Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[dapaterson]

I am a neophyte here in this realm. If we adopt the common to fleet approach, do we not run the risk of single supplier failure, much like the brass valves problem that we encountered?

All approaches have risk. Bespoke parts from multiple suppliers? Cost risk because we buy a few from each of a number of different suppliers, and end up carrying more inventory as we need distinct parts for each. Single supplier? Business continuity risk from the manufacturer as you noted (see also: HLVW fleet). Off the shelf industry standard part? Quality control from multiple vendors, changing standards. Outsource support to industry completely? Higher fixed costs, reducing your flexibility to move money around to address emergent issues.

Ideally, your design plan includes sustainment planning so you can assess the risks and identify where you are willing to take risk through the lifecycle.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go. It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.
However, something in that tonnage range, with TEU spots like @SeaKingTacco suggested earlier. A warship forward, a flexible space aft would likely be the best way to do it.

View attachment 65352

As you can see from this roughly correctly scaled River class a TEU doesn't take up much space. If the "flight deck" was repurposed as a workdeck like on the MCDV's it could be very flexible. Loading UAV's, TRAPS, and any minehunting gear that could be packaged in a TEU could be very useful.

I would hope for a fully electric motor which would allow it to have a quiet signature. Mainly so that it doesn't set off mines should that be required but also so that any sonar equipment the ship uses will have less ambient noise. Flexible accommodations and operations space to run plug-in equipment from. Generous power margins for those add ons.

Other than that radar needs to meet the requirements to safely land a helicopter.

Pretty simple actually. A River Class might be a bit too robust a warship, we could likely get by with something more industrial and workman-like.

Off the top of my head I can't think of too many other options that would be considered a lower end vessel than the RIVER. SAMUEL BECKETT class maybe? I think anything more workman like would probably wind up being a clean sheet design, unless you found something like a Sea Truck design from somebody to use as a starting point.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One nice thing about the MCDV's is that they seem to hit the sweet spot for deployabilty , yet can get into places none of the other ships can get into.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Off the top of my head I can't think of too many other options that would be considered a lower end vessel than the RIVER. SAMUEL BECKETT class maybe? I think anything more workman like would probably wind up being a clean sheet design, unless you found something like a Sea Truck design from somebody to use as a starting point.

Well that class would give us this option and the pipe " All hands to hull scraping stations"

 

[CBH99]

Talking about an MCDV replacement a decade or so down the road... what would you change, what would you keep the same, etc with the replacement?

Reading up on them, they have been incredible little ships. Extremely useful for deployments to west Africa & Caribbean, great for training & gaining experience, fairly cheap to both operate and maintain, etc etc. By all means, their simplicity seems to be one of their best features.

Assuming we would be replacing the MCDV with something similar, hull for hull -- what are some of the changes you experienced folks would like to see in the "MCDV 2.0"?

 

[Swampbuggy]

One nice thing about the MCDV's is that they seem to hit the sweet spot for deployabilty , yet can get into places none of the other ships can get into.

That's certainly true, but I think the replacement has to be a bit more substantial. Sea keeping, speed and flexibility in mission profile would be better served by a longer, larger displacement vessel. For myself, I'd prefer to see something that makes at least 20kt, has a landing pad, ability to store unmanned systems (either hangar, bay or TEU) and can deploy multiple RHIBS. Ideally, I'd like whatever armament to have at least a bit of air defense potential (say 40mm Bofors) with the fire control director to back it up. I'd also like to see positions for smaller NRWS (room to grow from .50 to 30mm if need dictated). Now that I'm talking it out, it seems I'm describing the ARAFURA class, almost. It's a German design, modified for the RAN. They're building them right now and they will have the ability to perform all the duties of their current patrol, survey and dive tender vessels. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAcegQIOxAC&usg=AOvVaw2RwKZy7Z05bAq6bz1zkecz

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go. It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.
However, something in that tonnage range, with TEU spots like @SeaKingTacco suggested earlier. A warship forward, a flexible space aft would likely be the best way to do it.

View attachment 65352

As you can see from this roughly correctly scaled River class a TEU doesn't take up much space. If the "flight deck" was repurposed as a workdeck like on the MCDV's it could be very flexible. Loading UAV's, TRAPS, and any minehunting gear that could be packaged in a TEU could be very useful.

I would hope for a fully electric motor which would allow it to have a quiet signature. Mainly so that it doesn't set off mines should that be required but also so that any sonar equipment the ship uses will have less ambient noise. Flexible accommodations and operations space to run plug-in equipment from. Generous power margins for those add ons.

Other than that radar needs to meet the requirements to safely land a helicopter.

Pretty simple actually. A River Class might be a bit too robust a warship, we could likely get by with something more industrial and workman-like.

I don’t think I would bother with trying to engineer a flight deck for a Cyclone. That is an awfully small amount of tonnage to handle a 30,000lb helicopter. I don’t think it would ever be workable.

A large VERTREP/RPAS launch and recovery area (up to an including an MQ-8 firescout sized vehicle)? Certainly.

An ability to HIFR larger helicopters? Maybe- again, it depends on weight/engineering trade-offs. Everything in shipbuilding has a price.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Regarding helo ops, it's kind of a lost opportunity in some respects to not have a lesser aircraft to deploy from ships than the Cyclone. I believe the AOPS are to be sent north with a CCG help and airdet at least initially. I think something like a bell 429 tasked for AOPS or new OPV missions would have been great. It would have been a nice follow on from the earlier CCG purchase. I'm sure that UAVs like the Skeldar for example, will be a useful alternative to this, though.

 

[dimsum]

Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go. It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.
However, something in that tonnage range, with TEU spots like @SeaKingTacco suggested earlier. A warship forward, a flexible space aft would likely be the best way to do it.

View attachment 65352

Why would we need a 40mm? No other ship or gun in the CAF uses it anymore. That just means more types of ammo (which we have, but we should consolidate our ammo types if possible).

Make it 57mm in line with the CPFs, or 25mm in line with AOPS.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Why would we need a 40mm? No other ship or gun in the CAF uses it anymore. That just means more types of ammo (which we have, but we should consolidate our ammo types if possible).

Make it 57mm in line with the CPFs, or 25mm in line with AOPS.

I was using it as sort of a low bar for something that has an air defense and anti surface capacity. Naturally, I would prefer a 57mm for the reason you mentioned and also for its impact. I'm still of the opinion that the 25mm is a bit light, but it's probably good for 90% of what the vessel would be expected to deal with. There's also the 30mm that will be the secondary gun in CSC too, to consider.

 

[Underway]

I don’t think I would bother with trying to engineer a flight deck for a Cyclone. That is an awfully small amount of tonnage to handle a 30,000lb helicopter. I don’t think it would ever be workable.

A large VERTREP/RPAS launch and recovery area (up to an including an MQ-8 firescout sized vehicle)? Certainly.

An ability to HIFR larger helicopters? Maybe- again, it depends on weight/engineering trade-offs. Everything in shipbuilding has a price.

MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).

The open-source does say that the River Class flight deck is engineered for a Merlin, which IIRC is bigger/heavier than a Cyclone. Of course, that might be a glossy brochure, designed for and capable of operating with is not the same thing. Same reason I'm always skeptical of brochures that say Chinook-sized. Who lands a chinook on a destroyer?

 

[Underway]

Why would we need a 40mm? No other ship or gun in the CAF uses it anymore. That just means more types of ammo (which we have, but we should consolidate our ammo types if possible).

Make it 57mm in line with the CPFs, or 25mm in line with AOPS.

That image was "modified" CASR style. The River Class itself has either a 20 or 30mm depending on the batch. I was just using the image to illustrate how a TEU could fit onto the ship, and the amount of space available. The full article link speaks about variants to the River class.

I fully agree with you regarding the gun. 25mm like the HDW would be perfect as it's designed for icing and has an excellent EOIR that moves independently of the gun. A 30mm will be going on the CSC so it could be that style as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 57mm packs a fair bit of punch without a major weight or footprint. A somewhat longer hull does generally give you a speed bonus without to much penalty.

This is a good shot of the telescoping hanger on the 1100's, if you go for a helipad, it's a useful option

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am also a fan of stern launch systems over cranes and davits, gives you more launching and recovery options, but does come with its own set of design limitations and impacts.

Here is a paper on some the launching and recovery options https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc252/p804722_A1b.pdf

 

[dimsum]

MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).

Yeah, but SKELDAR is just a temporary stop-gap, no? I thought the RCN has a program going on to get other UAS.

 

[Underway]

Yeah, but SKELDAR is just a temporary stop-gap, no? I thought the RCN has a program going on to get other UAS.

Not that I was aware of, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I know HMCS Toronto had her stbd torpedo magazine modified into storage and workshop for the Skeldar. The control station was supposed to go where the Combat Systems Engineering office was normally located.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).

The open-source does say that the River Class flight deck is engineered for a Merlin, which IIRC is bigger/heavier than a Cyclone. Of course, that might be a glossy brochure, designed for and capable of operating with is not the same thing. Same reason I'm always skeptical of brochures that say Chinook-sized. Who lands a chinook on a destroyer?

I am just saying plan for that size category of an RPAS, not specifically a Firescout (although, it does look pretty good…)

 

[quadrapiper]

MQ-8C would be amazing but a SKELDAR more likely (given it's already been purchased and trialed).

The open-source does say that the River Class flight deck is engineered for a Merlin, which IIRC is bigger/heavier than a Cyclone. Of course, that might be a glossy brochure, designed for and capable of operating with is not the same thing. Same reason I'm always skeptical of brochures that say Chinook-sized. Who lands a chinook on a destroyer?

Is/was there a USN design preference somewhere for that, related to escorts working with their amphibious groups, as an emergency recovery option or similar?

 

[blacktriangle]

MGBs! Brings back the MGBs!

You might be able to get some gently used MK VIs right now if you ask nice! Not sure what you'd do with them, but perhaps if you put some in Toronto, Hamilton, or Kingston you might at least attract more kids to join the Navy...

 

[Weinie]

You might be able to get some gently used MK VIs right now if you ask nice! Not sure what you'd do with them, but perhaps if you put some in Toronto, Hamilton, or Kingston you might at least attract more kids to join the Navy...

Not knowing what either of you were talking about, I googled MGB and Mk VI. Imagine my confusion with the result.

mgb mkvi - Bing images