Author Topic: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)  (Read 280855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2005, 12:27:27 »
A minimum of 280 days for all the MCDVs?  Are you crazy?  And can you really count the days where you leave in the morning and return back for supper?  Don't get me wrong I know that there are busy ships, but the MCDV fleet as a whole isn't ripping around 280 days a year..... 

I know people like to inflate numbers, for example when you sail for 5 months, it is always inflated to 6...............


Offline x-grunt

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2005, 12:33:56 »
But I thought the one of the main purposes of a Reserve force was to Augment the Reg force in time of need.   The Navy reserve and the Reg force are two different forces.  

From what little I know - and I confess to being a noob with current naval issues - NavRes primary task is not to augment Reg force personnel, but man the MCDV's and provide personnel for coastal ops. At least, this is what I get from the defence website.   I assume this was done to free up the Regs for bluewater ops. Providing manpower (person-power?) to the CPF's is a lesser role and and perhaps training does not reflect CPF equipment all that well.

Quote
You can take your average Reserve Soldier and he can fully integrate into an Army unit with little training.

Army reserves supply members to augment the Reg units as a primary task. And from what I've read here and experienced in the infantry, it does take a while upgrade an army reservists training, regardless of element.

Regardless, you are absolutely right. Part-timers will never be as cozy and competent with the work as a full-timer in any activity. That's the way it is. The Regs are the overall pro's. Reserve organizations are never going to have the same level of experience and training. As you stated, this doesn't mean Res members don't try as hard or have any less pride in their work when deployed.

Quote
So for someone to say that an MCDV spends about 280 days a YEAR, EVERY YEAR at sea........ is unfounded.

I can't speak to how many days at sea any vessel does. I have no right to speak of the workload, I have not been to sea on a CF vessel since '77. But I have met several reservists who each spent over 300 days at sea last year. So maybe it's not so much the ships being at sea, as the sailors moving from hull to hull to fill crews?

Quote
MCDV Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel   <--- Too slow
Mine Sweeping <--- Metal Hull

Bizarre. Who bought these things?

I still like the idea of converting these to "entertainment vessels"   :)

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2005, 13:13:01 »
Yes I will agree that sailors with 300 days at sea, are most likely the result of switching hulls, but there are a lot of day sailing trips, sailing in the morning, and returning at night... 


Our MCDVs and SHADs are top notch, but the vessel could have been better designed.  Our Naval reserve has it own distinct mission. How about the Air Force reserve, what is their primary role?  Is there even such a thing?

navydrill

  • Guest
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2005, 13:25:21 »
OK let me clarify the ship its self may not sail that much however due to manning shortages sailors get bumped around the ships all the time.half the time i did not know what ship i was on in the morning.
all this leaves the crews with poor morale and sailor with no time along side.

Offline Navalsnipr

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,751
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 812
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2005, 14:47:24 »
Though a good concept, the design of the MCDV's weren't fully thought out as many here will agree.

They do serve as a good training platform for MARS officers, but due to the lack of modern weaponry, and stability issues, I think it's role would be better suited as a training platform.

See you after at Scoundrels or the Tudor!!

NCRCrow, you've just dated yourself, as that place has been closed for many years!! Don't get me wrong, it was an excellent place which was frequented by many Naval Reservists....
-----------------------------------
Don't Run, You'll just die tired.
CF Sports Hall of Fame - Combat Shooting
CF Elite 50
Queen's Medal for Champion Shot (RegF) - 2009

Offline HFXCrow

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #55 on: February 17, 2005, 16:15:04 »
and single Reg force guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enjoying the ride and doesn't want to get off

Offline Navalsnipr

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,751
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 812
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #56 on: February 17, 2005, 16:27:43 »
and single Reg force guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn Right!!!
-----------------------------------
Don't Run, You'll just die tired.
CF Sports Hall of Fame - Combat Shooting
CF Elite 50
Queen's Medal for Champion Shot (RegF) - 2009

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 53,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,516
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #57 on: February 17, 2005, 16:35:27 »
The Tudor House is closed?
... Move!! ...

Offline Navalsnipr

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,751
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 812
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #58 on: February 17, 2005, 16:40:04 »
The Tudor House is closed?
No not the Tudor House....Scoundrels
-----------------------------------
Don't Run, You'll just die tired.
CF Sports Hall of Fame - Combat Shooting
CF Elite 50
Queen's Medal for Champion Shot (RegF) - 2009

Offline IN ARDUA NITOR

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 145
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #59 on: February 17, 2005, 22:28:05 »
If the Tudor house closed I'd quit! LOL. In all seriousness, there are many things they could do to improve the MCDV's. Yes, the design was flawed. Yes, metal is a poor choice for a MM. The DC arrangement is atrocious. But all in all they fulfill the mandate very well considering. I'm sure the frigates would love to set to sea for a single day tasking any time our american friends want to visit Esquimalt.

Anyway, point of the post... MCDV's do many things well. In fact many things we do better than the frigates could since they don't know ANYTHING about sailing in local waters (listening to a frigate call into Victoria Traffic borders on embarassing).

MCDV's are sent to sea because,

We're cheap to send out

We're cheap to send out

and finally,

We're cheap to send out

So, in essence we're everything a frigate is NOT:

Small
Low cost for fuel
Low cost for maintenance
Low cost for crew (CCFP doesn't pay the salaries on the MCDV's but owns the ships)
Long endurance without victuals or fuel replenishment
Excellent redundant propulsion system (twin screw, twin motor, four diesel engines)
Highly maneouverable at any speed (up to 15 knots)
Purpose designed for coastal operations
       -Black water treatment system one of only two approved by the USCG to discharge within US TTW
       -2 High capacity ROD units capable of making 12 CUMs of water daily
       -Capable of shallow water transits (3.3 metre draught... INCLUDING mandatory safety depth of 50cm)

As part of TGEX 04/02 the MCDV's proved capable of not only integrating with a TG, they proved invaluable for intelligence gathering in restricted waters. Further, in the last 12 months the MCDV fleet (west coast) added more contacts to GCCS than the "reg force" fleet did, resulting in over a dozen RCMP/USCG interdictions that ended in arrests. Further, the last sovereignty patrol conducted by HMCS Calgary covered the exact same areas that three MCDV's were already patrolling. When it comes to local (seattle to prince rupert) ISR, the only choice CCFP wants to make is the group with experience... and they're not on a frigate.

For all the reg force types that continuously haggle about our training and experience.... I have to agree the training is sometimes lacking. But I'll tell you this (from experience on both sides of the house), my four man ops team could bury a frigate when it comes to contact identification and reporting in Canadian waters.

You can have your MIO ops and American TG experience. I can go to sea every day knowing that I'm contributing to the security of MY country directly. It may not be our "mandate" on paper, or in any CF doctrine. But the workhorses of our ISR network are the "only useful for training" MCDV's.

Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of the reg force making fun of reservists... especially those of us who work every day of the year on unlimited liability just like you. Yeah, my trade courses have been shorter than yours... so what? My JLC was the same, and I finished atop 25 reg force guys. My shipboard training is the same... Flood, Fire, Boarding party.... all with the reg force.  I taught some reg force folks how to use C2PC and sametime chat when they couldn't figure it out. In the end, I work under an ex reg force CO, who in turn works for a ex-reg force DCOMD MOG4 (who incidentally was my old CO), who in turn works for a whole line of reg force guys.

So if you've got a problem with SHADS... here's a news flash... WE DON'T CARE. We've heard enough of it....


Good day.

Offline IN ARDUA NITOR

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 145
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2005, 22:29:54 »
Hey miller! Yeah they can't get rid of me! Hows things with you these days?!!?

Offline HFXCrow

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2005, 22:37:17 »
Lets have a group hug!
Enjoying the ride and doesn't want to get off

Offline x-grunt

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #62 on: February 17, 2005, 23:51:17 »
Cronicbny, I enjoyed your post.
Can I ask for the meaning of some of your acronyms:
ISR
CCFP
TG
MIO

thanks.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2005, 10:49:25 »
True MCDVs are better for local waters....... that is what their main mission is, and sure the CPF isn't a logical choice for ripping around the straits out here on the west coast.   Speaking as a 277, I have seen many OOW maneouvers go wrong with a Kingston class in the mix, and it isn't from our inexperience.  That being said, there are cluster fcuks all over the place, and no matter where they are and who they work for, they always stand out when representing an organization.

MCDV should be the logical choice for local waters, and as for adding more contacts in GCCS over the last year BZ to the SHAD fleet, considering the REG force fleet was exhausted and spent most of the time sitting alongside from the numerous tours to the middle east.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2005, 14:53:23 by Sub_Guy »

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,004
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2005, 12:03:09 »
Quote
MCDV should be the logical choice for local waters, and as for adding more contacts in GCCS over the last year BZ to the SHAD fleet, considering the REG force fleet was exhausted and spent most of the time sitting alongside from the numerous tours to the middle east.

So true Sub Guy so true.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,004
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2005, 12:04:45 »
OK let me clarify the ship its self may not sail that much however due to manning shortages sailors get bumped around the ships all the time.half the time i did not know what ship i was on in the morning.
all this leaves the crews with poor morale and sailor with no time along side.

And you don't think that happens with the Reg Force? More often then we like..and let us not forget the poor sailors that get posted a high readiness unit every 3 to 5 years. Doesn't happened? Happened to me up until 2002 when I went ashore finally and I have been Navy since 1994.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 194,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,291
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #66 on: February 19, 2005, 21:03:17 »
To modify the Kingston class MCDV to be a better vessel for the task it does, here's a few suggestions.

1.   Lengthen the ship by 20 feet.   (better length/beam ratio = faster ship, better handling, also provides more space for additional crew)

2.   Remove 40mm Bofors (most of which are dated from the 1940's, I saw them being re-furbed in the weapons shop in D-200) replace with modern 25mm Bushmaster   (Smaller ammo, larger quantity able to be carried)

3.   Add active stabilizers, provide better sea handling

4.   Increase engine power available, or upgrade Z-drives, allowing greater speed (over 20 knots), allows greater flexibility and ability to be used for MIO Ops

5.   Add IR/NV system to permit covert surveillance as part of MIO ops.  

6.   Add better Zodiac/RHIB system, again allowing better utility for MIO ops.

If the 20 ft section was added in midships, there could be more cabin space added, better stability, more speed, and a spot for RHIBs on each side.

The likelyhood of the ships being modified/improved in any significant way (such as adding 20 feet) is extremely unlikely, so the options most likely to provide improved capabilities for the MCDV's would be an increase in engine power to allow greater speeds, adding stabilizers, and adding an IR/NV system.

As you can see, I'm suggesting a lot of things that would allow the ships to be better used in MIO ops, (Maritime Interdiction Operations).  Having a greater capability in doing this would make the ships that much more deployable, and because of their cheaper operating costs, they might be a better option to send in the case of a mostly MIO operation.

I do not think it would be a worthwhile option to consider increasing the armament on the MCDV's to the point of them being a major surface combattant, but adding a Stinger team, or Blowpipe might be a good idea, allowing for some local air defence in the case of a high risk area (especially if deployed overseas doing MIO in the Goo or somewhere.) 

Just my thoughts, but adding a 20 foot section was proposed half-way through the build cycle on the ships (just as it was proposed to add 28 feet into the CPF's during building.)

NavyShooter

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,004
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2005, 00:08:04 »
Would you want the Kingston class to be redesignated as an OPV and look on the market for dedicated MCM vessels?
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline airmich

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 402,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,162
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2005, 13:59:43 »
Can I ask for the meaning of some of your acronyms:
ISR
CCFP
TG
MIO

CCFP-Commander of Canadian Forces Pacific
TG-Task Group
MIO-Maritime Interdiction Operations

Speaking as a 277, I have seen many OOW maneouvers go wrong with a Kingston class in the mix, and it isn't from our inexperience.

Unfortunately, on the Kingston class side of the house, problems with maneouvers usually ARE from the inexperience.   I joined as a sig, and will always be a sig at heart.   The guys in my dept are well trained up on maneouvers thanks to me, and are even used to how anal I am on my flag deck.   But new pers onboard, and even some of my counterparts on the other ships scare me with reporting signals and even transmitting them.   OOW Man. died long ago, and teaching basic resultant order on crses is not helping at all.   They are cramming too much info into a 8 week crse for comms now (including trying to add IT to the mix) and stuff is being lost including tactical and semaphore.

Yes, upgrading an MCDV equipment and looks-wise is a choice that needs to be made.   But what also needs to be upgraded is the training of the personnel serving on them.   The current ones and the "oldies" have learned, but the new ones coming onboard are, sadly, lacking in the upgrades that have been added and even the old-famil.   As a current full-time reservist, I have all the time right now to learn.   But a Class A shad lacks for the time to train, and that is noticeable.   No fault to them though, they are simply doing their job as a typical reserve.   But to NavResHQ, they must step to the plate and work on seriously training people.
So I'll raise a glass, not the first nor last, Come join me in this toast...Because the old black rum's got a hold on me ~ Great Big Sea

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2005, 15:09:53 »
Would you want the Kingston class to be redesignated as an OPV and look on the market for dedicated MCM vessels?

Personally, I think the Oksoy-class with a remote 25mm turret (like the Australian Armidales) would be an interesting alternative.



Matthew.     :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2005, 16:04:30 »
So if you've got a problem with SHADS... here's a news flash... WE DON'T CARE. We've heard enough of it....

I don't think anyone has a problem with SHADS, what happens is a little friendly rivalry which keeps everyone on their toes.  I am sure that we can all agree that the Air Force takes a lot of hits from the NAVY and the ARMY.  Within the army in the Combat arms trade there are rivalries (Infanteers poking sticks at artillery and tank drivers, or how about MSEOPS?)   In the Navy we have reg force poking sticks at SHADS, and within the reg force Navy, you get OPS types, Bosn's, Stokers, all who poke fun at the each others trade.

My main point is that we are all part of a team and each and every part of this team has to remain strong as when it comes time for all of the team to work together, there are no weak links, and the job will get done with great success.   I feel that the elbow rubbing that goes on between services, ships, bases, trades, reg, and reserve is healthy and good for us all, as it keeps camaraderie strong, and keeps us in check.

I married and ex-SHAD, and trust me I always hear about it when I start to poke fun at them. 


Everyone take care and enjoy the extra $$$ that is coming our way

Offline Missile Man

  • New Member
  • **
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 32
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #71 on: February 24, 2005, 15:05:39 »
Interesting, the real reason that MCDVs are used so much more Domestically than CPFs/280s was never really addressed as you all bickered about reg force vs shads.  MONEY!  Sending an MCDV out for a day costs $10-12,000, whereas a CPF costs anywhere from $25-30,000.  (Please don't be a loser and debate back with exact figures, people, it all depends on how much gas is burned and what type of Sea Day it is, either low activity, operational, etc. I know)  As for the SHAD vs Reg Force debacle, get a grip.  Each has it's own role, and fulfills their roles quite well.  In fact, most Reg Force trg and MOC coursing is identical to SHAD courses, particularly Bosn's, MARS Officers and the like.  Granted, reg force types get much more specialized trg down the road, but I would hope and expect a more in-depth course being on a $1 billion platform with 24 missiles, several weapons systems and radars under my control vice one dated, un-stabilized gun, and no LINK or CCS.  P. Diddy said it best -it's all about the Benjamins, baby. 
On track by beam bearing.

Offline Missile Man

  • New Member
  • **
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 32
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2005, 15:41:14 »
And you don't think that happens with the Reg Force? More often then we like..and let us not forget the poor sailors that get posted a high readiness unit every 3 to 5 years. Doesn't happened? Happened to me up until 2002 when I went ashore finally and I have been Navy since 1994.

Ah, Dragoon hits it on the head again.  When I first hit the fleet (reg force) I was TD'd to so many different ships, I actually put a velcro patch where my ship's crest goes, and velcroed them on and off to save trips to the tailor!  SHAD-tubs don't spend 280 days at sea at all.  They do short little trips, and are never away on 50, 60, 70-day stints at sea like a CPF or 280 -becasue they don't have the refuelling at sea capabili, nor the stores to maintain an extended cruise at sea.  As well, they are so minimally manned, any evolution is virtually all-ship, they cannot maintain "Stbd SSD" or "Port SSD", it's just SSD!

Now, to finally answer the original question in this blog -what does an MCDV do?  Not much, really.  They are essentially replacement PBs, used primarily for junior officer and operator trg (without, regretably, a Dunk's Diner, of course! :))  Those "Salty" "Senior NCIOPs" and Master Seaman "Yeoman" can drivel all they want about "Operational Effectiveness" of that platform, but it boils down to this -no legs (sustainablility at sea for a duration of time), 2 -no LINK (thus cannot tangiably contribute to force RMP or RAP) 3 -poor self-defence "suite", let alone force weapons.  2 .50 cals (which are highly inaccurate) coupled with a WWII 40mm Bofors that is welded to the deck with no stabilization OR CCS interface so that targets can be designated and engaged through radar/STIRs).  MCDVs are completely useless operationally, but a sound trg platform, as their rolling ride helps to give young trainees their sea legs early on.  Overall, SHADs are good people working with bad, old, operationally ineffective and irrelevant kit.  For that, I salute you all! :salute:
On track by beam bearing.

Offline absent_element

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 278
  • hi claurice....
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2005, 21:27:51 »
ha....shad boats...missions.....they are the few and the proud coastal defence vessels
$quot;Laws change, justice remains the same.
   ---Odo Chief Security officer of Deep Space 9

navydrill

  • Guest
Re: Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
« Reply #74 on: February 27, 2005, 14:55:50 »
ok guys enough shad bashing! we do alot and we have our place in the navy just as the regs have theres so lets leave it at that.
any shad that reads this knows we get boned with all the shitty little jobs that are to good for the regs. so without us, you would be doing all the fish pats and little trips out trainging the MARS. so i think you owe us a thank you. because of us  you get to spend more than 3 weeks at a time along side! :threat:

hey kenward, not much! still out east been here since 99.same old same old.