Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[quadrapiper]

Would that 16-to-20 scheme include some sort of "Arctic heavy?"

 

[AlexanderM]

I would, I think, prefer to see the MCDV upgraded, just enough, and a replacement designed that is:

    1. In the 1,000± ton range, say less than 1,500 tons;

    2. Is stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs;

    3. Is lightly armed with a modern 25-30mm main gun and some machine guns;

    4. Is built to mine counter measure standards - whatever that means in hull material, etc; but

    5. Is also built to "slightly modified civilian standards;"

    6. Has a crew of about 30 to 50 all ranks, which, I think, limits how many sophisticated systems the vessel can carry; and

    7. Can be reconfigured (using ISO containers) for different missions.

The Rasmussen is 1700 tones so not far out of your target range at all and has a crew of around 50.  What we need in the MCDV's is a capability so they can handle things in coastal water without having to call in a heavy.  So then the destroyers and frigates can concentrate on the bigger picture.  In my mind, having a small patrol craft with very limited capability just isn't going to get the job done.

Having a crew size of 50 does not limit systems as much as some might think, as they can be automated.

I was wrong, the Rasmussen has a crew of 18, but can accomodate up to 43, and that's with air crew, 76mm main gun and ESSM and ASW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel

 

[Edward Campbell]

Would that 16-to-20 scheme include some sort of "Arctic heavy?"

In my "perfect world" the AOPS would be assigned to the RCMP (because they are an "armed service") or to the Coast Guard, if we decided to make it an "armed service," too.

There is, in my opinion, an important constabulary role for ships ~ for lightly armed, non-military ships. But I think organizations "below" the armed forces, in terms of the use of force continuum, are better for those constabulary duties (not better qualified or better trained, but "better" in political terms) than are the traditional armed services.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with an armed Coast Guard in my "perfect world."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Which they used to do

http://members.shaw.ca/rcmpwcmd/HistoricalPhotogallery.htm

 

[Navy_Pete]

I would, I think, prefer to see the MCDV upgraded, just enough, and a replacement designed that is:

    1. In the 1,000± ton range, say less than 1,500 tons;

    2. Is stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs;

    3. Is lightly armed with a modern 25-30mm main gun and some machine guns;

    4. Is built to mine counter measure standards - whatever that means in hull material, etc; but

    5. Is also built to "slightly modified civilian standards;"

    6. Has a crew of about 30 to 50 all ranks, which, I think, limits how many sophisticated systems the vessel can carry; and

    7. Can be reconfigured (using ISO containers) for different missions.

I got a chance to do a tour on the Rasmussen a few years ago; pretty slick little ship. 

All those are possible except 4 & 5 as they are somewhat mutually exclusive if you want a good, built for purpose mine hunter, which has some fairly different concerns then civilian ships (reduced noise and magnetic signature, precise positioning etc).  It is pretty limited what you can do for stabilization at that hull size as well; probably easier to continue developing shipborne UAVs, as there hasn't been a lot of work, other then using existing land based systems for launching and then a few different methods of recovery (one involves essentially flying it into a pole with a hook on it)

Crew size matters less then you may think; most of it is automated and aside from simple maintenance, there isn't much in the way of repairs that can be done at sea, other then maybe swapping some components.  Smaller crews can work fine, and aside from having a few senior, skilled techs for safety critical gear, everyone is an operator.

Re: the "heavies." Can we not have the same hull and engine with several different configurations: general purpose frigate, AAW frigate, C2 ship, and, even, a few of Kirkhill's "lily pads," ships able to deploy with, say, a company of light infantry on board?

Yes, that's supposed to be the concept behind CSC, and a few other ships use already that general concept.  The MCDVs had a few different ISO container loadouts.  The USN littoral ships are taking it a bit further;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

They have different configurations but need to be with heavies in a combat zone.

For carrying troops, you also need to create extra capacity for food, water, etc.  Because you can live onboard for extended periods, the hotel loads for extra personnel aren't insignificant.  Particularly now with environmental regulations severely restricting what can go overboard (ie no compost in some zones, all sewage treated, eventually including grey water from sinks, etc).

 

[Underway]

In my "perfect world" the AOPS would be assigned to the RCMP (because they are an "armed service") or to the Coast Guard, if we decided to make it an "armed service," too.

There is, in my opinion, an important constabulary role for ships ~ for lightly armed, non-military ships. But I think organizations "below" the armed forces, in terms of the use of force continuum, are better for those constabulary duties (not better qualified or better trained, but "better" in political terms) than are the traditional armed services.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with an armed Coast Guard in my "perfect world."

I've worked with the Coast Guard quite a bit in my civilian employment.  Lets just say from what I have seen I would not be... comfortable... with an armed Coast Guard.  It would require a significant amount of change in the way they do business and training to arm them IMHO.  They would have to change from basically merchant marine to paramilitary.  Not a slag as what they do is so far away from paramilitary.  Research, icebreaking, buoy tenders, aids to navigation, SAR.  It would be quite a culture shift.  I've been to two of the MSOC (Maritime Security Operations Centre) and met the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams.  They work together very well as each member brings something great to the team.  RCMP are crime experts and provide the powers of arrest.  Border Svcs are experts dealing with immigration issues and smuggling.  The navy provides the overall "operations centre" and command/control expertise.  CCG provide the ships and resources to move everyone around etc....

It seems to me that if you arm them too well and make them big enough to carry a helicopter that we are:

    1. At the point of buying a 3,500 ton ships which we don't really need; and

    2. Devoid of CHEAP alternatives to the "heavies."

I would, I think, prefer to see the MCDV upgraded, just enough, and a replacement designed that is:

    1. In the 1,000± ton range, say less than 1,500 tons;

    2. Is stabilized so that it can "fly" UAVs;

    3. Is lightly armed with a modern 25-30mm main gun and some machine guns;

    4. Is built to mine counter measure standards - whatever that means in hull material, etc; but

    5. Is also built to "slightly modified civilian standards;"

    6. Has a crew of about 30 to 50 all ranks, which, I think, limits how many sophisticated systems the vessel can carry; and

    7. Can be reconfigured (using ISO containers) for different missions.

What you almost described there is an AOPS.  What I'm wondering is now that the AOPS have been forced on the navy how will they fit into the fleet mix and be used.  Low crew, probably cheaper to operate.  Designed for OGD support etc...  ISO containers.  No MCM but that can be put on just about any ship with ISO capability (or a flight deck).  They can also carry a platoon strength org and "lily pad".  It's tonnage is going to be high relatively due to the icebreaking and helo requirements.  Would they be able to fill in for your "light requirement" or are they too much ship.

Either way I suspect that there may be a reduction in MCDV replacements due to the effectiveness of the AOPS.

Re: the "heavies." Can we not have the same hull and engine with several different configurations: general purpose frigate, AAW frigate, C2 ship, and, even, a few of Kirkhill's "lily pads," ships able to deploy with, say, a company of light infantry on board?

In my perfect world we have three or four AORs, with helicopters, several submarines (several is more than three), 16 to 20 "heavies," all with helicopters, six to ten small combatants, flying UAVs, and several tenders, training vessels and so on. That sort of mix is, I believe, affordable - but not, I think, possible within the budgetary constraints imposed by the Canada First Defence Stratgey - and would be strategically effective, too, giving our government a global reach and a mix of options.

*edit- ninja'd! by Navy_Pete*  Re: the heavies - that's the plan for the CSC project.  AAW C2 configuration for the first batch, the next 3 batches would be a general purpose model.  All would have the same power plant, hull, power distribution and other hotel options.  What would change is some of the internal layout, superstructure, weapons loadout and probably sensors to a certain extent. That would reduce development costs, make training across platforms more standardized.  Lots of positives here.

As far as ideal fleet mix I agree with you for the most point.  I would prefer 3 AOR's and 2 heavy lift type ships.  A reduction of the heavies to 15 would be fine.  4-6 subs would also be better IMHO but they will have to be long range patrol capable and preferably under ice or ice fringe capable.  Nothing out there on the SSK market matches this capability right now as European subs are short range types.

Honestly looking at Canada's place in the world our planned fleet mix is pretty good.  15 major combatants and 4 SSK's puts our combat power over quite a few other countries that are Rank 3 navies as well.

 

[AlexanderM]

It is pretty limited what you can do for stabilization at that hull size.

What do you mean?  I was looking into buying a 40-50 ft. sport yacht not too long ago and looked into available stabilizers for that, they are available, read reviews by people who use them, say they pretty much eliminate roll.  You want to eliminate roll, just use stabilizers.

Here, just select Products and Service, then Roll Stabilizers and pick the appropriate size, we'd want the largest one they have.  I do admit it only goes up to 1500 tons, but we could find one or have one made for a 1700 ton vessel.  Wow, I just looked on the site a little more and they have roll stabilizers built to military standards that go up to a 5500 ton vessel.  The 925 model handles up to 2000 tones.

http://naiad.com/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I've worked with the Coast Guard quite a bit in my civilian employment.  Lets just say from what I have seen I would not be... comfortable... with an armed Coast Guard.  It would require a significant amount of change in the way they do business and training to arm them IMHO.  They would have to change from basically merchant marine to paramilitary.  Not a slag as what they do is so far away from paramilitary.  Research, icebreaking, buoy tenders, aids to navigation, SAR.  It would be quite a culture shift.  I've been to two of the MSOC (Maritime Security Operations Centre) and met the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams.  They work together very well as each member brings something great to the team.  RCMP are crime experts and provide the powers of arrest.  Border Svcs are experts dealing with immigration issues and smuggling.  The navy provides the overall "operations centre" and command/control expertise.  CCG provide the ships and resources to move everyone around etc....

Very much the truth, you could easily train the CCG crews to fire and operate the .50cals. They would likely enjoy that. However training the Captains and management to be able to make the decision to use them and open fire on a belligerent vessel is a whole other matter. It would also be a huge culture shift to set up boarding teams and the people that want to do that sort of stuff don't want to scrap sea slime off a buoy, or pack batteries and cement up to a beacon site.

 

[Kirkhill]

What do you mean?  I was looking into buying a 40-50 ft. sport yacht not too long ago and looked into available stabilizers for that, they are available, read reviews by people who use them, say they pretty much eliminate roll.  You want to eliminate roll, just use stabilizers.

Here, just select Products and Service, then Roll Stabilizers and pick the appropriate size, we'd want the largest one they have.  I do admit it only goes up to 1500 tons, but we could find one or have one made for a 1700 ton vessel.  Wow, I just looked on the site a little more and they have roll stabilizers built to military standards that go up to a 5500 ton vessel.  The 925 model handles up to 2000 tones.

http://naiad.com/

Alex, I'm no expert but it seems to me that stabilizers, while they have their place, are likely no cure-alls.  I doubt if they are going to turn the Rasmussen into a CVN or a super-tanker.    I could see them, perhaps, turning an unstabilized 1720 ton Rasmussen into an unstabilized 3500 tonne Black Swan or even a Halifax, but  having sailed (for a short stint) in a 600 foot processor in the North Pacific and Bering sea, I can state that even a ship of 3500 tonnes is going to have days like those shown in the helo videos.

 

[AlexanderM]

Alex, I'm no expert but it seems to me that stabilizers, while they have their place, are likely no cure-alls.  I doubt if they are going to turn the Rasmussen into a CVN or a super-tanker.    I could see them, perhaps, turning an unstabilized 1720 ton Rasmussen into an unstabilized 3500 tonne Black Swan or even a Halifax, but  having sailed (for a short stint) in a 600 foot processor in the North Pacific and Bering sea, I can state that even a ship of 3500 tonnes is going to have days like those shown in the helo videos.

Disagree, stabilizers make a huge difference, the new technology is very good.

It's more likely that some designers simply have their heads in the past when it comes to design, it can be a mindset.

 

[Furniture]

Disagree, stabilizers make a huge difference, the new technology is very good.

It's more likely that some designers simply have their heads in the past when it comes to design, it can be a mindset.

In reality no matter how good a stabilizer is it will not stop a small ship from pitching and rolling significantly in rough seas, not to mention the extra limitations imposed on small aircraft such as mini UAVs due to strong winds associated with rough seas. 

In reality a small boat relying on small UAVs will be much more limited in what conditions it can operate in than a larger boat with a real helo. That's why in the north Atlantic and Pacific oceans we need a capable and large ship to operate year round and maintain an effective presence. Just being there isn't enough when all your effort and attention is focused on keeping the boat afloat, or none of your kit works because the seas are throwing you around too much.

 

[AlexanderM]

Stabilizers work, even in rough seas.  They do not eliminate pitch but do significantly reduce roll, the difference is very substantial.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CCG took our 500 class (Gordon Reid, John Jacobson) , based on a proven hull, took the short version, added mucho top hamper, the vessel rolled like a drunken sailor on Saturday night shore pass. First they had a Flume tank, then active rudders, weight reduction program and then bilge keels to make it manageable. The weather ships needed concrete in the fuel tanks to reduce the roll, I also understand the Torpedo recovery vessels built around the same time as the 500's also had stability issue. Vessels designed by committees often float the same way, we are really, really good at shooting ourselves in the foot.

Then of course there was the R-class (top heavy) Point class, 41' (first vessel) 47' (first couple) all suffering from very poor build quality)
 

 

[AlexanderM]

Top speed of 12 knots??  Stabilizers do work better with some speed, and are not going to work so well on ships with a top speed of 12 knots, although there are now new ones that work at all speeds, especially for ships of that size, that's probably the system they should have.

I think it is ridiculous to be building ships with a top speed of 12 knots and I do not like the 17 knot top speed of the Rasmussen, which would also require the all speed system.  I like the capabilities of the Rasmussen but it is slow, short and heavy for it's length.  So keep the capabilities and find a different hull design.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Most of the fast vessels in the 100+ range eventually suffer metal fatigue from the pounding, it's the nature of the beast, heavily built= weight which requires more HP= higher fuel consumption= less usable internal volume. If you want high speed you are likely going to have throw away any ice requirement. Most nations use small high speed patrol boats to cover off a smallish area operating from a port within that area.

Case in point
I remember when these came into service to replace the 95'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMHRU2Zs9c4

 

[AlexanderM]

A cruising speed of around 20 knots is reasonable and stabilizers will work well.  I would love to see us use a high quality steel, like an HSLA.

 

[AlexanderM]

Case in point
I remember when these came into service to replace the 95'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMHRU2Zs9c4

This is 168 tons which is too light, something more like 1000 tons to 1500 tons, as someone else was suggesting would be good.  The Rasmussen is 1700 tons, but a faster hull design would be better.

 

[AlexanderM]

Here, $820M USD for 6 ships.  Just under 1000 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynunah-class_corvette

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, $820M USD for 6 ships.  Just under 1000 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynunah-class_corvette

Seems reasonable, Oman is paying ST Marine (Singapore) $(US)700 Million for four of the 75 metre Fearless class patrol ships - the RSN's 55 metre Fearless class displace 500 tons and have a top speed of about 30 knots so I'm guessing the Fearless 75s will displace nearly 1,000 tons with a helicopter aboard.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not much ice in the Gulf of Oman

Rasmussen is ice strengthened.

Probably adds a bit of weight and slows her down a bit.