Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
- Thread starter x-grunt
- Start date
TwoTonShackle
Jr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Two MCDVs have been consistently tied up (extended readiness) for several years on the East Coast, (since shortly after KIN electrical fire in '09?). One has been zero manned, with only the two Regular force billets being filled (when possible) and the other with whatever crew could be salvaged/filled by NRCC and used as a manning pool for the rest of the fleet. It would be nice if the billets on these ships were still filled/offered to Reservists and in turn managed by PCC as all ships in the fleet seem to be sailing with some departments at or below minimum manning these days.
- Reaction score
- 973
- Points
- 1,160
Briefed today on the broad strokes of the plan for the ship's, without going into too much detail, 2 ships west coast and 1 ship east coast will go into extended readiness. So that's 3 ship's total on each coast with a 4th crew each coast that will rotate through to prevent crew fatigue. This is a cost cutting measure on maintenance costs. Everything will be reexamined in April when new money is released. No crew will lose their jobs.
- Reaction score
- 6,101
- Points
- 1,040
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no more new money coming for a few more years, so this isn't for a few months. Budget allocations are roughly set out for the next 3 fiscal years, so don't expect much to change before the next election, unless they do a complete 180 on the funding cuts that are part of DRAP.
It's all compounded by the work on the subs and the MLRs, and the rest of the fleet are unfortunate side effects. As the MCDVs are maintained under the ISSC, there are significant short term NP savings associated with parking the boats in extended readiness.
There are obvious operational impacts, but when the other alternatives are the harbour tugs, fire boats or the other auxiliaries that are needed for normal operations, it's the lesser evil (weevil?).
It's all compounded by the work on the subs and the MLRs, and the rest of the fleet are unfortunate side effects. As the MCDVs are maintained under the ISSC, there are significant short term NP savings associated with parking the boats in extended readiness.
There are obvious operational impacts, but when the other alternatives are the harbour tugs, fire boats or the other auxiliaries that are needed for normal operations, it's the lesser evil (weevil?).
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
National Defence will never enjoy more than token support in Canada despite the valiant work of our men and women in uniform. I expect the war on terror/war in Afghanistan to be the high point of our military history for at least another generation, if not more.
At this point we should feel fortunate to have jobs - ships, or no ships.
At this point we should feel fortunate to have jobs - ships, or no ships.
- Reaction score
- 973
- Points
- 1,160
Navy_Pete said:
No real operational impact really as the solution is to still do the allocated 500 sea days with 3 hulls vice 4. Savings are not that significant , a drop in the bucket really. As for money, who knows. The problem is money still need to be spent maintaining the hulls, certain ones will be better maintained than others. Ships will still go into refits. There is no plan in place to get rid of the MCDV's. Most people are glad, that no employment will be cut, billets are still funded.
- Reaction score
- 6,101
- Points
- 1,040
There is actually significant savings between maintaining only what is required for being safe alongside and being fully capable to go to sea (most of the generators, radar/comms, and normal wear and tear repairs). There will eventually be a cost on the other end to reactivate the gear on the other end but such is life. We don't have money right now to do all the maintenance to keep them at sea, so not really an option.
Also, the article in the paper is probably more accurate then the briefing you saw on the coast. There may not be any layoffs in the reserves but I'm sure there will be layoffs in the ISSC and the local contractors, which will take time to recover from if the funding is restored in a few years.
Also, the article in the paper is probably more accurate then the briefing you saw on the coast. There may not be any layoffs in the reserves but I'm sure there will be layoffs in the ISSC and the local contractors, which will take time to recover from if the funding is restored in a few years.
- Reaction score
- 5,548
- Points
- 1,260
Chief Stoker said:
Rumour: the realities of a) budgets and b) the availability of heavies have convinced the admirals that they need five MCDVs per coast; they don't want them, they want destroyers and frigates, but they haven't got servicable destroyers any more and the available frigates are too few.
- Reaction score
- 973
- Points
- 1,160
E.R. Campbell said:
There has been so many changes since Dec on this its not funny. The taps have been turned on for PM and upgrades that you very well may see 5 ships each coast operating soon. Not sure on the crew make up of the 5th hull, most likely with a mix of reg and reserves as certain trades don't have the expertise to operate the ship yet. Hulls alongside no matter what they are do the Navy no good. Just goes to show you how things change fast.
- Reaction score
- 5,548
- Points
- 1,260
Chief Stoker said:
That's a good move; it's the smart move in the current circumstances. It will be a long while before there is anything like the number of heavies the admirals want; they will have to get used to seeing the small combatants as the workhorses of the fleets while the heavies are cycled through far away theatres of operations. Maybe it would also be smart to revisit the RCN's strategy to verify the fleet mix needed for, say, 2050.
- Reaction score
- 2,806
- Points
- 940
One of the things I admired about the Navy was how they revisited Leadmark on a regular basis to keep it (roughly) in-sync with reality. Maybe it's time for Mahan and Corbett's protégé's to kick the dust off.E.R. Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 973
- Points
- 1,160
E.R. Campbell said:
Absolutely the Arctic is not going away and with Russia sabers rattling about a increased presence the importance of sending naval assets to the North each year is,a good fit for the MCDV'S which they have done for years. OP Caribbe is another good fit and of course fisheries and other domestic ops. As I understand it force generation for the res and regs will be important and the bigger naval assets cycle in and out. What is being concentrated on now is PM and EC's to upgrade various systems to allow better capabilities.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,036
- Points
- 1,010
Interestingly enough, at the time we were getting ready to move from the Gate Vessels to the MCDV's, the predominant view of the GV captains that had come up from the reserve ranks was that, after a 2-3 years full time manning blitz to get the reserve kick-started up the learning curve and accumulation of corporate knowledge base, steady state manning should be something like four MCDV per coast with a 50/50 split reg/res.
The only small difference was that we also envisioned that the "full" time reservists and the regulars would concentrate their career courses and leave in the summer so that bunks and billets would be available for "at units" reservists in that higher period of availability for sea time.
We also figured that equivalent billets should be available in alternance (i.e. one ship reg CO then res XO, the next ship res CO and reg XO, and so forth down the line). This would provide a capacity to maintain a high standard - set by the regulars - by providing reservists in any position with a counterpart on another ship that he/she could measure himself/herself against. Also, should the need to deploy in an area/operation where it would be politically unpalatable to send reservists arise, you could quickly merge the regulars from two ships to form an all reg ship's company.
Are we there yet ?
The only small difference was that we also envisioned that the "full" time reservists and the regulars would concentrate their career courses and leave in the summer so that bunks and billets would be available for "at units" reservists in that higher period of availability for sea time.
We also figured that equivalent billets should be available in alternance (i.e. one ship reg CO then res XO, the next ship res CO and reg XO, and so forth down the line). This would provide a capacity to maintain a high standard - set by the regulars - by providing reservists in any position with a counterpart on another ship that he/she could measure himself/herself against. Also, should the need to deploy in an area/operation where it would be politically unpalatable to send reservists arise, you could quickly merge the regulars from two ships to form an all reg ship's company.
Are we there yet ?
Similar threads
