6 Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels being no longer Mothballed

[Neill McKay]

Don't know about that - the Federal Government has no problem going offshore when it comes to ferries for Marine Atlantic:

I can think of a couple of reasons why this might have happened: the ships are being chartered (not built to order) and Marine Atlantic has a mandate to function as a business so perhaps has a freer hand in procuring its ships.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Marine Atlantic has a mandate to function as a business so perhaps has a freer hand in procuring its ships.

It was announced at a press conference by the Honourable Rob Merrifield, the Minister of State (Transport) - seems to me like it was a political decision.  The ships that they are replacing were built in Canada at MIL Davie of Lauzon, Quebec (and are about 1/2 the age of our tankers) so I wonder what has changed.

 

[Neill McKay]

It was announced at a press conference by the Honourable Rob Merrifield, the Minister of State (Transport) - seems to me like it was a political decision.

That's possible, but it's more likely that the announcement was simply seen as a political opportunity -- few politicians will waste an opportunity to make a public announcement about something new, bigger, or better.  (I will assume that Mr. Merrifield does not have any shipyards in his riding!)

The ships that they are replacing were built in Canada at MIL Davie of Lauzon, Quebec (and are about 1/2 the age of our tankers) so I wonder what has changed.

Both ships were procured in the 1980s when the service was still provided by CN Marine.  I think things became more commercial when Marine Atlantic was spun off.  Quite a few other federal government services, especially those in the transportation sector, were turned commercial in the 1990s.

It's also possible that it was simply cheaper to build the ships in Canada at that time.  (There's a pretty stiff import duty on ships that may have made the difference.)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For me the MCDVs represented a change in mindset. The fact that they were armed was a huge change from the YFP, gate boats, etc. I see them as part of the sea change for the navy that all of their ships are potential combatants. For that they have a warm place in my heart. 

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

For me the MCDVs represented a change in mindset. The fact that they were armed was a huge change from the YFP, gate boats, etc. I see them as part of the sea change for the navy that all of their ships are potential combatants. For that they have a warm place in my heart.

I agree with you.  I also like how comfortable they are (quarters etc, not sea keeping) and I'm eternally hopeful that will follow to future Canadian warships.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

For me the MCDVs represented a change in mindset. The fact that they were armed was a huge change from the YFP, gate boats, etc. I see them as part of the sea change for the navy that all of their ships are potential combatants. For that they have a warm place in my heart.

Personally I hope the next generation warships are not built to mercantile standards as I don't think they are as safe.

 

[Stoker]

Personally I hope the next generation warships are not built to mercantile standards as I don't think they are as safe.

So why do think that? Are you talking about the ability for the ships to operate in heavy seas or the ability for the ships to handle battle damage or withstand a fire? How about the fact the bulkheads and deck heads are enclosed?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So why do think that? Are you talking about the ability for the ships to operate in heavy seas or the ability for the ships to handle battle damage or withstand a fire? How about the fact the bulkheads and deck heads are enclosed?

I look at the ability to handle battle damage first and foremost.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I look at the ability to handle battle damage first and foremost.

Yes, a distinct lack of/decrease of watertight bulkheads as compared to MilSpec.  From what a gather from a DC POV they are not built to take it, lack of redundancy etc.

 

[Monsoon]

Yes, a distinct lack of/decrease of watertight bulkheads as compared to MilSpec.  From what a gather from a DC POV they are not built to take it, lack of redundancy etc.

A (Canadian) MilSpec designed almost exclusively with frigate/destroyer sized ships in mind. The Kingston class may need more watertigtht bulkheads according to our MilSpec, but where would you put them? The thing only draws three metres.

As for false bulkheads and deckheads, they're standard fit on many US ships. I can't agree that they're a good idea, but countries that take their navies considerably more seriously than Canada does have decided they make the grade for inclusion.

If you want to get serious about taking battle damage, let's talk about about double armoured hulls.

 

[Stoker]

There were a lot of negative comments about all the false deck heads and bulkheads, however when KINGSTON had her major fire several years ago these deck heads and bulkheads prevented the spread of the fire. Now I doubt in regards to battle damage, they would do the same job then again its not like they're going in harms way anytime soon.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

How much battle damage does a Kingston Class need to absorb anyways?  Their main missions are coastal surveillance, sovereignty patrol, route survey, and training.

I would be careful about using terms like "safe" on a public forum.  The next thing you know it's appearing in various news media as "inside sources" reporting that the MCDV aren't safe.

 

[Stoker]

How much battle damage does a Kingston Class need to absorb anyways?  Their main missions are coastal surveillance, sovereignty patrol, route survey, and training.

I would be careful about using terms like "safe" on a public forum.  The next thing you know it's appearing in various news media as "inside sources" reporting that the MCDV aren't safe.

First and foremost the KINGSTON class still remains a mine warfare platform, it's not the best suited mind you but they have trained with NATO mine sweeping forces and the ship's can fill a role. We have several ships that are fitted out for that role right now.
Of course the platform is safe, the previous poster said he believed they were "not as safe", probably in comparison to a CPF.

 

[SeanNewman]

For you Navy guys, just out of curiosity do you guys have the same discussions about light + fast = safe vs heavy + armoured = safe?

 

[Kat Stevens]

I dunno about any of this, but getting your balls mofted at any time sounds pretty un good to me.

 

[hugh19]

Pet has not really been a big deal since battleships (heavy and armoured) and battlecruiser (heavy and much less armour) were scrapped.

 

[Monsoon]

For you Navy guys, just out of curiosity do you guys have the same discussions about light + fast = safe vs heavy + armoured = safe?

Nah - "fast" isn't really an option at sea in any case. The difference between 17mph and 33mph just doesn't make that big a difference on a battlespace with nowhere to hide when it comes down to a shooting match using anti-ship missiles. Obviously there are roles that call for relative speed, but speed doesn't have to come at the price of armour; in fact the larger ships are often the fastest.

I have to disagree with sledge. Certainly there isn't any "debate", but I'd suggest that's because the foregone conclusion is that more armour is better: the Ticos are fitted with 1/2" plating and latest flight of Arleigh Burkes have 3/4" hulls. Other navies (ours, i.e.) have calculated that they should focus efforts on avoiding getting hit at all, but the only "reason" they didn't procure thicker hulls was because it would have been more expensive to build them so. The trade-off was cost-benefit, not competing priorities.

 

[SeanNewman]

Nah - "fast" isn't really an option at sea in any case.... in fact the larger ships are often the fastest.

Great point and now that I think about it that does seem to be the case.

On that note, one way we in the Army increase survivability is to angle the armour (especially on the front which is likely to face the enemy).  Not only does that make the same true thickness of the armour be thicker from a level attack (1" armour now presents about 1.5" to the side if on an angle), but obviously you get potential deflections as well with bullet-type projectiles.

Is this even being considered at all in future naval designs, or is it just assumed that the money is better spent on trying to make sure that missile doesn't hit you in the first place?  I haven't seen a sloped ship since this:

I see this uses it a little bit, but I can only assume it is more for radar than kinetic defence:

*Disclaimer* Please excuse my ignorance.  I am the first to admit I don't know anything about the Navy which is why I am asking.

 

[MARS]

Pet,

You are right, that design is for reducing the radar signature.  Money is spent on defensive systems in part because the velocity and yield of modern missles is such that deflection doesn't really occur in the same manner as it does with smaller calibre, land-based anti-armour weapons.

Cheers,

MARS

 

[SeanNewman]

... deflection doesn't really occur in the same manner as it does with smaller calibre, land-based...

Ack, thanks.  Never safe to assume so confirmation is appreciated.