Author Topic: The End of the MCDVs  (Read 220790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 820
The End of the MCDVs
« on: August 03, 2013, 08:10:13 »
Fresh off the SHAD hotline... NAVRES has been directed to come up with a pers management plan to adjust to having no MCDVs within a 5 year timeframe.

This should not be a huge surprise to anyone who can read between the lines.  No midlife refit planned.  Kingston will be 26 years old by 2020.  New AOPS to do the coastal patrol duties.  The mine hunting packages are just as easily placed on any ship with the space to tie down two seacans.  Only a few working route survey packages left.

Also the timeliness of this are interesting.   New budget in 6 months.  New CFDS shortly thereafter.  Navy has been holding onto Horizon 2050 for quite a while as it has been written but not released (prob waiting for the new CFDS to be released so they don't steal any thunder or go in the wrong direction.)

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 589
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2013, 09:32:00 »
Mid life refits are to upgrade the weapons and sensors.  MCDVs don't really require that, and the few systems can be addressed via individual Engineering Changes (ECs).  They were built to a LLoyds commercial standard, so its a lot easier to replace components with fit/form/function as there aren't the same milspec requirements.

As far as I know, crews for AOPs will come from 280s (maybe not one for one at the trades but at least the number of billets), which will all be retired before the end of the decade, so really has nothing to do with the MCDVs.

So don't worry, no impending retirement of the loveboats!   ;D

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 820
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2013, 13:26:55 »
Midlife refit do more than just weapons and sensors.  FELEX for example is changing some of the ships internal layout from heads, messdecks, ops room, ccr etc... It also replaces worn out or out of date equipment.

That being said, yes they are very simple boats with easy to replace components and you are probably correct in requiring a refit.  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction.  Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 908,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,920
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2013, 15:08:16 »
vice reserve only ships.

That might be your answer. Reservists are expensive to employ for long periods of time.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 17:27:25 by PuckChaser »

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 59,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 801
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2013, 15:45:34 »

  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction. 

Contingency planning.  An entirely appropriate task for a higher HQ.  Staff routinely develop plans for Commanders, some of which come to fruition, and some that don't.
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 22,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 775
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2013, 18:15:33 »
Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.
Bingo. NAVRES has also been asked to FG a couple dozen people for upcoming deployments on heavies soon. Not big numbers, but it's the next step in the blended crewing concept that the RCN's been committed to since SPM II. As for what platforms will stay online or be lifecycled out, what's happening now is all course of action development. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that anything is off the table, but the fact that they're studying something doesn't mean a decision's been made.

I might have mentioned that sooner, but I was loath to contribute to a gossipy thread that popped up just over an hour into the Coxn's Course while the Cmdre was still speaking. I'm pretty sure the term "privileged platform" isn't unfamiliar to anyone here. I'm also sure "rumour control" is a topic for the agenda later this week.

Offline IN ARDUA NITOR

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2013, 10:23:53 »

I might have mentioned that sooner, but I was loath to contribute to a gossipy thread that popped up just over an hour into the Coxn's Course while the Cmdre was still speaking. I'm pretty sure the term "privileged platform" isn't unfamiliar to anyone here. I'm also sure "rumour control" is a topic for the agenda later this week.

Just a coincidence to be sure...

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 589
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2013, 16:13:51 »
Midlife refit do more than just weapons and sensors.  FELEX for example is changing some of the ships internal layout from heads, messdecks, ops room, ccr etc... It also replaces worn out or out of date equipment.

That being said, yes they are very simple boats with easy to replace components and you are probably correct in requiring a refit.  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction.  Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.

You are right of course; I agree that's not the only purpose of MLRs.  For the 280s, they also changed the cruise engines, modified the gear boxes and of course, got rid of the bunny ears.  However, for the MCDVs, nothing of that scope is required or planned, so for those particular ships there is nothing that can't be done in a normal work period, or a planned docking.  I think the replacement of worn out gear (ie nav radars) are all separate projects as opposed to being bundled together.  Technically speaking, there is no reason why the ships can't last another 10-15 years.  There may be solid resource/operational reasons to get rid of them sooner, but a the moment it's just one of the many options on the table, so guessing NavRes was tasked with that contingency plans so the BGHs can get an idea of the impacts and pros/cons if they went that way.

In case you're curious though, that kind of decision would have to go through numerous chains of command, (both Command RCN and ADM(Mat)) then eventually up to the MND and probably the cabinet.  That takes years (literally), and would then need years for transition and disposal to implement.  Also contractual issues as they are under ISSC, so you can imagine the kind of hoops that will create. 

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 22,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 775
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2013, 16:58:02 »
Just a coincidence to be sure...
Surely.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2013, 13:35:16 »
The Gate vessels were 24 years old when I joined. We were told that they would be replaced within five years to 6 years.

I ended up as last captain on two of them - 24 years later.

Just saying!

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,789
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2013, 20:15:05 »
Seen the thread and its pretty interesting to hear all the rumours.  HMCS KINGSTON is coming up to 17 years old and is still going strong. 12 new complete DA's were just purchased, new radars a few years ago, new degausing gear, dynamic positioning system, new HF being planned etc so as systems wear out are being upgraded.
Like the Admiral said last summer, why would I get rid of the MCDV's when they are cheap to operate. I would imagine the MCDV's will be around for a few more years yet. If I was a betting man at least 2020.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2013, 20:44:00 »
Seen the thread and its pretty interesting to hear all the rumours.  HMCS KINGSTON is coming up to 17 years old and is still going strong. 12 new complete DA's were just purchased, new radars a few years ago, new degausing gear, dynamic positioning system, new HF being planned etc so as systems wear out are being upgraded.
Like the Admiral said last summer, why would I get rid of the MCDV's when they are cheap to operate. I would imagine the MCDV's will be around for a few more years yet. If I was a betting man at least 2020.

The CF is trying to expand its footprint into the Caribbean and South Americas as well.  These Vessels are perfectly suited for that operating environment and deployments such as OP CARIBBE.

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,789
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2013, 20:49:42 »
The CF is trying to expand its footprint into the Caribbean and South Americas as well.  These Vessels are perfectly suited for that operating environment and deployments such as OP CARIBBE.

Absolutely the KINGSTON class is well suited for OP CARIBBE deployments and have doing that annually for several years now.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 589
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2013, 21:44:39 »
Absolutely the KINGSTON class is well suited for OP CARIBBE deployments and have doing that annually for several years now.

They are generally just good little all purpose ships.  In a lot of cases, they can do a lot of the routine items just as well for much, much less (fuel, food, maintenance etc).  Another good example is the trip up north (NORPLOY?)  And with some of the new gear coming onboard, they will have a big role to play in sea bed mapping, which is kind of a big deal for any claims to the artic.  For all the lack of respect they get, those ships get far more sea days then any of the heavies, and they are so ridiculously stable that it's not an easy ride either.

Offline mad dog 2020

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 152
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2013, 06:45:20 »
Oddly enough, I was hooked on the Australian TV series "Sea Patrol" which ran (or is still running) for 5 seasons.  I know it is only fiction but based on the concept, they seem to get a lot done.
Is there some duplication of service between the Coast Guard and Navy.
Is the empire building crossing lines for survival and fiscal reasons.
Should they be phased out as they seem to have a purpose, just too much internal politics.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 589
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2013, 12:45:46 »
Coast guard does a lot of things that the navy doesn't and vice versa.  There is some overlap on SAR and maritime security, but not a whole lot.

Some of the MCDV capabilities are particular to them.  Now that the ORCAs have taken back over some of the MARs training, it should free them up to get back to the stuff they were built to do. They have their own limitations, but I think if they have a bad rap it's because they have been regularly used to do things on the outer limits of their intended purpose.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 442
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2013, 12:49:03 »
Oddly enough, I was hooked on the Australian TV series "Sea Patrol" which ran (or is still running) for 5 seasons.  I know it is only fiction but based on the concept, they seem to get a lot done.
Is there some duplication of service between the Coast Guard and Navy.
Is the empire building crossing lines for survival and fiscal reasons.
Should they be phased out as they seem to have a purpose, just too much internal politics.
I watched it too.  Not much firepower, but good speed and look.  To me, the Kingston Class is too slow, doesn't sound like the replacements, should they happen, will be that much faster.  A patrol boat should be hitting 30 knots, not 15.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2013, 12:56:09 »
I watched it too.  Not much firepower, but good speed and look.  To me, the Kingston Class is too slow, doesn't sound like the replacements, should they happen, will be that much faster.  A patrol boat should be hitting 30 knots, not 15.

Haha be careful what you wish for!  Ask for a cigar boat:



and you may get this:



 ;D ;D

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 589
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2013, 13:10:37 »
I watched it too.  Not much firepower, but good speed and look.  To me, the Kingston Class is too slow, doesn't sound like the replacements, should they happen, will be that much faster.  A patrol boat should be hitting 30 knots, not 15.

I depends what you need them for.  They aren't going to run anyone down, but even 30 knots is slow compared to some of the smuggling boats.  Unless they go to some kind of surface skimmer that hits 40 or 50 knots, better to go with some kind of air support (armed UAVs?) and keep one or two fast attack boats onboard the patrol ship for boarding parties.  Put a few anti ship missiles onboard (with ROEs to use them) and then you'll have a real deterrent.  We don't do that though, so they may get replaced with a few sexy carbon fibre canoes with an outboard and a guy with a C6. 

Offline Canadian.Trucker

  • Roadrunner Actual
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 12,449
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 574
    • G&SF Website
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2013, 13:22:23 »
We don't do that though, so they may get replaced with a few sexy carbon fibre canoes with an outboard and a guy with a C6.

Plan set in motion.
Tenacious and Versatile-G & SF

"Nevermind, I'll do it myself" - Me

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
- George Orwell

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2013, 13:34:22 »

Plan set in motion.

I love the trawling motor 0.1 knots per hour it is!

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 59,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 801
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2013, 15:11:06 »
but I think if they have a bad rap

I'm not convinced they have a bad rap.  They certainly have many limitations but they are still routinely used for missions well outside of their intended scope.

Sure, if you are the Combat Officer in a FFG/DDH, then yes, looking at your own missions and requirements, a MCDV might not have much utility for you and some might take a derisive attitude toward them.  However, if you are the people that matter, by that I mean CCFL/P or CMARL/P, (heck, even if you are N3/N31/N31-1: they folks who actually have to implement higher Command direction) with more missions to conduct than platforms to conduct them with, the value, utility and 'rap' of a KINGSTON Class MM is much higher.

my 2 cents
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2013, 12:07:04 »
Upgrade the gun, some basic counter measures and fit for Hellfire/stingers, etc. A little more teeth would be good. Always thought these small ships were a great idea and the fact that they armed them showed a change in thinking from the ships they replaced. Frankly I don't think any new small naval vessel should be built without armament on it, or at least fitted for it. It's a bit about mindset and the fact if things went strange you really don't have the luxury of time to prepare defenses like the last wars.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 442
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2013, 13:24:08 »
Upgrade the gun, some basic counter measures and fit for Hellfire/stingers, etc. A little more teeth would be good.
Yes! And anti-submarine can be done with mission module.  Also, have some kind of UAV as was previously mentioned. There are some patrol boats with harpoon missles, the point being, can still be capable with teeth, even if small.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 154,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,554
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2013, 13:27:33 »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they test-fly ScanEagles off MCDVs?  Or was it just the CPFs?
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."