Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Czech_pivo]

Jumping back to the topic at hand - the MCDVs.

If they are to be retired (which is certain - just a question of when) what will replace them?

Looking at the role they've been doing, it's been mostly constabulary, and showing of the flag, usually in pairs to provide redundancy and mutual support.

Can an AOPS do that? Yes. And with only a single hull rather than a pair.

Can an AOPS do wartime tasks such as convoy escort? Nope. Not armed, not equipped with the necessary sensors, and not designed for it. Not designed for the survivability of any missile or torpedo hits either.

In the 'cold war' the real threats to a convoy of ships were Soviet Naval Aviation and Soviet Submarines. An AOPS can defend against neither of those, and realistically, it wasn't designed to anyhow. Bolting on a solution won't work without a LOT of work. (Deconflicting RADAR antenna installations, installing the launchers, etc.)

In today's world, we face proliferation of drones, some armed, all potentially a threat.

I will observe that Russia has 'bolt on' drone defense systems for their tanks - it would honestly be foolish of the west not to implement some form of passive drone sensor, with a layer of active drone defense on all of our ships.

We used to bolt on the 4-Warn Chem/bio agent detector when we went on operations.

Having a bolt-on solution for anti-drone work would be a good idea.

I'll suggest that the active defense need not be kinetic - ie launchers/etc. An EW based solution makes a lot of sense in my mind. A ship can provide a heck of a lot more power than any tank or AFV simply due to the size of the onboard power plant.

I'm hoping that something is already in the works, and that it's a simple plug-in/bolt on solution that can be applied across the fleet.

The British acknowledge this potential need for their current OPV:

"According to Forbes, in an emergency the Royal Navy might have to attach anti-ship missiles to its Batch 2 River-class patrol ships to make up for its lack of surface warfare frigates and destroyers, and additional upgrades could include attaching a Bofors 57 mm gun. However, no such weapons fit had yet been authorised for the River-class ships"

But they did have this foresight for the River class: "The Royal Navy ships are built to more stringent naval standards, with features such as magazine protection, improved hull integrity and fire safety modifications, as well as greater redundancy.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The British acknowledge this potential need for their current OPV:

"According to Forbes, in an emergency the Royal Navy might have to attach anti-ship missiles to its Batch 2 River-class patrol ships to make up for its lack of surface warfare frigates and destroyers, and additional upgrades could include attaching a Bofors 57 mm gun. However, no such weapons fit had yet been authorised for the River-class ships"

But they did have this foresight for the River class: "The Royal Navy ships are built to more stringent naval standards, with features such as magazine protection, improved hull integrity and fire safety modifications, as well as greater redundancy.

David Axe (the author of that article) is frankly an idiot who would force me to look for myself if he claimed the sky was blue. He previously wrote an AOPS hit piece a few years ago whining about a lack of weaponry aboard that ship. The Batch II River class was built for a different purpose than the AOPS given how they were expressly designed to replace British frigates on global deployments for anti-piracy, counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling tasks (alongside giving BAE work). AOPS is designed for low intensity Arctic patrols and has been adapted to be sent abroad on similar low intensity MCDV patrols. Given these differences, it is not surprising that there is contingencies to up-gun these vessels that are far better able to take such upgrades.

What David Axe and the RN is describing for a hypothetical upgraded River class OPV is basically what I'd expect to see for a lower end MCDV replacement if they go for a corvette. The MCDV replacement itself could run the gambit between anything from the RN's current River class OPV to something like an improved CPF given what is available, corvette as a designation can do a lot of heavy lifting.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Did I miss an MCDV replacement in the updated defence plan?

AFAIK, it's only a wet dream in the CRCN office, and not on anyone's plate as a project funded for options analysis. Under GoC history, that puts it at least 15 years out.

 

[Underway]

Did I miss an MCDV replacement in the updated defence plan?

AFAIK, it's only a wet dream in the CRCN office, and not on anyone's plate as a project funded for options analysis. Under GoC history, that puts it at least 15 years out.

You know how this forum is. We run on rumour, speculation and caffeinated beverages in here (and I'm sure some wobbly pops). Its fun to speculate and debate.

i will say though that this looks like the exact same process that the Sub replacement went through. RCN developed a CONOPS and a plan to replace the submarines well before it showed up in any policy document. This was because we need to have an answer for the Governments eventual questions (or a plan for our sales pitch).

MCDV's are going through a similar process. We know they will be retired. The replacement project has been publicly talked about. The CONOPS will be developed. Plan will be roughly developed. Government will ask questions (and the Defence Minister has already started asking questions) and the RCN will have some answers. Then policy get written.

 

[Furniture]

Come on. You know how this forum is. We run on rumour, speculation and caffeinated beverages in here (and I'm sure some wobbly pops). Its fun to speculate and debate.

This is the exact same process that the Sub replacement went through. RCN developed a CONOPS and a plan to replace the submarines well before it showed up in any policy document. This was because we need to have an answer for the Governments eventual questions (or a plan for our sales pitch).

MCDV's are going through a similar process. We know they will be retired. The replacement project has been publicly talked about. The CONOPS will be developed. Plan will be roughly developed. Government will ask questions (and the Defence Minister has already started asking questions) and the RCN will have some answers.

Are you suggesting that going to the government with a reasonable plan for the future is better than waiting for the PMO to decide we need something for optics?

 

[Underway]

Are you suggesting that going to the government with a reasonable plan for the future is better than waiting for the PMO to decide we need something for optics?

Playing the media, putting the conversation out there, getting the ivory tower working, angling for a slice of the NATO 2% budget... its all part of the process of getting the public onboard and then getting the gov't onboard.

 

[YZT580]

You know how this forum is. We run on rumour, speculation and caffeinated beverages in here (and I'm sure some wobbly pops). Its fun to speculate and debate.

i will say though that this looks like the exact same process that the Sub replacement went through. RCN developed a CONOPS and a plan to replace the submarines well before it showed up in any policy document. This was because we need to have an answer for the Governments eventual questions (or a plan for our sales pitch).

MCDV's are going through a similar process. We know they will be retired. The replacement project has been publicly talked about. The CONOPS will be developed. Plan will be roughly developed. Government will ask questions (and the Defence Minister has already started asking questions) and the RCN will have some answers. Then policy get written.

sorta like planning for the future?

 

[Navy_Pete]

You know how this forum is. We run on rumour, speculation and caffeinated beverages in here (and I'm sure some wobbly pops). Its fun to speculate and debate.

i will say though that this looks like the exact same process that the Sub replacement went through. RCN developed a CONOPS and a plan to replace the submarines well before it showed up in any policy document. This was because we need to have an answer for the Governments eventual questions (or a plan for our sales pitch).

MCDV's are going through a similar process. We know they will be retired. The replacement project has been publicly talked about. The CONOPS will be developed. Plan will be roughly developed. Government will ask questions (and the Defence Minister has already started asking questions) and the RCN will have some answers. Then policy get written.

For sure, but at the moment their plans also need to include the NSS, as this would fall under there as a ship over 1000 tonnes. If they had stuck with an MCDV replacement at the same tonnage, it would be a standalone project that would have a lot less bureaucracy (and also work with a smaller crew), and could be done under similar quicker contracting processes that the NLT and a few others have gone through.

Hopefully though they don't buy straight commercial standards without additional requirements for things like the DC systems etc, as some systems on AOPs just don't work because the assumptions on how a civi crew will do things doesn't translate to how we already do things. Because we no longer just 'on water' and go for FF, the standard commercial firemain design doesn't work without some kind of leak off to maintain constant flow (for example) and burns pumps out without workarounds.

We did a really shit job at massively underresourcing the projects, while also downplaying LCMM SME input on system requirements and design review over class society approval, which didn't work for us when the class societies were employed by the shipyards. Still no idea how they are justifying how some of the design met class, but fundamentally that contractual arrangement didn't work for us, and we are too cowardly to call them on their BS in the contracts we have with LR.

 

[Kirkhill]

Adding those launchers is not going to make the AOPV into a warship. But in a world of pirates and low level threats an ability to deploy some defences, the occasional bit of smoke and chaff, flares and illumination and perhaps, on occasion the odd missile or UAV, might not go amiss.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear of merchantmen in troubled waters resorting to appliances of the sort.

The flight deck on the AOPS can land a 23m CH-149 or a 21m CH-148 (shown). It is 19m wide. It also has ISO Container tie downs with power IIRC.

If the USN can mount the 12m (40ft) Mk70 PDS on an OSV and launch Standard Missiles then the RCN should be able to mount a couple on their flight deck and still leave room for UAV operations. If needs must.

This "Ghost Fleet" Ship Firing An SM-6 Missile From A Modular Launcher Is A Glimpse Of The Future

Adding modular weapons launchers to the Navy's experimental unmanned vessels will allow the service to explore new distributed warfare concepts.

www.twz.com

SM-3 Launched From Containerized VLS For The First Time - Naval News

A groundbreaking Ballistic Missile Defense test of the U.S. Navy Mark 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System was conducted last month in Hawaii.

www.navalnews.com

(Stirring the pot )

 

[Navy_Pete]

The AOPs still has a long way to go to get an unrestricted flight status for operating helicopters, and doesn't have any of the infrastructure onboard to support weapon systems, combat equipment, or a real ops room (or the people needed to do that kind of stuff.

Stirring the pot, but it's all based on random suppositions that aren't based in the reality that it's a commercial ship designed for icebreakaing and showing the flag, and has no real defensive or offensive sensors or capabilities.

 

[Furniture]

View attachment 88880

The flight deck on the AOPS can land a 23m CH-149 or a 21m CH-148 (shown). It is 19m wide. It also has ISO Container tie downs with power IIRC.

If the USN can mount the 12m (40ft) Mk70 PDS on an OSV and launch Standard Missiles then the RCN should be able to mount a couple on their flight deck and still leave room for UAV operations. If needs must.

View attachment 88881

This "Ghost Fleet" Ship Firing An SM-6 Missile From A Modular Launcher Is A Glimpse Of The Future

Adding modular weapons launchers to the Navy's experimental unmanned vessels will allow the service to explore new distributed warfare concepts.

www.twz.com

SM-3 Launched From Containerized VLS For The First Time - Naval News

A groundbreaking Ballistic Missile Defense test of the U.S. Navy Mark 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System was conducted last month in Hawaii.

www.navalnews.com

(Stirring the pot )

Those missiles need targets to shoot at, which means you need the kit to talk to the sensor platforms, or you need your own sensors. Guess what kit AOPVs don't have?...

Also, what UAV do you plan to operate off that flight deck, directly beside containers holding explosives and rocket fuel?

Not one single person has argued that an AOPV hull is incapable of being fitted with weapons. The point that people who actually have experience on ships have been making is this; they are not a good platform for that kind of work. They weren't designed for it, and slapping missiles on would be inefficient and costly. If you actually broke down the numbers, you'd likely find it's cheaper for us to do what the Dutch are doing, and buy a few platforms specifically for weapons delivery, and leave the AOPVs to their intended roles.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Those missiles need targets to shoot at, which means you need the kit to talk to the sensor platforms, or you need your own sensors. Guess what AOPV don't have?...

Also, what UAV do you plan to operate off that flight deck, directly beside containers holding explosives and rocket fuel?

Not one single person has argued that an AOPV hull is incapable of being fitted with weapons. The point that people who actually have experience on ships have been making is this; they are not a good platform for that kind of work. They weren't designed for it, and slapping missiles on would be inefficient and costly. If you actually broke down the numbers, you'd likely find it's cheaper for us to do what the Dutch are doing, and buy a few platforms specifically for weapons delivery, and leave the AOPVs to their intended roles.

I suspect if you had a good, clear CONOPs you could probably make smaller hulls purpose built for a missile platform that have some kind of basic combat suite and sensors (augmented by Link) to do that kind of role (and that role only).

Targeting ships or a fixed position is a lot easier as well with less sensors required, compared to something like AAW or missile defence, so really depends what you want to do. But it very quickly gets to the point where your combat systems and sensors onboard cost so much with a large number of people to operate that putting it on a purpose built combatant with an actual chance of surviving combat becomes a marginal cost increase compared to trying to half ass it onto a 'cheap' platform. That's pretty much why the 'optionally crewed' ships aren't completely unmanned, because the governments don't want to accept total platform loss due to the cost, because you can only automate so much and survivability isn't one of them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Those missiles need targets to shoot at, which means you need the kit to talk to the sensor platforms, or you need your own sensors. Guess what kit AOPVs don't have?...

Also, what UAV do you plan to operate off that flight deck, directly beside containers holding explosives and rocket fuel?

Not one single person has argued that an AOPV hull is incapable of being fitted with weapons. The point that people who actually have experience on ships have been making is this; they are not a good platform for that kind of work. They weren't designed for it, and slapping missiles on would be inefficient and costly. If you actually broke down the numbers, you'd likely find it's cheaper for us to do what the Dutch are doing, and buy a few platforms specifically for weapons delivery, and leave the AOPVs to their intended roles.

The USN's OSVs don't have them either. They are managed through the Co-operative Engagement Capability which is becoming an element of the Joint All Domain Combined Operations. The boat becomes nothing more than a transport for the launcher. The launch is managed by off board resources.

I do happen to like the notion of Dutch barges for moving the PDS containers. You could park one off every major city with a water front.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The USN's OSVs don't have them either. They are managed through the Co-operative Engagement Capability which is becoming an element of the Joint All Domain Combined Operations. The boat becomes nothing more than a transport for the launcher. The launch is managed by off board resources.

I do happen to like the notion of Dutch barges for moving the PDS containers. You could park one off every major city with a water front.

We aren't buying gasket materials due to lack of funding. We probably won't be getting an uncrewed ship with the supporting platforms set up for CEC. They USN can do experiments with things like this because they have a budget with a few extra significant digits.

 

[Kirkhill]

We aren't buying gasket materials due to lack of funding. We probably won't be getting an uncrewed ship with the supporting platforms set up for CEC. They USN can do experiments with things like this because they have a budget with a few extra significant digits.

Agreed. But isn't it worth keeping an eye on how capabilities are developing? Maybe we can come up with some different ways of doing things.

The U.S. Navy has revealed that it recently demonstrated a road-mobile ground-based launching system for multi-purpose SM-6 missiles at an as-yet undisclosed location in Europe. The containerized launcher module, in this case loaded onto a tractor-trailer, is all but certainly the same type, or a variant thereof, as the one that was installed on the unmanned test ship Ranger for a live-fire test last year. This launcher system is also set to be a component of the U.S. Army’s future Typhon system, which is expected to be able to fire SM-6s, as well as Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles.

Navy Unveils Truck-Mounted SM-6 Missile Launcher In European Test (Updated)

A recent Navy demonstration in Europe reflects growing interest in new ground-based long-range missile capabilities across the US military.

www.twz.com

The Army Plans To Fire Its Version Of The Navy's SM-6 Missile From This Launcher

The Army will field ground-launched SM-6s and Tomahawk cruise missiles using a launcher that the Navy has also tested on an unmanned boat.

www.twz.com

....

Which flight path do you want to put missiles under?

 

[KevinB]

Well you better get out your cheque book.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well you better get out your cheque book.

Lol - do you accept personal cheques or only certified?

 

[KevinB]

Lol - do you accept personal cheques or only certified?

From Canada, only certified in USD.

 

[Czech_pivo]

From Canada, only certified in USD.

Oh, well the cheque is in the mail then.....

 

[Czech_pivo]

Dow futures are pointing to a 1,300 point jump at the open of the markets, small cap futures pointing to a 6% jump - Telsa is looking at a 12.5% gain at the open after a 3.5% gain yesterday. Some people are going to make a lot - A LOT - of money today.