Multi Role Boats (and other small boats thread).

[FJAG]

Just when I thought that I couldn't love this boat more they make it even better.

I've notionally had CV90 as part of my hybrid napkin forces for over two years now.

My current view of defence of Canada littoral ops now includes a naval force based around CDCs, MCMs, FAAST-Vs, CB90s (with infantry/recce/SOF support) and autonomous vessels. That leaves the RCDs, AORs, AOPVs and submarines primarily but not exclusively for "expeditionary" work (which IMHO, includes the Arctic)

 

[GR66]

Just when I thought that I couldn't love this boat more they make it even better.

I've notionally had CV90 as part of my hybrid napkin forces for over two years now.

My current view of defence of Canada littoral ops now includes a naval force based around CDCs, MCMs, FAAST-Vs, CB90s (with infantry/recce/SOF support) and autonomous vessels. That leaves the RCDs, AORs, AOPVs and submarines primarily but not exclusively for "expeditionary" work (which IMHO, includes the Arctic)

Curious as to what littoral military threats you see Canada facing vice more traditional law enforcement threats?

 

[FJAG]

Curious as to what littoral military threats you see Canada facing vice more traditional law enforcement threats?

The same as the Norwegians, the Finns, the Swedes, the Danes and anyone else who owns a coastline.

It's not a force for "today" its the building and training of a force for "tomorrow." You don't create deterrence by a few unarmed RCMP and CCG patrol boats - you need some real teeth. If Canada is expanding its trade east and west rather than just south, then there are a number of key ports and related infrastructure that need to be protected.

You don't have the time to build this type of force when the threat becomes clear. It has to be there before that. This type of force is relatively inexpensive to create and run. Probably for less than the cost of a couple of RCDs. The political climate for it is right and the monies being committed can easily accommodate it.

I know its hard to change three decades of experience, but its time to think big and outside the usual boxes.

 

[GR66]

The same as the Norwegians, the Finns, the Swedes, the Danes and anyone else who owns a coastline.

Oslo is 820km as the bird flies from Kaliningrad. Stockholm is 540km away. Helsinki is 300km from St. Petersburg. Halifax is almost 5,800km from Kaliningrad. Esquimalt is almost 7,500km from Vladivostok. The risks to our coastline are not the same as the risks to their coastlines.

There are endless possibilities as to where we could invest our limited defence dollars. CV 90's are cool as hell but in my opinions we should prioritize our defence spending where it best matches the most likely threats we can expect to face.

 

[FJAG]

Oslo is 820km as the bird flies from Kaliningrad. Stockholm is 540km away. Helsinki is 300km from St. Petersburg. Halifax is almost 5,800km from Kaliningrad. Esquimalt is almost 7,500km from Vladivostok. The risks to our coastline are not the same as the risks to their coastlines.

Distance doesn't matter unless you are swimming. What matters is the vulnerability of vital infrastructure and a capability to attack it during hybrid operations. A deterrence capability reduces the risk of such attacks.

The CAF also provides peacetime assistance to law enforcement for counter-narcotics and fisheries operations. Is the RCD the preferred vessel for that? More could be done with smaller, faster armed vessels.

There are endless possibilities as to where we could invest our limited defence dollars. CV 90's are cool as hell but in my opinions we should prioritize our defence spending where it best matches the most likely threats we can expect to face.

The CAF does not have a good record in prioritizing its defence dollars for demonstrable defence outputs. If one was to look at priorities then the need for the RCDs should disappear completely. What functional defence purpose do they actually prevent on a day to day basis? Their purported purpose is to deter and deal with potential submarine operations against Canada but that presupposes that anyone will actually conduct such operations against Canada rather than more lucrative targets.

Four years ago who predicted drones being launched from containers or sea drones launched from freighters? Or undersea cables being cut by anchors? Is throwing all your defence dollars into a small number of massively expensive RCDs that can be taken out by a swarm of missiles launched from a thousand miles away a good investment?

Frankly, IMHO, we need to diversify, greatly increase both facilities and many smaller but powerful weapon systems. A CB 90 that can provide mobile radars and anti-aircraft defences or anti-ship missiles isn't just cool; its necessary to help bulk up the numbers of vessels capable of protecting our massive coastlines when the RCDs are busy in the South China Seas. Pearl Harbor thought it was too far away too.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Distance doesn't matter unless you are swimming. What matters is the vulnerability of vital infrastructure and a capability to attack it during hybrid operations. A deterrence capability reduces the risk of such attacks.

The CAF also provides peacetime assistance to law enforcement for counter-narcotics and fisheries operations. Is the RCD the preferred vessel for that? More could be done with smaller, faster armed vessels.

The CAF does not have a good record in prioritizing its defence dollars for demonstrable defence outputs. If one was to look at priorities then the need for the RCDs should disappear completely. What functional defence purpose do they actually prevent on a day to day basis? Their purported purpose is to deter and deal with potential submarine operations against Canada but that presupposes that anyone will actually conduct such operations against Canada rather than more lucrative targets.

Four years ago who predicted drones being launched from containers or sea drones launched from freighters? Or undersea cables being cut by anchors? Is throwing all your defence dollars into a small number of massively expensive RCDs that can be taken out by a swarm of missiles launched from a thousand miles away a good investment?

Frankly, IMHO, we need to diversify, greatly increase both facilities and many smaller but powerful weapon systems. A CB 90 that can provide mobile radars and anti-aircraft defences or anti-ship missiles isn't just cool; its necessary to help bulk up the numbers of vessels capable of protecting our massive coastlines when the RCDs are busy in the South China Seas. Pearl Harbor thought it was too far away too.

The Swedes have always had an active threat against them from the Russians from subs (bottom crawlers included) etc, and the Baltic is basically a big tidal lake, so their focus has always been largely 'littoral' as they have a huge archipelago to patrol.

Having lots of tough, small boats makes alot of sense.

In Canada the 'deep blue sea' starts pretty much at our doorstep on the East and West Coasts and the threat is not as active or persistent, and we need the capability to operate in the biggest oceans in the world.

Bigger ships therefore make more sense.

Do we still need small boats? I'd argue 'hell yeah', but in the world of fiscal priorities we may not need them as much as the Swedes do.

 

[Furniture]

A CB 90 that can provide mobile radars and anti-aircraft defences or anti-ship missiles a isn't just cool; its necessary to help bulk up the numbers of vessels capable of protecting our massive coastlines when the RCDs are busy in the South China Seas.

Each CB 90 can only do one of those tasks at a time, and the weapons systems would be orphan systems in the CAF. So to put AD, ASuW, and Radar picket out using CB 90 you need three boats, with three crews/operators, and three electrical/propulsion systems to do the job. Also, each of the three boats is quite limited in the weather conditions it can operate in.

Wouldn't a larger vessel, more capable of handling open water, that mounted a SG 1X on it's mast, carrying the NSM (a weapon we will actually be using) and perhaps ESSM, as well as mounting the same 30mm RWS system planned for the RCDs make more sense? Maybe we could call it a Continental Defence Corvette...

For harbour defence a RHIB with a cabin and RWS makes a lot of sense. For the Great Lakes, inside passages out West, St Lawrence/Gulf/Northumberland Strait, a larger and more comfortable boat, designed for presence, and training development makes more sense than a CB 90.

There may still be a small role for CB 90s supporting the Rangers and SOF, but until the Army wants to do amphibious jobs, there is no point in the RCN wasting precious resources on a boat optimized for moving small numbers of soldiers over water real fast. Buying cool boats with orphan weapons systems that increase the maintenance load on the RCN makes zero sense.

 

[Stoker]

Each CB 90 can only do one of those tasks at a time, and the weapons systems would be orphan systems in the CAF. So now to put AD, ASuW, and Radar picket out you need three boats, with three crews/operators, and three electrical/propulsion systems to do the job. And each of those boats is quite limited in weather conditions it can operate in.

Wouldn't a larger vessel, more capable of handling open water, that mounted a SG 1X on it's mast, carrying the NSM (a weapon we will actually be using) and perhaps ESSM, as well as mounting the same 30mm RWS system planned for the RCDs make more sense? Maybe we could call it a Continental Defence Corvette...

There may still be a small role for CB 90s supporting the Rangers and SOF, but until the Army wants to do amphibious jobs, there is no point in the RCN wasting precious resources on a boat optimized for moving small numbers of soldiers over water real fast. Buying cool boats with orphan weapons systems that increase the maintenance load on the RCN makes zero sense.

I think its a good chance that SOF will get some, probably 6 to 8. I doubt the RCN will get any, including the naval reserves.