Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Stoker]

Not true. Ice strengthed hull (which doesn't actually have an engineering definition) limits damage when there is light surface ice. If you want to transit you would require an icebreaker as escort.

Lets not Frankenvette this. Keep the through line. Already we're trying to desgin a strike length VLS with combat package equivalent to the current frigates (minus a sensor redundancy and helicopters) at a low tonnage, plus modular mission packages.

I would think the same ice rating as a Kingston Class, built out of low temp steel at a minimum.

 

[Stoker]

Alternately if the Panama Canal was closed to us a ship could transit the NWP at a distance of around 7,000 nautical miles. Having an ice strengthened hull would allow passage through a good chunk of the year (and expanding as the ice pack continues to contract).

Honestly we should be prepared regardless but sorry not buying about the US possibly closing the canal to us.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not true. Ice strengthed hull (which doesn't actually have an engineering definition) limits damage when there is light surface ice. If you want to transit you would require an icebreaker as escort.

Lets not Frankenvette this. Keep the through line. Already we're trying to desgin a strike length VLS with combat package equivalent to the current frigates (minus a sensor redundancy and helicopters) at a low tonnage, plus modular mission packages.

The strike length issue can be dealt with by deck mounted slant launchers like the BAE Adaptable Deck Launcher and/or the Lockheed Martin Mk70 Payload Delivery System TEL

 

[Underway]

The strike length issue can be dealt with by deck mounted slant launchers like the BAE Adaptable Deck Launcher and/or the Lockheed Martin Mk70 Payload Delivery System TEL

Their ergonomics leave much to be desired. Lots of space taken up with limited add on capability. Better to have VLS not SLS.

 

[Kirkhill]

Their ergonomics leave much to be desired. Lots of space taken up with limited add on capability. Better to have VLS not SLS.

Seen but strike length means deep draught which seems to imply heavy displacement and not corvettish.

 

[GR66]

Honestly we should be prepared regardless but sorry not buying about the US possibly closing the canal to us.

Not having passage available through the Panama Canal might not be due to the US "closing" it to us. The canal is already having significant issues with low reservoir water levels limiting the number of passages that can be made during times of drought. No idea if ongoing climate change might make matters worse over time.

If the time comes when there is a requirement for the US to transit a significant number of their own naval and supply vessels through the canal during a time of limited capacity I don't doubt that any Canadian vessels also wanting to transit will be put at the bottom of the priority list.

 

[KevinB]

Seen but strike length means deep draught which seems to imply heavy displacement and not corvettish.

25’ isn’t deep when you consider what size Corvettes tend to run these days, and at least 2/3rds of that is generally above the waterline.

Rudimentary googling has Mk41 VLS on the new Finnish Pohjanmaa class
From Wiki

Displacement 4,300 t (4,200 long tons)[2]

117 m (383 ft 10 in)[2]

16 m (52 ft 6 in)

5 m (16 ft 5 in)

[td]Length[/td] [td]Beam[/td] [td]Draught[/td]

 

[Cloud Cover]

I thought this was supposed to be a ship that sometimes could be fitted with containerized missiles (laying flat before elevation and launch) and under 2,000 tons. Has that changed or is it just this discussion board that has moved past that idea.
I mean a MK 41 VLS would be great, but the government pretty much did its best to limit that even in the River Class batch/flight 1.

 

[Maxman1]

25’ isn’t deep when you consider what size Corvettes tend to run these days, and at least 2/3rds of that is generally above the waterline.

Rudimentary googling has Mk41 VLS on the new Finnish Pohjanmaa class
From Wiki

Displacement 4,300 t (4,200 long tons)[2]

117 m (383 ft 10 in)[2]

16 m (52 ft 6 in)

5 m (16 ft 5 in)

[td]Length[/td] [td]Beam[/td] [td]Draught[/td]

And it's Polar Class 7 equivalent.

 

[KevinB]

I thought this was supposed to be a ship that sometimes could be fitted with containerized missiles (laying flat before elevation and launch) and under 2,000 tons. Has that changed or is it just this discussion board that has moved past that idea.

No idea. I’m not a naval guy.
If anyone cares I did stay at a Holiday Inn a few weeks ago though.

I would expect the RCN is looking at various options to get the best out of a 2nd Tier Combatant they can.

I mean a MK 41 VLS would be great, but the government pretty much did its best to limit that even in the River Class batch/flight 1.

Fitted for, still isn’t necessarily with missiles…

 

[Cloud Cover]

No idea. I’m not a naval guy.
If anyone cares I did stay at a Holiday Inn a few weeks ago though.

I would expect the RCN is looking at various options to get the best out of a 2nd Tier Combatant they can.


Fitted for, still isn’t necessarily with missiles…

Oh it’s entirely possible to build a corvette brimming with VLS nasty business missiles and apparently keep it well under 2000 tons. Probably a cramped little ship built for 3-4 day patrols and doesn’t appear to have RAS facilities (might but not sure). Certainly not a standard Canadian deployment measured in weeks and months.
Canada likely would never do it, but anything is possible for a price and if there is a need.

Sa'ar 72-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Imagine all that electronic array and firepower for ship with a crew of 50. Built with a main mission to sit offshore, patrol a little bit but mostly eat pizza (without pepperoni) and be plugged into the sophisticated national air defences network to defend cities from missiles, drones and aircraft.

Medium range missile…

Barak 8 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Underway]

Seen but strike length means deep draught which seems to imply heavy displacement and not corvettish.

Not necessarily. You're assuming the VLS are flush with the deck. What if they are flush with the top of the superstructure?



Those sit proud of the deck. As well if there are no hangar facilities (which no one expects there to be) then you open up a lot of space for creative design. If you go with an exhausting arrangment similar to the A200 MEKO you open up even more deck space for equipment.


Image courtesy of navylookout.com.

 

[Kirkhill]

25’ isn’t deep when you consider what size Corvettes tend to run these days, and at least 2/3rds of that is generally above the waterline.

Rudimentary googling has Mk41 VLS on the new Finnish Pohjanmaa class
From Wiki

Displacement 4,300 t (4,200 long tons)[2]

117 m (383 ft 10 in)[2]

16 m (52 ft 6 in)

5 m (16 ft 5 in)

[td]Length[/td] [td]Beam[/td] [td]Draught[/td]

When you are trying to beat a 1000 tonne light benchmark that seems a bit on the big side.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not necessarily. You're assuming the VLS are flush with the deck. What if they are flush with the top of the superstructure?

View attachment 92515

Those sit proud of the deck. As well if there are no hangar facilities (which no one expects there to be) then you open up a lot of space for creative design. If you go with an exhausting arrangment similar to the A200 MEKO you open up even more deck space for equipment.

View attachment 92516
Image courtesy of navylookout.com.

What’s the sea keeping like with these arrangements on a shallow draft corvette I wonder.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm enjoying the speculation on a new class of ships (that isn't in the defence white paper, funding plan or NSS) when we already can't crew the ships we have or the ones pending delivery, let alone find more people to support them, facilities to maintain them etc.

My wishlist for new RCN stuff is pretty limited to replacement buildings for CFNES and CFNOS, and upgraded DC trainers that have stuff that is on AOPS, JSS and future RCD (none of which is on any plans right now).

The requirements team can make believe a 500 tonne ship with 50 VLS cells each, but none of it matters as the government hasn't said they want them, and we'll be lucky to get the RCDs and a few replacement subs.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'm enjoying the speculation on a new class of ships (that isn't in the defence white paper, funding plan or NSS) when we already can't crew the ships we have or the ones pending delivery, let alone find more people to support them, facilities to maintain them etc.

My wishlist for new RCN stuff is pretty limited to replacement buildings for CFNES and CFNOS, and upgraded DC trainers that have stuff that is on AOPS, JSS and future RCD (none of which is on any plans right now).

The requirements team can make believe a 500 tonne ship with 50 VLS cells each, but none of it matters as the government hasn't said they want them, and we'll be lucky to get the RCDs and a few replacement subs.

Kraken himself started it. I’m also beginning to think @Underway is CRCN, lol.

Would you settle for a cruise missile equipped tugboat?

 

[Stoker]

I'm enjoying the speculation on a new class of ships (that isn't in the defence white paper, funding plan or NSS) when we already can't crew the ships we have or the ones pending delivery, let alone find more people to support them, facilities to maintain them etc.

My wishlist for new RCN stuff is pretty limited to replacement buildings for CFNES and CFNOS, and upgraded DC trainers that have stuff that is on AOPS, JSS and future RCD (none of which is on any plans right now).

The requirements team can make believe a 500 tonne ship with 50 VLS cells each, but none of it matters as the government hasn't said they want them, and we'll be lucky to get the RCDs and a few replacement subs.

and hopefully working jetty cranes, jetty refurbishment overall and a bigger dock.

 

[Cloud Cover]

and hopefully working jetty cranes, jetty refurbishment overall and a bigger dock.

Who wouldn’t want a bigger dock.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Kraken himself started it. I’m also beginning to think @Underway is CRCN, lol.

Would you settle for a cruise missile equipped tugboat?

CRCN can start whatever he likes; he has no authority to actually deliver a ship, just a list of wants.

@Stoker Yeah, lots of infra things for sure.

Bang for buckwise, DRDC is also criminally underused, and difficult to get funding to do actual research and testing on known problems, with experts we already employ to do exactly that sort of thing. They do have a lot of internal funding they can use, but still lots of cases where they need some portions of it done.

Lots of things we are running on SOPs that are best guesses or assumptions that we could easily actually test (and improve SOPs and responses) for a fraction of the amount of money being spent on option analysis and travel that vanity projects like these burn through. There are some pretty fundamental things we know needs replaced that has exactly zero dedicated resources looking at it, as the LCMMs are running flat out just trying to keep the existing old kit running along.

Off the top of my head can think of a few projects that stalled due to lack of people that are on the PRO and CHI BOIs but still not implemented, as well as some other things where we should have started replacing RCN wide kit 5 years ago.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kraken himself started it. I’m also beginning to think @Underway is CRCN, lol.

Would you settle for a cruise missile equipped tugboat?

Couldn't help myself. Would you believe....

I lean towards a troop of Brownies with a box of stale cookies.