Author Topic: The End of the MCDVs  (Read 220791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,640
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #300 on: September 22, 2016, 09:29:07 »
Leadmark was pulled as soon as it was deemed no longer achieveable. In particular, the forecasted need for ship to shore landings and a surface combatant that can do more than just show up, fly the flag and basically only defend itself.
Leadmark was visionary, balanced and gave a very accurate long term appraisal of what Canada needed to remain relevant in the blue ocean at the year 2020.
AOPS was not part of Leadmark. Retiring the 280 and AOR without replacements in the water or in the slips was not even contemplated by Leadmark.
I don't believe the Cyclone was even selected when the first draft was circulated.

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 #301 on: September 22, 2016, 10:11:12 »
I think the design team and the navy people that brought us the MCDV's deserve a pat on the back, it's one of the unsung success stories in ship procurement we have had.

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,789
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #302 on: September 22, 2016, 10:21:56 »
I think the design team and the navy people that brought us the MCDV's deserve a pat on the back, it's one of the unsung success stories in ship procurement we have had.

It was on time and on budget however much political interference that led to a watered down design, some subpar equipment and fitted for but not with.
"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 Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,240
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #303 on: September 22, 2016, 10:27:41 »
Leadmark was pulled as soon as it was deemed no longer achieveable. In particular, the forecasted need for ship to shore landings and a surface combatant that can do more than just show up, fly the flag and basically only defend itself.
Leadmark was visionary, balanced and gave a very accurate long term appraisal of what Canada needed to remain relevant in the blue ocean at the year 2020.
AOPS was not part of Leadmark. Retiring the 280 and AOR without replacements in the water or in the slips was not even contemplated by Leadmark.
I don't believe the Cyclone was even selected when the first draft was circulated.

Somebody name of VAdm Norman published Leadmark 2050 in May under the auspices of the Naval Association.

http://navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Leadmark-2050-13-May-2016.pdf

The drum is still being beaten - with ship to shore support figuring high on the wish list.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 201,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,318
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #304 on: September 23, 2016, 19:33:47 »
Leadmark was pulled as soon as it was deemed no longer achieveable. In particular, the forecasted need for ship to shore landings and a surface combatant that can do more than just show up, fly the flag and basically only defend itself.
Leadmark was visionary, balanced and gave a very accurate long term appraisal of what Canada needed to remain relevant in the blue ocean at the year 2020.
AOPS was not part of Leadmark. Retiring the 280 and AOR without replacements in the water or in the slips was not even contemplated by Leadmark.
I don't believe the Cyclone was even selected when the first draft was circulated.

Sadly, this type of defence...I don't know what word to use...stuff is the norm and accepted by our political masters and their bosses'; our neighbors and relatives not in the Service.

Something will have to go very bad for a change in the way this country operates our (ever shrinking and rusting) military.
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 167
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #305 on: March 04, 2017, 18:16:55 »
Here's something of(maybe)interest of what we're working on in the Netherlands:

Uuv's that are working in team,scanning for mines.Which are in constant contact with each other and don't come back until the job is done.All sounds a bit futuristic/Star Warsie but the dutch DMO(Defensie Materieel Organisatie) and technology institute(TNO)are working together feverishly just to accomplish that.

https://magazines.defensie.nl/materieelgezien/2017/01/mg201701onderwaterdrones


It's all in dutch but you'll get the picture .   [:)
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 19:19:38 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,789
Re: The End of the MCDVs
« Reply #306 on: March 04, 2017, 20:53:45 »
Here's something of(maybe)interest of what we're working on in the Netherlands:

Uuv's that are working in team,scanning for mines.Which are in constant contact with each other and don't come back until the job is done.All sounds a bit futuristic/Star Warsie but the dutch DMO(Defensie Materieel Organisatie) and technology institute(TNO)are working together feverishly just to accomplish that.

https://magazines.defensie.nl/materieelgezien/2017/01/mg201701onderwaterdrones


It's all in dutch but you'll get the picture .   [:)


The Kingston Class are using UUV's now for mine warfare, we conducted trials last year using a US navy model.
"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