# Kingston class: Upgrading the MCDVs.



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2006)

Is the old 40 mm and the 2 x.50 HMGs onboard enough or can the the weapons fit be upgraded? I was thinking the .50s could be swapped out for some US M242 Bushmasters (25mm) and the Bofors exchanged out for an Oerlikon 30mm. _If_ the Kingston class should ever get deployed to an operational theatre provision should be set aside for a 4 cell Javelin launcher similiar to what the German Navy does with their Frakenthall class minewarfare units (only they use a 4 cell Stinger launcher). Thoughts?


----------



## Rhibwolf (23 Jul 2006)

The key to your question, "is [it] enough", depends entirely on what you want to do with the weapons system.  As a platform, the MCDV is somewhat limited due to its sea friendliness and limitations wrt speed and range.    I think you were pretty much spot on when you italicized _if_, as im not sure we can expect to see them deployed.  We have sufficient problems manning them year round, and it seems even problematic to assign them Fish Pats out east.  Therefore, regardless of what they are carrying, if they cant get within range, it doesnt matter what (if anything) is on the bow.  That said, any platform can be fitted to mount nearly any array of weapons.  Could the MCDV be made into a beast of a different nature? sure, but I ask you a question in return:
Where and in what capacity would you like to see them deployed/employed?

RW


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2006)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it's money better spent elswhere.



Possibly but as long as they are in service we should make the best use of them.

RW: For me I would like to see the class get dedicated mission fits i.e 2 per coast being dedicated route survey/mine inspection ships; 2 per coast being dedicated mine sweepers; and 2 per coast being dedicated diving support ships and coastal patrol vessels.


----------



## Jammer (23 Jul 2006)

That's a really good idea for sure. Kind of like a Homeland security thing, meeting suspect/high-risk ships before they enter harbours for a rad/haz sweep and such.


----------



## newfin (24 Jul 2006)

Can the Kingston's be used as diving support vessels?  I like the idea of dedicating them to specific tasks.  Were all of the support modules ever purchased for them?  CASR seems to think that at the time the Navy wanted modest vessels devoted primarily to anti-mine warfare and that's what they ended up with.  I think the Navy should stick with their plans for a mid-life upgrade.  It's a shame to let a capability wither on the vine especially with no replacement in sight.  The Bushmaster seems to be a suitable weapon to replace the Bofors.


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Jul 2006)

Although the vessels are called MCDV they are classified as Mechanical Minesweepers.   They were primarily designed for that task.  Personally I don't really care for the vessels, they are excellent training platforms and for conducting patrols, but they are too slow.  Plus all they get all the university girls in the summer.    >


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jul 2006)

> The Bushmaster seems to be a suitable weapon to replace the Bofors.



I was favouring the M242 to replace the .50s not the Bofors.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jul 2006)

My Dad was a "Bird Gunner" in WWII.  He told me they took away their 40mm Bofors in 44 as they were considered obsolete and issued them 20mm Orleikons instead.  They are, I am told, not being kept in tip top condition for many reasons which also include lack of manpower/experience to keep up with needed maintainance.


----------



## Old_navy_062 (24 Jul 2006)

The 40mm currently on Kingston class vessels is the BOFORs L60 version.  These are a WWII weapon that is very hard for the LCMM to support, both in spares and ammunition.  BOFOR's offered an upgrade/swap to us in 2002 to the L70 at $1 mil a mount.  The upgrade would not have had hydraulics, so we would have been back to hand cranking it to bear on target.  The biggest problem with  supporting this platform (MCDV) is the "Concept of Operations" are under review (past 10 years and counting) and until completed and signed off, there will be no changes.  For those interested look up "LEMUR" on the BOFORs BAE web site.  This was the system that was recommended for replacement of the L60.  It gives a wide range of potential weapon systems.


----------



## Jammer (25 Jul 2006)

Would the hull be able to handle the Phalanx?


----------



## Rhibwolf (26 Jul 2006)

Im not a NavArc, but I cant think of anything that would rule this as imposible.  According to Raytheon's site, Phalanx fits virtually any ship without major ship alterations and can be interfaced with virtually any ship combat system.  If you can put guns like 105mm, 30mm, etc in aircraft, Im pretty sure a 20mm can be put on an MCDV.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Jul 2006)

The point is why?


----------



## navymich (26 Jul 2006)

If it were only so simple to have the money, get the new weapons and swap them out.  But that wouldn't be the end of it.  You also need to look at completely changing the training system.  Currently, the 50cal is taught on the bosn QL2 course, and the 40mm is a separate course done after a bosn is QL2 qualified.  Train the instructors first, get the courses changed so the new bodies coming through learn the new systems.  But then you have to think about getting those already trained, re-trained.  Especially those currently employed full-time on the ships.  And it's not just the bosns, you also have to remember the RSO, WDO, rest of the bridge team, ops team etc etc.  That is alot of people to get through coursing before the ship could be certified on the weapons.  Then would come the task of retraining the Class A reservists.  I've been through an amalgamation as a Class A reserve.  It's not easy.  On one hand, you want the upgrade because otherwise you are useless if you decide to accept a Class B or C contract, but on the other hand, you have already taken time off from school/work/family and it's not always easy to get more time off.

I realize that this thread is talking about upgrades (and so far only weapons, but I'm sure that once the weapons concept has been beaten to death, we'll move on to other systems that badly need upgrading  ), but the upgrade itself only scratches the surface as to what else would be involved.  So please, continue with your thoughts and ideas,they are great to hear, but be aware that I will continue to interject my navres ways on you.... ;D


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

Other than weapon systems, what else needs attention?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2006)

From all my reading the 20mm is to small to engage most targets and does not offer much more than the .50cal (although I am a fan of both). In fact even the 20mm Phalanx is being replaced by a bigger version.  Arming these vessels was a huge step up from their predecessors and if I remember correctly the guns came from the AD regiment. A semi-automated 57mm modular gun system seems like the best choice. They can be swapped out and have major maintenance done on shore, plus being designed for sea duty will be easier to engage targets and can be controlled from the bridge.

Considering what just happened to the Israel Corvette, I suggest that we start considering Chaff systems also.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Jul 2006)

WHat is the CIWS being replaced by? The newer Block is still a 20mm. Some navies are using the RAM Rolling Air Frame Missile). The CPFs already use the 57mm as a big CIWS (along with its other missions). BTW the _Hanit_ did have chaff launchers for all the good it did her....


----------



## GK .Dundas (26 Jul 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> From all my reading the 20mm is to small to engage most targets and does not offer much more than the .50cal (although I am a fan of both). In fact even the 20mm Phalanx is being replaced by a bigger version.  Arming these vessels was a huge step up from their predecessors and if I remember correctly the guns came from the AD regiment. A semi-automated 57mm modular gun system seems like the best choice. They can be swapped out and have major maintenance done on shore, plus being designed for sea duty will be easier to engage targets and can be controlled from the bridge.
> 
> Considering what just happened to the Israel Corvette, I suggest that we start considering Chaff systems also.


Just a not the Bofors were originally mounted on the carrier Bonaventure then went to The AD regiment in Germany.God knows the Govt. got it's monies worth from those guns!
And now that I think about it I wonder where they were before they were mounted on Bonnie's 's sponsons? ???


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2006)

My unit’s museum found a brand new Bofors packed into crates at the Fisheries Pat Bay dock, still in cosmoline, when assembled it was ready to go.  8)


----------



## Old_navy_062 (26 Jul 2006)

I doubt what they found was the L60 version currently used by the Navy.  This is another of the urban legends.   As for utilizing the CIWS 1B on a MCDV,  there is no location on an MCDV where you could safely mount one.  As well, unless the policy for regular force manning changes it won't happen.  The CIWS is a labour intensive unit, that the reserves would not be able to maintain.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2006)

Actually not an Urban legend as I helped unpack it, it was circa WWII without trailered mount. It had been destined for one of the Fisheries Patrol boats, either the old Lauier or Tanu. But they decided that arming their boats was “Un-Canadian”


----------



## hugh19 (29 Jul 2006)

Ok, just so you all know the Bonnie did NOT repeat NOT carry 40mm Bofors. She did have 4 twin 3inch50's till  a refit took away two of them. Oh she had saluting guns aft but no Bofors. The Maggie on the other hand did have bofors.


----------



## Rhibwolf (29 Jul 2006)

Interesting bit of trivia, and each site you look at on line will give you a different answer.  The MAJESTIC class light carrier came with bofors, but the Bonnie did not.  Some sources will state that, yes, they were there, and some will confrim just what Sledge said.  The actual answer is in between, and it satisfies all theories and urban legends. Armament: 4x twin mountings, 3"-50cal. anti-aircraft guns (two removed after refit in 67).   8x 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns.  ( aapparently never installed  )

From the DND site, : "When PROTECTEUR was first constructed she had a twin 3 inch (76mm) gun mounted on her bow. In 1983, they were removed as the guns were deemed as no longer being effective. When Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the Canadian Government decided to sent three ships; one of which was PROTECTEUR. Before being deployed twenty days later on 24 August 1990, PROTECTEUR was rearmed with the twin 3 inch gun, two CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems, a gun designed to destroy incoming missiles) and two Bofors 20mm guns.  The Bofors guns were originally from the BONAVENTURE.  After BONAVENTURE's decommissioning the guns were loaned to a Halifax museum and then borrowed back in 1990 for the Gulf War.

This leads me to believe that Bonnie came with 40mm, and they were left uncrated and/or used elsewhere.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jul 2006)

> and two Bofors 20mm guns.  The Bofors guns were originally from the BONAVENTURE.  After BONAVENTURE's decommissioning the guns were loaned to a Halifax museum and then borrowed back in 1990 for the Gulf War.



NO NO NO!  this urban legend just will not go away...

I was the Air Defence Troop Commander on HMCS PROTECTEUR in 1990.  The weapons techs (land) that installed the guns fell under my chain of command, mostly because the Navy did not know what to do with them.  Anyway, the guns that were installed came from the airfield in Germany and were slated to be installed on the MCDVs, when they were built.  They were NEVER, I repeat, NEVER in a museum.

Where this story got it's "museum" legs, is as follows: 
During the installation process, one of the gun's hydraulic fittings was either missing or U/S.  One of the techs remembered seeing a 40mm bofors up at the MARCOM museum, so he beetled up to see if he could steal a part.  Turned out to be the wrong model of gun, so FMF built a new fitting.  This story got told to the press, who somehow muddled it up or the reporter assumed that the gun on the ship was the same one in front of the MARCOM museum and... voila!  Urban legend is born.

As an aside, the guns worked very well on PRO.  We did a shoot one day against a surface target that involved several .50 cals, a 40mm and the 3'50" mount.  The amount very accurate iron that went down range in a very short period of time was  very impressive...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2006)

My understanding is that although the gun and mount are good, it becomes very difficult to use in anything greater than a moderate swell, but I suspect that the gunners also don't get as much time to train also, any comment on the above?


----------



## iconn (31 Jul 2006)

Before upgrading the MCDVs I'd first wait to see what we think of these new ORCAs (I'm getting excited). I've heard some interesting ideas about patroling with them. (You don't need much more then a 50cal to enforce fishing) 

As for the MCDVs I don't think that its worth altering the weapons until someone figures something out about making them go faster.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2006)

Making a displacement hull go faster can be self-defeating. Computer modeling of the hull can be done to determine if changes to the engines or drive systems will gain any significant benefit without serious drawbacks. It becomes more and more expense to increase speed as you get close to maximum hull speed.

It may be possible to insert a section into the hull, which might give some speed benefits, but would be a significant cost. 

Rarely does sea-keeping and speed go well together, even the US is still just playing with SWATH and other hull forms.


----------



## Navy_Blue (1 Aug 2006)

As has been said many times before the MCDV's were cut back and that is why they only have a 15 knot cap.  I don't know how much they left out off hand.  I do know that it would cost a fortune to ramp up a refit program to extend the length and considering the condition of some of them it might be more cost effective to buy newer ships.  Refit four to six even, sell the rest as surplus and find a newer model.


----------



## Phrontis (3 Aug 2006)

I'm always a little surprised when people say the MCDVs are too slow, or poor sea keepers in the open ocean, or inadequately armed.  If I'm not mistaken they were originally designed to perform MCM ops in the approaches to harbours, for which their speed, design, and armament are more than adequate.

One of their main jobs now is MARS IV training (ie: navigation, contact avoidance, watchkeeping, manoeuvring for junior executive branch officers), and again their speed, design, and armament are more than adequate for that.

And they are a huge improvement over what the Naval Reserve used to have to sail around in: 126 foot gate vessels which were so old that one of them was originally commissioned as a "_His Majesty's Canadian Ship"._


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Aug 2006)

Phrontis

Yep, I remember the Gate vessels, minesweepers and YFP's doing the same tasks, the MCDV's are a significant step up, and the fact that they were armed is a huge change.


----------



## Phrontis (4 Aug 2006)

Yes, say what one will about the gate vessels (slow, ugly, etc.), they certainly provided decades of solid service to the naval reserve, and a whole hockey sock full of training.

(I heard a story once that the gate vessel HMCS PORTE QUEBEC was going to Seattle for a port visit.  As she approached the assigned berth they could see quite a crowd on the jetty, including a band.  As they came alongside someone stepped forward and told them they couldn't stop there as they were awaiting the arrival of HMCS QUEBEC.  How embarrassing; someone had gotten ahold of an old copy of Janes and confused the gate vessel with the cruiser.  I'd have been tempted to say "Okay" and just steam away over the horizon.)

All to say that the MCDVs are a hugely more shiplike and capable vessel.  Yes, we can learn many lessons from them to apply in their eventual replacements, but we shouldn't under-rate what they have meant to the naval reserve in terms of providing meaningful missions, credibility, and professionalism.


----------

