# news story on the coastal patrol boats



## FormerHorseGuard (29 May 2006)

MONTREAL -- After only 10 years guarding Canada's coasts, the navy's much-vaunted $700-million coastal defence fleet has been dismissed as obsolete by senior military officials, Sun Media has learned.

According to documents obtained by the Sun through Access to Information, the ships are too small, too slow, badly equipped and too fragile to fulfil their mission adequately.

"The movements of the vessel are excessive even when seas are moderate, leading to crew fatigue ... particularly those on the bridge," states one report.

The armament of these vessels -- 40-mm forward cannons and two .50-calibre machineguns -- was ruled problematic.

"The capacity to engage an enemy with this system of armament is unacceptable," the ministry of defence states in a January 2005 memo.
&lt;A HREF="http://ads5.canoe.ca/event.ng/Type=click%26FlightID=30657%26AdID=55890%26TargetID=4870%26Segments=2371,4176,5882,5966,5972,6026,6038,6137,6501,7542,8961,9314,9707,9708,9742,9787%26Targets=439,6132,6268,4362,4776,2873,6036,2943,3079,2580,5527,4870,5383%26Values=30,50,60,72,81,93,100,110,150,160,213,224,264,332,334,374,379,380,393,407,493,860,1282,1304,1315,1445,1467,1544,1556,1947,2292,2307,2402,2540,2553,2569,2686,2700,2702,2789,3067,3081,3148,3562%26RawValues=USERID%2Cc0a8dcdc-4208-1148666640-2%26Redirect=http://chealth.canoe.ca/" target="_top"&gt;&lt;IMG SRC="http://imageads.canoe.ca/Canoe/CanoeHouseAds/chealth_skeleton_300x300.gif" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=300 BORDER=0&gt;&lt;/A&gt;

SPEED NOT SUFFICIENT

Military brass say the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 on the U.S. led to these ships being used for purposes other than those that they were conceived and equipped to handle.

The coastal fleet is intended now to meet terrorist threats and stop the flow of contraband and illegal immigration into Canada.

The ships' top speed of 15 knots, however, is insufficient for the anti-terrorist fight, according to the navy.

As well, the hulls aren't thick enough to patrol the Arctic.

About a third the size of a frigate, the Kingston-class ships were designed as patrol coast vessels to thwart illegal fishing activities.

The navy admits it would cost more than $1 billion to replace the 12 coastal defence vessels.

When they were commissioned, the navy said these ships would be patrolling Canada's coastline until 2055. As it stands now, the ships will be replaced by 2020. 
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2006/05/29/1603126-sun.html




I do not believe the ships should be in service after 50 years so guess it is good they are planning now to replace them 
nothing should be in active service that long let alone a problem child
just my thoughts


----------



## cobbler (29 May 2006)

> When they were commissioned, the navy said these ships would be patrolling Canada's coastline until 2055. As it stands now, the ships will be replaced by 2020.





That must be a reporter's mistake. Over 50 years of planned service? I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## navymich (29 May 2006)

Wow, so much I want to comment on, but I will keep it short and just pick a couple: 



			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> "The movements of the vessel are excessive even when seas are moderate, leading to crew fatigue ... particularly those on the bridge," states one report.


Definitely agree with this one, as will anyone that has ever sailed on an MCDV.  They were not meant to take the waves at all.



			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> The armament of these vessels -- 40-mm forward cannons and two .50-calibre machineguns -- was ruled problematic.
> "The capacity to engage an enemy with this system of armament is unacceptable," the ministry of defence states in a January 2005 memo.


I wish they would have gone further in depth with this comment.  "Problematic" is a broad term.  Can they shoot? Can they hit what they are aiming at?  Yes and yes.  What is the problem? My thought is the problem is not with the weapons but the fact that I, for one, would not wanting to be shooting at the enemy when you only have 15 knots under you to hightail it out of Dodge if there are problems. (note: not sure if that was a link to the memo that you provided, but it wasn't working for me)



			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> The coastal fleet is intended now to meet terrorist threats and stop the flow of contraband and illegal immigration into Canada.


Really?  News to me on that one....



			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> About a third the size of a frigate, the Kingston-class ships were *designed* as patrol coast vessels to thwart illegal fishing activities.


What something is _designed_ for and what it is actually _used_ for are 2 completely different matters.  The majority of the time, these ships are used for training platforms: OJT, Mars IV etc., plus many PR functions.  As well, they are recommencing sidescan sonar ops.  But being used as they were designed?  Nope.  And why?  Well, as the article says, they aren't capable of that mission.

I don't want to comment too negatively on them at the moment, but I am looking forward to comments from others looking in, and will gladly clarify points for anyone.


----------



## BEEFY06 (29 May 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> What something is _designed_ for and what it is actually _used_ for are 2 completely different matters.  The majority of the time, these ships are used for training platforms: OJT, Mars IV etc., plus many PR functions.  As well, they are recommencing sidescan sonar ops.  But being used as they were designed?  Nope.  And why?  Well, as the article says, they aren't capable of that mission.
> 
> I don't want to comment too negatively on them at the moment, but I am looking forward to comments from others looking in, and will gladly clarify points for anyone.



I think with the additions of the new "ORCA" Class, then the MCDV will not have to shoulder allot of the training for Mars4. I Still believe that the MCDV are somewhat of a value resource for there are supposedly have many different "packages" they can come in. Plus i think that they are spearheading Mine dectance???...
The fleet priority is with the "Sub", They continue to throw money into a "vital" component of Fleet offence or defence depending on who and what they talk about.
 I truly believe that we need to concentrate on other fleet priorties...that is a small version of my .00002$


----------



## navymich (29 May 2006)

The forecasted training level for the ORCAs is up to and including Mars III.  Mars IV will still be onboard the MCDVs.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 May 2006)

Out of curiosity, can someone explain how we came to the procurement decision on this specific model in the first place?


Matthew.


----------



## BEEFY06 (29 May 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> The forecasted training level for the ORCAs is up to and including Mars III.  Mars IV will still be onboard the MCDVs.



Just like anything in the military it will change. It might take a few years, but lets not kid ourselves the "Orca" class will be doing Mars 4. I still think the MCDV's have a valuable resource with there flat bottom and manoeuvrability.....


----------



## Enzo (29 May 2006)

Navymich knows my views on the MCDV, but I'm softening my stance somewhat. I do feel that the design was flawed from the outset, but it still appears to be a robust, economical vehicle that meets certain roles well enough. 

Why can't we continue using the MCDV for "whatever" while acquiring something that's actually useful to fill the apparent deficiencies? Then we can have more vessels moored at the docks awaiting crews.


----------



## navymich (29 May 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> Why can't we continue using the MCDV for "whatever" while acquiring something that's actually useful to fill the apparent deficiencies? Then we can have more vessels moored at the docks *awaiting crews*.


...and waiting....and waiting....

Unless you have crews that are current on everything and can just ship jump as required, you're going to be hard-pressed to keep crews going.  We're having enough trouble crewing what we have.  It would be a great plan to have a flexible crew that takes a different ship each day dependent on the circumstances as to what they are required to do.  But until then, yes, the ships will be moored waiting....and waiting....


----------



## BEEFY06 (29 May 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> Navymich knows my views on the MCDV, but I'm softening my stance somewhat. I do feel that the design was flawed from the outset, but it still appears to be a robust, economical vehicle that meets certain roles well enough.



I'm do not know allot about the building of the MCDV's, but i thought they where supposed to be bigger??? If I'm digging somewhere i shouldn't then I'm sorry. But as most military projects, they seem to not turn out they way "we" want them....


----------



## Enzo (29 May 2006)

BEEFY06 said:
			
		

> I'm do not know allot about the building of the MCDV's, but i thought they where supposed to be bigger??? If I'm digging somewhere i shouldn't then I'm sorry. But as most military projects, they seem to not turn out they way "we" want them....



A couple of years ago I had an enlightening conversation with an engineer who was not enamoured with the MCDVs. Here were his views. He stated that the original design was supposed to be ~ 6-7m longer. Between the placement of the propellors and the reduced length of the hull, too much energy is then wasted past the stern. The vessel therefore isn't using it's available power efficiently, hence the ridiculous 15 kts. There are so many factors taken into consideration during the evolution of a vessels design, everything from the amount of fuel it can carry to the amount of space she's going to take up on the docks. Who knows why these vessels were crippled from the outset. You'd have to search through the naval archives, or maybe someone can offer the answer to that query.

The MCDV is modular to a degree and achieves certain mission roles very well, other, not so much. Try this for size, any thoughts?
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-ccgmcdv.htm


----------



## Navy_Blue (29 May 2006)

If it was built to original design the MCDV would have been a very useful ship.  However the hull was cut to save money.  So here we are with a ship not really good at anything but suitable for some jobs.  We will make do we always have.  



Yeah what Enzo said lol


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2006)

There is another story in today's National Post (read it in print - electronic version is subscription) that may be related to this MCDV story.

The headline is "Tories Renege on Icebreakers". :

Actual story is that the Navy is apparently proposing the purchase of 6 of the Norwegian Svalbard ice-"breakers" for use as "Corvettes". Leaving aside the terminology here - the Norwegians call them ice-breakers but we apparently can't because they can't drive through multi-year ice and at 6300 tonnes they are bigger than our destroyers - this seems it might dovetail with the release on the MCDVs.

The article speculates that 6 Svalbards would allow patrolling into the North but would also be useful on both coasts in more conventional roles and perhaps overseas as well.  

Edit: (My speculation) The trade off may be ditching the MCDVs in their favour.  Still partly/fully manned by reservists perhaps.

Armament on the Norwegian boat is 1 x 57 mm, which would give her the same capability as a US Coast Guard frigate.  She only does 17.5 knots, not much more than an MCDV, but she is big and stable enough to carry a helicopter.  The article speculates the navy might also be looking at some missile capability.

The details of the Svalbard have been discussed here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

So: Instead of 3 Icebreakers and 12 MCDVs you might be getting 6 ice-capable, heli-launching 6300 tonne Corvettes.

Something for the morning coffee..... 

Oh,  and by the way,  the Norwegians built theirs for 80 MUSD (about 100 MCAD at the time).  The Canadian versions will cost 200 to 300 MCAD according to the article............. :


----------



## mjohnston39 (30 May 2006)

I wonder if the 200-300M includes the through life costs of the ships and therefore the bigger price tag?

Mike.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2006)

Mike:

It's possible, but I wish they would just put dollars for dollars up on the capital cost and make life easier for comparison of costs.  But as I point out here, I believe that life-cycle costing is a bit of a mug's game:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44423/post-387521.html#msg387521

It also leaves the gates open for obscuring real costs.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Navy_Blue (30 May 2006)

I though by definition Corvette's were small fast escorts???


----------



## Armymatters (30 May 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I though by definition Corvette's were small fast escorts???



By definition a corvette is a small, maneuverable, lightly armed warship, smaller than a frigate. Today, they are between what a patrol vessels and frigates are in both size and capability, compared to what they were before. That means some minor air defence, anti-ship weapons, and light ASW capabilites. The USN's future Littoral Combat Ship is and the Swedish Visby-class corvette are examples of what today's corvettes are heading towards.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2006)

You and me both.   ???



> Tories may renege on icebreakers
> To patrol arctic waters: Canadian Forces to buy eight warships instead
> 
> Chris Wattie, National Post
> ...



Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.  The full article will probably be released from the subscription wall tomorrow.


----------



## navymich (30 May 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> By definition...



Just curious as to where you got your info for this definition, do you have a link?  Thanks


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2006)

By either "definition" we must be planning on building some pretty big Frigates if 6100 tonnes is a Corvette.


----------



## Armymatters (30 May 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Just curious as to where you got your info for this definition, do you have a link?  Thanks



It is a definition straight out of a book that I read a while ago while doing a research project. I will see if I can flip through my notes and see which book it was.


----------



## aesop081 (30 May 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> It is a definition straight out of a book that I read a while ago while doing a research project. I will see if I can flip through my notes and see which book it was.



Here we go again..........


----------



## Armymatters (30 May 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Here we go again..........



It is written in my notes, but I am thumbing through my bibliography to find the book.

Edit: Found a couple of books that are in my bibliography that fit the bill:
Middleton, Drew. Submarine: The Ultimate Naval Weapon – Its Past, Present & Future. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America: Playboy Press. 1976

Preston, Anthony. Submarines: The History and Evolution of Underwater Fighting Vessels. London, United Kingdom: Phoebus Publishing Company, 1975

Macpherson, Ken. Corvettes of the Royal Canadian Navy 1939-1945. St. Catharines, Ontario: Vanwell Publishing, 1993

Robert Gardiner, et al.. Conway's All the world's fighting ships, 1947-1982. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1983

Jackson, Robert. Destroyers, frigates & corvettes. New York : Barnes & Noble, 2000


----------



## navymich (30 May 2006)

Strong recommendation, don't quote facts unless you can back them up.  And not later when you're finished thumbing either.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jun 2006)

I just wanted to clarify something about that National Post article.  It was getting my goat. As noted the author Chris Wattie and/or the Headline Writer, decided that the Svalbard was not an Icebreaker and the Tories were therefore reneging on their promise.

Below is the DNV (Det Norske Veritas) classification for the Svalbard.  DNV, like Lloyds classifies vessels for insurance purposes, much as CSA and UL do for other items.



> Klasse: DNV @1A1, Icebreaker Polar 10, RPS, F-A, E0, HELDK-SH, DeIce, FiFi1.



This is the article it was taken from:
http://www.skipsrevyen.no/batomtaler/6-01/1054.html

Here is the translation:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325773.html#msg325773

And here is the DNV explanation of what those codes mean:



> POLAR-10 (or -20 or -30) - Vessels intended for ice breaking, built for another main purpose. Ice conditions: Winter ice with multi-year ice-floes and glacial ice inclusions. Accidental ramming. Figures indicate nominal ice thickness in dm. Intermediate values may occur.
> 
> Icebreaker - Vessels intended for ice breaking as main purpose. Used in combination with ICE - 05 (or - 10 or - 15) or with POLAR - 10 (or - 20 or - 30). Repeated ramming.


http://exchange.dnv.com/Exchange%5Cen%5CMainClass.html

As far as DNV and the Norwegians are concerned the Svalbard is a vessel intended for ice breaking as a main purpose, capable of navigating through 1 m ice and capable of repeated ramming.  It may not be a Canadian Polar 8, at 1 meter it is more like a Polar 3 or 4, it may be a light icebreaker by Canadian Coast Guard standards instead of a heavy.  But it is an icebreaker.  It is also capable, like most other icebreakers, of operating in open waters and thus could be a useful patrol vessel.



> Fartøyet er spesialbygget for å seile i isfarvann, og skal kunne operere i årsgammel polaris med en tykkelse på inntil én meter.


  
"The vessel is specially built to sail in ice infested waters and shall be able to operate in year old polar ice with a thickness of up to one meter."



> Skipet kan også bryte isbelter, baks og skrugarder på hele fire meters tykkelse.


"The ship can also break ice ridges, backing and screwing in wholly four meters thickness."

It would also seem that the Svalbard would be a bit less capable than the USCGs Healy going forwards but more capable going backwards.

Icebreaking Capability  4.5 ft @ 3 knots (continuous)
8 ft (2.44 m) Backing and Ramming 
http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/

There you are. Rant over.  Had to get that off my chest. 

Cheers.

Looking forward to Stoney and Colin P squaring me away.


----------



## mjohnston39 (2 Jun 2006)

> it may be a light icebreaker by Canadian Coast Guard standards instead of a heavy



The CCGS Terry Fox is about the same displacement as the Svalbard, also I believe that the modern Finnish icebreakers are in the same displacement range. In fact it seems very similar to the Botnica, having about the same power and driven by azipods. Looks pretty obvious that the Svalbard is an icebreaker...
Mike.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jun 2006)

Lets just designate it Arctic Operations Vessel and be done with it, after all we invented MCDV...


Thoughts on the MCDV, stop using it as a patrol vessel and completely start using it for minehunting and sweeping, get the kit for all 12 and be done with it.


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Jun 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thoughts on the MCDV, stop using it as a patrol vessel and completely start using it for minehunting and sweeping, get the kit for all 12 and be done with it.



Is there enough of that kind of work to employ 12 MCDVs (even with refit etc. time)?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2006)

Or how about combining the mine work with harbour patrols and gate guard?  Not necessarily working in the harbours themselves, although that is one place where I suppose mines are likely to be found, but also working the close approaches to the harbours, essentially channeling traffic.


----------



## Mortar guy (5 Jun 2006)

I would agree with focussing the MCDVs on inshore work but not necessarily excusively harbour work. By that I mean the MCDVs would be fine for the following roles:

1) Inshore patrol (Gulf of St Lawrence, Georgia Strait, Jaun de Fuca Strait, Bay of Fundy etc.)

2) Minehunting, remote bottom inspection, diving support (new module perhaps?)

3) Training (MARS and NAVRES)

I think these roles would keep 12 MCDVs pretty busy while 8 OPVs handle FISHPATs, presence patrols, etc. out to the limit of the EEZ while also conducting Arctic patrols. 

OK, I'm an Army guy so I apologize if I've bollocksed-up any terms and such like...

MG


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2006)

MG:

These guys let me get my two cents worth in....


----------



## navymich (5 Jun 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thoughts on the MCDV, stop using it as a patrol vessel and completely start using it for minehunting and sweeping, get the kit for all 12 and be done with it.


We're having enough trouble right now with kit for 2.  And even IF we got the kit for all 12, it then falls into lack of trained personnel.  And IF we got personnel trained to run the kit on all 12 ships, we then run into the problem that most are on a 1 to 3 year contract.  Sure, many stay, but there are more and more carrying on.  It becomes a vicious circle.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Is there enough of that kind of work to employ 12 MCDVs (even with refit etc. time)?


Most definitely!



			
				Mortar guy said:
			
		

> 1) Inshore patrol (Gulf of St Lawrence, Georgia Strait, Jaun de Fuca Strait, Bay of Fundy etc.)
> 
> 2) Minehunting, remote bottom inspection, diving support (new module perhaps?)
> 
> ...


1) I agree that they should be doing more of this type of work, instead of just checking things out as they sail through/past while doing something else
2) done (although still doing if you link it with "route survey" or side scan sonar), still doing, still doing
3) still doing, and at times, far too much of it  

As for keeping the MCDV's busy?  ROTFLMAO  Sorry, not laughing at you at all.  Just thinking of our schedule.  They (meaning the big guys sitting behind a desk organizing our schedule) are finally spreading the wealth so to speak.  For many years now, there has always been 1 MCDV a year that seems to get the majority of the sea time.  My ship sailed over 200 days last year, while others were alongside.  But this year FINALLY, sea days seem to be fairly even over the fleet.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or how about combining the mine work with harbour patrols and gate guard?  Not necessarily working in the harbours themselves, although that is one place where I suppose mines are likely to be found, but also working the close approaches to the harbours, essentially channeling traffic.


Just a reminder too, that the harbour has the Port Security Section which eliminates (or should eliminate) the requirement for something like this.

And Kirkhill and MG?  Continue with putting your 2 cents in, no problem    You both bring up valid points, glad to have you "onboard".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2006)

> We're having enough trouble right now with kit for 2.  And even IF we got the kit for all 12, it then falls into lack of trained personnel.  And IF we got personnel trained to run the kit on all 12 ships, we then run into the problem that most are on a 1 to 3 year contract.  Sure, many stay, but there are more and more carrying on.  It becomes a vicious circle.



Then it becomes the same thing we in the Reg Force has been experiencing for several years. Buy the kit and maybe we can retain the reservists for longer periods of time. Would you not rather have a set role in the greater scheme of things?


----------



## navymich (10 Jun 2006)

For sure Ex-D.  I know both sides of the house experience alot of the "if it works we'll sail, if not we're alongside until it works".  But to be kitted out and know what your role will be, especially long-term, will give a big boost to retention.  

For the MCDV's, Opsked is more like Opflex.  It used to be okay when the "kids" on the boats were just that--kids.  But now they are getting lives, families, houses etc. and living it up port to port, sail to sail, is not as common anymore.  They are wanting to put down roots as much as possible, and being unsure of what is happening week to week, much less month to month is making this difficult.

Right now, throughout the West Coast MCDV crews, there are approximately 50 personnel that have CT's in progress.  Kudos for them, as most are moving on to a career over a job (myself included).  But you have to ask yourself "why" too.  What has made this influx all of a sudden?  That is more then one ship's crew that could be gone tomorrow.


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Jun 2006)

MCDV's are damn busy, I was looking at the sea days for the past 5 years, and the MCDV's had more sea time than most of the heavy's!  I can understand why so many have CT's in!

I would still like to get a trip on one though, just to see how they operate.  It would be cool with this guy if they were manned by reg/res mix.  Perhaps if all the ships had a reg/res mix we would all be better trained at our jobs?   I know the job of a bosun is a bosun, but for a 00299 the workload on a heavy is (guessing here) heavier on a reg force ship, that experience would benefit all those personnel in the navy.


----------



## hugh19 (11 Jun 2006)

When I transferred over to the reg force. My big reason were  more pay and less time at sea. It really did work that way too.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jun 2006)

> I would still like to get a trip on one though, just to see how they operate.  It would be cool with this guy if they were manned by reg/res mix.  Perhaps if all the ships had a reg/res mix we would all be better trained at our jobs?   I know the job of a bosun is a bosun, but for a 00299 the workload on a heavy is (guessing here) heavier on a reg force ship, that experience would benefit all those personnel in the navy.



Subguy- I think you are on to something here.  My wife is a Reserve MARS Officer and feels the exact same way.  Both the heavies and the MCDVs should be crewed with both Reservists and Regs- best person for the job, etc.


----------



## FSTO (11 Jun 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Subguy- I think you are on to something here.  My wife is a Reserve MARS Officer and feels the exact same way.  Both the heavies and the MCDVs should be crewed with both Reservists and Regs- best person for the job, etc.



Now you are stepping into Reg/Res politics. I was the reg force staff officer at UNICORN (Saskatoon) when the MCDV's were being introduced and the Reservists (at NAVRESHQ) were making it very clear that these ships were to be staffed by reservists alone. They were very worried that there was an insidious Reg force plan to take over the manning of the MCDV's.

I am very much in favour of mixed crewing, it would give the reservists a much needed broadening of their horizon's (and a break from their heavy sailing schedule). It would also allow the staff at the MOGS and Fleet to have more flexibility when it comes to manning.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jun 2006)

> I am very much in favour of mixed crewing, it would give the reservists a much needed broadening of their horizon's (and a break from their heavy sailing schedule). It would also allow the staff at the MOGS and Fleet to have more flexibility when it comes to manning.



Agreed. I think that you also have a much healthier pool of potential MCDV CO's to draw from.  Not to say that there have not been some outstanding Res COs, but when to you limit the pool to probably less than 25 Command Qualified Res 2.5s for 12 MCDVs- things don't always seem to work out well.

It would be good, IMHO, to have Reg Officers serve on MCDVs.  It would be good to see Res officers driving frigates.  Bosuns are interchangeable, no?  Same with Sigs...

Bottom line- more flexibility and greater interoperability amongst all parts of our fleet.


----------



## navymich (11 Jun 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It would be good, IMHO, to have Reg Officers serve on MCDVs.  It would be good to see Res officers driving frigates.  Bosuns are interchangeable, no?  Same with Sigs...



RegF officers go through their Mars IV training onboard MCDVs and finish the course with their BWK tickets.  No reason why they can't be part of the crew at another time.  Even though there are many Mars out there, there never seems to be one when you need one RIGHT NOW.

And, as said by a couple, this would allow for flexibility.  Exactly, get that pool to pull from for all trades.  We are currently swapping between the MCDVs like crazy trying to keep them all going, and there are many departments that are sadly lacking in experienced bodies.  You can't always cross the trades over and know precisely what is going on and what to do, but knowledge goes a long way.




			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Now you are stepping into Reg/Res politics. I was the reg force staff officer at UNICORN (Saskatoon) when the MCDV's were being introduced and the Reservists (at NAVRESHQ) were making it very clear that these ships were to be staffed by reservists alone. They were very worried that there was an insidious Reg force plan to take over the manning of the MCDV's.



I remember hearing all of this hoopla.  But it's going to get down to the fact that they won't have a choice.  When it boils down to tying them up, or sailing with RegF, I know the better 2 of those options.  MCDVs are cheaper to put to sea.  What a way to keep some of our RegF counterparts current then sending them to sea rather then sitting alongside with their own ship for 3, 6, 12 months.




			
				Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> *I would still like to get a trip on one though*, just to see how they operate.  It would be cool with this guy if they were manned by reg/res mix.  Perhaps if all the ships had a reg/res mix we would all be better trained at our jobs?   I know the job of a bosun is a bosun, but for a 00299 the workload on a heavy is (guessing here) heavier on a reg force ship, that experience would benefit all those personnel in the navy.



Sub_Guy, get ahold of me.  I don't have a lot of sea time left before I'm posted ashore, but I'm sure that I can work something out.  Besides, I'd love to get my department up to see things from your side of the house.


----------



## Navalsnpr (11 Jun 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> What a way to keep some of our RegF counterparts current then sending them to sea rather then sitting alongside with their own ship for 3, 6, 12 months.


One must also understand that having a ship sit alongside for extended periods of time is important for the health of a ship. As a technician, I am unable to conduct most of the preventative maintenance while the ship is at sea due to it being employed by ops, therefore we have to wait until we get alongside to perform preventative and corrective maintenance. Additionally, trials, upgrades are performed alongside, thus another reason for the MSE, CSE departments to remain on their ships to ensure this is conducted.



			
				navymich said:
			
		

> MCDVs are cheaper to put to sea.


This is true, but the task at sea will dictate what class of ship must be used. During the middle of storm season on the Atlantic, one would be crazy to send an MCDV on station on the tail of the grand banks to conduct a FISHPAT in high sea state conditions for 4-6 weeks, thus the reason a CPF/280 would be used.



			
				navymich said:
			
		

> RegF officers go through their Mars IV training onboard MCDVs and finish the course with their BWK tickets.  No reason why they can't be part of the crew at another time.  Even though there are many Mars out there, there never seems to be one when you need one RIGHT NOW.



One also has to remember that MARS officers onboard CPF/280’s also serve as Divisional Officers and usually are loaded down with secondary duties that would make it very difficult to release them to another vessel. Command's priority is primarily towards the effective running of your own ship, and normally unless a member requires a "tick in the box" on some package, and can not attain that on the current vessel, Command would be reluctant to permit a member of the ship's company to go elsewhere..


----------



## navymich (11 Jun 2006)

Navalsnipr: seen, seen and seen.  I know and understand all of what you said, but just trying to further on the talk of flexibility and interoperability as mentioned by SeaKingTacco.  There's gotta be ways to somehow bring us together.


----------



## Navalsnpr (11 Jun 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It would be good to see Res officers driving frigates.  Bosuns are interchangeable, no?  Same with Sigs...



I would not want to have a MARS officer change ship class and expect them to know how to drive the new ship with great confidence due to the extreme differences between the classes as listed below.

Tonnage, propulsion type, how many shafts, does it have CRPP all are but a few of the very unique systems and take a long time for a BWK to master.  Part of a BWK's package is understanding turning radiuses as well as the capabilities and limitations of the ship in each engineering configuration (1GT, 2GT, 2GT X-Con, 1PDE). I'm sure in a pinch, a MARS officer could jump between vessel types, but IMHO it would not be recommended. Here are but a few of the differences between our current inventory of ships.

MCDV - 934 Tonnes, dual azimuthing thruster (z-drive)
CPF - 4770 Tonnes, twin shaft
280 - 5100 Tonnes, twin shaft
AOR - 24,700 Tonnes, single shaft

As for the interchangeability of trades, this is really trade dependant, where one trade can nearly seamlessly transfer to another class of ship, others require much conversion training to be effective.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2006)

I initially tried to write this inquiry as a series of questions but because the latter questions became conditional on the answers of the early questions, it turned into a real mess.  As such, I'm just going to put this in terms of a hypothetical and then ask for correction.

Assumptions drawn from board comments:
1)  The MCDV is fine for Mine Hunting and is our only asset in that class at the moment.
2)  The MCDV is adequate for Training although the new Orca class could be used to replace some of that capacity.
3)  The MCDV is poor for Inshore Patrols because its speed limits it's ability to interdict high-speed contacts.
4)  The MCDV is poor for Offshore Patrols because its lack of stability and speed limits it's abilities across-the-board.

Proposal:
1)  Keep (6) MCDV's under Naval Reserves as dedicated Minesweepers.
2)  Transfers remaining (6) MCDV's to Coast Guard.  Allocate budget and tender bids within 12-months on redesign and refitting contract where-in refit would be conducted sequentially (to minimize costs) 1 vessel every 8-months to include Hull Extensions and addition Stern Flap with final vessels to be completed by 2012.  With refit complete, increased speed and efficiency should make them viable assets to the Coast Guard for the next 20 years.
3)  Re-allocate all Inshore Patrol and Training roles to Orca.
4)  Re-allocate all Offshore Patrol roles to new Svalbard-equivalent and CPF's....

I'll now humbly await the executioner....


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## navymich (11 Jun 2006)

Yes, you should be awaiting the executioner.  Mainly because what you say makes sense, and therefore it is all on the chopping block.  ;D

Just one change though, they don't classify the gear on the MCDV's as minesweeping or mine hunting.  It is "towed side scan sonar" or "route survey".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jun 2006)

NavalSniper-

I'm not advocating the MARS officers (Reg or Res) be loaned to to one type of ship or another- I'm advocating POSTING them there.  If a Frigate needs a BWK, why can't a Class C Reserve SLT with his or her MCDV ticket be posted to a frigate?  Yes, they will have to go thru the OOD package and get a frigate BWK ticket.  So what?  If a Reg Force subbie gets posted from a frigate to the tanker (for example)  they have to do the same thing.  BTW, I'm advocating the opposite, too.  I think the cross pol having both Reserve and Reg pers see all parts of the fleet would be healthy.

Cheers!


----------



## Navalsnpr (11 Jun 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt,

Your assumptions are pretty bang on...

Check out this webpage pertaining to a vision of the future of the MCDV as written by the Simon Fraser University - Canadian American Strategic Review. Obviously some of this topic has been discussed elsewhere!

A Modest Proposal — MCDV for an Interim Maritime Security Force? 

SeaKingTacco, 

I agree it would be nice, but those tickets take time to achieve. IMHO it is better to become an master on one class than just overly familiar with multiple classes. This is based on my experience serving on three different classes of ships (DDE, DDH & FFH), and the long hours spent trying to learn everything possible about the new class of ship you are on.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jun 2006)

NavalSniper-

Agreed on the time in trg issue.  I'm not saying cross-pol should be the rule, rather, it should at least be a possibility.

Cheers!


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Jun 2006)

As a SSD Helmsman, I've seen some good, a lot of mediocre, and many poor drivers on ships.

A Frigate is a large, complex warship with a LOT of things going on at the same time.  Especially when compared to an MCDV.  That's not saying that MCDV's are easy to control, but that Frigates are more difficult to get a handle on.

While cross-decking a Reserve MARS O to a CPF would be good for his experience, and training, it would take a long time for him/her to transition to a CPF.  The OOW has to understand and be fully profficient at a number of things, and the differences between a CPF and an MCDV would necessitate the Officer doing a complete BWK package, from square one.  

I like the idea of getting something bigger and more capable than an MCDV.  I personally believe that they are a very limited design, and while the well-deck does give some flexibility in packages, there is limited value in a ship with so small a crew, and limited sea-keeping ability and speed.  

Sending a 10 man boarding party from an MCDV will literally gut the crew, it's almost 1/3 of the crew gone!

That's presuming the ships are fast enough to catch up to whoever it is that they plan to board.

Anyhow, just a couple of my thoughts on things.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2006)

The MCDV were designed around the same time that we got the 500 class and the Navy got the torpedo recovery vessels. They all seem to suffer from the same problem, to much multi-tasking, design by committee (that can’t do a stability calculation) cost reductions and oversized bridges.

Your MCDV are defiantly a step up from what they had and I was glad to see them armed, even if inadequately, they were a step in the right direction and a far cheaper way to train navigators and ship handlers than using the larger vessels.

As for the proposed ice-breakers, it would certainly give the navy some ice ability, as far as speed is concerned, if you want ice breaking ability, you have to give up speed.

I suspect that the MCDV are due for some upgrades, the 40mm could be removed (store them away as they are a good gun) and replace them with a self-contained stabilized gun mount in 57mm. 

Cdn blackshirt

The Coast Guard will not want them as they can’t do buoy work and won’t have the speed to intercept or the sea keeping required. We gave away one of our 500’s which is similar to the MCDV but better sea keeping (although they roll like pigs) The MCDV if I remember correctly don’t have a RHIB launch ramp at the stern either.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

A point about the Orcas as Patrol Vessels.  They only do "nearly 20 knots".

Although they are similar in length to the 20 year old Island Class PBs operated by the USCG and have similar power plants and crews apparently they are Beamier (8.4m vs 6.4m) and Heavier (210 tonnes vs 150 tonnes).  This may not be a bad thing for a Training vessel (FAS/Global Security reports that the USCG is having maintenance problems on their vessels because of tight spaces).   However it means that the top speed, with similar power plants is down from 29.5 knots to less than 20 knots - faster than an MCDV but still slower than many cargo vessels they might be required to intercept.  The slow speed is not a problem for a training vessel if you want a long service life,  the USCG boats are apparently suffering a lot of hull cracking and corrosion after 20 years hard service.  

If you want a Patrol Vessel that can also be an Interceptor then it seems to me you are going to want a good turn of speed.  The question is how much is enough. 20-25-30-35-40 kts are all possible in vessels of similar size but the higher the speeds, the greater the forces on the hull and (probably) the shorter the service life.

Like everything else in this world, you have to give up somethings to get other things.


----------



## Enzo (14 Jun 2006)

Just an offhand thought.

The CG uses volunteers along the coast for SAR in RIBS. So, following this line of thought, establish naval outposts in high contact areas along the coastline in RIBS for quick interdiction, to be augmented by: satellite, RADAR, UAVs, Naval and Air Force support.

Something in the way of being nibbled to death by ducks to be sure; high volume (redundancy), low cost, etc.

Right, that's just off the top of my head and most likely ridiculous, but thought I'd toss it out there anyway.


----------



## GAP (14 Jun 2006)

Is this based on the Australian Coast Watcher idea??


----------



## Enzo (14 Jun 2006)

Nope, I was just musing aloud.


----------

