Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Where is the sarcasm icon again ..... Damn! Can't find it.


Last thing I want is to cause a mutiny on the West Coast.

 

[kratz]

Is that your suggestion for the name of the Orca's replacement class?

I hear echoes of the Flower class with that suggestion.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I hear echoes of the Flower class with that suggestion.

The "Flower" class idea in the UK was to try and attack the morale of the opponent, not their own morale.

 

[Stoker]

With the prospect of an ORCA-class replacement on the horizon, perhaps it’s time to take a serious look at developing something a little more robust and versatile than the current design. While the primary role will remain training, the new class should not be limited to that alone.

The replacement vessel should be designed to function as an operational platform if required, able to embark limited mission packages, operate small drones or RHIBs, and mount .50-calibre machine guns when the situation demands. It should also be capable of handling moderate sea states on both coasts, steel hull, bow thruster ensuring that future RCN and Naval Reserve crews can train and operate in realistic conditions rather than being confined to fair-weather limits. The ships should be civilian standards, easy to maintain and able to be docked and maintained in any small yard.

With the expansion of the RCN and growing emphasis on coastal and Arctic presence, enough of these new vessels should be procured for both coasts, with the possibility of additional hulls dedicated to the Naval Reserve. A modern, seaworthy platform could bridge the gap between classroom instruction and real-world seamanship while offering the flexibility to fill secondary operational roles such as surveillance, patrol, and maritime security when required.

 

[Lumber]

With the prospect of an ORCA-class replacement on the horizon, perhaps it’s time to take a serious look at developing something a little more robust and versatile than the current design. While the primary role will remain training, the new class should not be limited to that alone.

The replacement vessel should be designed to function as an operational platform if required, able to embark limited mission packages, operate small drones or RHIBs, and mount .50-calibre machine guns when the situation demands. It should also be capable of handling moderate sea states on both coasts, steel hull, bow thruster ensuring that future RCN and Naval Reserve crews can train and operate in realistic conditions rather than being confined to fair-weather limits. The ships should be civilian standards, easy to maintain and able to be docked and maintained in any small yard.

With the expansion of the RCN and growing emphasis on coastal and Arctic presence, enough of these new vessels should be procured for both coasts, with the possibility of additional hulls dedicated to the Naval Reserve. A modern, seaworthy platform could bridge the gap between classroom instruction and real-world seamanship while offering the flexibility to fill secondary operational roles such as surveillance, patrol, and maritime security when required.

And there you have it...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! and Wrong!

Well, not quite. I agree that they should be capable of handling moderate sea states.

These are tier one training vessels for young officers who are going to sea for the first time more or less on their own on a training mission that seeks to integrate classroom and simulator acquired knowledge and consolidate it (all of this is from instructional design theory - if you don't know, ask a TDO). No operational duties such as surveillance, patrol or maritime security.

A single overarching aim: navigation and basic bridgemanship training, Period, end of statement.

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

What makes you think the RCN wouldn't 'steal' them anyways?

 

[quadrapiper]

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

Bet the only real fix for that is having trots of the things.

Would a YAG-ier profile; longer and lower, with (assuming the same capacity) the galley and classroom space dropped into the hull (which would, incidentally, probably make things more flexible for other uses) likely handle better?

 

[Stoker]

I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! and Wrong!

Well, not quite. I agree that they should be capable of handling moderate sea states.

These are tier one training vessels for young officers who are going to sea for the first time more or less on their own on a training mission that seeks to integrate classroom and simulator acquired knowledge and consolidate it (all of this is from instructional design theory - if you don't know, ask a TDO). No operational duties such as surveillance, patrol or maritime security.

A single overarching aim: navigation and basic bridgemanship training, Period, end of statement.

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

That’s a very narrow and outdated view of what a modern naval training vessel should be. Yes, navigation and basic bridgemanship are central to VENTURE’s purpose, but the world and the RCN have evolved their thinking. “Training only” vessels are a luxury we can no longer afford, especially when fiscal and operational realities demand flexibility. Really we're only talking about the capability if we need to use it.

The current Orca-class have already proven that a training platform can also contribute meaningfully to secondary duties: fleet familiarization, coastal surveillance, support to MIO and RHIB training, and even limited tasking with MCDVs or AOPS during exercises. The notion that any added capability would somehow “steal” the ships away from VENTURE misunderstands how force generation and tasking actually work. Sea Training, Fleet School, and MARPAC have long managed that balance successfully.

Moreover, if we’re replacing the Orcas, we’d be negligent not to future-proof the design. That means a platform capable of operating safely on both coasts, in real sea states, with proper endurance and seakeeping. Adding light armament mounts and the structural provisions for operational sensors isn’t about turning them into corvettes, it’s about ensuring that if Canada needs hulls for sovereignty patrols, presence missions, or emergency contingencies, these ships aren’t confined to the harbour approaches. As mentioned as long as we procure enough hulls over and above what the training establishment needs, those hulls could be used leaving the Hornblower wannabes to train to their hearts content.

Every major navy now designs its training ships with dual-use capability, look at the UK’s Tamar-class, France’s Garonne, or Australia’s Arafura-class (which itself grew from a training and patrol concept). If our next generation can’t at least match that flexibility, we’re setting ourselves up for obsolescence before the keel is even laid.

Training is the primary mission, absolutely, but designing for potential utility is just good stewardship. The RCN has learned that lesson the hard way before.

 

[Maxman1]

Something like a modern British Island or Castle class patrol vessel?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Something like a modern British Island or Castle class patrol vessel?

These look nice....

The vessels are armed with a remote-control Mark 38 25 mm Machine Gun System and four crew-served .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2HB heavy machine guns. They have a bow thruster for maneuvering in crowded anchorages and channels. They have small underwater fins, for coping with the rolling and pitching caused by large waves. They are equipped with a stern launching ramp, like the Marine Protector-class and the eight failed expanded Island-class cutters. They are manned by a crew of 22. The Fast Response Cutter deploys the 26-foot (7.9 m) Cutter Boat - Over the Horizon (OTH-IV) for rescues and interceptions.

Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GR66]

If a conflict with China should suddenly erupt there could potentially be dozens of foreign flagged ships in Canadian waters. We may want the capability to board and inspect these in case any are being used for covert surveillance operations or even carrying the types of containerized weapons that @Kirkhill has often mentioned.

The risk might be low but not zero. Would a somewhat upgraded Orca-class replacement be capable for such a role, keeping our combatants free for more important duties? I assume also that in the case of any open military conflict we'd want our MH fleet focused on ASW rather than delivering boarding parties.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If a conflict with China should suddenly erupt there could potentially be dozens of foreign flagged ships in Canadian waters. We may want the capability to board and inspect these in case any are being used for covert surveillance operations or even carrying the types of containerized weapons that @Kirkhill has often mentioned.

The risk might be low but not zero. Would a somewhat upgraded Orca-class replacement be capable for such a role, keeping our combatants free for more important duties? I assume also that in the case of any open military conflict we'd want our MH fleet focused on ASW rather than delivering boarding parties.

There's plague of Chinese fishing vessels roaming the high seas...

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Kirkhill]

That’s a very narrow and outdated view of what a modern naval training vessel should be. Yes, navigation and basic bridgemanship are central to VENTURE’s purpose, but the world and the RCN have evolved their thinking. “Training only” vessels are a luxury we can no longer afford, especially when fiscal and operational realities demand flexibility. Really we're only talking about the capability if we need to use it.

The current Orca-class have already proven that a training platform can also contribute meaningfully to secondary duties: fleet familiarization, coastal surveillance, support to MIO and RHIB training, and even limited tasking with MCDVs or AOPS during exercises. The notion that any added capability would somehow “steal” the ships away from VENTURE misunderstands how force generation and tasking actually work. Sea Training, Fleet School, and MARPAC have long managed that balance successfully.

Moreover, if we’re replacing the Orcas, we’d be negligent not to future-proof the design. That means a platform capable of operating safely on both coasts, in real sea states, with proper endurance and seakeeping. Adding light armament mounts and the structural provisions for operational sensors isn’t about turning them into corvettes, it’s about ensuring that if Canada needs hulls for sovereignty patrols, presence missions, or emergency contingencies, these ships aren’t confined to the harbour approaches. As mentioned as long as we procure enough hulls over and above what the training establishment needs, those hulls could be used leaving the Hornblower wannabes to train to their hearts content.

Every major navy now designs its training ships with dual-use capability, look at the UK’s Tamar-class, France’s Garonne, or Australia’s Arafura-class (which itself grew from a training and patrol concept). If our next generation can’t at least match that flexibility, we’re setting ourselves up for obsolescence before the keel is even laid.

Training is the primary mission, absolutely, but designing for potential utility is just good stewardship. The RCN has learned that lesson the hard way before.

@Oldgateboatdriver seems to be expressing the concern that your design would be as successful as the Bison was and that the RCN would do to your Orca replacement what the Army did to the Bison. After insisting they wanted nothing to do with beast and being forced to buy it for the Militia under duress they proceeded to relieve the Militia of them and then use them for everything under the sun except their primary function. They were then kept in service well past their best before date.

And I am sure many leading change boxes were ticked.

It seems that no Canadian plan survives contact with Canadian planners.

 

[Stoker]

@Oldgateboatdriver seems to be expressing the concern that your design would be as successful as the Bison was and that the RCN would do to your Orca replacement what the Army did to the Bison. After insisting they wanted nothing to do with beast and being forced to buy it for the Militia under duress they proceeded to relieve the Militia of them and then use them for everything under the sun except their primary function. They were then kept in service well past their best before date.

And I am sure many leading change boxes were ticked.

It seems that no Canadian plan survives contact with Canadian planners.

That's why we buy extra "bison" so that won't be an issue if the army comes a calling. We might as well buy back the YAGS given how wishful people talk about them here.

 

[FSTO]

That’s a very narrow and outdated view of what a modern naval training vessel should be. Yes, navigation and basic bridgemanship are central to VENTURE’s purpose, but the world and the RCN have evolved their thinking. “Training only” vessels are a luxury we can no longer afford, especially when fiscal and operational realities demand flexibility. Really we're only talking about the capability if we need to use it.

The current Orca-class have already proven that a training platform can also contribute meaningfully to secondary duties: fleet familiarization, coastal surveillance, support to MIO and RHIB training, and even limited tasking with MCDVs or AOPS during exercises. The notion that any added capability would somehow “steal” the ships away from VENTURE misunderstands how force generation and tasking actually work. Sea Training, Fleet School, and MARPAC have long managed that balance successfully.

Moreover, if we’re replacing the Orcas, we’d be negligent not to future-proof the design. That means a platform capable of operating safely on both coasts, in real sea states, with proper endurance and seakeeping. Adding light armament mounts and the structural provisions for operational sensors isn’t about turning them into corvettes, it’s about ensuring that if Canada needs hulls for sovereignty patrols, presence missions, or emergency contingencies, these ships aren’t confined to the harbour approaches. As mentioned as long as we procure enough hulls over and above what the training establishment needs, those hulls could be used leaving the Hornblower wannabes to train to their hearts content.

Every major navy now designs its training ships with dual-use capability, look at the UK’s Tamar-class, France’s Garonne, or Australia’s Arafura-class (which itself grew from a training and patrol concept). If our next generation can’t at least match that flexibility, we’re setting ourselves up for obsolescence before the keel is even laid.

Training is the primary mission, absolutely, but designing for potential utility is just good stewardship. The RCN has learned that lesson the hard way before.

You are describing the Continental Defence Corvette.
The Orca replacement will still focus on bridging the gap from simulator to actual at sea experience.
It will be able to handle the seas outside of inshore waters but it will not be combat capable.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

See my reply in yellow:

That’s a very narrow and outdated view of what a modern naval training vessel should be.

No it's not. My wife is the equivalent of the head TDO of the Canadian Space Agency and oversees the training of astronauts and console operators. This is still the way they do proper technical training for adults. Moreover, only 2 years ago, at the UNTD reunion in Esquimalt, she and I had a long chat with the CO of Venture and he confirmed to us that they still had trainees that would ace theory and do well in simulators but then get lost two cables from the jetty on the Orca's. Consolidation training is still essential and you don't want it done on a complex platform.

Yes, navigation and basic bridgemanship are central to VENTURE’s purpose, but the world and the RCN have evolved their thinking. “Training only” vessels are a luxury we can no longer afford, especially when fiscal and operational realities demand flexibility. Really we're only talking about the capability if we need to use it.

You can always afford proper training and the training equipment to support it. Besides, this contradicts your own point below, where you propose to buy more of these vessels than are needed for Venture training. Who is profligate now? Moreover, what started this whole discussion was a serious article explaining that our method of training, with training only ships, was perhaps a model the US might want to copy.

The current Orca-class have already proven that a training platform can also contribute meaningfully to secondary duties: fleet familiarization, coastal surveillance, support to MIO and RHIB training, and even limited tasking with MCDVs or AOPS during exercises.

Any vessel can be used in exercises or other duties regardless of type. I have driven YAG's in support of exes in Esquimalt (usually in winter), to do SAR support for the Herring Roe season, in support of RCMP near Vancouver, to do PR trips with youth groups and to assist the divers when deployed with needs in excess of their YDT. It does not require any pre-planning and build-in of extra capability.

The notion that any added capability would somehow “steal” the ships away from VENTURE misunderstands how force generation and tasking actually work. Sea Training, Fleet School, and MARPAC have long managed that balance successfully.

If the capability is there and the task has to be carried out, they will take them. They stole the MCDV's from being basic training vessels from the Naval Reserve with ops taskings almost from the start.

Moreover, if we’re replacing the Orcas, we’d be negligent not to future-proof the design.

No one knows the future, so can't future proof something. Can you build it with capacity for expansion? Yes, not future proof.

That means a platform capable of operating safely on both coasts, in real sea states, with proper endurance and seakeeping

What's a "real" sea state? A state that a small training vessel can just barely survive in? Anyway, it is not a requirement to be able to operate on both coast. The training takes place on the West coast, and endurance of a week or two of fuel and food is sufficient for such employment.

. Adding light armament mounts and the structural provisions for operational sensors isn’t about turning them into corvettes, it’s about ensuring that if Canada needs hulls for sovereignty patrols, presence missions, or emergency contingencies, these ships aren’t confined to the harbour approaches

All of this adds time and costs to developing the specs, drawings and construction. You could turn a $10-15M boat into a a $20-30M vessel quite quickly. And people don't want to see the AOPS doing anything combat related, why would you send a small training vessel on Sovpat or Presmis?

. As mentioned as long as we procure enough hulls over and above what the training establishment needs, those hulls could be used leaving the Hornblower wannabes to train to their hearts content.

So now you are talking about building MORE than what is needed for training to do your operations above. Then design and build a vessel to spec for that and leave the training ships alone. You would then have to justify having those extra ships for whatever tasks to the Tb, but that is fine. If the RCN wants such ships, they can then push for them, but don't marry this to the training ships replacements, so that we end up with nothing.

P.S.: I gather those types of mission is why CDC has been undertaken.

Every major navy now designs its training ships with dual-use capability, look at the UK’s Tamar-class, France’s Garonne, or Australia’s Arafura-class (which itself grew from a training and patrol concept). If our next generation can’t at least match that flexibility, we’re setting ourselves up for obsolescence before the keel is even laid.

Incorrect. None of the ships you mention above are training vessels of those navies. The Tamar class are OPV's used for fisheries protection and North Sea security of the oil and gas industry. The basic navigation training at Britannia is done on the 15 meters Sea Class workboats. Garonne is a BM2 vessel: a multi-role support vessel, primarily developed for protection of oversea territories - no training onboard. The French trin their officers in basic navigation on the small Glycone class vessels - pure training boats of about 250 tons. Arafura's are OPV replacing three classes of patrol vessels, customs and excise vessels and mine warfare vessel. nothing to do with training. The officers basic navy training is done on the MV Mercator, interestingly enough, also a derivative of the Pacific Boats that are the underlying type of the Orca's

Training is the primary mission, absolutely, but designing for potential utility is just good stewardship. The RCN has learned that lesson the hard way before.

Don't know what hard learned lesson you are talking about. in its history, the RCN and Canada in general have never designed anything naval with "potential" utility in mind. We have always built for whatever task a specific type of ship was acquired for at the time of acquisition. As it should be. Not having enough ships or crew when something happens and it bites us is different than building ships from the start to be able to be something else than what they are "just in case".

 

[Stoker]

You are describing the Continental Defence Corvette.
The Orca replacement will still focus on bridging the gap from simulator to actual at sea experience.
It will be able to handle the seas outside of inshore waters but it will not be combat capable.

I'm actually not. CSC is a full on warship not a training vessel. What I'm describing is something a little bigger than the current ORCA's that can do day sails, overnight trips and be able to do a 2 week trip in the Pacific or Atlantic if needed. I see no issue giving it the potential of more capability. Giving it the potential for say .50 Cals make it hardly combat capable.

 

[Lumber]

I'm actually not. CSC is a full on warship not a training vessel. What I'm describing is something a little bigger than the current ORCA's that can do day sails, overnight trips and be able to do a 2 week trip in the Pacific or Atlantic if needed. I see no issue giving it the potential of more capability. Giving it the potential for say .50 Cals make it hardly combat capable.

The ORCAs WERE designed to take a .50cal. So...

 

[Lumber]

See my reply in yellow:


No it's not. My wife is the equivalent of the head TDO of the Canadian Space Agency and oversees the training of astronauts and console operators. This is still the way they do proper technical training for adults. Moreover, only 2 years ago, at the UNTD reunion in Esquimalt, she and I had a long chat with the CO of Venture and he confirmed to us that they still had trainees that would ace theory and do well in simulators but then get lost two cables from the jetty on the Orca's. Consolidation training is still essential and you don't want it done on a complex platform.


You can always afford proper training and the training equipment to support it. Besides, this contradicts your own point below, where you propose to buy more of these vessels than are needed for Venture training. Who is profligate now? Moreover, what started this whole discussion was a serious article explaining that our method of training, with training only ships, was perhaps a model the US might want to copy.


Any vessel can be used in exercises or other duties regardless of type. I have driven YAG's in support of exes in Esquimalt (usually in winter), to do SAR support for the Herring Roe season, in support of RCMP near Vancouver, to do PR trips with youth groups and to assist the divers when deployed with needs in excess of their YDT. It does not require any pre-planning and build-in of extra capability.


If the capability is there and the task has to be carried out, they will take them. They stole the MCDV's from being basic training vessels from the Naval Reserve with ops taskings almost from the start.


No one knows the future, so can't future proof something. Can you build it with capacity for expansion? Yes, not future proof.


What's a "real" sea state? A state that a small training vessel can just barely survive in? Anyway, it is not a requirement to be able to operate on both coast. The training takes place on the West coast, and endurance of a week or two of fuel and food is sufficient for such employment.


All of this adds time and costs to developing the specs, drawings and construction. You could turn a $10-15M boat into a a $20-30M vessel quite quickly. And people don't want to see the AOPS doing anything combat related, why would you send a small training vessel on Sovpat or Presmis?


So now you are talking about building MORE than what is needed for training to do your operations above. Then design and build a vessel to spec for that and leave the training ships alone. You would then have to justify having those extra ships for whatever tasks to the Tb, but that is fine. If the RCN wants such ships, they can then push for them, but don't marry this to the training ships replacements, so that we end up with nothing.

P.S.: I gather those types of mission is why CDC has been undertaken.


Incorrect. None of the ships you mention above are training vessels of those navies. The Tamar class are OPV's used for fisheries protection and North Sea security of the oil and gas industry. The basic navigation training at Britannia is done on the 15 meters Sea Class workboats. Garonne is a BM2 vessel: a multi-role support vessel, primarily developed for protection of oversea territories - no training onboard. The French trin their officers in basic navigation on the small Glycone class vessels - pure training boats of about 250 tons. Arafura's are OPV replacing three classes of patrol vessels, customs and excise vessels and mine warfare vessel. nothing to do with training. The officers basic navy training is done on the MV Mercator, interestingly enough, also a derivative of the Pacific Boats that are the underlying type of the Orca's


Don't know what hard learned lesson you are talking about. in its history, the RCN and Canada in general have never designed anything naval with "potential" utility in mind. We have always built for whatever task a specific type of ship was acquired for at the time of acquisition. As it should be. Not having enough ships or crew when something happens and it bites us is different than building ships from the start to be able to be something else than what they are "just in case".

Small addition to all this (great post btw):

Between basic NWO training, CDC (now CQC), NAVRES training events, and Sea Cadets, we already don't have enough ORCAs as it is, and they are doing almost NOTHING but training all year long

Building in additional capabilities will just give the navy a reason to make these new ORCAs less available.

Oh and the reason they are looking at expanding the ORCA fleet instaed of just replacing it is partly because they are looking at placing some of the training vessel on the Great Lakes and/or in Halifax.