



Excellent book.


----------



## MARS

dimsum said:


> My guess is "cold move".


This is the correct answer which I can confirm based on the combination of flags that are flying.

As to why a MM under its own power might employ ugs:  prudence and risk mitigation.  My first ever CO was an outstanding shiphandler and also thought it was unnecessary to button on tugs when a MM is about as manouvreable as a tug. so, in the name of training as we fight and keeping skills sharp, he exevtuted a beautiful alongside in 35+ kt winds.  The Squad Boss saw it from an adjacent ship and promptly put my CO an remedial measures for needlessly risking  HMC equipment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile on the other side the CCG is plunking it's ships to the dock with no tugs, also "risking" HMC equipment. The Squad Boss needs a kick in the butt, for lack of trust in their choice of CO's.

Thanks for the flag info


----------



## Underway

I've been onboard a CCG transiting the canals on the way to Lake Superior.  Grinding the ship along the side of a lock causing smoke from the friction was standard operating procedure.  Very different way of doing things.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In the commercial coastal trade on the westcoast they say : "if you haven't hit something, you haven't been around enough". I can't fathom a MCDV needing to do a cold move unless there is a propulsion problem already. They are not big vessels and flashing them up to do a short hop is not a significant event. Plus it gives the deck officer and the CO time on the wheel which is where you learn your ship handing.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> In the commercial coastal trade on the westcoast they say : "if you haven't hit something, you haven't been around enough". I can't fathom a MCDV needing to do a cold move unless there is a propulsion problem already. They are not big vessels and flashing them up to do a short hop is not a significant event. Plus it gives the deck officer and the CO time on the wheel which is where you learn your ship handing.


Well Colin most of the CCG ships you talk about have bow thrusters, MCDV's don't and the frigates don't. If the tugs are available I see no issue taking them. Just for the record we don't always take tugs either. The picture above is several ships that came back from a pretty intensive sea training two weeks and propulsion is up. Why are they taking them? most likely because its pretty tight in the camber and they probably want to secure and get home and using tugs speeds things up.

For MCDV's we usually do a cold move because we may have systems down for maintenance , may have to move to another jetty because of a high priority ship coming in or as simple as to facilitate crane work to remove payloads etc. There are literally dozens of reasons why we do cold moves when we don't want to do a lengthy flash up for a simple move.

So no offense stop comparing us to the CCG.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> In the commercial coastal trade on the westcoast they say : "if you haven't hit something, you haven't been around enough". I can't fathom a MCDV needing to do a cold move unless there is a propulsion problem already. They are not big vessels and flashing them up to do a short hop is not a significant event. Plus it gives the deck officer and the CO time on the wheel which is where you learn your ship handing.


We do jetty dancing all the time.  The cold move is easy, as you don't need to get much more than line handlers and the officer of the day to do it.  CO isn't even onboard half the time.  Doing a hot move requires too many people involved and is a hassle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> Well Colin most of the CCG ships you talk about have bow thrusters, MCDV's don't and the frigates don't. If the tugs are available I see no issue taking them. Just for the record we don't always take tugs either. The picture above is several ships that came back from a pretty intensive sea training two weeks and propulsion is up. Why are they taking them? most likely because its pretty tight in the camber and they probably want to secure and get home and using tugs speeds things up.
> 
> For MCDV's we usually do a cold move because we may have systems down for maintenance , may have to move to another jetty because of a high priority ship coming in or as simple as to facilitate crane work to remove payloads etc. There are literally dozens of reasons why we do cold moves when we don't want to do a lengthy flash up for a simple move.
> 
> So no offense stop comparing us to the CCG.


Bow thrusters pah! None on the R Class and this baby had only direct drive diesels, quickly separated the men from the boys in terms of ship handling, air start so you only had so many gear changes....







Plus if you put bigger guns and stuff on them it would so less confusing (sorry couldn't resist)


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Bow thrusters pah! None on the R Class and this baby had only direct drive diesels, quickly separated the men from the boys in terms of ship handling, air start so you only had so many gear changes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus if you put bigger guns and stuff on them it would so less confusing (sorry couldn't resist)


Not talking about the R Class but you certainly were talking about the 1100 class.....I get it you guys are a bunch of ship handling wizards.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

There are many reasons to cold move as opposed to hot moving. One of them is availability of  a command qualified officer and a CERA on board, other ones are time and available personnel considerations. There is also the fact, Colin, that in the RCN, unlike the Coast Guard, we have our own tugs present in harbour and dedicated to nothing else than service of the fleet. Unlike the CCG, we don't have to hire outside tug companies. Finally, our hulls are generally not of the type you can bounce into things, again unlike yours, and it comes down to "why take chances with a billion dollars asset if you can avoid problems by spending a few thousand dollars", especially for the subs and frigates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I so get it for the bigger ships, but for the MCDV's it seems that for most times like a good chance to practice ship handling and give the up and coming Deck Officers a chance to learn ship handling.


----------



## MARS

Colin Parkinson said:


> I so get it for the bigger ships, but for the MCDV's it seems that for most times like a good chance to practice ship handling and give the up and coming Deck Officers a chance to learn ship handling.


It absolutely is all that, unless its a day where half the ships company is at the range, or the ENTIRE ships company is on post deployment leave and you are cold moving someone else's ship, or..and this my favorite...you get a call saying you need to move jetties in the next 60 min because QHM decided a week ago they needed NB clear for king post trials for a FFG but no one informed the MM that needed to move,, because why include SHADs in those meetings??  

Fucking clowns.

Its not like a CO wakes up one morning and says I'm going to do some jetty bashing for watchleeper PD today. i mean, I did wake up feeling  like that often but aside from the fact that something like that requires a navigation and seamanship plan that isn't thrown together at the last minute, a ship alongside has dozens of things scheduled that day - maintenance. Trg, leave, storing ship,  etc that preclude closing everyone up to get underway. And try radiating on a day when you aren't scheduled to be radiating ,surrounded by frigates with people aloft or doing crane work or whatever. Not gonna happen.  He'll even if you were a FFG CO, you would be hard pressed to have that kind of juice.

Thanks to Stoker for correcting me - not a cold move in the pic.  I though I was looking at a 3rd sub flying, indicating the CO was ashore, but my tired eyes on my tiny phone now see it is the Desig flag.  Although I would have thought her call sign would have still been hoisted until she had a line on the jetty, but then again its been a while since I looked at the Manual of Ceremony for HMC Ships


----------



## Colin Parkinson

West Coastal wise there is a pecking order in who gets to strut their stuff in this sort of order:

Tugboaters (with levels as well)
Ship Pilots
CCG buoy tenders
Ferry Captains
CCG SAR boats
Navy vessels
.
.
.
.Recreational boaters and way down the list "rag hangers"

To be fair to the Navy, they get no credit from the coastal crowd for open ocean RAS underway as few non-navy people get to see it and understand how difficult it is. Most of what the Coastal crowd sees is the Navy training vessels often making mistakes due to the fact that people are learning


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> To be fair to the Navy, they get no credit from the coastal crowd for open ocean RAS underway as few non-navy people get to see it and understand how difficult it is. Most of what the Coastal crowd sees is the Navy training vessels often making mistakes due to the fact that people are learning


Yes, the Orca's are a terror everywhere between Rocky Point and Cambell River.  Look out, new ship drivers coming through!


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> Yes, the Orca's are a terror everywhere between Rocky Point and Cambell River.  Look out, new ship drivers coming through!


I'm surprised no one has drawn an L or N plate in the back.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MARS said:


> This is the correct answer which I can confirm based on the combination of flags that are flying.



So the exhaust in the pic is not from the MCDV?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MARS said:


> Thanks to Stoker for correcting me - not a cold move in the pic.  I though I was looking at a 3rd sub flying, indicating the CO was ashore, but my tired eyes on my tiny phone now see it is the Desig flag.



Answered on the next page, I should have hit "pause".  😁


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:


> So the exhaust in the pic is not from the MCDV?


That will be for hotel (keeping the lights on) services during the cold move.


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> That will be for hotel (keeping the lights on) services during the cold move.


Looked like a lot of exhaust.  Would that have been one of the propulsion DGs flashed up or one of the smaller aux DGs?


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:


> Looked like a lot of exhaust.  Would that have been one of the propulsion DGs flashed up or one of the smaller aux DGs?


Honestly, I don't know the engine arrangement for the MCDV's. But it looks like a god damn cold day so any exhaust is going to show.


----------



## Journeyman

MARS said:


> I though I was looking at a 3rd sub flying, indicating the CO was ashore, but my tired eyes on my tiny phone now see it is the Desig flag.  Although I would have thought her call sign would have still been hoisted until she had a line on the jetty, but then again its been a while since I looked at the Manual of Ceremony for HMC Ships


The only flags we were taught during boat-driving training were Alpha and Bravo. "Different reasons, but they both mean 'stay the fuck away from me'."


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:


> That will be for hotel (keeping the lights on) services during the cold move.


Actually no, that ship had its propulsion up and three of four DA's online as it was at specials. Hotel load was provided by the Motor Alternator which is powered by 600V from the ships propulsion switchboard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Mind explaining “at specials”?  🙂


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> Mind explaining “at specials”?  🙂


Nautical term to confuse those of us non Navy types


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:


> Mind explaining “at specials”?  🙂


The ship is closed up with "Special Sea Dutymen", meaning the ship is "fully" crewed(has enough to sail), and the pers who handle lines(part ship hands), staff steering, throttles, emergency steering, etc., are at their positions to take the ship alongside. 

The folks in the orange floater coats are Sea Training, who are watching the crew, and assessing their ability to conduct operations safely.


----------



## dimsum

Furniture said:


> The folks in the orange floater coats are Sea Training, who are watching the crew, and assessing their ability to conduct operations safely.


Strange - I didn't see the red hats and involuntarily shudder...


----------



## Furniture

dimsum said:


> Strange - I didn't see the red hats and involuntarily shudder...


Maybe ST(A) doesn't have red toques like ST(P) does? I've never seen anyone but Sea Training in orange floater coats.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> Nautical term to confuse those of us non Navy types


----------



## Stoker

Furniture said:


> Maybe ST(A) doesn't have red toques like ST(P) does? I've never seen anyone but Sea Training in orange floater coats.


When I was in Sea Training we had them, its possible that they fell out of favor. I believe the pilots also have orange floater coats.


----------



## Good2Golf

Furniture said:


> The ship is closed up with "Special Sea Dutymen", meaning the ship is "fully" crewed(has enough to sail), and the pers who handle lines(part ship hands), staff steering, throttles, emergency steering, etc., are at their positions to take the ship alongside.
> 
> The folks in the orange floater coats are Sea Training, who are watching the crew, and assessing their ability to conduct operations safely.


So….an abundance of special seamen?


----------



## Rainbow1910

With the MCDV's seemingly serviceable for at least another decade if not more, is there any existing domestic yards which could build her replacement? It would seem that Irving, Seaspan and Davie are busy into the foreseeable future and I am not familiar with any other shipbuilders in Canada which could be relied upon to build a ship very likely even larger than the MCDV's.


----------



## YZT580

Rainbow1910 said:


> With the MCDV's seemingly serviceable for at least another decade if not more, is there any existing domestic yards which could build her replacement? It would seem that Irving, Seaspan and Davie are busy into the foreseeable future and I am not familiar with any other shipbuilders in Canada which could be relied upon to build a ship very likely even larger than the MCDV's.


Heddle would be delighted to obtain the government investment in their yards needed to build a replacement and they have the physical infrastructure to provide a good foundation upon which to build.  They have dry docks in both Thunder Bay and St. Catharines that can handle the largest ship capable of transiting the Seaway and they are developing a skilled labour force as a result of being the only game in town for Canadian operators.  they also have the interior space needed to build the modules.


----------



## Underway

Rainbow1910 said:


> With the MCDV's seemingly serviceable for at least another decade if not more, is there any existing domestic yards which could build her replacement? It would seem that Irving, Seaspan and Davie are busy into the foreseeable future and I am not familiar with any other shipbuilders in Canada which could be relied upon to build a ship very likely even larger than the MCDV's.


Depends on what the replacement looks like.  I suspect that it will go to Vancouver Shipyards as by the time they are done with the JSS and Icebreaker their yard will have space.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Seaspan won't have much space--they are supposed in 2030s to build a whole bunch of CCG vessels--2019 story: 



> Seaspan to build 16 more Coast Guard ships says Trudeau​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaspan to build 16 more Coast Guard ships says Trudeau
> 
> 
> Up to 16 new Coast Guard ships will be built at Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.squamishchief.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

YZT580 said:


> Heddle would be delighted to obtain the government investment in their yards needed to build a replacement and they have the physical infrastructure to provide a good foundation upon which to build.  They have dry docks in both Thunder Bay and St. Catharines that can handle the largest ship capable of transiting the Seaway and they are developing a skilled labour force as a result of being the only game in town for Canadian operators.  they also have the interior space needed to build the modules.


one other thing, they are also on side with Seaspan so they could work in tandem with them, utilizing Seaspan's acquired design skills to avoid costly and time consuming duplications.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

7 of these 





and 7 of these






I think the MCDV's are awesome little ships, but I don't want to wait for them to fall apart, like we have for every other class.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).

I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).
> 
> I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.


@Stoker I believe was saying that they are looking at about 1200-ton replacements with a similar crew size.  Proper OPV.

CPF's parked for sure.  East coast needs to lay one up IMHO.


----------



## YZT580

Underway said:


> @Stoker I believe was saying that they are looking at about 1200-ton replacements with a similar crew size.  Proper OPV.
> 
> CPF's parked for sure.  East coast needs to lay one up IMHO.


perhaps that isn't so bad.  When troubles threaten it is far faster and easier to find and train a crew than it is to start from scratch building a ship.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We have a small, semi-capable Navy.  Laying up any ship isn’t a good thing. It’s a sign of very day times IMO.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Navy_Pete said:


> Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).
> 
> I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.


Is this listed anywhere publicly? This is the first I've heard of such a thing. 


Underway said:


> Depends on what the replacement looks like.  I suspect that it will go to Vancouver Shipyards as by the time they are done with the JSS and Icebreaker their yard will have space.


As somebody else said above, I think Seaspan is going to be busy for the foreseeable future. The 2021 Auditor General of Canada report regarding the National Shipbuilding Strategy has Seaspan listed as working on building Multi-purpose vessels for the CCG until the early 2040's, potentially even later as delays rack up. Irving is going to be busy with the CSC until nearly the 2050's and Davie will have their plate full for atleast a decade or more as well. Doesn't leave a lot of options available in regard to big yards.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Rainbow1910 said:


> Is this listed anywhere publicly? This is the first I've heard of such a thing.



Yes, it's in a few of the NSS annual reports, multiple press releases, SME opinion pieces etc. It's not a secret but one of those details that most reporters don't even twig to, so not frequently mentioned. It was a key part of the NSS plan to avoid carving out small shipyards that were capable of building things like the tugs etc as there are a few dozen smaller yards that can do that kind of work.

It's usually talked about as part of the 'Umbrella Agreement' and believe there was a recent article by either Tom Ring or Ian Mack that went into that a bit, as well as 'target state'. Both were critical in putting together the framework, getting the politicians onboard and figuring out the policy (that fit into our general procurement process) so understand it better than anyone.


----------



## GR66

Navy_Pete said:


> Part of NSS is that the main yards are specifically not allowed to bid on ships under 1000 tonnes; that would include MCDV replacements (unless they go bigger).
> 
> I real terms though we are running out of people so I can see some MCDVs and maybe a few CPFs parked.


Is that not reason enough for us to be looking seriously (now) at uncrewed vessels (both surface and subsurface)?


----------



## Navy_Pete

GR66 said:


> Is that not reason enough for us to be looking seriously (now) at uncrewed vessels (both surface and subsurface)?


Not for what we use the ships for, but it's a good application for a cargo ship going on a known route or similar applications with minimal flexibility required.

We use our ships like swiss army knives, so that needs people onboard to interpret the data and act on it. There are drones etc and the USN is working on an uncrewed combat ship for coastal patrols but that's way down the line when maybe AI is more advanced and can act independently to a certain extent. The current iteration of uncrewed ships are entirely remote controlled and monitored, so there is a crew, they just aren't on the actual ship, and rely heavily on sat uplinks for monitoring and control. 

We already kind of suck at maintaining remote operation of crewed ships, which means you need more people to operate it safely, so not really sure we'd be able to keep up with the maintenance load of an uncrewed ship.

Instead of trying for a technological solution, we could try sucking less as an employer by driving people into the ground to do more with less. It's been a known issue that has been snowballing for my entire career, and we haven't done anything about it to date. We were fortunate ATH and PRE 'self-divested' without major incidents, and running down the same path with the 12 CPFs.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> We use our ships like swiss army knives, so that needs people onboard to interpret the data and act on it.


There needs to be people to interpret the data (until AI/ML is good enough which is a long way away), but do they need to be onboard?  

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems have all of their crews elsewhere and interpret/act on data.



Navy_Pete said:


> There are drones etc and the USN is working on an uncrewed combat ship for coastal patrols but that's way down the line when maybe AI is more advanced and can act independently to a certain extent. The current iteration of uncrewed ships are entirely remote controlled and monitored, so there is a crew, they just aren't on the actual ship, and rely heavily on sat uplinks for monitoring and control.
> 
> We already kind of suck at maintaining remote operation of crewed ships, which means you need more people to operate it safely, so not really sure we'd be able to keep up with the maintenance load of an uncrewed ship.


I'm not sure if it would need more people.  For example, would a remotely crewed ship need the OOW to order the helmsman/throttleman?  Or could they just make the course change?  

However, this could drive the whole "crew rest" thing to the navies of the world.  It's one thing to be standing watches on a ship while it's underway, it's a totally different thing to be staring at computer screens without the associated movement for 4 hours.  It's much harder to maintain SA and alertness while doing the latter.



Navy_Pete said:


> Instead of trying for a technological solution, we could try sucking less as an employer by driving people into the ground to do more with less. It's been a known issue that has been snowballing for my entire career, and we haven't done anything about it to date. We were fortunate ATH and PRE 'self-divested' without major incidents, and running down the same path with the 12 CPFs.


Agreed.


----------



## GR66

Navy_Pete said:


> Not for what we use the ships for, but it's a good application for a cargo ship going on a known route or similar applications with minimal flexibility required.
> 
> We use our ships like swiss army knives, so that needs people onboard to interpret the data and act on it. There are drones etc and the USN is working on an uncrewed combat ship for coastal patrols but that's way down the line when maybe AI is more advanced and can act independently to a certain extent. The current iteration of uncrewed ships are entirely remote controlled and monitored, so there is a crew, they just aren't on the actual ship, and rely heavily on sat uplinks for monitoring and control.
> 
> We already kind of suck at maintaining remote operation of crewed ships, which means you need more people to operate it safely, so not really sure we'd be able to keep up with the maintenance load of an uncrewed ship.
> 
> Instead of trying for a technological solution, we could try sucking less as an employer by driving people into the ground to do more with less. It's been a known issue that has been snowballing for my entire career, and we haven't done anything about it to date. We were fortunate ATH and PRE 'self-divested' without major incidents, and running down the same path with the 12 CPFs.


Designing ships to be able to be swiss army knives is one of the reasons they are so expensive and we have so few of them.  Having so few ships makes it hard to cover the vast areas that need to be patrolled and to have a combat ship where we need to have them.

USV/UUVs (for the time being anyway) should be used to fulfill specific roles which along with UAVs can expand our sensor net and allow us to concentrate our limited manned vessels where they need to be.   There are technologies available now or coming online in the very near future which will allow us to do that.  

Also, ship building and fleet design aren't things that are done quickly.  We're talking about MCDV replacement technology here...possibly decades from now.  AI capabilities then will be well beyond what is available now but we shouldn't wait until the technology is mature to begin thinking about these things.  We should be seeing the writing on the wall as to where capabilities are heading and begin our planning, testing and restructuring to take advantage of these capabilities NOW...not when the MCDVs are ready to be paid off.  

It's also not an either/or situation where starting down the path towards adding uncrewed capabilities to the RCN means we can't also deal with our existing manning issues.  That would be like saying the Army can either get a GBAD capability OR an AT capability.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Not really, the ships are used as swiss army knives because the crews enable that usage with minimal extra equipment, and you can do a lot of non-war things (SAR, stricken vessel assistance, disaster relief etc) with the same crew and equipment. They also operate independently for extended periods, where the uncrewed ships are really just short term sails with breaks for repairs. 

That's why the application they are being looked at is things like going from A to B carrying cargo, with someone remotely monitoring the driving. The tradeoff is there is no concurrent maintenance activities, so it all has to be done alongside, meaning longer turnaround times.

For far in the future, sure, maybe some things could be done via uncrewed ships, but MCDVs are 30 yeas old with no extension planned. That would be the replacement's replacement (if one was on the books, but there isn't at the moment).

We don't have the people to develop that kind of tech though, so would be banking on whatever the USN and other large navies/commercial operators are doing. I'm guessing at some point in the near future we'll probably start divesting MCDVs to free up crew for AOPs, and at that point someone will realize that small ships that can take different pack up kits and do MCM is useful, starting some panic to get yet another PMO set up.

And we actually *are *in an either/or situation just because of the HR limits. There is a small cell of 'innovation' people looking at this kind of thing, but it's not really meaningful development that would roll through to an actual product, it's really just a small 'good ideas club' to do initial investigation and then pass it over to others to run with it. The others are already flat out and understaffed to meet existing demands. If we aren't buying routine spares because we don't have enough people to keep up with high priority requests we don't have people for new projects. Currently have a number of 'safety related' projects parked because I don't have enough people to do them all, so doing the safety critical ones first. 'New capability' projects don't even get in the hopper.


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> .  That would be like saying the Army can either get a GBAD capability OR an AT capability.


Technically the Army decided on neither


----------



## GR66

Navy_Pete said:


> Not really, the ships are used as swiss army knives because the crews enable that usage with minimal extra equipment, and you can do a lot of non-war things (SAR, stricken vessel assistance, disaster relief etc) with the same crew and equipment. They also operate independently for extended periods, where the uncrewed ships are really just short term sails with breaks for repairs.
> 
> That's why the application they are being looked at is things like going from A to B carrying cargo, with someone remotely monitoring the driving. The tradeoff is there is no concurrent maintenance activities, so it all has to be done alongside, meaning longer turnaround times.
> 
> For far in the future, sure, maybe some things could be done via uncrewed ships, but MCDVs are 30 yeas old with no extension planned. That would be the replacement's replacement (if one was on the books, but there isn't at the moment).
> 
> We don't have the people to develop that kind of tech though, so would be banking on whatever the USN and other large navies/commercial operators are doing. I'm guessing at some point in the near future we'll probably start divesting MCDVs to free up crew for AOPs, and at that point someone will realize that small ships that can take different pack up kits and do MCM is useful, starting some panic to get yet another PMO set up.
> 
> And we actually *are *in an either/or situation just because of the HR limits. There is a small cell of 'innovation' people looking at this kind of thing, but it's not really meaningful development that would roll through to an actual product, it's really just a small 'good ideas club' to do initial investigation and then pass it over to others to run with it. The others are already flat out and understaffed to meet existing demands. If we aren't buying routine spares because we don't have enough people to keep up with high priority requests we don't have people for new projects. Currently have a number of 'safety related' projects parked because I don't have enough people to do them all, so doing the safety critical ones first. 'New capability' projects don't even get in the hopper.


Perhaps part of the problem is that we're trying to look at these things on our own instead of partnering with allies like the USN to develop these capabilities.

The US 5th Fleet established Task Force 59 last fall to test and deploy unmanned platforms specifically in conjunction with allied nations in their AO (links Here and Here).  Its operations include testing, rapid prototyping with civilian contractors and actual deployments.  These platforms are conducting surveillance missions not just cargo transport.  Their most recent exercise brought together over 80 unmanned systems from 10 countries.  They've had platforms deployed and providing surveillance for 100 days straight without maintenance or resupply.  

Granted these are smaller systems not things like XLUUVs, etc. but that to my mind is where you start and build your way up.  And I read in another article (can't find the link right now unfortunately) that Task Force 59 has a staff of 24 personnel (10 of which are Reservists).

As to the RCN's crisis in manning resulting in issues like basic maintenance not being performed and the inability to purchase basic spare parts, then I guess that really is just another example of how truly F'd our military leadership is.  Honestly, if we have the 6th largest defence budget in NATO and the Navy is falling apart, the Air Force is flying fighters that are older than the pilots and the Army is incapable of fighting a peer enemy without Allies providing us with key weapons systems then there really should be a Royal Commission to investigate the near criminal waste of money that has been perpetrated on the Canadian public by the senior military leadership.  [/rant]


----------



## Navy_Pete

Do you really need a royal commision to tell you it's really expensive to fix old, obsolete equipment, and if you are sailing ships with half crews, and have the LCMM support and procurement roles half empty for a decade it will catch up to you? 

Not rocket surgery, just need more people with less on their plate so the workload is manageable, and a fleet schedule that allows enough time between sailing to get things fixed and obsolete equipment replaced. It's not any one major things, but 1000 small things can still collectively kill you, and is a lot harder to understand the impact from the bottom up level, or see it at the 10,000 ft level.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> Technically the Army decided on neither


Well there's one on the go.



> Ground Based Air Defence - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
> 
> 
> Ground Based Air Defence - Defence Capabilities Blueprint
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca





> Objective​The GBAD system will provide tactical air defence protection to friendly forces and vital installations during expeditionary and domestic operations against the increasingly diverse air threat.
> 
> Requirements​The majority of items to be acquired by this project will be fielded, commercial-off-the-shelf technology. The target threats are rocket, artillery and mortar (RAM) munitions, air to surface missiles (ASM) and bombs, and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS).
> 
> The Project will deliver an air defence system that will include the effector platform(s) (either guns, missiles, Directed Energy Weapon Systems, EW or a combination thereof), munitions, a sensor suite, fire control software and an integrated networked C4ISR system.
> 
> It will also be equipped with a training and simulation system that leverages modelling and simulation to provide realistic and immersive training.
> 
> Funding Range​$250 million to $499 million
> 
> Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)​
> *2019/2020* Start Options Analysis
> *2020/2021* Start Definition
> *2023/2024* Start Implementation
> *2026/2027* Initial Delivery
> *2029/2030* Final Delivery



🍻


----------



## TacticalTea

FJAG said:


> Well there's one on the go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


Tat-tat-tah!

(article about cutting capabilities (written by he that shan't be named) according to the CDS)


----------



## dapaterson

Site policy prohibits linking to articles by that author.


----------



## TacticalTea

dapaterson said:


> Site policy prohibits linking to articles by that author.


That's hilarious! Doesn't matter, I just took the first article that came up with that headline. Lemme fix it


----------



## Stoker

So right now now at sea in one of the Kingston Class on Op Reassurance. Ships have reached or are reaching its design life of 25 years. ABS did their survey and found the ships fit for 15 more years as they are in pretty good shape. All Kingston class will he extended for the first 5 years, after which it's expected to start paying them off 2 at a time. So you more than likely see the Kingston Class around for further 15 years. That could of course change as the ships provide incredible value in operational savings and in crewing with low maintenance costs.

No official replacement yet however plenty of concept artwork the replacements. Expected requirements similar to the Kingston class with 25 knot speed, longer and with a gun. So basically a MCDV with some of the biggest deficiencies corrected.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Stoker said:


> So right now now at sea in one of the Kingston Class on Op Reassurance. Ships have reached or are reaching its design life of 25 years. ABS did their survey and found the ships fit for 15 more years as they are in pretty good shape. All Kingston class will he extended for the first 5 years, after which it's expected to start paying them off 2 at a time. So you more than likely see the Kingston Class around for further 15 years. That could of course change as the ships provide incredible value in operational savings and in crewing with low maintenance costs.
> 
> No official replacement yet however plenty of concept artwork the replacements. Expected requirements similar to the Kingston class with 25 knot speed, longer and with a gun. So basically a MCDV with some of the biggest deficiencies corrected.


Well, if it basically works, might as well keep going with the basic design.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I doubt that hull shape would do 25 knots even if you fired her engine with nitromethanol.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GK .Dundas said:


> I doubt that hull shape would do 25 knots even if you fired her engine with nitromethanol.


That is why the proposal is to lengthen the hull back to what it should have been in the first place


----------



## GK .Dundas

I had heard the that.
I would purely love to see the original design or even just an artist's conceptual drawing.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

GK .Dundas said:


> I had heard the that.
> I would purely love to see the original design or even just an artist's conceptual drawing.


I had heard the Kingstons should have been 3 m longer, but have never seen that written anywhere.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MCDV's hulls are exactly the lenght that they had in the proposals that were filed for the final competition. As is the rated top speed.

Little history here: At the time the replacement of the small vessels came up, the Naval reserve had been tasked with coastal defense. The various working groups indicated a need for three classes of vessels: HSV (Harbour Surveillance Vessel, about 50 tons), ISV (Inshore Surveillance Vessels, about 500 tons -  20 Kts capable), and CSV (Coastal Surveillance Vessels, about 1000-1200 tons - 25 Kts capable). No intent on being able to do any mine warfare. The program experienced some delays while the top brass made a decision on which of the ISV or CSV to build first.

At the same time, the submarine replacement program was in full swing and suddenly, the Conservative governement wanted to switch it to nuclear boats. Maritime Command (as it was then) realised that nuclear boats constituted a sufficiently important asset to greatly increase the risks of mining attacks in the approaches of the main fleet harbours and scrambled to come up with a set of requirements for EDATS (Extreme Depth Armed Team Sweeps) and mine clearance vessels to protect the subs. They decided to use the money from the small vessels replacement program to do that, but to provide for some patrol capability, made the specs call for some patrol capability and some greater speed (Mine Warfare vessels typicall do about 11-12 Kts).

That's how the MCDV, as opposed to the CSV/ISV, came to be.

For the replacement, they are obviously planning on going back to something akin to the CSV, and since  minehunting can now be done mostly remotely from containeurized packages and remotely piloted boats, you can optimize the vessel for patrol without loss of MW capability.


----------



## TacticalTea

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> MCDV's hulls are exactly the lenght that they had in the proposals that were filed for the final competition. As is the rated top speed.
> 
> Little history here: At the time the replacement of the small vessels came up, the Naval reserve had been tasked with coastal defense. The various working groups indicated a need for three classes of vessels: HSV (Harbour Surveillance Vessel, about 50 tons), ISV (Inshore Surveillance Vessels, about 500 tons -  20 Kts capable), and CSV (Coastal Surveillance Vessels, about 1000-1200 tons - 25 Kts capable). No intent on being able to do any mine warfare. The program experienced some delays while the top brass made a decision on which of the ISV or CSV to build first.
> 
> At the same time, the submarine replacement program was in full swing and suddenly, the Conservative governement wanted to switch it to nuclear boats. Maritime Command (as it was then) realised that nuclear boats constituted a sufficiently important asset to greatly increase the risks of mining attacks in the approaches of the main fleet harbours and scrambled to come up with a set of requirements for EDATS (Extreme Depth Armed Team Sweeps) and mine clearance vessels to protect the subs. They decided to use the money from the small vessels replacement program to do that, but to provide for some patrol capability, made the specs call for some patrol capability and some greater speed (Mine Warfare vessels typicall do about 11-12 Kts).
> 
> That's how the MCDV, as opposed to the CSV/ISV, came to be.
> 
> For the replacement, they are obviously planning on going back to something akin to the CSV, and since  minehunting can now be done mostly remotely from containeurized packages and remotely piloted boats, you can optimize the vessel for patrol without loss of MW capability.


That's incredible, do you have any documents/sources that delve into that? Would love read more about it.

And so would you expect that one of the initial types of unmanned vessels would be dedicated to MW?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TacticalTea said:


> That's incredible, do you have any documents/sources that delve into that? Would love read more about it.
> 
> And so would you expect that one of the initial types of unmanned vessels would be dedicated to MW?


Go back and look at the two vessels I posted a couple pages back. The new Belgium/French MCM vessel is a mothership to a bunch of unmanned minehunting platforms. That is the real future for unmanned stuff.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

TacticalTea said:


> That's incredible, do you have any documents/sources that delve into that? Would love read more about it.



I am sure historians would be able to trace back the minutes from the various working groups and tiger teams. I am recollecting from my time as Commander Coastal Defense Sector Laurentian (we had decided to split then areas and sectors along the Coast Guard one's to make communication simpler. The plan itself, that we were working from and updating simultaneously was MAOP 320, IIRC.


----------



## TacticalTea

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I am sure historians would be able to trace back the minutes from the various working groups and tiger teams. I am recollecting from my time as Commander Coastal Defense Sector Laurentian (we had decided to split then areas and sectors along the Coast Guard one's to make communication simpler. The plan itself, that we were working from and updating simultaneously was MAOP 320, IIRC.


Ah, oral history! 

What assets was Laurentian responsible for? Were some of the MCDV's predecessors scattered around the Laurentian basin?

Was that a full time job? Or part time, akin to current reserve commands?

Sorry for all the questions but you've piqued my curiosity!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

It was a part time job, akin to current reserve command.

At the time, we had no asset as we were just resuscitating the capability. We started (in good Canadian fashion) by setting up HQ to define the requirements, prepare/update the plan and then build up from there. There were three areas (to be brought up to four when Arctic stood up) corresponding to the Coast Guard ones: Pacific, Atlantic and Laurentian, which corresponded to the Coast Guard Central region. For Laurentian, we had our HQ in the Montreal Harbour administration building.

Each area was under the command of a Captain, with a Commander as deputy commander, then the various sectors had a Lcdr in command. My sector, within Laurentian, was designated "St-Lawrence", with my counterpart in Toronto commanding sector "Great Lakes". We ran at least two CPX, that I can recall.

While no pre-MCDV vessels were assigned to the tasks, the whole of the Naval Reserve was re-organized around coastal defense and Shipping Control at that time. Prior to that, N.R.U.'s were basically dedicated to individual training. In a single summer, they were redirected to become providers of operational crews, a bit like the US Naval Reserves, and concentrated on team training under the CFCD102 to fill the needs of coastal defense/NCS. So, for instance, a given NRU would be "tasked" with providing two CSV crew, 2 ISV crew and one HSV crew, together with one diving team and one NCS watch. Etc. Etc.

Then, the wall fell, the submarine program was bandonned and cuts in defense occured. The Navy barelly managed to hang on to the MCDV project - now using the need for reserve training ships as the rationale, and the whole coastal defense thing was shelved yet again, replaced by more modest harbour defense teams and general trades training. I suppose the timing was good, as until a permanent solution was found after 9/11, the reserves harbour defense teams played a major role in protecting the fleet's main harbours.

I suppose that now that the Naval Reserve is seen as an "augmentation" force again, they went back to individual training only.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> So right now now at sea in one of the Kingston Class on Op Reassurance. Ships have reached or are reaching its design life of 25 years. ABS did their survey and found the ships fit for 15 more years as they are in pretty good shape. All Kingston class will he extended for the first 5 years, after which it's expected to start paying them off 2 at a time. So you more than likely see the Kingston Class around for further 15 years. That could of course change as the ships provide incredible value in operational savings and in crewing with low maintenance costs.
> 
> No official replacement yet however plenty of concept artwork the replacements. Expected requirements similar to the Kingston class with 25 knot speed, longer and with a gun. So basically a MCDV with some of the biggest deficiencies corrected.


I don't disagree that the MCDVs are incredibly useful and a great asset, but I just don't see how we'll receive the new AOPs without retiring the MCDVs and maybe some CPFs early. We just don't have the crew, and the MARTECH trade is broken with a 10+ year recovery time (at least; there isn't really an actual plan to improve retention, recruitment or training). If they get rid of the HCRFF from the Martechs, that will probably be the final straw for a lot of the legacy HTs and the juniour Martech that are really into the firefighting side of things.

Lots of things are technically and financially possible but without people to do it it doesn't really matter. If we can't figure out how to crew our existing fleet then new replacement projects shouldn't really be considered. Just worried that the RCN will continue to roll the dice on sailing with minimal crews/beaten up ships until we actually lose a ship or kill people, as there was absolutely zero uptake that we dodged a major bullet with the FRE fire.


----------



## TacticalTea

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> It was a part time job, akin to current reserve command.
> 
> At the time, we had no asset as we were just resuscitating the capability. We started (in good Canadian fashion) by setting up HQ to define the requirements, prepare/update the plan and then build up from there. There were three areas (to be brought up to four when Arctic stood up) corresponding to the Coast Guard ones: Pacific, Atlantic and Laurentian, which corresponded to the Coast Guard Central region. For Laurentian, we had our HQ in the Montreal Harbour administration building.
> 
> Each area was under the command of a Captain, with a Commander as deputy commander, then the various sectors had a Lcdr in command. My sector, within Laurentian, was designated "St-Lawrence", with my counterpart in Toronto commanding sector "Great Lakes". We ran at least two CPX, that I can recall.
> 
> While no pre-MCDV vessels were assigned to the tasks, the whole of the Naval Reserve was re-organized around coastal defense and Shipping Control at that time. Prior to that, N.R.U.'s were basically dedicated to individual training. In a single summer, they were redirected to become providers of operational crews, a bit like the US Naval Reserves, and concentrated on team training under the CFCD102 to fill the needs of coastal defense/NCS. So, for instance, a given NRU would be "tasked" with providing two CSV crew, 2 ISV crew and one HSV crew, together with one diving team and one NCS watch. Etc. Etc.
> 
> Then, the wall fell, the submarine program was bandonned and cuts in defense occured. The Navy barelly managed to hang on to the MCDV project - now using the need for reserve training ships as the rationale, and the whole coastal defense thing was shelved yet again, replaced by more modest harbour defense teams and general trades training. I suppose the timing was good, as until a permanent solution was found after 9/11, the reserves harbour defense teams played a major role in protecting the fleet's main harbours.
> 
> I suppose that now that the Naval Reserve is seen as an "augmentation" force again, they went back to individual training only.


So, reading up on our history a bit - and realizing I am woefully ignorant (just now getting what your username is about) - it seems the MCDVs were in some way a return to NavRes' post-war commitment to MW? Which had existed in the form of the Bay class MCMs.

And this is the SSN project you were talking about?





						Canada-class submarine - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Now, looking forward. The AOPVs already replace the MCDVs in some regards, although they are about ten times as massive, and presumably much more expensive to operate. In parallel, the Orca patrol and training vessels are also nearing the end of their usefulness. They're about a decade younger than the MCDVs, but have been taxed heavily, being in almost continuous operation since their service began, and generally crewed by more junior, accident-prone personnel. Plus, as discussed, navies and governments can be expected to move MW away from crewed ships and onto the unmanned vessels.

As such, would it be reasonable to expect a replacement that stays away from MCM and morphs closer to some kind of a midway point between an Orca and an MCDV? Perhaps, as you mentioned previously, some sort of ISV with heavier armament or a flight deck that would focus on coastal patrol duties, fishpats, american diplomacy, and training? Seems like it would also fit the theme of Force Protection revival the RCN has been going with (NST, NTOG).


----------



## FJAG

Navy_Pete said:


> but I just don't see how we'll receive the new AOPs without retiring the MCDVs and maybe some CPFs early. We just don't have the crew, and the MARTECH trade is broken with a 10+ year recovery time (at least; there isn't really an actual plan to improve retention, recruitment or training)


I know this is my usual rant, but, try to make much better use of the 5,000 plus naval reservists that the Navy has now. I know that its totally anathema to the CAF to plan an asset around part-time service. The MCDVs have a life left (which might even extend with the right kind of program) but if the bulk of them really became a training vessel with a mobilization role, then maintenance and use of them could be spread out further than the somewhat scarce RegF ratings. The Navy is a bit like the Army - RegF equipment it can't man and ResF personnel without equipment. For me, one problem solves the other.


----------



## dapaterson

The RCN has nowhere near 5K primary reservists and has not in several decades.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> The RCN has nowhere near 5K primary reservists and has not in several decades.


I'm shocked. Wikipedia lied?

I stand corrected. Navy website says 4,100 as to 8,400 RegF. 

My point, however, stands. MCDV crew of 47 max with 12 in service for a total of a maximum 564 all ranks which works out to seven ResF members per position on each ship. Even with our slow system of training and career progression, one ought to be able to keep up that staffing level. The ratio gets even better if not all the ships are allocated to the ResF or some RegF members are required to fill specific command jobs.


----------



## dapaterson

I'd take the Navy website with a grain of salt as well (your choice of three oceans for the source of the salt).

Unfortunately, the DRR does not give a breakdown of P Res strength by CAF level 1. (https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/reports/2021/drr-2020-21.pdf)


----------



## Edward Campbell

What I think I'm reading here is that we, Canada (with the military for which we are willing pay), cannot crew a proper fleet. Proper means one sized and equipped for a country with three oceans and the world's longest coastline.

We are going to have:

1. Several (thin/summer) ice-capable but very, very lightly armed patrol vessels;

2. Several well armed, globally deployable combat vessels;

3. Two or three or four support ships - some 100% military, some leased, perhaps;

4. A few submarines, maybe;

5. A dozen small, middle aged, lightly armed, civilian-standard patrol vessels; and 

6. Some auxiliary vessels.

We cannot crew them all, especially not if we replace the small patrol vessels and it will take a decade or so to address the staffing issues IF we get serious, quickly.

There are also some difficult cost/capability issues. The big, well armed combat vessels can do almost anything in ice-free waters but they have fairly large crews and are expensive to run and many of the tasks that our Navy has can be performed, adequately, by smaller, cheaper (and cheaper to operate) but less capable ships.

IF the above is correct - and please tell me if it isn't - then:

1. We need a mix of major combatants, small combatants/minor war vessels and lightly armed, constabulary, patrol vessels and oilers and submarines on full time service. The fleet should be fairly large (say 20-30 surface combatants, including the a few of the lightly armed, ice-capable patrol vessels) surface fleet, including oilers, and some under-ice capable submarines and some training vessels; 

2. But we can't crew them all at the same time;

3. Maybe we needn't crew them all at the same time - perhaps some of each can be in some sort of "limited storage" (_I'm not sure I know what the is or how it might work_), waiting for a time when they are either needed or affordable.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't disagree that the MCDVs are incredibly useful and a great asset, but I just don't see how we'll receive the new AOPs without retiring the MCDVs and maybe some CPFs early. We just don't have the crew, and the MARTECH trade is broken with a 10+ year recovery time (at least; there isn't really an actual plan to improve retention, recruitment or training). If they get rid of the HCRFF from the Martechs, that will probably be the final straw for a lot of the legacy HTs and the juniour Martech that are really into the firefighting side of things.
> 
> Lots of things are technically and financially possible but without people to do it it doesn't really matter. If we can't figure out how to crew our existing fleet then new replacement projects shouldn't really be considered. Just worried that the RCN will continue to roll the dice on sailing with minimal crews/beaten up ships until we actually lose a ship or kill people, as there was absolutely zero uptake that we dodged a major bullet with the FRE fire.


If you see what I wrote they will be paying them off eventually and that was from the Commodore a few weeks ago. The Kingston Class being on Op Reassurance is going to be a steady state thing and really you'll probably see some CPFs in extended readiness at some point. AOPS will more than likely be used as a mothership for the Kingston Class on these missions before long.


----------



## Stoker

FJAG said:


> I'm shocked. Wikipedia lied?
> 
> I stand corrected. Navy website says 4,100 as to 8,400 RegF.
> 
> My point, however, stands. MCDV crew of 47 max with 12 in service for a total of a maximum 564 all ranks which works out to seven ResF members per position on each ship. Even with our slow system of training and career progression, one ought to be able to keep up that staffing level. The ratio gets even better if not all the ships are allocated to the ResF or some RegF members are required to fill specific command jobs.


The effective bunking for the class is 45 and for some time now at least 3 MCDVs are zero crewed. Res Force gave up crewing them and now only a token amount on them. There is no appetite to take a greater role


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> I know this is my usual rant, but, try to make much better use of the 5,000 plus naval reservists that the Navy has now. I know that its totally anathema to the CAF to plan an asset around part-time service. The MCDVs have a life left (which might even extend with the right kind of program) but if the bulk of them really became a training vessel with a mobilization role, then maintenance and use of them could be spread out further than the somewhat scarce RegF ratings. The Navy is a bit like the Army - RegF equipment it can't man and ResF personnel without equipment. For me, one problem solves the other.


It was tried.  The RCN was the envy of the Militia for years as they "had a mission", to crew and operate the MCDV's.  But that mission was going to fail eventually because of two things.

1. The majority of the crew were Reg F in all but name.  Class C reservists who sailed the ships all the time, with no postings ashore as a break. Constantly at sea or on the ship. The amount of time the crews were at sea was ridiculous.
2. The PRes couldn't keep up the OP tempo and keep the ships crewed. There just were not enough people who could sail enough, and give over their time to earn the qualifications needed (particularly C ticket MESO's).

This of course led to unbalanced promotions, where the Class C got all the promotions and the Class A got less.  How does a Class A PER compete with a Class C PER?  Answer... it doesn't.  Some trades at the reserve units were destitute of anyone higher than LS (Kingston Class were not reserve units but Fleet units crewed mainly by reservists).  This also mean that the Class C pers were holding positions at their home units which were essentially vacated by the perma Class C.

So you had Class A vs Class C vs Reg F separation (back to wavey navy crap from WW2) all of which who disliked each other and of course, stovepiped into different levels of expertise.

The current situation of 10% of positions on all ships for PRes is much better.  All PRes quals are equivalent to Reg F except for PRes only trades (Port Inspection Diver as an example).   When a PRes sailor has time they take a position on a ship for up to a year and have the exact same qual as a Reg F pers of the same trade.  This means that they can augment properly if called up.  Most of the former Class C PRes have switched over to Reg F.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Problem when you read to much naval history and then hear "Coastal Defense Vessel" and you think of this


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> What I think I'm reading here is that we, Canada (with the military for which we are willing pay), cannot crew a proper fleet. Proper means one sized and equipped for a country with three oceans and the world's longest coastline.
> 
> We are going to have:
> 
> 1. Several (thin/summer) ice-capable but very, very lightly armed patrol vessels;
> 
> 2. Several well armed, globally deployable combat vessels;
> 
> 3. Two or three or four support ships - some 100% military, some leased, perhaps;
> 
> 4. A few submarines, maybe;
> 
> 5. A dozen small, middle aged, lightly armed, civilian-standard patrol vessels; and
> 
> 6. Some auxiliary vessels.
> 
> We cannot crew them all, especially not if we replace the small patrol vessels and it will take a decade or so to address the staffing issues IF we get serious, quickly.
> 
> There are also some difficult cost/capability issues. The big, well armed combat vessels can do almost anything in ice-free waters but they have fairly large crews and are expensive to run and many of the tasks that our Navy has can be performed, adequately, by smaller, cheaper (and cheaper to operate) but less capable ships.
> 
> IF the above is correct - and please tell me if it isn't - then:
> 
> 1. We need a mix of major combatants, small combatants/minor war vessels and lightly armed, constabulary, patrol vessels and oilers and submarines on full time service. The fleet should be fairly large (say 20-30 surface combatants, including the a few of the lightly armed, ice-capable patrol vessels) surface fleet, including oilers, and some under-ice capable submarines and some training vessels;
> 
> 2. But we can't crew them all at the same time;
> 
> 3. Maybe we needn't crew them all at the same time - perhaps some of each can be in some sort of "limited storage" (_I'm not sure I know what the is or how it might work_), waiting for a time when they are either needed or affordable.


The future fleet composition plan:
15 CSC/CPF (replacing as new capabilities come online)
2 AOR (+1 leased perhaps)
4 Submarines (gov't has leaned into life extension)
6 AOPS

Kingston class replacement and numbers are not known for sure.  I doubt it will be a one for one as AOPS do the OPV mission as well.  6-9 replacements is what I'm thinking.

The RCN Task Group concept is to have one high readiness task group available at all times.  That's 4 CSC/CPF and 1 AOR (with airdets, but that might be a critical pinch of pers as well.  6 airdets available seems a massive stretch). That's in combination from both coasts (2 CSC one coast 2 another coast).  The rest of the ships are working up to high readiness, coming off of it or in a maintenance period.  They might be available for sailing but not task group operations without some time.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> It was tried.  The RCN was the envy of the Militia for years as they "had a mission", to crew and operate the MCDV's.  But that mission was going to fail eventually because of two things.
> 
> 1. The majority of the crew were Reg F in all but name.  Class C reservists who sailed the ships all the time, with no postings ashore as a break. Constantly at sea or on the ship. The amount of time the crews were at sea was ridiculous.
> 2. The PRes couldn't keep up the OP tempo and keep the ships crewed. There just were not enough people who could sail enough, and give over their time to earn the qualifications needed (particularly C ticket MESO's).
> 
> This of course led to unbalanced promotions, where the Class C got all the promotions and the Class A got less.  How does a Class A PER compete with a Class C PER?  Answer... it doesn't.  Some trades at the reserve units were destitute of anyone higher than LS (Kingston Class were not reserve units but Fleet units crewed mainly by reservists).  This also mean that the Class C pers were holding positions at their home units which were essentially vacated by the perma Class C.
> 
> So you had Class A vs Class C vs Reg F separation (back to wavey navy crap from WW2) all of which who disliked each other and of course, stovepiped into different levels of expertise.
> 
> The current situation of 10% of positions on all ships for PRes is much better.  All PRes quals are equivalent to Reg F except for PRes only trades (Port Inspection Diver as an example).   When a PRes sailor has time they take a position on a ship for up to a year and have the exact same qual as a Reg F pers of the same trade.  This means that they can augment properly if called up.  Most of the former Class C PRes have switched over to Reg F.


Just before I respond to this let me add a thing about RCN manpower. As I see the Halifax class in basic terms is we have 12 with a crew of around 225 for a total of 2,700. Even when you consider ships down for maintenance and so on that would be very hard to maintain at full complement with a RegF of 8,400 especially when you need to add in the support ships, AOps, subs (and MCDVs) and all the training craft and essential headquarters and shore facilities.

Back to your points @Underway - I watched all of that unfold in 2000 to 2009 while I was on Chief of Reserves Council and the ResF Employment Project. Much of the pressure for change came from the RCN because they were trying at the time to make a go of the ResF/MCFV thing. A ResF friend of mine, a civilian lawyer from Edmonton of all things, got his ticket to run an MCDV but it took a lot of full-time commitment to jump through all the command hoops and then followed that up by a full-time tour as master. I could see that the Navy's desired course of action was to keep the bulk of the MCDVs operating full-time with ResF crews. But basically at Class B and C (and that was an issue as to which they would be then) crews operating full-time, even if rotational, is just a way of expanding the full-time force above PY levels (and usually at the expense of other activities such as Class A pay, and other O&M budget items)

The lesson that I took away from that is that the RCN (and the Army and RCAF) see the ResF as little MiniMes who, if they aren't serving full-time on Class B or C just aren't worth the bother. The concept of Class A ResF soldiers and sailors with ResF equipment - all kept in reserve and just used part-time until there was an emergency - was and is generally not a desired form of service. Class As were just a pool to draw Class Bs and Cs from on a continuous basis.

There are numerous positions in the Army (and I expect even more so in the Navy) that a ResF guy can never get the training or experience to do well, if at all. There are clearly positions in a unit (or ship) which absolutely need to be filled by a full-timer. To me a full-timer is a RegF guy. Class Bs and Cs to me should be short term "other than full-time, continuing" jobs (such as an operational tour or replacing a RegF guy or gal on family leave or some such absence) and not a "RegF Lite" add-on component that either fills positions for years on end or who allow the organization to exceed PY limits.

I think the CAF has lost the bubble when it comes to understanding that there is a certain force level that you need in peacetime for training and limited operations and another whole different force that you need when things turn sour.

To me it makes sense that a portion of the Army's vehicle fleet and Navy ships and even RCAF helicopters, being "kept in reserve" for limited annual training which will not only extend the life of that equipment, allow it to be rotated out for maintenance and upgrades, and still provide a purpose for a ResF crew to train with and man in an emergency. In all cases they need to be staffed by enough RegF people in the key jobs that absolutely need full-timers with the requisite training and experience. I really have no idea for who or how many that needs to be for a ship's complement but it strikes me that with the numbers of ships and personnel that the Navy has that a program of "active" ships and "reserve" ships could be instituted based on designated hybrid crews and specific "mobilization" roles for the "reserve" ships. I know that when I was a seventeen year old gunner, I was happiest and most motivated when I had a howitzer or a truck that I could touch and say "this is mine". When I was just in a mob of people with no defined purpose I watched people leave in droves. (I was always too thick to quit).

I can't think of anything better than four or five ResF ships' companies, consolidated under one RegF Captain, than to have a CFP parked somewhere and be told, for the next year that's your ship for training. We will do a couple of confirmation sails for two weeks each in August.

🍻


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> I doubt it will be a one for one as AOPS do the OPV mission as well.


My take as well. So what do you figure they'd look like?


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> My take as well. So what do you figure they'd look like?


Similar to a River-class but with the flight deck used as a work deck instead.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> There are numerous positions in the Army (and I expect even more so in the Navy) that a ResF guy can never get the training or experience to do well, if at all. There are clearly positions in a unit (or ship) which absolutely need to be filled by a full-timer. To me a full-timer is a RegF guy. Class Bs and Cs to me should be short term "other than full-time, continuing" jobs (such as an operational tour or replacing a RegF guy or gal on family leave or some such absence) and not a "RegF Lite" add-on component that either fills positions for years on end or who allow the organization to exceed PY limits.



It seems that the RCN has had success with a 90/10 model, as opposed to 10/90. That's a great idea.

Assuming that you don't post junk/bottom of the barrel Reg F dudes to the mo', and that they actually train people as opposed to just sitting in their offices pushing paper like most of them do now, the mo' could reasonably be expected to train people up to Maj/MWO level.

IMHO right now, with a few exceptions, it's a hit and miss approach to pushing inadequate people upwards into positions well above their levels of competence to fulfill a thinly veiled political agenda.


----------



## TacticalTea

daftandbarmy said:


> It seems that the RCN has had success with a 90/10 model, as opposed to 10/90. That's a great idea.
> 
> Assuming that you don't post junk/bottom of the barrel Reg F dudes to the mo', and that they actually train people as opposed to just sitting in their offices pushing paper like most of them do now, the mo' could reasonably be expected to train people up to Maj/MWO level.
> 
> IMHO right now, with a few exceptions, it's a hit and miss approach to pushing inadequate people upwards into positions well above their levels of competence to fulfill a thinly veiled political agenda.


Hard for me to make sense of what you're saying here. Sorry to say.

What's ''the mo'''? What's 10/90 vs 90/10? What's the political agenda you're talking about?


----------



## Rainbow1910

Underway said:


> Similar to a River-class but with the flight deck used as a work deck instead.


I'd guess with the lack of Cyclones to go around or an alternate medium/light helicopter, a large hanger and full flight deck could be something that could cause a ballooning of size and tonnage? Would it be worthwhile to futureproof the vessels with the ability to carry larger unmanned drones/helicopters and other similar systems to increase their surveillance and patrol capabilities? I think the RCN adopted the Skeldar V-200 recently but I haven't heard much about if it will be procured in any meaningful numbers. Seems like a worthwhile capability if they are going for more of an OPV focus. The ability to carry seacans would help this somewhat but a dedicated landing area might be required for larger vehicles.


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:


> It seems that the RCN has had success with a 90/10 model, as opposed to 10/90. That's a great idea.
> 
> Assuming that you don't post junk/bottom of the barrel Reg F dudes to the mo', and that they actually train people as opposed to just sitting in their offices pushing paper like most of them do now, the mo' could reasonably be expected to train people up to Maj/MWO level.
> 
> IMHO right now, with a few exceptions, it's a hit and miss approach to pushing inadequate people upwards into positions well above their levels of competence to fulfill a thinly veiled political agenda.


I'm convinced 10/90 doesn't work. It leads to what you're accustomed to - a small staff that looks after administration and has little to do during the time between Class A parades. That leads to having too many low performers sent to RSS. (Although I have to tell you that I was RSSO for two years and never considered myself a low performer - same same for many of my peers both officers and NCOs - admittedly I took over from a guy who was pretty much a none entity)

Anyway that's why I tend to the 30/70 system that basically forms a solid full-time bn headquarters staff, a full company and a substantial CSS company. In that type of system, the battalion has something to do besides train the weekend warriors and is also capable of developing full-time elements to lead or be a part of peacetime operational deployments. The CO for that unit would be responsible and accountable for leading his full-time components while also training and developing the reserve elements that round out his unit.

I know that there is great reluctance to do something like this but I know it can work. Two of the four years that I spent in 2 RCHA in Petawawa, we were a 1 battery regiment with D Bty while E Bty was permanently hived off to Gagetown so support the artillery school. As a regiment we did everything and trained in all the functions of a full regiment including cobbling together a second battery - F Bty - and heavily training and exercising five ResF regiments (each of which in those days able to generate a battery for weekend exercises and two full batteries for the summer. No one can tell me that our CO - Howie Wheatly - was a slouch or that he and his senior officers suffered in their career development.

4 AD was also a hybrid RegF and ResF regiment with sufficient full-time strength to conduct the essential regimental and sub-unit training for both its full-time and part-time people.

The key is that the battalion leadership is RegF and that there is enough mass of full-time people to function at all levels of training and that they have authority and responsibility for their ResF elements. I don't think that you can reach that with less than a 30% RegF core. In my book I see the majority of Army units as either 70/30 or 30/70 with no difference in criteria for the COs and senior staff and no difference in value to their command time.

I think ResF leadership should generally stop at the senior captain and WO level although I'm prepared to accept ResF majors and even LCols and MWOs so long as they have taken the requisite RegF courses and have had some experience on lengthier Class B or C positions (let's say one year, or have prior RegF time)

So just for the fun of it here's two examples:

48th Highlanders, Toronto 30/70 bn
Bn HQ - 48th Highlanders, Toronto 90/10
A Coy - 48th Highlanders, Toronto 100/0
B Coy - 48th Highlanders, Toronto  10/90
C Coy - Argyle and Southerland Highlanders, Hamilton 10/90
D Coy CS - Toronto Scottish, Toronto  30/70
E Coy CSS - Elements from 32 Svc Bn, Toronto  30/70

7th Toronto Regt RCA, Toronto 30/70 regt
RHQ - 7th Toronto RCA, Toronto 90/10
9 Fd Bty - Toronto 100/0
10 Fd Bty - Brantford, St Catharines, 10/90
11 Fd Bty - Guelph, 10/90
15 STA Bty - Toronto, 30/70
CSS Bty - Elements from 32 Svc Bn, Toronto 30/70

To put this back into an RCN context, one could amalgamate several ResF Naval divisions into a single Divisional Group centred on one particular division. Each group would have a RegF Captain and sufficient qualified RegF staff to fill the key positions to man a single CFP or a three to four MCDV flotilla depending on strength and which ships are assigned to the Divisional Group.

I'm looking at some old documentation but what I have shows each division already has roughly 5 RegF positions and between 66 to 180 Class A positions for a total of 2,491 Class A positions. (There are thousands more in various headquarters installations and the MCDVs). That means groups of divisions should be able to muster roughly 20 to 30 RegF and 405 to 641 Class A ResF as currently authorized. 

The distribution could go something like this with the command element for each group located at the more central division as follows:

HMCS Scotian (East) - Brunswicker; Cabot; Scotian; Queen Charlotte (20 + 405)
HMCS Montcalm (Quebec) - Champlain; d'Iberville; Donnacona; Jolliet; Radisson, Montcalm (30 + 584)
HMCS York (Lake Ontario) - Carlton; Cataraqui; York; Prevost; Star (25 + 641)
HMCS Griffon (Lakehead) - Hunter; Griffon; Chippewa; Queen; Unicorn (25 + 419)
HMCS Malahat (West) - Malahat; Discovery; Tecumseh; Nonsuch   (20 + 442)

It strikes me that if we designated say three CFPs and 6 MCDVs each year to the "reserve fleet" (possibly CFPs to each of Scotian, Montcalm and Malahat and MCDVs to York and Griffon) then these would be under the command of a Reg F captain with an adequate number of Reg F key appointments. My guess is that we would need to augment that RegF staff for each group a bit. I'm not sure if that would need to be year round or during "sails".  The concept is different from the Army one and here 10% of the ships companies tend to be RegF.  It depends on what you want or need the core full-time groups to accomplish during the time that the Class As are not training. However, regardless of the ratio, it would give each of the divisions something specific to focus on while giving those ships a rest and allowing for programmed maintenance and rotation.

Just a thought.

🍻


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> What's 10/90 vs 90/10?


Ship/shore ratio. 

The book "ideal" ship-to-shore ratio is 40/60, as even part of that 40% is posted to a ship during a work period or trials.  It allows for regenerative training and filling the shore billets, while not running your staff ragged.  However, that has to be across all trades not just pan navy with one really good trade bringing up the average.



Rainbow1910 said:


> I'd guess with the lack of Cyclones to go around or an alternate medium/light helicopter, a large hanger and full flight deck could be something that could cause a ballooning of size and tonnage? Would it be worthwhile to futureproof the vessels with the ability to carry larger unmanned drones/helicopters and other similar systems to increase their surveillance and patrol capabilities? I think the RCN adopted the Skeldar V-200 recently but I haven't heard much about if it will be procured in any meaningful numbers. Seems like a worthwhile capability if they are going for more of an OPV focus. The ability to carry seacans would help this somewhat but a dedicated landing area might be required for larger vehicles.



If you take a look at the Arafura class and River class they have flight decks with no hangars.  This means you could in theory land a helicopter on them.  Ships that small would be very restricted in the sea states they could land (not embark) a helo.

This is why a work deck that can be used as a flight deck is likely the best way to go.

The Skeldar was for trials and testing, and there is a new procurement out for the final solution.  RCN want's a common control station for UAV, UUV and USV, and as such that's what they are driving towards.

What I think the requirements should be:

min 25knots
30mm main gun with independent EOIR sighting, 50 cal positions
~40 crew
ability to take multiple sea can mission packages
mast high EOIR capability (similar to AOPS or JSS)
half decent range (~5000nm)
standard 9m multirole boat launch
extra space for 20 pers (dive team, UXV team, boarding team etc...)
Link 16 / IFF capability integral (not a FFNW situation)
flexible OPS space
improved radar so that it can detect some air targets (SCANTER 6002 as an example)
edit:  Degaussing system...
On the nice to have part:

quiet ASW levels of noise to allow for TRAPS and mine warfare gear to better do their job
dynamic station keeping (may be mutually exclusive from quiet...)
flight deck for landing (not embarking ) Cyclone, operation of UAVs


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:


> ...
> 
> What I think the requirements should be:
> 
> min 25knots
> 30mm main gun with independent EOIR sighting, 50 cal positions
> ~40 crew
> ability to take multiple sea can mission packages
> mast high EOIR capability (similar to AOPS or JSS)
> half decent range (~5000nm)
> standard 9m multirole boat launch
> extra space for 20 pers (dive team, UXV team, boarding team etc...)
> Link 16 / IFF capability integral (not a FFNW situation)
> flexible OPS space
> improved radar so that it can detect some air targets (SCANTER 6002 as an example)
> On the nice to have part:
> 
> quiet ASW levels of noise to allow for TRAPS and mine warfare gear to better do their job
> dynamic station keeping (may be mutually exclusive from quiet...)
> flight deck for landing (not embarking ) Cyclone, operation of UAVs


How small a ship can meet your requirements? Must it be it greater than, say, 1,500 tons and longer than 120 ft?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sounds like some sort of Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) to me:








						Defence IQ
					

Defence IQ - Glossary - Offshore Patrol Vessel




					www.defenceiq.com
				








						Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) - VARD 7 Series - Vard Marine Inc.
					

Vard Marine is a leader in designing Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) with global clients spanning navies, coast guards, and maritime security agencies.




					vardmarine.com
				








						Offshore Patrol Vessels - Damen
					






					www.damen.com
				





			https://www.defence.gov.au/project/offshore-patrol-vessels
		


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Ship/shore ratio.
> 
> The book "ideal" ship-to-shore ratio is 40/60, as even part of that 40% is posted to a ship during a work period or trials.  It allows for regenerative training and filling the shore billets, while not running your staff ragged.  However, that has to be across all trades not just pan navy with one really good trade bringing up the average.
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a look at the Arafura class and River class they have flight decks with no hangars.  This means you could in theory land a helicopter on them.  Ships that small would be very restricted in the sea states they could land (not embark) a helo.
> 
> This is why a work deck that can be used as a flight deck is likely the best way to go.
> 
> The Skeldar was for trials and testing, and there is a new procurement out for the final solution.  RCN want's a common control station for UAV, UUV and USV, and as such that's what they are driving towards.
> 
> What I think the requirements should be:
> 
> min 25knots
> 30mm main gun with independent EOIR sighting, 50 cal positions
> ~40 crew
> ability to take multiple sea can mission packages
> mast high EOIR capability (similar to AOPS or JSS)
> half decent range (~5000nm)
> standard 9m multirole boat launch
> extra space for 20 pers (dive team, UXV team, boarding team etc...)
> Link 16 / IFF capability integral (not a FFNW situation)
> flexible OPS space
> improved radar so that it can detect some air targets (SCANTER 6002 as an example)
> edit:  Degaussing system...
> On the nice to have part:
> 
> quiet ASW levels of noise to allow for TRAPS and mine warfare gear to better do their job
> dynamic station keeping (may be mutually exclusive from quiet...)
> flight deck for landing (not embarking ) Cyclone, operation of UAVs


The concept art I saw for the Kingston Class replacement was similar along with the requirements. No hanger but a possible flight deck for helos and drones. The most important feature is the ability to operate modular payloads. We need a platform not overly complicated, easy and economical to maintain and operate and not an excessive amount of crew. Really a utility truck.


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> How small a ship can meet your requirements? Must it be it greater than, say, 1,500 tons and longer than 120 ft?


Oh for sure.  The speed requirement means a longer ship right off the bat.  MCDV's are already 181ft long and almost 1000 tons.  You're probably looking in the 1700-2000 ton range. Ships like an Aussie Arafura class or the UK River Class batch one.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> It was tried.  The RCN was the envy of the Militia for years as they "had a mission", to crew and operate the MCDV's.  But that mission was going to fail eventually because of two things.
> 
> 1. The majority of the crew were Reg F in all but name.  Class C reservists who sailed the ships all the time, with no postings ashore as a break. Constantly at sea or on the ship. The amount of time the crews were at sea was ridiculous.
> 2. The PRes couldn't keep up the OP tempo and keep the ships crewed. There just were not enough people who could sail enough, and give over their time to earn the qualifications needed (particularly C ticket MESO's).
> 
> This of course led to unbalanced promotions, where the Class C got all the promotions and the Class A got less.  How does a Class A PER compete with a Class C PER?  Answer... it doesn't.  Some trades at the reserve units were destitute of anyone higher than LS (Kingston Class were not reserve units but Fleet units crewed mainly by reservists).  This also mean that the Class C pers were holding positions at their home units which were essentially vacated by the perma Class C.
> 
> So you had Class A vs Class C vs Reg F separation (back to wavey navy crap from WW2) all of which who disliked each other and of course, stovepiped into different levels of expertise.
> 
> The current situation of 10% of positions on all ships for PRes is much better.  All PRes quals are equivalent to Reg F except for PRes only trades (Port Inspection Diver as an example).   When a PRes sailor has time they take a position on a ship for up to a year and have the exact same qual as a Reg F pers of the same trade.  This means that they can augment properly if called up.  Most of the former Class C PRes have switched over to Reg F.


Training C tickets wasn't really an issue as it was fairly straight forward to qualify senior B tickets. They did a 4 week course and a package. C tickets were never in short supply.

I agree with alot of what you said but it was a lot of mismanagement of personnel. When in four sucessive town halls you had from the Admiral on down telling the combined reserve crews that the writing was on the wall and they should seek other employment started the hemorrhage of personnel that led to the 50/50, 60/40 and finally the big idea.

I would counter and say personnel at the units got promoted quicker than boat people as the merit boards were made up of mostly of unit people. That's what I experienced. 

There certainly was a delta between Class A/B and C class people as we on the ships had limited contact with them overtime. We used to have trips when the class As would come out several times a year and train with us and all of a sudden that stopped along with regional training weekends. 

Interestedly enough with the issue we are currently experiencing trying to get enough qualified MARTECHs to sail on the Kingston class. There are no NAVRES MARTECHs we can access, even in the summer because we are limiting them to only be able to reach the roundsperson level with the insistence they do a 16 month course that is a roadblock to the majority. We are looking to revert to the old MESO operator construct to make more res tickets.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> The future fleet composition plan:
> 15 CSC/CPF (replacing as new capabilities come online)
> 2 AOR (+1 leased perhaps)
> 4 Submarines (gov't has leaned into life extension)
> 6 AOPS
> 
> Kingston class replacement and numbers are not known for sure.  I doubt it will be a one for one as AOPS do the OPV mission as well.  6-9 replacements is what I'm thinking.
> 
> The RCN Task Group concept is to have one high readiness task group available at all times.  That's 4 CSC/CPF and 1 AOR (with airdets, but that might be a critical pinch of pers as well.  6 airdets available seems a massive stretch). That's in combination from both coasts (2 CSC one coast 2 another coast).  The rest of the ships are working up to high readiness, coming off of it or in a maintenance period.  They might be available for sailing but not task group operations without some time.


This is my issue with the fleet plan; it's disconnected from the actual sailors available now, and somehow magically turns around from losing people faster than we can train them. No idea where the techs are coming for the rest of the AOPs, let alone JSS and an increase in combatants.

Sure it's a 20 year plan but right now things are trending downward and will take at least 7-10 years to develop the new QSPs for the Martechs, and maybe start having a 'structures' specialization.

The TG concept is another example of disconnection between people and equipment; that takes a lot of people to actually sustain that, as you always need ships coming up to HR, going through DWPs etc, and all these take a lot of folks.

Hope may not be a COA, but it definitely seems to be built squarely in as a key pillar in the plans.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:


> Oh for sure.  The speed requirement means a longer ship right off the bat.  MCDV's are already 181ft long and almost 1000 tons.  You're probably looking in the 1700-2000 ton range. Ships like an Aussie Arafura class or the UK River Class batch one.


Thanks .. I meant to type 200 ft, but you've answered my question.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Ship/shore ratio.
> 
> The book "ideal" ship-to-shore ratio is 40/60, as even part of that 40% is posted to a ship during a work period or trials.  It allows for regenerative training and filling the shore billets, while not running your staff ragged.  However, that has to be across all trades not just pan navy with one really good trade bringing up the average.
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a look at the Arafura class and River class they have flight decks with no hangars.  This means you could in theory land a helicopter on them.  Ships that small would be very restricted in the sea states they could land (not embark) a helo.
> 
> This is why a work deck that can be used as a flight deck is likely the best way to go.
> 
> The Skeldar was for trials and testing, and there is a new procurement out for the final solution.  RCN want's a common control station for UAV, UUV and USV, and as such that's what they are driving towards.
> 
> What I think the requirements should be:
> 
> min 25knots
> 30mm main gun with independent EOIR sighting, 50 cal positions
> ~40 crew
> ability to take multiple sea can mission packages
> mast high EOIR capability (similar to AOPS or JSS)
> half decent range (~5000nm)
> standard 9m multirole boat launch
> extra space for 20 pers (dive team, UXV team, boarding team etc...)
> Link 16 / IFF capability integral (not a FFNW situation)
> flexible OPS space
> improved radar so that it can detect some air targets (SCANTER 6002 as an example)
> edit:  Degaussing system...
> On the nice to have part:
> 
> quiet ASW levels of noise to allow for TRAPS and mine warfare gear to better do their job
> dynamic station keeping (may be mutually exclusive from quiet...)
> flight deck for landing (not embarking ) Cyclone, operation of UAVs


Would being able to RAS be considered a preference, a must or not really necessary?


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Would being able to RAS be considered a preference, a must or not really necessary?


Meh... as long as you can do a light jackstay then you're probably just fine for an OPV.  RAS isn't something that I would worry about myself, others may have other opinions.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Meh... as long as you can do a light jackstay then you're probably just fine for an OPV.  RAS isn't something that I would worry about myself, others may have other opinions.


Maybe a system along the lines of the AOPS setup, which looks like it’s not meant for all the time, but is there if absolutely needed?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Meh... as long as you can do a light jackstay then you're probably just fine for an OPV.  RAS isn't something that I would worry about myself, others may have other opinions.


I think the RAS capability is derived from the requirement for 'continuous operations' as well as range. If you can get from A to B within your range, and operate continously on a tank of gas, you don't need to RAS.

I think there is probably some kind of shiphandling reasons as well where there is practically a minimum size of ship to RAS with a tanker and not get beat up. The current MCDVs are too stable and bounce around like a cork as a result on a calm day, not sure what would happen if they were also getting smacked around by the bow wave of a ship 30 times the displacement on top of that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> I think the RAS capability is derived from the requirement for 'continuous operations' as well as range. If you can get from A to B within your range, and operate continously on a tank of gas, you don't need to RAS.
> 
> I think there is probably some kind of shiphandling reasons as well where there is practically a minimum size of ship to RAS with a tanker and not get beat up. The current MCDVs are too stable and bounce around like a cork as a result on a calm day, not sure what would happen if they were also getting smacked around by the bow wave of a ship 30 times the displacement on top of that.


You would have to stern RAS.

I seem to recall that someone told me it was actually trialed on one of our MCDVs.

But, I agree with you. Why RAS at all if your mission does not require it? Frigates and destroyers do, because they race around the TG and burn thru a tank of gas every 3 days. Aircraft Carriers (even nuclear ones) need JP5 every 3 days. Etc…


----------



## Stoker

Lots of discussion on what the Kingston Class replacement will look like. Whatever we end of getting will I doubt if the ships will need to RAS and that's tied to how long the ship can stay at sea. The ship will have unlimited water no issues there, should have a decent range so no RAS required, the issue would be how much food it can hold. The Kingston class was only meant  to be out a max 14 days so it's capacity for dry, fresh and frozen is fairly small. We had to get creative to stretch that by at least 20 more days. Any replacement will need to take that into account along with space and ability to take parts and repair itself which for the Kingston class we struggled and will struggle with on this current long deployment. So while people worry if we can operate drones and operate a helo I wonder about the more mundane and practical considerations and capabilities. In my opinion as stated before we need to find a balance between cheap and capable and decide where and what we need these ships to operate.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Stoker said:


> Lots of discussion on what the Kingston Class replacement will look like. Whatever we end of getting will I doubt if the ships will need to RAS and that's tied to how long the ship can stay at sea. The ship will have unlimited water no issues there, should have a decent range so no RAS required, the issue would be how much food it can hold. The Kingston class was only meant  to be out a max 14 days so it's capacity for dry, fresh and frozen is fairly small. We had to get creative to stretch that by at least 20 more days. Any replacement will need to take that into account along with space and ability to take parts and repair itself which for the Kingston class we struggled and will struggle with on this current long deployment. So while people worry if we can operate drones and operate a helo I wonder about the more mundane and practical considerations and capabilities. In my opinion as stated before we need to find a balance between cheap and capable and decide where and what we need these ships to operate.


I found a picture of the replacement:






😁


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I found a picture of the replacement:


Low speed? Check.
Smaller crew? Check.
Lightly armed? Check.
Unable to embark a helicopter? Check.
Essentially an up-armed coast guard vessel? Check.
Maintained by an ISS contract? Check.
Intended to do all the sailing that the CPFs/CSCs can't manage because of long work periods and SNMG flag waiving deployments? Check.

These ARE the Kingston class!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:


> Low speed? Check.
> Smaller crew? Check.
> Lightly armed? Check.
> Unable to embark a helicopter? Check.
> Essentially an up-armed coast guard vessel? Check.
> Maintained by an ISS contract? Check.
> Intended to do all the sailing that the CPFs/CSCs can't manage because of long work periods and SNMG flag waiving deployments? Check.
> 
> These ARE the Kingston class!


Weighs more than a CPF but has a bloody pee shooter for a main armament 😏


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I found a picture of the replacement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 😁


Arse. 
Go catch a train….


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> I seem to recall that someone told me it was actually trialed on one of our MCDVs.


It was trailed with Protecteur on the west coast IIRC (second hand info dump follows).  The problem is if you sail the MCDV forward then the fuel line has to pass across the focsle down the stbd breezeway to the fueling station.  The other was was to sail the MCDV backward (stern to stern) and try to refuel that way.

Both were possible but really sketchy, and could only really be done in very light seas.  It's just easier to bring the MCDV alongside the AOR and refuel at anchor or alongside.


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Weighs more than a CPF but has a bloody pee shooter for a main armament 😏


 But its hull is extra thick.  Ramming speed!


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> The future fleet composition plan:
> 15 CSC/CPF (replacing as new capabilities come online)
> 2 AOR (+1 leased perhaps)
> 4 Submarines (gov't has leaned into life extension)
> 6 AOPS
> 
> Kingston class replacement and numbers are not known for sure.  I doubt it will be a one for one as AOPS do the OPV mission as well.  6-9 replacements is what I'm thinking.
> 
> The RCN Task Group concept is to have one high readiness task group available at all times.  That's 4 CSC/CPF and 1 AOR (with airdets, but that might be a critical pinch of pers as well.  6 airdets available seems a massive stretch). That's in combination from both coasts (2 CSC one coast 2 another coast).  The rest of the ships are working up to high readiness, coming off of it or in a maintenance period.  They might be available for sailing but not task group operations without some time.





Navy_Pete said:


> This is my issue with the fleet plan; it's disconnected from the actual sailors available now, and somehow magically turns around from losing people faster than we can train them. No idea where the techs are coming for the rest of the AOPs, let alone JSS and an increase in combatants.
> 
> Sure it's a 20 year plan but right now things are trending downward and will take at least 7-10 years to develop the new QSPs for the Martechs, and maybe start having a 'structures' specialization.
> 
> The TG concept is another example of disconnection between people and equipment; that takes a lot of people to actually sustain that, as you always need ships coming up to HR, going through DWPs etc, and all these take a lot of folks.
> 
> Hope may not be a COA, but it definitely seems to be built squarely in as a key pillar in the plans.


The above fleet composition plan looks a lot like a peacetime fleet plan.  It also looks like a fleet that might be suited to a Cold War era conflict against Russia - we have smaller numbers of vessels but have technological superiority to offset.

How well would our fleet composition work in a conflict with China where technological differences are much closer to parity at the same time as we would be outnumbered and have to operate at much greater distances from our bases then the enemy?  

We're never going to be able to outbuild the PLAN and we certainly can't "outman" them.  Does that not suggest that we need to look at different ways to challenge them?  Do we continue to try and build more and more capable Destroyers/Frigates/Corvettes that we will struggle to man?  Or do we start now to invest in unmanned/minimally manned technologies which may give us an asymmetric advantage?  How much money, time and effort do we put into a ship building race that ultimately we can't win at the expense of new technologies?

All this of course assumes that we feel the need to build a warfighting fleet as opposed to a peacetime fleet.  Obviously we can't ignore the important peacetime missions and capabilities, but do we not also be able to win a war as well?  With the lead times involved in shipbuilding we can't afford to wait until a conflict starts before we start to design/build the platforms we need to fight with.


----------



## Navy_Pete

? If there was a war with China the 'fleet composition' would be us integrated with the USN and being used as a screen. Planning our fleet around that kind of scenario.

Also the first strike would probably be a whack of cyber attacks on the banks and infrastructure, possibly the satelites as well.

In reality some ships that can operate with an international TG and do something useful is probably a best bet. To do that you need a well trained, fully staffed crew, things like a working Link (22?) and practice operating with other Navies. We could do more with less ships properly staffed then trying to operate a lot of ships with skeleton crews that aren't capable of actually fighting.


----------



## Underway

GR66 said:


> The above fleet composition plan looks a lot like a peacetime fleet plan.


Not really.  It's based on the required capabilities that the RCN needs to do our various jobs, as well as the rotation of ships in and out of refit/repair/maintenance cycles.

It's a high value-added to have a RCN Task Group being able to operate on it's own.  But as @Navy_Pete pointed out you can join other countries' task groups as necessary.  Canada wouldn't fight alone. That's not realistic.


----------



## GR66

Navy_Pete said:


> ? If there was a war with China the 'fleet composition' would be us integrated with the USN and being used as a screen. Planning our fleet around that kind of scenario.
> 
> Also the first strike would probably be a whack of cyber attacks on the banks and infrastructure, possibly the satelites as well.
> 
> In reality some ships that can operate with an international TG and do something useful is probably a best bet. To do that you need a well trained, fully staffed crew, things like a working Link (22?) and practice operating with other Navies. We could do more with less ships properly staffed then trying to operate a lot of ships with skeleton crews that aren't capable of actually fighting.


Isn't the USN facing the same issues though?  Outnumbered, operating further from home and technology getting closer to parity?


----------



## Underway

GR66 said:


> Isn't the USN facing the same issues though?  Outnumbered, operating further from home and technology getting closer to parity?


If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.

Canada doesn't have the same issues.  We aren't going to fight China on our own.  If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea.  And then China has a numbers and technology problem.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.
> 
> Canada doesn't have the same issues.  We aren't going to fight China on our own.  If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea.  And then China has a numbers and technology problem.


I hope you're right (and hope we don't have to find out).  Fifteen combatants for a 3 coast navy is a pretty thin capability.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.
> 
> Canada doesn't have the same issues.  We aren't going to fight China on our own.  If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea.  And then China has a numbers and technology problem.


Add England, France, Australia etc.

The US Mil build plan is to be able to fight people alone, but the goal is a coalition.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> Arse.
> Go catch a train….


They weigh around 12,000 tonnes so the CPF will now become the second largest machine I've operated 😁



Underway said:


> But its hull is extra thick.  Ramming speed!


Works against Venezuelans apparently 🤣


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.
> 
> Canada doesn't have the same issues.  We aren't going to fight China on our own.  If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea.  And then China has a numbers and technology problem.


I'd also question whether this assumption that Canada will never have to fight on its own is the same attitude that led the Army to decide that it doesn't need Air Defence or significant Indirect Fire assets, etc.  When our total naval combat platforms can be counted on your fingers and toes and the lead time to procure/replace them is measured in decades then I'd say that's a pretty big risk to take.

I'm not saying that Canada should ignore those capabilities or that we shouldn't work hard to integrate and coordinate our capabilities with those of our coalition allies, just that I think it would be wise to also work on those developing uncrewed/minimally crewed assets to augment those capabilities...and ideally the industry to support them (including being able to produce them quickly - compared to traditional naval assets - in time of a conflict).


----------



## Underway

GR66 said:


> I'd also question whether this assumption that Canada will never have to fight on its own is the same attitude that led the Army to decide that it doesn't need Air Defence or significant Indirect Fire assets, etc.  When our total naval combat platforms can be counted on your fingers and toes and the lead time to procure/replace them is measured in decades then I'd say that's a pretty big risk to take.
> 
> I'm not saying that Canada should ignore those capabilities or that we shouldn't work hard to integrate and coordinate our capabilities with those of our coalition allies, just that I think it would be wise to also work on those developing uncrewed/minimally crewed assets to augment those capabilities...and ideally the industry to support them (including being able to produce them quickly - compared to traditional naval assets - in time of a conflict).


I never said Canada won't fight on its own, I said that it won't fight China on its own.  We have no reason aside from alliance obligations to fight China. They have nothing to do with our own geostrategic picture.

The single task group is a "fight on your own" formation.  It's made up of 4 CSC which are the main warfighters and 1 AOR which will keep them strategically mobile.  6 Cyclones means you can have most of the time throughout the day with a helo in the air.  Depending on CSC config it can be a power projection formation (loaded up with Land Attack munitions) or more likely a sea control formation with AAW missiles, ASuW missiles and good ASW systems.

What is interesting is that as a core you can now have allies attach themselves to your formation.

Is it a large navy? No?  Is it achievable if a little aspirational?  Yes.


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:


> What I think the requirements should be:
> 
> min 25knots
> 30mm main gun with independent EOIR sighting, 50 cal positions
> ~40 crew
> ability to take multiple sea can mission packages
> mast high EOIR capability (similar to AOPS or JSS)
> half decent range (~5000nm)
> standard 9m multirole boat launch
> extra space for 20 pers (dive team, UXV team, boarding team etc...)
> Link 16 / IFF capability integral (not a FFNW situation)
> flexible OPS space
> improved radar so that it can detect some air targets (SCANTER 6002 as an example)
> edit:  Degaussing system...
> On the nice to have part:
> 
> quiet ASW levels of noise to allow for TRAPS and mine warfare gear to better do their job
> dynamic station keeping (may be mutually exclusive from quiet...)
> flight deck for landing (not embarking ) Cyclone, operation of UAVs



I like a lot this type of exercise, please let me go a bit further...

For the *requirements,* would add:

30 days endurance (food, supplies) min., best 40 days
decoys such as MASS (like the CPFs) or chaff and flares.
LRAD long range acoustic device

However, I do not agree with the speed (min. 25 knots). I understand that MCDV's 15 knots fall short. Let's increase speed a 50% to 22-23 knots (min.). Having the fast multirole boats, UAVs and possibly an helicopter, ... what do those 2-3 additional knots add (from 22-23 to 25)? Do they really make a difference for the missions now being accomplished by the Kingstons?

And here it is my gross propulsion estimates and proposal (based on a typical 2000 tons OPV):

2.6-2.8 MW for propulsion up to 15 knots, plus up to 1.0 MW for all the other electric requirements of the ship.
Therefore total generation capacity a bit below 4 MW would suffice for speeds up to 15 knots.
In order to get it quiet at low speed, would use CODELAD propulsion, COmbined Diesel-ELectric And Diesel (i.e. one 1.4 MW EM per shaft).
for greater speeds let's add two diesel engines, 4-5 MW each (max. continuous rating). They would allow to reach either 24 knots (nearly 11 MW required only for propulsion) or 25 knots (just above 12 MW).

*Nice to have:*  kind of cheap and simple (automatic fire control with FCR or EO system) air-defence system, like the Mistral missiles, either the naval Tetral (4 units) or Sadral (6 units) variants.









"A close-in weapon system based on Mistral is a six-missile version called _Sadral_, with a stabilized rapid-reload launcher that is fully automated. A CSEE developed fire control director is integrated to the launcher, consisted of TV camera and FLIR. (...) the missiles are locked onto the target before being launched. A fully loaded Sadral launcher weighs 1080 kg, and the operator console weighs 280 kg."  Mistral (missile) - Wikipedia


Finally, the Belgian-Dutch MCM vessel under construction relies a lot on the *Inspector 125* boats (two of them), which, according to the link below,_ "has a length of about 12 meters, a beam of about 4 meters and a full load weight of 18.1 tons." _
This is what the Future Belgian & Dutch MCM Motherships will Look Like - Naval News

What solution would you prefer...
a) a stern cargo deck (similar to that on the AOPS), for up to 3 containers and a crane? In this case the Inspector boat could be carried on the flight/working deck and deployed onto the water by mean of the crane.
b) a stern ramp (similar to the Arafura class) for one 12 m (40 foot) boat?


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:


> If you believe the USN's press releases, those are issues the USN is facing.
> 
> Canada doesn't have the same issues.  We aren't going to fight China on our own.  If we fight China its with the USN, Japan and S. Korea.  And then China has a numbers and technology problem.



... throw in UK and Australia, don't forget AUKUS. May be India as well?

Edited: sorry, repeated. KevinB has overtaken me.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I honestly can't think of a real scenario where Canada would be fighting anyone alone, let alone China. We've never done it before, and with the world being even more interconnected seems more unlikely than ever.

If Canada is fighting China, Russia, the US or the EU on our own, something has gone horribly wrong and +/- a few ships won't matter at all.


----------



## TacticalTea

SeaKingTacco said:


> You would have to stern RAS.
> 
> I seem to recall that someone told me it was actually trialed on one of our MCDVs.
> 
> But, I agree with you. Why RAS at all if your mission does not require it? Frigates and destroyers do, because they race around the TG and burn thru a tank of gas every 3 days. Aircraft Carriers (even nuclear ones) need JP5 every 3 days. Etc…


For an OPV that's meant to operate along the coasts of America, and perhaps occasionally cross the Atlantic... Indeed. Unnecessary.


Stoker said:


> Lots of discussion on what the Kingston Class replacement will look like. Whatever we end of getting will I doubt if the ships will need to RAS and that's tied to how long the ship can stay at sea. The ship will have unlimited water no issues there, should have a decent range so no RAS required, the issue would be how much food it can hold. The Kingston class was only meant  to be out a max 14 days so it's capacity for dry, fresh and frozen is fairly small. We had to get creative to stretch that by at least 20 more days. Any replacement will need to take that into account along with space and ability to take parts and repair itself which for the Kingston class we struggled and will struggle with on this current long deployment. So while people worry if we can operate drones and operate a helo I wonder about the more mundane and practical considerations and capabilities. In my opinion as stated before we need to find a balance between cheap and capable and decide where and what we need these ships to operate.


I'd be very surprised if the MCDV replacement project was actually larger and more expensive (inflation adjusted) than the MCDVP.

We're in both a budget and human resource crunch, and we already have the AOPS that ups the ante from the MCDV.

I agree with your point on stores, food is the bottleneck in terms of range for MCDVs.


----------



## FJAG

TacticalTea said:


> I agree with your point on stores, food is the bottleneck in terms of range for MCDVs.








😁


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:


> I never said Canada won't fight on its own, I said that it won't fight China on its own.  We have no reason aside from alliance obligations to fight China. They have nothing to do with our own geostrategic picture.
> 
> The single task group is a "fight on your own" formation.  It's made up of 4 CSC which are the main warfighters and 1 AOR which will keep them strategically mobile.  6 Cyclones means you can have most of the time throughout the day with a helo in the air.  Depending on CSC config it can be a power projection formation (loaded up with Land Attack munitions) or more likely a sea control formation with AAW missiles, ASuW missiles and good ASW systems.
> 
> What is interesting is that as a core you can now have allies attach themselves to your formation.
> 
> Is it a large navy? No?  Is it achievable if a little aspirational?  Yes.


The whole single task group "fight on your own" is literally a thing so we can, in theory, form our own SAU or SAG in a Strike Group.  

It makes a lot of sense if people actually understand tasks as it relates to Ship's and warfighting.


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The whole single task group "fight on your own" is literally a thing so we can, in theory, form our own SAU or SAG in a Strike Group.
> 
> It makes a lot of sense if people actually understand tasks as it relates to Ship's and warfighting.


Honestly, its taking the lessons learned from the post-911 years when Canada did multiple rotations with 2-3 CPF, 1 Tribal and an AOR in the Indian ocean/Arabian sea for OP Apollo.


October 9 2001The first Canadian asset, HMCS HALIFAX, already at sea with the NATO Standing Force Atlantic, is directed to detach from this force and proceed to the Arabian Sea. Halifax begins counter-terrorism operations as part of Operation APOLLO on 2 November. Halifax is joined by two more frigates, a destroyer and a replenishment ship, bringing the Canadian Task Group to full strength.

This was a super valuable asset and did a lot of work with the USN, as escort to their LPH's and LPD which were flying Marines into Afghanistan.

When you show up with a fully self-sufficient task group, including command staff, you are a very valuable ally.   If you can properly sustain that task group over multiple years you are an extremely valuable ally.

So that's where the fleet mix math comes from.  4 warships +1 AOR. Ideally, this means 3 AOR, and 15 warships to do that + other tasks.  Then you have 6 AOPS +6-9 MCDV replacements for domestic work.

It also leaves room for a surge capability if necessary for short-term operations.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I recall one day during Op Apollo in the Arabian Sea when I was airborne in a Sea King. Around me was a Canadian Destroyer with Command Staff embarked; two Canadian frigates, each with a Sea King embarked; a Canadian AOR with a Sea King embarked; airborne besides myself was a second Sea King and a CP-140.

Think about that for a second: for literally years on end, Canada projected a Naval Task group to the far side of the world and controlled one of the most strategic pieces of ocean on the planet, as part of a coalition.

Canada has the ability to have strategic effect, if it puts it’s collective mind to it.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> I recall one day during Op Apollo in the Arabian Sea when I was airborne in a Sea King. Around me was a Canadian Destroyer with Command Staff embarked; two Canadian frigates, each with a Sea King embarked; a Canadian AOR with a Sea King embarked; airborne besides myself was a second Sea King and a CP-140.
> 
> Think about that for a second: for literally years on end, Canada projected a Naval Task group to the far side of the world and controlled one of the most strategic pieces of ocean on the planet, as part of a coalition.
> 
> Canada has the ability to have strategic effect, if it puts it’s collective mind to it.


Just got an eyelash in my eye,  nothing to see here...  thanks for sharing that, it makes it real.  A great example of what is possible going forward.

This deployment is what the Aussie's took as their gold standard example for their entire fleet revamp, given their own deficiencies at the time.  They are obviously well ahead of us right now, and I think its important to look towards some of their ideas.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Just got an eyelash in my eye,  nothing to see here...  thanks for sharing that, it makes it real.  A great example of what is possible going forward.
> 
> This deployment is what the Aussie's took as their gold standard example for their entire fleet revamp, given their own deficiencies at the time.  They are obviously well ahead of us right now, and I think its important to look towards some of their ideas.


In the early 2000s, we could project more naval power further on Earth than any country besides the US, UK and France. Fact.


----------



## dapaterson

And today we have the curl and NWO moustache badge.  Priorities.


----------



## Infanteer

Underway said:


> When you show up with a fully self-sufficient task group, including command staff, you are a very valuable ally.   If you can properly sustain that task group over multiple years you are an extremely valuable ally.
> 
> So that's where the fleet mix math comes from.  4 warships +1 AOR. Ideally, this means 3 AOR, and 15 warships to do that + other tasks.  Then you have 6 AOPS +6-9 MCDV replacements for domestic work.
> 
> It also leaves room for a surge capability if necessary for short-term operations.



Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.



Underway said:


> This deployment is what the Aussie's took as their gold standard example for their entire fleet revamp, given their own deficiencies at the time.  They are obviously well ahead of us right now, and I think its important to look towards some of their ideas.



Also a sign of where things have got to, I guess....


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> In the early 2000s, we could project more naval power further on Earth than any country besides the US, UK and France. Fact.


And we are paying for our sins today.  The ships were ridden hard and put away wet.  With no plan to deal with the ramifications.  So here we are.


Infanteer said:


> Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.


I think Class 3 is the ring to reach for.  It's possible and what Canada needs to be able to do given our geographic location.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Yes. Had we properly repaired and refitted the fleet after 2005-06, we would not be in this mess today.


----------



## GR66

Navy_Pete said:


> I honestly can't think of a real scenario where Canada would be fighting anyone alone, let alone China. We've never done it before, and with the world being even more interconnected seems more unlikely than ever.
> 
> If Canada is fighting China, Russia, the US or the EU on our own, something has gone horribly wrong and +/- a few ships won't matter at all.


I'm obviously not suggesting that Canada could or would fight China on its own.  What I am suggesting is that the proposed fleet composition plan (below) doesn't really give the RCN the ability to do much beyond our coalition commitments in the case of a major war.

Say that in the case of a conflict with China that Russia takes that as their opportunity to also start a conflict while the West is already heavily engaged in a major Pacific war.  Canada deploys one Task Group to the Pacific against China and manages to scrape together another one for the Atlantic to face the Russians.  That's over half of our combatant fleet and both of our AORs committed.

No argument that a TG of CSC's is potent and will get us a seat at the table during a conflict but I don't think we should kid ourselves and think that it won't still be at the kid's table.  The US will take the lead in any major conflict and there is no guarantee that the deployment of our Task Groups will be where they best suit our national interests over where the US deems they will best suit their interests as far as the overall war aims are concerned.  

We are a three ocean nation and have the World's longest coastline.  During a war with China and/or Russia there will be potential threats to our maritime domain.  With over half of our combatants potentially committed and not taking into account the real possibility (probability) that our fleet will suffer combat losses (as well as ships being out of action for refit, maintenance, etc.) we wouldn't have much combatant capability left to protect our huge coastlines, replace our losses or surge additional ships to the combat theaters if required.

My preferred option would be to replace the Kingston's with an equal number of small combatants and increase the size of our submarine fleet (as well as adding uncrewed capabilities), but the Navy types on here are already suggesting that we may not even be able to meet the manning requirements of the proposed future fleet.  

If that is really the case then this is why I'm suggesting that the RCN begin looking into uncrewed capabilities sooner rather than later.  It's not a matter of uncrewed capabilities INSTEAD of the planned crewed capabilities.  It's simply a recognition that if expanding the crewed fleet to the size required to meet our national requirements isn't possible due to manning constraints then the obvious alternative is to look at uncrewed capabilities to make up the gap instead.



Underway said:


> The future fleet composition plan:
> 15 CSC/CPF (replacing as new capabilities come online)
> 2 AOR (+1 leased perhaps)
> 4 Submarines (gov't has leaned into life extension)
> 6 AOPS
> 
> Kingston class replacement and numbers are not known for sure.  I doubt it will be a one for one as AOPS do the OPV mission as well.  6-9 replacements is what I'm thinking.
> 
> The RCN Task Group concept is to have one high readiness task group available at all times.  That's 4 CSC/CPF and 1 AOR (with airdets, but that might be a critical pinch of pers as well.  6 airdets available seems a massive stretch). That's in combination from both coasts (2 CSC one coast 2 another coast).  The rest of the ships are working up to high readiness, coming off of it or in a maintenance period.  They might be available for sailing but not task group operations without some time.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I had a question, regarding task groups, but I believe it may have been just answered. I was wondering why we don’t do more of it now. A TG centered around ASTERIX with 2 east coast frigates and 2 west coast. Maybe even a VIC for spice. On paper, it looks like we have all the pieces…but is it a reflection of ship availability/condition, personnel shortages or just no mission that makes it necessary? Or is it limitations based around ASTERIX? Where she can go or can she support a command staff etc?? Truly curious.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Infanteer said:


> Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.
> 
> 
> 
> Also a sign of where things have got to, I guess....


My impression is that the RCN circa 2004 had a mix of then fairly new CPFs along with two other key capabilities: dedicated C2/AAW ships and AORs. Those C2/Anti-Air Warfare Ships, though, were new wine in very old bottles and the AORs were equally ancient. The C2 and AORs self-divested and the RCN was left with what it had. ASTERIX was a good stop-gap!

I sailed as a member of Fleet Staff a few years ago for an exercise. A CPF can embark a Fleet Staff (modernized Ops Room was set up for it - not sure if that is every CPF?) but the ship I was in did not have an air det embarked and we took berths/workspaces that they usually occupied. That CPF and embarked Commodore/Staff did command a multi-national TG for a short time. AORs were from other nations as ASTERIX was heading to the Pacific. 

Regarding MCDVs, my impression is that they are very useful ships. The MCDV offers a relatively efficient  means of showing the flag in economy of effort missions and they have been doing some useful mine countermeasures exercises with allies as well. Certainly worthy of replacement, but hopefully we don't try to make them into mini-Frigates bristling with armament.


----------



## NavyShooter

The thing is, we DID refit our ships after the 2005-06 timeframe.

The MLR/FELEX program.  Except that it wasn't actually a refit, it was an OPS room refresh with updated sensors.  The hulls and engineering plants were basically ignored as a part of the MLR.  To the point that they're still installing new CAT generators and such onboard.

I highly agree - the MCDV's are extremely useful ships, and very cost effective, both in terms of personnel and fuel.

I've previously posted in here about replacements for them - and there's a multitude of options that exist around the world.

We need to pick one, and start ordering them now....so that they show up before we wear out the MCDVs...and if we get ships that are slightly more capable (think having a 2D RADAR and LINK connection) along with a point defense capable weapons system (RAM?) then you've got something that can take on some of the load for the CPF's and extend their lives a bit.


----------



## FJAG

Infanteer said:


> Sounds like the difference between a Class 3 Navy and the six classes below it on the Grove system.


Interesting comment and made me look that up a bit more.

When Grove did his analysis in 1990 he ranked Canada as a Level 4 - Average Navy with Regional Strength and Power Projection such that it has the ability to project power into a theatre adjacent to its strategic theatre of interest.

The Brazilian Authors in the attached article, in 2018, lightly criticize his analysis of being subjective and not supported by empirical data. They go on to discuss naval classification systems (including Groves) and then go on to set some weighted criteria and do an analysis of the navies of North and South America against a ten level scale where 10 is the strongest navy. In their case, Canada comes out at Level 6 - Regional Naval Power With Partial Power Projection In The Region.


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> Interesting comment and made me look that up a bit more.
> 
> When Grove did his analysis in 1990 he ranked Canada as a Level 4 - Average Navy with Regional Strength and Power Projection such that it has the ability to project power into a theatre adjacent to its strategic theatre of interest.
> 
> These Brazilian authors, in 2018, lightly criticize his analysis of being subjective and not supported by empirical data. They go on to discuss naval classification systems (including Groves) and then go on to set some weighted criteria and do an analysis of the navies of North and South America against a ten level scale where 10 is the strongest navy. In their case, Canada comes out at Level 6 - Regional Naval Power With Partial Power Projection In The Region.


When on the Groves scale where 1 is the USN we ranked 4.  And on this other scale where 10 is the USN we ranked 6.  _counts on fingers_ That's the same score... even the descriptive text basically says the same thing.

Some of these analysis comes from how one actually operates their navy and whether you actually exercise that capability.  Canada regularly exercises power projection well outside its region.  Brazil might have an amazing navy with a carrier and a large fleet but they are not regular participants in international operations or alliances.  That kind of knocks you down a bit if you don't ever prove you have a capability by never using it.

BTW your link is broken somehow...


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> When on the Groves scale where 1 is the USN we ranked 4.  And on this other scale where 10 is the USN we ranked 6.  _counts on fingers_ That's the same score... even the descriptive text basically says the same thing.


Numerically there are two spots between 1 and 4 but three between 10 and 6 but that said, I agree that the description is similar.


Underway said:


> Some of these analysis comes from how one actually operates their navy and whether you actually exercise that capability.  Canada regularly exercises power projection well outside its region.  Brazil might have an amazing navy with a carrier and a large fleet but they are not regular participants in international operations or alliances.  That kind of knocks you down a bit if you don't ever prove you have a capability by never using it.
> 
> BTW your link is broken somehow...


Sorry about that. It was a downloaded pdf. I've changed things above to an attachment rather than a link and do so again here. The whole thing probably makes more sense when you can actually read the article.  😉 

🍻


----------



## MarkOttawa

NavyShooter said:


> The thing is, we DID refit our ships after the 2005-06 timeframe.
> 
> The MLR/FELEX program.  Except that it wasn't actually a refit, it was an OPS room refresh with updated sensors.  The hulls and engineering plants were basically ignored as a part of the MLR.  To the point that they're still installing new CAT generators and such onboard.
> 
> I highly agree - the MCDV's are extremely useful ships, and very cost effective, both in terms of personnel and fuel.
> 
> I've previously posted in here about replacements for them - and there's a multitude of options that exist around the world.
> 
> We need to pick one, and start ordering them now....so that they show up before we wear out the MCDVs...and if we get ships that are slightly more capable (think having a 2D RADAR and LINK connection) along with a point defense capable weapons system (RAM?) then you've got something that can take on some of the load for the CPF's and extend their lives a bit.


"We need to pick one, and start ordering them now"--any Canadian shipyards left to build them? No gov't will want to buy abroad no matter how much sense it might make in terms of costs and delivery speed.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

@NavyShooter the new Cat generators are only the start; the piping, valves, hull and wiring are all near the end of life. Hell of a thing to see a 300 class valve fail because the body eroded a hole through several inches of brass, but here we are.

Honestly the CPFs are in worse shape than the 280s at end of life; they at least had full baseline refits up until around the TRUMP MLR (that acronym didn't age well); at retirement the majority of the firemains were only 20-25 years old. Even the newest CPF is beyond that now.

The new Cat DGs are pretty great though; COTs product with an 80% common rail system available at ports across the planet, with an improved enclosure that makes it easier to work on and thousands in service. Pretty much all of the bidders would have been great, but partial to the happy sunflower yellow.


----------



## NavyShooter

@Navy_Pete  I see the stuff coming back to the warehouse for RP from NDQAR and the fleet.  I know the state of the bits that come back for 'repair and overhaul'...it's a sad state.


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> @Navy_Pete  I see the stuff coming back to the warehouse for RP from NDQAR and the fleet.  I know the state of the bits that come back for 'repair and overhaul'...it's a sad state.


That's best case! Guess how many things come back missing major components. Why you would return a pump assembly without the pump, I will never know.

Don't blame anyone on the ship though; when you run them hard at 30-50% HR missing key people, they can only shoulder so much.


----------



## NavyShooter

Or how about dropping not one but two pumps....only ones available in the fleet...apparently giving the new kid without a zoom boom ticket the job of loading it onto the flight deck isn't a great idea....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> @NavyShooter the new Cat generators are only the start; the piping, valves, hull and wiring are all near the end of life. Hell of a thing to see a 300 class valve fail because the body eroded a hole through several inches of brass, but here we are.
> 
> Honestly the CPFs are in worse shape than the 280s at end of life; they at least had full baseline refits up until around the TRUMP MLR (that acronym didn't age well); at retirement the majority of the firemains were only 20-25 years old. Even the newest CPF is beyond that now.
> 
> The new Cat DGs are pretty great though; COTs product with an 80% common rail system available at ports across the planet, with an improved enclosure that makes it easier to work on and thousands in service. Pretty much all of the bidders would have been great, but partial to the happy sunflower yellow.



My understanding the CPFs were only designed to be a 25 year ship.  And the intention was to begin the replacement design and contacting as the CPFs were finishing up production.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> My understanding the CPFs were only designed to be a 25 year ship.  And the intention was to begin the replacement design and contacting as the CPFs were finishing up production.


Ha ha ha! Yep, the tall foreheads somewhere in the bowls of government decided that once the last frigate left Saint John they could just shut it all down eh? Meanwhile 280's and AOR's were already on the icy step and about to fall and break their hips. In all seriousness I doubt that there was any plan to start the design of the frigate replacement in the 1990's. 

We're a nation of the deaf, led by the blind and advised by the dumb.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> Ha ha ha! Yep, the tall foreheads somewhere in the bowls of government decided that once the last frigate left Saint John they could just shut it all down eh? Meanwhile 280's and AOR's were already on the icy step and about to fall and break their hips. In all seriousness I doubt that there was any plan to start the design of the frigate replacement in the 1990's.
> 
> We're a nation of the deaf, led by the blind and advised by the dumb.


The '90s I remember were all about fighting the deficit and constitutional crisis. Everything else was secondary to purposes.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> The '90s I remember were all about fighting the deficit and constitutional crisis. Everything else was secondary to purposes.


Oh for sure, Force Reduction Plan anyone? But a senior bureaucrat or backroom boy with some foresight could have thought..."hmm, we keep this capability going and spread the cost over 40 years or we shut it down and spend 10x the amount to get a third of the capability."

Oh who am I kidding, those types of long range thinkers are rooted out and reprogrammed within months of joining the hive mind.


----------



## Underway

Fun video and a great tour of the ship.  In particular a bit of the engine spaces which you don't get to see to often as a civilian on a tour.


----------



## JMCanada

Let me extract this paragraph about RAN's new Arafura class Patrol vessels.









						How to bridge the capability gap in Australia’s transition to nuclear-powered submarines | The Strategist
					

In a previous piece, we examined the broad schedule of Australia’s capability transition from conventional submarines to nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs). In planning the transition, we shouldn’t just be focusing on the point when the first ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au
				




One path that the government should consider urgently is the possibility of ‘up-gunning’ the offshore patrol vessel fleet. These vessels are about to enter service, have sufficient space to carry lethal capability and can be produced quickly and at scale. One option could include installing the Kongsberg naval strike missile launcher that is already being acquired for larger surface combatants. Anti-submarine warfare sensors are another possibility. The RAN can’t afford the luxury of operating 1,800-tonne vessels with no warfighting capability.


----------



## Underway

Read the article and watched the hypohysterical video (that's the content creators name on youtube...)

Their job is to patrol the domestic waters, and a 25-30mm is easily enough _capability_ that they need for the job they are required to do.  Adding weapons would change their job description and the RAN, like the RCN use their patrol boats for patrol, not for warfighting.  If one wanted to increase the OPV's capabilities in their role then the first order of business should be to improve their sensors.

OPV's are not networked into the battlespace through LINK and a CMS.  NSM have an over the horizon capability and if you can't use that capability then there is no point in attaching that missile to the ship.  You would be reliant on another non-organicasset to find/fix the target for you, and then share that info with you.

Now you are spending a lot of money on a small ship that's job is to sail around chasing illegal fishermen and just knowing what's going on in domestic waters.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Read the article and watched the hypohysterical video (that's the content creators name on youtube...)
> 
> Their job is to patrol the domestic waters, and a 25-30mm is easily enough _capability_ that they need for the job they are required to do.  Adding weapons would change their job description and the RAN, like the RCN use their patrol boats for patrol, not for warfighting.  If one wanted to increase the OPV's capabilities in their role then the first order of business should be to improve their sensors.
> 
> OPV's are not networked into the battlespace through LINK and a CMS.  NSM have an over the horizon capability and if you can't use that capability then there is no point in attaching that missile to the ship.  You would be reliant on another non-organicasset to find/fix the target for you, and then share that info with you.
> 
> Now you are spending a lot of money on a small ship that's job is to sail around chasing illegal fishermen and just knowing what's going on in domestic waters.


A better solution if it's determined that there is a need to provide more firepower than your existing warships can provide would be to use containerized weapon systems that can be directed and controlled by the CSCs.  You could then place these on the deck space of an MCDV (or replacement), AOPS, JSS, USV or any commercial ship drafted into service.  No need to spend the money to upgrade a non-combatant for a capability for which the ship isn't intended to have.


----------



## Swampbuggy

All that being said, with respect to the MCDV, I would still like to see an RWS mounted, given where we send them and the likelihood that they will be shouldering more load as CPF’s become unavailable. Maybe if even 3 out of the 6 on each coast mounted a 25mm for certain deployments.


----------



## TacticalTea

Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> OPV's are not networked into the battlespace through LINK and a CMS.  NSM have an over the horizon capability and if you can't use that capability then there is no point in attaching that missile to the ship.  You would be reliant on another non-organicasset to find/fix the target for you, and then share that info with you.
> 
> Now you are spending a lot of money on a small ship that's job is to sail around chasing illegal fishermen and just knowing what's going on in domestic waters.


Is there room, power and stability to add more sensors to the AOP's?


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.


Yep ties in by fix.  @Stoker and I have both heard similar.  No project office opened yet but the capability people are looking at it already.  I'm expecting AOPS there will be max 8 ships in a replacement class as AOPS will be doing a lot of that domestic work.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Is there room, power and stability to add more sensors to the AOP's?


Yes.  They already have TRAPS up and running.  You can also embark a full Clearance Dive team with hyperbaric chamber and multiple UUV's/boats for a MCM Det.   Other things are being looked at as potential options, including a radar change for better air ops.


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> Yep ties in by fix.  @Stoker and I have both heard similar.  No project office opened yet but the capability people are looking at it already.  I'm expecting AOPS there will be max 8 ships in a replacement class as AOPS will be doing a lot of that domestic work.


Yeah hearing him reminded me of you saying as much in here.

You mean max 8 *MCDV* replacements?


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> Yeah hearing him reminded me of you saying as much in here.
> 
> You mean max 8 *MCDV* replacements?


Yes.  Unless the staffing issue turns around not sure we can even crew those.  But by the time they will be in the water staffing will be decided one way or another.


----------



## calculus

Underway said:


> Other things are being looked at as potential options, including a radar change for better air ops.


Saab AMB (Sea Giraffe)? That would provide commonality with the JSS and frigates.


----------



## GR66

TacticalTea said:


> Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.


I'm hoping that the "somewhat more armament" includes at least some missile capability rather than just a gun.  8 x Naval Strike Missiles and Sea Ceptor would be nice but even 4 x NSMs and a pair of RAM launchers for point self defence would at least give it some limited combat capability.


----------



## Czech_pivo

GR66 said:


> I'm hoping that the "somewhat more armament" includes at least some missile capability rather than just a gun.  8 x Naval Strike Missiles and Sea Ceptor would be nice but even 4 x NSMs and a pair of RAM launchers for point self defence would at least give it some limited combat capability.


Pretty sure the old Bonnie Bofor's are still around.  Look to them being dusted off....
Add them to the bow, a BAE 20mm chain gun to the stern and the obligatory pair of 50's on the port and aft, and voila, better armed than the Kingston's. Make them 21knts and they'll out race them as well.


----------



## CBH99

Czech_pivo said:


> Pretty sure the old Bonnie Bofor's are still around.  Look to them being dusted off....
> Add them to the bow, a BAE 20mm chain gun to the stern and the obligatory pair of 50's on the port and aft, and voila, better armed than the Kingston's. Make them 21knts and they'll out race them as well.


I’m all for using material efficiently, but at this point I think the Bonnie’s Bofor’s can safely go to a museum.  

Also, I’m pretty sure they came from another ship before her…no?


----------



## Navy_Pete

TacticalTea said:


> Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.


Not sure what he's smoking, but the AOPs are down on the strategic plan as an MCDV replacement, and we actually don't have anything even on paper to start it.

They would need to update the white paper first, then get preliminary funding, and figure out who would even run it. Might be a good one to stack onto VSY but I think CCG has dibs on production for after JSS.

CRCN can ask for whatever he wants from Santa, but that's not actually his call. Probably a good example of where it's good to work on the VCDS side of things to understand what L1 does what before they get up to there.


----------



## Navy_Pete

As an aside, if we are going to spool up another replacement project, the subs is probably a higher priority item. A lot of the AOPs folks will likely plug existing holes in JSS or CSC (or move to CCG), with others planning to retire.

I'm a big fan of the MCDVs, but we should have started a replacement project a decade ago, but was deliberately not done as part of NSS when GoC said we needed an AOPS. We already don't a realistic plan to stop the attrition and actually crew AOPs, JSS and CPFs/CSC, so no idea where a next gen MCDV crew would come from on top of that (especially if they make the ship bigger and want it to do more; you can only automate so much).


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> Yes.  Unless the staffing issue turns around not sure we can even crew those.  But by the time they will be in the water staffing will be decided one way or another.


Indeed, I thought even your "max 8" was quite optimistic!


Navy_Pete said:


> Not sure what he's smoking, but the AOPs are down on the strategic plan as an MCDV replacement, and we actually don't have anything even on paper to start it.
> 
> They would need to update the white paper first, then get preliminary funding, and figure out who would even run it. Might be a good one to stack onto VSY but I think CCG has dibs on production for after JSS.
> 
> CRCN can ask for whatever he wants from Santa, but that's not actually his call. Probably a good example of where it's good to work on the VCDS side of things to understand what L1 does what before they get up to there.


Yes, I was somewhat surprised to hear about MCDV replacement, although it did seem as though sub replacement was closer on the horizon.

I don't see MCDV replacement as a priority given we have the AOPVs, are understaffed, and are increasingly looking at drones, some of which could potentially take up some of the MCDV's roles.


----------



## Navy_Pete

TacticalTea said:


> Indeed, I thought even your "max 8" was quite optimistic!
> 
> Yes, I was somewhat surprised to hear about MCDV replacement, although it did seem as though sub replacement was closer on the horizon.
> 
> I don't see MCDV replacement as a priority given we have the AOPVs, are understaffed, and are increasingly looking at drones, some of which could potentially take up some of the MCDV's roles.


Honestly think the CRCN is playing way outside his swimlane all over the place, and way overestimating his actual authority.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> Honestly think the CRCN is playing way outside his swimlane all over the place, and way overestimating his actual authority.


As is RCN tradition 🤣


----------



## FSTO

When and where did he say that MCDV replacement is in the cards?


----------



## TacticalTea

FSTO said:


> When and where did he say that MCDV replacement is in the cards?


What happened to ''just take my word for it''!?   

IMQ conference, yesterday.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I’m curious about the feasibility of replacing the 12 MCDV’s with a class of 6 AOPS. Is there any way that the same missions can actually be done with half the vessels? Given that there is a drive to show the flag in the Arctic, the high profile that is given to Op CARIBBE, the goodwill that is garnered from the annual West Africa exercise AND the possibility of having some frigates off line due to maintenance issues (and more presence in South Asian Pacific), I don’t get how you can get everything done with 6 AOPV. I get that some MCDV’s will be retained for 5-8 years or more, but something has to take their place eventually, I would wager.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Wouldn't 2 or 3 8000t LPDs be a priority over MCDVs? Or is that more of an army priority than the navy's?


----------



## YZT580

Swampbuggy said:


> I’m curious about the feasibility of replacing the 12 MCDV’s with a class of 6 AOPS. Is there any way that the same missions can actually be done with half the vessels? Given that there is a drive to show the flag in the Arctic, the high profile that is given to Op CARIBBE, the goodwill that is garnered from the annual West Africa exercise AND the possibility of having some frigates off line due to maintenance issues (and more presence in South Asian Pacific), I don’t get how you can get everything done with 6 AOPV. I get that some MCDV’s will be retained for 5-8 years or more, but something has to take their place eventually, I would wager.


6 ships divided by 3 oceans doesn't really seem to leave anything for anywhere else so you can forget Op CARIBBE, Africa imho


----------



## Swampbuggy

YZT580 said:


> 6 ships divided by 3 oceans doesn't really seem to leave anything for anywhere else so you can forget Op CARIBBE, Africa imho


That’s what it seems like would happen. So, then, can you really call it a replacement if you can no longer do the work of the platform you’re ostensibly replacing?


----------



## Navy_Pete

That's why there is an 'offshore patrol' bit in their name.

Will it be as effective in some respects? No. Will it provide other capabilities? Sure.

Do we actually have capacity to run the 6 AOPs anyway, plus JSS, plus the CPFs? Nope. Adding MCDVs on top of the load, but we've already exceeded what is feasible anyway, so I guess why not crush ourselves even flatter? You can't get more dead.


----------



## dapaterson

MCDV are much more cost effective to operate than frigates, AOPS or the future CSC.


----------



## CBH99

Question for you Navy types who are in, and therefore in the know...

How many people do we _actually_ have on strength in the RCN right now?  (Trained people who can deploy, not on medical leave or whatever else.)

How many would we _need_ to be able to optimally operate the fleet we have currently have?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Navy_Pete said:


> That's why there is an 'offshore patrol' bit in their name.
> 
> Will it be as effective in some respects? No. Will it provide other capabilities? Sure.
> 
> Do we actually have capacity to run the 6 AOPs anyway, plus JSS, plus the CPFs? Nope. Adding MCDVs on top of the load, but we've already exceeded what is feasible anyway, so I guess why not crush ourselves even flatter? You can't get more dead.


I’m aware they are quite capable of offshore patrol, more so than MCDV’s. My point is the stretch of how much you can do with 6 ships vs 12. Manpower is obviously a critical problem that needs to be overcome as soon as possible and imho should be the number one priority across the board, no question. So, what I’m gleaning from all of this, is that the RCN is going to have to be much pickier about what it commits to doing.


----------



## dapaterson

CBH99 said:


> Question for you Navy types who are in, and therefore in the know...
> 
> How many people do we _actually_ have on strength in the RCN right now?  (Trained people who can deploy, not on medical leave or whatever else.)
> 
> How many would we _need_ to be able to optimally operate the fleet we have currently have?



Don't have the numbers here (and even if I did, they're probably restricted), but crew shortages are apparently a thing in lots of places:









						A third of New Zealand’s Navy ships are docked over lack of crew
					

The 279-foot offshore patrol vessel HMNZS Wellington is now the third ship to enter a period of idleness.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Maxman1

TacticalTea said:


> Just heard CRCN on MCDV replacement; didn't say much but said he expected something around 2000 tons, with somewhat more armament.



Sounds like the Maltese P71 fits the bill. 1,800 tons, speed of over 20 knots, 25mm gun plus a .50 and two 7.62, and crew of 40 with accommodation for an additional 20.


----------



## Swampbuggy

dapaterson said:


> MCDV are much more cost effective to operate than frigates, AOPS or the future CSC.


For sure.  So then the choice becomes either use an expensive asset that could probably be better used elsewhere or don’t do the stuff the MCDVs are currently doing. But, the things the MCDVs are doing are pretty important and play well in the papers, so is it something that should really be abandoned?


----------



## Stoker

Right now we have 3 Kingston Class on the West Coast that they can't crew, don't be surprised you'll see a WC Kingston Class ship brought to the EC very soon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You want 6 direct replacements for the MCDV that can do training, mine hunting, route survey. You want 6 River Class 2's for filling in the roles between the AOP's and the MCDV's. You can hot layup ships or put them in extended refit as required, in a war, we be able to fill bunks inbetween the trained ones more rapidly than you be able to build and outfit a new ship. Even if your fleet is double of your manpower, you can rotate ships through cold layup and refits. So the ships that are sailing are not a patchwork of quick repairs and baling wire.


----------



## Stoker

So what we need is a utility truck of a ship which the MCDV has turned out to be. I already saw some concept art for the replacement and obviously they took into account the limitations of the Kingston Class. So we'll have a longer ship that has the capability of up to 25 knots, good range, a small gun most likely 25mm to 40mm, .50 Cals. Nothing else. The ship will have a full sized Rhib which we don't have now. The ship will have degaussing and a CBRN capability and the ability to operate drones. I believe the replacement will be a variant of the River Class. The replacement will be able to operate with NATO MCM.
Any replacement is at least 10 years away which is the ABS assessment of how long they'll last.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Stoker said:


> Right now we have 3 Kingston Class on the West Coast that they can't crew, don't be surprised you'll see a WC Kingston Class ship brought to the EC very soon.


If that’s the case, are they able to crew 7 East Coast MCDVs? Also, I believe you had said before that you suspected to see some of them paid off/laid up as the AOPV come online, so this isn’t entirely unexpected is it?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:


> If that’s the case, are they able to crew 7 East Coast MCDVs? Also, I believe you had said before that you suspected to see some of them paid off/laid up as the AOPV come online, so this isn’t entirely unexpected is it?


Some Kingston Class are certainly in better shape than the others. The issue right now is that we need all 12 MCDV:s operating and more. I did hear their may be a move to bring more reserves in for the Kingston Class.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Just a couple of observations.

1. The MCDVs were built for one purpose only: to save a shipyard. The Navy got 'em 'cause there was no one else. They have done yeoman service.​2. As my friend _dataperson_ says, a few posts above, they are much cheaper to operate than a CPF or an HDW class ship - as would be a 2,000± ton _corvette_ with an embarked UAV and a total crew of less than 50.​3. The HDW class is 100% political. Remember 2006? One of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's very first actions was to play the anti-American card - always good politics in Canada - resurrecting John G Diefenbaker's Arctic vision. He went North, soon and often, and promised an Arctic patrol fleet, something for which the Navy never asked and for which it is still unprepared. The HDWs are constabulary vessels, not warships, and they belong in a constabulary fleet, not the RCN; but ... "only in Canada you say? Pity."​


----------



## GR66

It boggles my mind that we're not seeing ads running like crazy in the media highlighting the RCN since we're so short of personnel.  Not just the RCN specifically, but everything Maritime related (fisheries, oceanographic research, maritime trade, etc.) to raise general awareness of the population about our maritime domain and the importance of protecting it.

As a virtual island the Navy (and Air Force) are our first lines of defence.  Nothing against the Army, but if recruiting and Basic need to change to better suit Navy and Air Force recruits then do it and do it quickly.  We know what the personnel needs are going to be so we should be doing everything we can to get ahead of that curve and bring in the people we need and at the same time start taking the pressure off the people we already have.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Stoker said:


> So what we need is a utility truck of a ship which the MCDV has turned out to be. I already saw some concept art for the replacement and obviously they took into account the limitations of the Kingston Class. So we'll have a longer ship that has the capability of up to 25 knots, good range, a small gun most likely 25mm to 40mm, .50 Cals. Nothing else. The ship will have a full sized Rhib which we don't have now. The ship will have degaussing and a CBRN capability and the ability to operate drones. I believe the replacement will be a variant of the River Class. The replacement will be able to operate with NATO MCM.
> Any replacement is at least 10 years away which is the ABS assessment of how long they'll last.


I certainly hope they’ll select the 30mm, considering they’re buying 30 Marlins for the CSC. Economy of scale should ensure the best price, as well as getting a weapon with multiple types of ammunition (including air burst, which is unavailable on the 25mm), better elevation and more ready rounds carried on the mount vs the 25mm. It’s encouraging that there’s meant to a provision for CBRN protection too.


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> Saab AMB (Sea Giraffe)? That would provide commonality with the JSS and frigates.


Yup.  That's my vote if I had one.



CBH99 said:


> I’m all for using material efficiently, but at this point I think the Bonnie’s Bofor’s can safely go to a museum.


They are there.  I saw one in the National War Museum.  But it was labeled that it was from an MCDV... lol


Navy_Pete said:


> Honestly think the CRCN is playing way outside his swimlane all over the place, and way overestimating his actual authority.


Sounds like classic East Coast resistance to change.     He's already beat down CFRG and got his way there.

They are working in the capability office right now to get MCDV replacements planned.  As they are for submarines.  Coming in the new year will be a entirely different defence update.  We'll likely get a sniff then.


----------



## GR66

Stoker said:


> So what we need is a utility truck of a ship which the MCDV has turned out to be. I already saw some concept art for the replacement and obviously they took into account the limitations of the Kingston Class. So we'll have a longer ship that has the capability of up to 25 knots, good range, a small gun most likely 25mm to 40mm, .50 Cals. Nothing else. The ship will have a full sized Rhib which we don't have now. The ship will have degaussing and a CBRN capability and the ability to operate drones. I believe the replacement will be a variant of the River Class. The replacement will be able to operate with NATO MCM.
> Any replacement is at least 10 years away which is the ABS assessment of how long they'll last.


I think this is seriously short sighted.  Anyone with half a brain can see that the risk of major power conflict (specifically maritime conflict) is growing.  Never mind having better armed ships to fight a war if necessary, how about having better armed ships to potentially deter a war?

I 100% get the vital non-combat roles that a Navy plays in supporting a nation's vital interests, but it's at times like this that we need to be preparing for the worst.  I'm with Mr. Campbell that the AOPS are extremely valuable assets but they are assets that are rightfully best suited for a constabulary role.  The RCN can certainly (and has) fulfilled that role in times of low risk of conflict, but at times like these the RCN really needs to shift its focus to a potential wartime role.  Other Government departments (CCG, DFO, RCMP, Etc.) will have to take up the constabulary slack (even if they have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming) while the Navy makes that pivot.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I have vague memories of hearing that at least one of Bonnie's Bofors had a manufacturing data plate that had the year 1943 on it. 
They were extremely well traveled if nothing else.
After Bonaventure  they provided Air Defense at Lahr and served aboard the AOR during the Persian excursion part one.. And finally aboard the MCDV s.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Two points here:

First, let's all get over the "Bonnie's Bofors" thing once and for all. The Bofors 40mm came from MAGNIFICENT. Bonnie had American twin 3 inch. 50 cal guns for AA - no Bofors.

Second:



Edward Campbell said:


> 1. The MCDVs were built for one purpose only: to save a shipyard. The Navy got 'em 'cause there was no one else. They have done yeoman service.
> ​



There was never the idea of saving a shipyard with the MCDV's. They were acquired to replace the extremely old and fast aging training vessels of the Regular and Reserve force on a one for one basis: 12 MCDV to replace 6 PB (Reg force), 5 Gate vessels and FORT STEELE ( Reserve force). All of these old vessels were built in the 1950's (with PORTE ST JEAN having the distinction of being the last RCN vessel commissioned under King Georges VI).  The contracts for the MCDV constructions was a short listed contest between two Engineering consortiums - none of which had any specific yard attached to them. Ultimately, the Fenco team won and then (only then) hired Halifax shipyard - before the days of the Irvings - to build the vessels under their oversight. They could have retained any other yard they wanted.

Now, everyone knows that I am not a fan of  Irving Ship Industries, but Fenco and HS were in the process of really screwing up the MCDV production and were already months behind schedule when the Irving's bought out HS. Yet, one of the first act of the Irving's was to stop all work for almost a month at the shipyard and turn everybody out to clean up and properly organize the yard before any work would resume - then get alongside Fenco and tell them how ships are to be built (they were then just finished with their experience with the HAL's). When they got back to building the MCDV's, they were able to get on a schedule that saw them deliver the MCDV's on time and nearly on budget. And for that, at least, they should be thanked and respected.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Two points here:
> 
> First, let's all get over the "Bonnie's Bofors" thing once and for all. The Bofors 40mm came from MAGNIFICENT. Bonnie had American twin 3 inch. 50 cal guns for AA - no Bofors.
> 
> Second:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never the idea of saving a shipyard with the MCDV's. They were acquired to replace the extremely old and fast aging training vessels of the Regular and Reserve force on a one for one basis: 12 MCDV to replace 6 PB (Reg force), 5 Gate vessels and FORT STEELE ( Reserve force). All of these old vessels were built in the 1950's (with PORTE ST JEAN having the distinction of being the last RCN vessel commissioned under King Georges VI).  The contracts for the MCDV constructions was a short listed contest between two Engineering consortiums - none of which had any specific yard attached to them. Ultimately, the Fenco team won and then (only then) hired Halifax shipyard - before the days of the Irvings - to build the vessels under their oversight. They could have retained any other yard they wanted.
> 
> Now, everyone knows that I am not a fan of  Irving Ship Industries, but Fenco and HS were in the process of really screwing up the MCDV production and were already months behind schedule when the Irving's bought out HS. Yet, one of the first act of the Irving's was to stop all work for almost a month at the shipyard and turn everybody out to clean up and properly organize the yard before any work would resume - then get alongside Fenco and tell them how ships are to be built (they were then just finished with their experience with the HAL's). When they got back to building the MCDV's, they were able to get on a schedule that saw them deliver the MCDV's on time and nearly on budget. And for that, at least, they should be thanked and respected.


I beg to differ ... I was in the room, I was a senior staff officer to RAdm Ed Healy, then Chief of Engineering and Maintenance - responsible for all military equipment, when we were told to buy the MCDVs. They became reserve training vessels AFTER the decision was taken.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Perhaps a bit of history here, Edward (can I call you Edward ?).

I joined the Naval Reserve in 1976. In the summer of 1977, I went on my first tour on a Gate Vessel as a Diesel Mechanic ... and we were told they would be replaced within five years. That, of course never happened.

But, on and off, there were always talks of replacing them, and the old PB's, and of various attempts at replacing them. 

Then, Ronald Reagan and his 600 ships Navy came along, together with Brian Mulroney's first governement in Canada, and defence became more important. The naval Reserve was given a task: coastal defense of Canada. We identified (I was an officer by then, and involved in some of the tiger teams) the various types of vessels we needed for the task and came up with a requirement for three types: 8 offshore patrol vessels (1200 to 1500 tons), 12 inshore patrol vessels (500 to 900 tons) and 50 harbour defense vessels (30-50 tons). 

The original building decision was to go for the 12 inshore vessels, as their operation would amply qualify personnel to operate the harbour vessels while they would be a good steping stone to develop the skills required for to the offshore vessels. 

Then, the MND steped in the submarine replacement program and, with the help of the white paper on defence, directed it towards nuclear attack boats. As a result, the Maritime command staff, almost overnight, modified the inshore patrol vessel requirements into a mine warfare vessel capable of EDATS (Extreme Depth Armed Team Sweep) to ensure the safe transit of the nuclear submarines from Halifax and Esquimalt.

And then (again) Glastnost broke out and the wall came tumbling down ( in Berlin, that is). Suddenly, peace broke out and you had to show a "peace dividend". Simultaneously, the Mulroney governement was dealing with balooning deficits and inflation and had to show some restraint on the fiscal side. The nuclear submarine program was canned. And many voices wanted the "associated" mine warfare vessels program also canned as "not needed" anymore.

That is when the narative of the "need for reserve training" of the vessels resurfaced as the RCN way of holding on to the ships. 

But they were always needed for replacement of the training vessels. It was just a political narative to deal with a political situation at the time.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I quite frankly find all this fascinating. Between the two of you. You could probably write a book on the MCDV 
 God knows I'd buy it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GR66 said:


> It boggles my mind that we're not seeing ads running like crazy in the media highlighting the RCN since we're so short of personnel.  Not just the RCN specifically, but everything Maritime related (fisheries, oceanographic research, maritime trade, etc.) to raise general awareness of the population about our maritime domain and the importance of protecting it.
> 
> As a virtual island the Navy (and Air Force) are our first lines of defence.  Nothing against the Army, but if recruiting and Basic need to change to better suit Navy and Air Force recruits then do it and do it quickly.  We know what the personnel needs are going to be so we should be doing everything we can to get ahead of that curve and bring in the people we need and at the same time start taking the pressure off the people we already have.


CCG and the RCN advertize on FB quite a bit.


----------



## Stoker

GK .Dundas said:


> I quite frankly find all this fascinating. Between the two of you. You could probably write a book on the MCDV
> God knows I'd buy it.


Some interesting info about the project.



			Bob Mustard - MCDV | CNTHA


----------



## Edward Campbell

Stoker said:


> Some interesting info about the project.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Mustard - MCDV | CNTHA


🔔What Bob Mustard says rings lots of bells.🔔 In 1986/87 I was, rather too frequently, in hospital and under medical care and I returned to work, full time in 1988 - RAdm Denny Boyle had replaced RAdm Heally as Chief Engineering - and one of th first files I dealt with was a memo from the COS to the MND telling us that the government wanted, urgently, to support the right Canadian shipbuilders and a coastal patrol vessel was the route we were to take.

As OGBD says, the RCN (I don't think we called it the, then, although we already had "Coats of Many Colours" as we called th then DEU in honour of former MND Bob Coates who's idea it was) had an unfunded requirement for minesweepers. The MND added funding and some political direction. Adms Boyle and Heally (who was now ADM(Mat)) kicked the thing into gear - money, which the MND has or can get, is the answer to all problems in NDHQ.

Shortly afterwards I moved to take charge of DND's radio frequency business and my involvement with the MCDV project was marginal because the comms/radar suite was minimal.

But, I stand by my contention that the MCDV, like the HDW class, was a political choice, made by politicians for political reasons, and executed by DND (and PWGSC, as it was then) with as much military rationale as could be mustered.


----------



## calculus

GK .Dundas said:


> I have vague memories of hearing that at least one of Bonnie's Bofors had a manufacturing data plate that had the year 1943 on it.
> They were extremely well traveled if nothing else.
> After Bonaventure  they provided Air Defense at Lahr and served aboard the AOR during the Persian excursion part one.. And finally aboard the MCDV s.


There's a Bofors 40 at the Connaught Ranges in Kanata (Ottawa) where my daughter's Air Cadet squadron parades. I haven't looked at it too closely, but I believe there is a plaque of some sorts affixed. I'm now curious to see what it reads...


----------



## Good2Golf

Edward Campbell said:


> But, I stand by my contention that the MCDV, like the HDW class, was a political choice, made by politicians for political reasons, and executed by DND (and PWGSC, as it was then) with as much military rationale as could be mustered.


I think that probably is true for any capability worth more than a Timmies large double-double… 😉


----------



## Navy_Pete

The support/crewing model for AJISS depended on MCDVs being retired, and that assumption is also built into other common equipment plans to get those to eke out to end of life.

Aside from raw crew numbers, you need the right mix; right now martechs are down to the 50-60% range and falling. So doesn't really matter if they recruit 500 new sailors if they are bosuns and operators.

I honestly think the RCN ambition to do everything all the time will kill people sooner or later due to asking them to do too much with not enough too many times. We don't have enough people to crew the new ships coming down the pipes, but sure lets add in a new class that isn't in the strategic plan or the NSS.

"Mission first, F*ck people always, reality last".


----------



## Underway

Edward Campbell said:


> But, I stand by my contention that the MCDV, like the HDW class, was a political choice, made by politicians for political reasons, and executed by DND (and PWGSC, as it was then) with as much military rationale as could be mustered.


To pull the thread on this sweater a bit, are not all military procurement choices political in the end?  The government sets the priorities and we fall in step. AOPS was a priority for the Harper government for a some domestic political reasons but also because we were essentially blind in the ground (ocean? lol) truth up there.

My understanding is the proper way to do this is the government sets the priorities, military does some work and says this is what we need to do that job, and then there is some haggling and a process starts for the particular capability that needs to be provided (either by training, reallocation of resources we already have, procurement of new equipment etc...).

The Harper government wanted arctic operations for the security/soveriegnty.  Whatever that motivation sprung from, and whatever it turned into that was the direction given to the RCN (well actually no Royal at that time!).  Their election promise was armed icebreakers.  The RCN _needed_ patrol boats (its in Leadmark 2020) and so the haggling began.  RCN came back to the gov't and said true icebreakers were a no go but we have this requirement, matched up to army requirements for arctic deployability/sustainability and AOPS was born.

So how is that any different then the CSC?  A political choice, made by politicians for political reasons (the missions they have assigned to the RCN through Strong Secure Engaged, and before that the Canada First Defence Strategy) lead to the CSC being built.  The only difference I can see is one of the missions is one the RCN traditionally held and actually wants, while the other it rolls its eyes at and doesn't really want.*

*Caveat that with there are A LOT of sailors who want to sail on AOPS.  Small crews mean more responsibility at a Jr rank and some people just thrive with that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It is almost like the RCAF had a good idea WRT giving junior ranks alot of responsibility….


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> To pull the thread on this sweater a bit, are not all military procurement choices political in the end?  The government sets the priorities and we fall in step. AOPS was a priority for the Harper government for a some domestic political reasons but also because we were essentially blind in the ground (ocean? lol) truth up there.
> 
> My understanding is the proper way to do this is the government sets the priorities, military does some work and says this is what we need to do that job, and then there is some haggling and a process starts for the particular capability that needs to be provided (either by training, reallocation of resources we already have, procurement of new equipment etc...).
> 
> The Harper government wanted arctic operations for the security/soveriegnty.  Whatever that motivation sprung from, and whatever it turned into that was the direction given to the RCN (well actually no Royal at that time!).  Their election promise was armed icebreakers.  The RCN _needed_ patrol boats (its in Leadmark 2020) and so the haggling began.  RCN came back to the gov't and said true icebreakers were a no go but we have this requirement, matched up to army requirements for arctic deployability/sustainability and AOPS was born.
> 
> So how is that any different then the CSC?  A political choice, made by politicians for political reasons (the missions they have assigned to the RCN through Strong Secure Engaged, and before that the Canada First Defence Strategy) lead to the CSC being built.  The only difference I can see is one of the missions is one the RCN traditionally held and actually wants, while the other it rolls its eyes at and doesn't really want.*
> 
> *Caveat that with there are A LOT of sailors who want to sail on AOPS.  Small crews mean more responsibility at a Jr rank and some people just thrive with that.


Why/how was true icebreaker a no go, again?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

GR66 said:


> It boggles my mind that we're not seeing ads running like crazy in the media highlighting the RCN since we're so short of personnel.  Not just the RCN specifically, but everything Maritime related (fisheries, oceanographic research, maritime trade, etc.) to raise general awareness of the population about our maritime domain and the importance of protecting it.
> 
> As a virtual island the Navy (and Air Force) are our first lines of defence.  Nothing against the Army, but if recruiting and Basic need to change to better suit Navy and Air Force recruits then do it and do it quickly.  We know what the personnel needs are going to be so we should be doing everything we can to get ahead of that curve and bring in the people we need and at the same time start taking the pressure off the people we already have.


Listen we'd all like the Navy and Air Force to be larger than the Army but let me ask you a couple of questions:

1.  Who is going to fill sandbags and act as Canada's largest pool of GDs? 

Certainly not the Navy, they are too fat and our decrepit healthcare system can't handle anymore cardiac arrests from poor health choices.

2.  Who is going to go to Long Term Care homes and wipe old people's asses during the next pandemic? 

Not the Air Force, they only deal with 5-star accommodations, well the fighter pilots anyways and we all know they run the show at RCAF HQ.

Thus the Army will continue to hold primacy in the Halls of Power!


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Thus the Army will continue to hold primacy in the Halls of Power!


Well when you promote to Major a full three years ahead of their equivalent counterparts in the RCN and RCAF that's what happens.  It's the Russian strategy, swamp them with numbers and you'll win the day!

Seriously though, this NATO pivot to the Pacific is going to make the army primary for Europe and the RCN Primary for the Pacific.  I would not be surprised if we started seeing east coast frigates doing OP PROJECTION deployments or at the very least port visits from India to Singapore/Australia.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:


> Well when you promote to Major a full three years ahead of their equivalent counterparts in the RCN and RCAF that's what happens.  It's the Russian strategy, swamp them with numbers and you'll win the day!
> 
> Seriously though, this NATO pivot to the Pacific is going to make the army primary for Europe and the RCN Primary for the Pacific.  I would not be surprised if we started seeing east coast frigates doing OP PROJECTION deployments or at the very least port visits from India to Singapore/Australia.


Oh I know, I'm just being a smartass 😁


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Oh I know, I'm just being a smartass 😁


Hehe, I got that.  Hence my smartassery.  

RCN does have one advantage.  XO counts as having done both DCO and Adjt, for equivalencies in Ottawa.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TacticalTea said:


> Why/how was true icebreaker a no go, again?


Since they are very close in spec to the 1100 Class light icebreaker/buoy tenders, I will call them light icebreaker as well. They are not really designed for ramming a channel through new ice, day in and day out like the CCG vessels, but they can do it for awhile.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> Well when you promote to Major a full three years ahead of their equivalent counterparts in the RCN and RCAF that's what happens.  It's the Russian strategy, swamp them with numbers and you'll win the day!
> 
> Seriously though, this NATO pivot to the Pacific is going to make the army primary for Europe and the RCN Primary for the Pacific.  I would not be surprised if we started seeing east coast frigates doing OP PROJECTION deployments or at the very least port visits from India to Singapore/Australia.



In the Army's defense leading unit PT is about the pinnacle for most of their leaders.   And they will argue tooth and nail that it's a true measure of leadership.


----------



## quadrapiper

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is almost like the RCAF had a good idea WRT giving junior ranks alot of responsibility….


Wonder how directly comparable the two are.


----------



## CBH99

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is almost like the RCAF had a good idea WRT giving junior ranks alot of responsibility….


Absolutely.

I know a ton of people, myself included, who left precisely because I was treated like a child despite 2 tours, some personal travel to hotspots (at the time), and working in emergency services.

If people were given a responsibility or series of things they had to 'own' - it wouldn't the Army's retention problem


----------



## Grimey

Stoker said:


> Any replacement is at least 10 years away which is the ABS assessment of how long they'll last.


ABS?  Absolute best scenario?


----------



## Underway

Grimey said:


> ABS?  Absolute best scenario?


Something like that.  Kingstons are in good shape but we don't want to put them into bad shape.

Problem is, unless we start the procurement process now we'll be late. It will take about 5-7 years to get it going.  And the yards are basically full.  Davie might be available but they were unable to meet their contract on St. John's and there is a lot of work left to do (and fix).


----------



## YZT580

Underway said:


> Something like that.  Kingstons are in good shape but we don't want to put them into bad shape.
> 
> Problem is, unless we start the procurement process now we'll be late. It will take about 5-7 years to get it going.  And the yards are basically full.  Davie might be available but they were unable to meet their contract on St. John's and there is a lot of work left to do (and fix).


Would they be considered a warship and thus fall under the Irving umbrella or could they be included in the 'others' category which would leave them open for other yards to bid on.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Grimey said:


> ABS?  Absolute best scenario?


American Bureau of Shipping; they are the classification society doing the in service certification for the non-combatants. I think they just looked at the hull, but not as confident with the components, as some genius decided 15 years ago to mix steel pipe with bronze valves on the sea water system, and weirdly there are corrosion issues. (Funny aside, they tried to pass it over to the normal SWS LCMM 5 years later and basically were told they broke it, they bought it).

NSS applies to anything over 1000 tonnes; anything underneath that for new builds the NSS yards are excluded (which would include Davie if they get brought in officially).


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Something like that.  Kingstons are in good shape but we don't want to put them into bad shape.
> 
> Problem is, unless we start the procurement process now we'll be late. It will take about 5-7 years to get it going.  And the yards are basically full.  Davie might be available but they were unable to meet their contract on St. John's and there is a lot of work left to do (and fix).


Perhaps it would be a good idea to get observer status of some sort on the European Patrol Corvette (EPC) program.  They're looking at a couple of variants including one with 10,000nm range which might be a good fit for Canada.  Target for contract signing is 2025 with first deliveries around 2030.

Edit:  Another option would be to stick with BAE and go with their 99m Corvette design (Khareef Class)


----------



## TacticalTea

GR66 said:


> Perhaps it would be a good idea to get observer status of some sort on the European Patrol Corvette (EPC) program.  They're looking at a couple of variants including one with 10,000nm range which might be a good fit for Canada.  Target for contract signing is 2025 with first deliveries around 2030.
> 
> Edit:  Another option would be to stick with BAE and go with their 99m Corvette design (Khareef Class)


Matches speed, range and displacement expectations, varied armament configurations, borne out of an allied project set to deliver just about when we'd need it, and a flight deck that permits a wide range of operations including those involving the increasingly relevant drone warfare. 

Very nice.


----------



## Underway

Been down the road before. Corvette is a frigate with all the cost and none of the survivability.  An Patrol Class is where we need to go.  Actually I think with UXV's we are likey entering an age where we start getting new ship classes/classifications.


----------



## TacticalTea

.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Something like that.  Kingstons are in good shape but we don't want to put them into bad shape.
> 
> Problem is, unless we start the procurement process now we'll be late. It will take about 5-7 years to get it going.  And the yards are basically full.  Davie might be available but they were unable to meet their contract on St. John's and there is a lot of work left to do (and fix).


That would be a great retirement posting for me at the replacement project for the Kingston Class


----------



## TacticalTea

Stoker said:


> That would be a great retirement posting for me at the replacement project for the Kingston Class


I know a good amount of DND positions are filled by prior service folks - or sometimes even created for them - but do we know if that's the bulk of them? I'm curious about how optimized things are with regards to that sort of transition. I'm not too familiar.

Sorry for the thread derail, I won't comment at length on this in here, but given that we're on the topic, if anyone has pertinent input on this, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

TacticalTea said:


> I know a good amount of DND positions are filled by prior service folks - or sometimes even created for them - but do we know if that's the bulk of them? I'm curious about how optimized things are with regards to that sort of transition. I'm not too familiar.
> 
> Sorry for the thread derail, I won't comment at length on this in here, but given that we're on the topic, if anyone has pertinent input on this, I'd love to hear it.


Yes, it's the bulk of them on the PMO side (which includes ISED and PSPC pers). A lot of the civilians end up as retired military, but generally everyone is having problems finding people anyway, and there is a SWE freeze atm.

I think the short term will be to justify why we actually need them and get it into the strategic plan to get project funding, which has a lot of hoops. 

I can't see the MCDVs still being around though by the time we would get them, even if someone started it tomorrow. It's a 10 year horizon project unless the Cabinet basically kicks TBS/PSPC/ISED etc in the ass and gets most of the hurdles dropped. I can't see that happening as there is zero government priority for it now, and we also really need to spool up a sub replacement project as well which would need to do the same thing (with the same resources).


----------



## dapaterson

There are many competing needs, and above forecast inflation is going to start manifesting in current projects as something they can't mitigate, even with contingency funds.

There are significant Defence investments occurring (CSC, JSS, NGFC, MRTT come to mind)... as you noted, it's getting hard to fill positions to manage the acquisitions already underway, let alone others that are required and desired.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> It's a 10 year horizon project unless the Cabinet basically kicks TBS/PSPC/ISED etc in the ass and gets most of the hurdles dropped. I can't see that happening as there is zero government priority for it now, and we also really need to spool up a sub replacement project as well which would need to do the same thing (with the same resources).


Cabinet doesn’t kick TBS in the ass…TBS is Cabinet’s (PMO’s) programme throttle.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Cabinet doesn’t kick TBS in the ass…TBS is Cabinet’s (PMO’s) programme throttle.


Their frigging potentiometer is always stuck on near zero.


----------



## dapaterson

DND's biggest problem is that TBS remembers what we told them, even when we don't.

Constant rotation of PL / PD staff and grossly insufficient information transfer every APS causes considerable damage and incurs significant delay to many, many DND projects.


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> American Bureau of Shipping; they are the classification society doing the in service certification for the non-combatants. I think they just looked at the hull, but not as confident with the components, as some genius decided 15 years ago to mix steel pipe with bronze valves on the sea water system, and weirdly there are corrosion issues. (Funny aside, they tried to pass it over to the normal SWS LCMM 5 years later and basically were told they broke it, they bought it).
> 
> NSS applies to anything over 1000 tonnes; anything underneath that for new builds the NSS yards are excluded (which would include Davie if they get brought in officially).


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> DND's biggest problem is that TBS remembers what we told them, even when we don't.
> 
> Constant rotation of PL / PD staff and grossly insufficient information transfer every APS causes considerable damage and incurs significant delay to many, many DND projects.


I think that's why you really need core civilians in key positions to monitor those threads and avoid replacing the PM to totally change the approach mid stream, but in reality the people drafting things/correcting them (within DND and PSPC) turnover a lot as well, so it can be a challenge.

And have seen TBS submissions get changed to reflect something TBS wanted, and then changed back later when the TBS gatekeeper changed, so it's not just turnover at the PL/PD side. They seem to rotate a lot of analysts through as well as some kind of 'streamer' path, and some of them are frankly insufferable to deal with at a personal level due to arrogance. A few of them seemed like avatars of know-it-alls stuffed into a cheap suit and armed with bureaucratese who liked playing 'devils advocate' to everything, and correcting SMEs on things that they knew about from a wiki or blog post.

Collectively the government process is pretty schizophrenic, but if you want to not spend money externally while building a bureaucratic empire it's pretty efficient.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> DND's biggest problem is that TBS remembers what we told them, even when we don't.
> 
> Constant rotation of PL / PD staff and grossly insufficient information transfer every APS causes considerable damage and incurs significant delay to many, many DND projects.


It’s definitely a factor, but the bigger factor is where the CAF’s reasonably based requirements do not align with the political desire of how and where the Government’s discretionary funds should be disbursed.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who wins the coin toss.


----------



## GK .Dundas

At one time Civil Servants tended to stay with one Department through out their career . Sometime in the early 70's . It was decided that it might produce a more  well rounded civil service. If they were shifted around through various departments.
 I suspect that while it may done something along those lines for the individual members of the Civil Service.While it may broadened their worldview as it were.
However I suspect they would have lost a great deal of specialized knowledge that would have been gained by decades of working in the same department.


----------



## NavyShooter

Um...

Why not just dust off the plans and build a dozen new Flower Class?  They were about 940 Tons.  

Put a 25mm in place of the 2 pdr Pom Pom, put a RAM launcher on the Foc'sle instead of the 4" gun.  Put on a set of Mk. 32 SVTT from the 280's, give it the ability to use a towed array (use the old CANTASS that's being replaced with a new towed array) and toss on a SG-180 for main search Radar, put in a basic comm suite with Link 11/14 and some SATCOM for internet/wifi.  Add in the .50 Cal Remote Weapons Stations to replace the 20mm Orelikons and add a spot to hang a RHIB instead of a long boat and you're good to go.


----------



## Navy_Pete

GK .Dundas said:


> At one time Civil Servants tended to stay with one Department through out their career . Sometime in the early 70's . It was decided that it might produce a more  well rounded civil service. If they were shifted around through various departments.
> I suspect that while it may done something along those lines for the individual members of the Civil Service.While it may broadened their worldview as it were.
> However I suspect they would have lost a great deal of specialized knowledge that would have been gained by decades of working in the same department.


At least in Ottawa there is a lot of folks just burnt out and shifting out of DND to get a reasonable pace. Because it's similar job categories  lot of chances to 'deploy' doing a similar job outside of DND.

For procurement it seems particularly acute; a lot of folks get experienced as PG4s lately (basically the majority of the people doing part buys) and realize they can shift from covering 4 portfolios to just doing one by going to a different department (but staying in Ottawa).

Have lost some really good people that way, but I'm happy for them as no one likes watching people get ground down.

Not uncommon for ambitious people to do the same to climb the ladder as well by applying for acting jobs at the next level, or to just get outside the general DND roadblocks/culture.

I can definitely see the appeal, and have thought of it myself; really night and day in some cases, as some places actually listen to the SMEs they hire. And while the scope of what you are doing may be smaller, there is less internal bureaucracy so seems to have a better chance to actually get things done.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I always advocated for a 70/30 mix in the PS, 70% climb up the ladder within their Department and 30% are new from other Departments and outside government. That way you get new ideas and experiences, while having a solid knowledge base of what a Department does and has done. As for Ottawa, it seem only to exist for itself and vast majority of the people there seem preoccupied of switching jobs and climbing the ladder with no care about their Department or Mandate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

New toys for the MCDV and AOP's









						Remote Mine-hunting and Disposal System Contract Awarded to Kraken Robotics
					

Remote Mine-hunting and Disposal System Contract Awarded to Kraken Robotics




					www.canadiandefencereview.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

NavyShooter said:


> Um...
> 
> Why not just dust off the plans and build a dozen new Flower Class?  They were about 940 Tons.
> 
> Put a 25mm in place of the 2 pdr Pom Pom, put a RAM launcher on the Foc'sle instead of the 4" gun.  Put on a set of Mk. 32 SVTT from the 280's, give it the ability to use a towed array (use the old CANTASS that's being replaced with a new towed array) and toss on a SG-180 for main search Radar, put in a basic comm suite with Link 11/14 and some SATCOM for internet/wifi.  Add in the .50 Cal Remote Weapons Stations to replace the 20mm Orelikons and add a spot to hang a RHIB instead of a long boat and you're good to go.



And ask Tom Hanks to support the idea!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> I always advocated for a 70/30 mix in the PS, 70% climb up the ladder within their Department and 30% are new from other Departments and outside government. That way you get new ideas and experiences, while having a solid knowledge base of what a Department does and has done. As for Ottawa, it seem only to exist for itself and vast majority of the people there seem preoccupied of switching jobs and climbing the ladder with no care about their Department or Mandate.


I don't know if I would agree, there are a lot of PS here that stay in jobs longer then they really should because of commitment to the people in the Department, but are driven away by the Institution. Defence in particular is great at bringing people in by getting them hyped up about contributing to the CAF efforts as a PS, and then beating the heck out of them. I don't see much difference between Ottawa and the fleet in that respect; burnt out people all over.

The people that jump around to climb the ladder do the same thing as military careerists, and the same thing happens in private sector, so just the nature of the beast I think.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> And ask Tom Hanks to support the idea!


Black hats?  I’m in.  🤣


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> Black hats?  I’m in.  🤣



Dude, I thought you'd be more like....


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, I thought you'd be more like....


I refuse to believe that movie existed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> I refuse to believe that movie existed.



I thought it was a touching story of US/Japanese reconciliation in the face of global doom.

And a warning to anyone else who ever wanted to try it again 


'Battleship' Disaster Scuttles Hasbro's Plans For Board Games​

Hasbro charted the course of its board games business by way of the movie theatre. Now, after _Battleship _sank in its U.S. opening, Hasbro seems a bit dead in the water. Investors would do well to steer clear.

_Battleship, _which pitted Earth's military against an onslaught of aliens that looked like moles, took in a paltry $25.3 million and received a wide shelling by critics. Salon.com's Andrew O'Hehir called it "profoundly stupid." _The New York Times_ likened its plot to a macaroni dinner—familiar fare but not particularly nutritious. "It's loud, it's large, it's stupid," writes the _San Francisco Chronicle_'s Amy Biancolli, "and its best gag involves a chicken burrito."

Hasbro *(HAS, $34.24)* was never on the hook for the film's budget. The world's second biggest toymaker licensed the 45-year-old game to Universal, a General Electric company, and collected the fee. Bankrolling the movie fell to the studio, and in all, it cost some where far north of $209 million to make and market. The film may not plunge Universal into red ink, though, thanks to a smart decision to roll it out overseas before American critics could torpedo it. _Battleship_ grossed $215 million by the time it opened this past weekend, making its Stateside flop a touch more tolerable.

Still, the film's box-office folly means it won't buoy the sales of the actual board game as hoped. Moreover, it casts doubt on Hasbro's plans to make film versions of some remaining games in its toy box—classics like Candyland, Ouija, Clue and Monopoly. Anticipation for both the tie-in revenues and the actual films has run high. (Rumors placed Oscar-winning director Ridley Scott in talks to helm the Monopoly film. Other speculation centered on whether Clue would indeed receive a remake.) Had _Battleship _steamed through theaters, Hasbro's fortunes would appear quite brighter. But why make more films when the tentpole production floundered so noticeably? The failure leaves a lot of money on the table, piled up like penalty cash on Free Parking. Revenue that would come with bringing Gum Drop Mountain and Mr. Boddy's mansion to the big screen is in jeopardy.

The idea for these movies started when Hasbro's Transformers toys became three blockbuster films. The movies boosted sales in its boys division, which includes Transformers and other toys like G.I. Joe, and its entertainment and licensing business.  Hasbro then rolled the dice, hoping that films could also boost the sagging sales of its board games, its second largest business by revenue. Board game sales have experienced six straight quarters of year-over-year declines. Annual sales have dropped 13% in two years to barely $1.2 billion in 2011.

Further, both Mr. Boddy and Mr. Moneybags seem quite the elderly gentleman. Analysts have criticized Hasbro for its slow movement into digital games. Without Hasbro's Scrabble, there is no Words With Friends. But today, Words with Friends attracts 17.6 million active users each month, according to Appdata.com. Scrabble sees fewer than 1 million.

Investors may be lured into Hasbro because of its valuation. At 10.9 times forward earnings, Hasbro is significantly below both its  five-year average P/E and the industry average. Remember though that the stock has lost nearly 28% in the last year, and dropped 5% in the past month. Investors should see a red flare in that alone. Chief rival Mattel goes for just a hair more, at 11.8 times forward earnings, and has outperformed lately, climbing 12% during the past 12 months. Another competitor, Jakks Pacific, is more expensive, 14 times forward earnings, after shares jumped 32% this year on takeover talk.

Others buyers see Hasbro as a smart dividend play. Certainly, it's a frequent holding in many dividend funds. It pays out a 4.2% yield, more than double the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield. It ended 2011 with $642 million in cash, about $5 a share. Still, Hasbro's free cash flow is far from recent highs and fluctuated quite a bit: It went from $476 million in 2008 to $297 million last year.

Jumping ship on Hasbro seems the savviest move.









						'Battleship' Disaster Scuttles Hasbro's Plans For Board Games
					

The failure leaves a lot of money on the table, piled up like penalty cash on Free Parking.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> I refuse to believe that movie existed.


That movie is a legend and is standard hilarity in Wardrooms across the fleet.  You also can't beat it soundtrack.  I will die on this hill.


----------



## Maxman1

> Moreover, it casts doubt on Hasbro's plans to make film versions of some remaining games in its toy box—classics like Candyland, Ouija, *Clue* and Monopoly.



They already made a Clue adaptation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Best role Tim Curry ever played.

Change my mind.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> Best role Tim Curry ever played.
> 
> Change my mind.



I beg to differ....


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> I refuse to believe that movie existed.


Kevin Costner agrees with you on that….and Waterworld…


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Best role Tim Curry ever played.
> 
> Change my mind.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


>


When you're a professional piiiiiirate!
Cabin fevor is the best song from that movie though.


----------



## dapaterson

For pirates, Tim Curry > Johnny Depp


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> For pirates, Tim Curry > Johnny Depp



And the best pirate ship? Well, of course it's....


----------



## Halifax Tar

No way


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> No way
> 
> View attachment 75444


It still saddens me that it only had one season.  

It also gave us one of the best gifs ever:


----------



## Halifax Tar

I can't understand why it wasn't continued.


----------



## lenaitch

Well written - well acted.  It was doomed.

So many quotables:


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> I can't understand why it wasn't continued.


Fox.


----------



## Navy_Pete

At least they got a movie to close out some of the cliff hangers; I've had some tv shows that I've been enjoying that just get axed.

That's one thing I prefer about a lot of British tv series, they tend to have a story arc over a season; results in tighter story telling IMHO, but also that way you don't get a show canceled with it ending with someone dangling over a pit of crocodiles or something. You can still have open threads for the next season, but usually there is a more shakespearean flow of issue, resolution and final act.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

So…I caused the de-railment upthread…how about them MCDVs?


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> So…I caused the de-railment upthread…how about them MCDVs?



I cant imagine us not staying on topic


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> At least they got a movie to close out some of the cliff hangers; I've had some tv shows that I've been enjoying that just get axed.
> 
> That's one thing I prefer about a lot of British tv series, they tend to have a story arc over a season; results in tighter story telling IMHO, but also that way you don't get a show canceled with it ending with someone dangling over a pit of crocodiles or something. You can still have open threads for the next season, but usually there is a more shakespearean flow of issue, resolution and final act.


Shit!  Think about this....its been 17 years! 

I will remember this movie because it was the first movie I went to see after the birth of my first kid.  Wife had gone out for the night for the first time. And was thinking what to do....I when as a new dad I took my new daughter in the bucket to the movies by myself.  Wow good times! 

I am sure everyone here give a shit about my dumb memories! 

Anyways it was a great movie!  Loved that show.  Very different in tone than most Scifi and most Hollywood fare.  Especially today with its overall themes of individualism and anti-authoritism  and centralization this is antitheses in Hollywood now.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> So…I caused the de-railment upthread…how about them MCDVs?


I thought the Serenity was a build option for the MCDV replacement project.

Seems like we're really hard up for MCDV engineering divisional reps.  They are asking CSEO's to be MCDV NTO's right now.  Perhaps that's prep for the eventual AOPS NTO's instead of always having it be an MSE position.


----------

