Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[KevinB]

Can Javelin be used against go fasts?

Yes.

If you can accurately shoot an RPG from a moving boat at an MCDV I will be fairly shocked. RPG max engagement range is 2000 yards but its accurate range is around 500-1000. On land. Standing still.

Most RPG warheads self detonate around 800m
For tank type target around 600m stationary is a reasonable range.

Having played the "launch an RPG from a moving vehicle game - I suspect that around 200m would be the time it gets dangerous to a MCDV.

How much 50 cal ammo are you eating to get into that range? How brave is your boat crew before the bowels loosen and you have to break off or are suppressed? Despite our media-driven fantasies "pirates" won't risk combat. And small boat drivers won't risk the fire to get close enough to get a shot off even if they are adversarial.

I didn't say it was significantly likely - but when they do attack - its usually several fast boats - and 2x M2's isn't going to help - specifically the way those guns are positioned - there are arcs they just can't cover.

Besides an RPG into the side of an MCDV will do limited damage. Those ships have a lot of volume for an RPG to hit a critical system. So now we are talking about a "golden BB" situation.

Uhm - I think you may be being a little optimistic there - hitting the hull would cause a rather significant hole and the warhead would cut fairly deep into the ship - also since the entire rear of the ship cannot be covered by the M2's - you would have a pretty decent opportunity for a stern shot just above the water line.

Could it kill someone? Yes. Is it likely to even be a mission kill? No, not even close. Maybe starting a fire that could spread is the worst-case scenario.

It would take me about 3 minutes in a 14' aluminum boat to K-Kill that with an RPG, granted the average private wouldn't know all of that.

If the environment has bad guys with AT missiles on boats and a goal of causing chaos MCDV's won't be deployed.

The NATO MCM doctrine points to MCDV's (and all MCM vessels) being brought into permissive environments. If that environment is not permissive the frigates will make it so before an MCDV enters the area to hunt mines. If it's still not permissive and MCDV's have to take a risk to do the mission then they do that. The frigates provide overwatch/topcover and engage threats.

And if the big girls aren't available then we do our f-ing jobs anyways.

I understand that -- my simply point was whatever replaces it - should have better defensive armaments.
The fact that there are several civilians yacht's of similar size with better defensive systems is a little uninspiring.

 

[Underway]

I feel like you're getting defensive for no reason.

No, just irritated. The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me. Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.

Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky. Not intended. Love you people!

 

[Halifax Tar]

No, just irritated. The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me. Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.

Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky. Not intended. Love you people!

I get you. Hence why I said that CJOC and the RCN need to make sure they are sent to very low threat environments.

 

[KevinB]

No, just irritated. The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me. Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.

Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky. Not intended. Love you people!

SO not the time for me to recommend a ring of C6's

I really was not trying to be argumentative - at the same time I am a major proponent of MOR GUNZ
Mainly as I see any Naval vessel as a Warship - because they carry the National Flag. Also because I see a lot of folks getting put into positions where I do not think they are adequately armed for defensive actions.
* By nature I tend to Red Team stuff - and think how I could screw with it. Also having seen Somali etc pirates - I tend to err on the side of overwhelming firepower and shooting first.

I was surprised that when the 40mm Bofors where pulled - that only what seems to me to be a hard hearted attempt at looking at a replacement for them - the two different RWS with .50's (according to Wikipedia) aren't exactly what I would have opted for (again me and my firepower fetish).
However I remember years ago talking to some RCN folks who had been on them early and aid they where exceptionally top heavy and ungainly - so I am guessing a CIWS or 25mm cannon was a no go for weight?

Also remembering the original Mine Sweeper role - I am guessing the positioning of the M2 where designed for Mine Engagement - and not point defense? That would explain the placement I guess and why the rear is left without anything.

I still wish you had something like this, because the only think I like more than MOR GUNZ is Missiles and GUNZ

 

[Kirkhill]

5.56 - 6.5 - 7.62 - 8.61 - 12.7 - 14.5 - 20 - 25 - 27 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 57 - 76 -127

Something of an interesting sliding scale for RWS systems available for vessels at sea.
If we take the calibre out of the discussion for the moment and go back and address Kevin's point about arcs and coverage two questions occur to me.

How many arcs do you need? My suggestion is three based on an isosceles triangle with one forard and two back aft mounted as close to outboard as possible.

The second question is how many gunners do you need? And do they all need to be on watch at the same time?

And as for missiles?

Moog Precision Weapon Systems: Leading-Edge Solutions for Global Defense

Moog is a global leader in precision weapon systems, designing and manufacturing innovative solutions for a wide range of military platforms. Moog offers comprehensive expertise in fire control, gun control, weapon stabilization, and weapons integration. Our advanced technologies support a...

www.moog.com

Missile Launcher to Counter Swarm Boat Tactics

A great idea for naval ships. This new missile launcher could help naval ships defend against swarm boat tactics.

www.military.com

 

[dapaterson]

No, just irritated. The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me. Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.

Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky. Not intended. Love you people!

You're the reason we're not mounting Harpoon missiles on Zodiacs. "Engineering" and "Physics" and "This isn't a video game" and "It would destroy the vessel immediately" and all those other excuses.

 

[Underway]

You're the reason we're not mounting Harpoon missiles on Zodiacs. "Engineering" and "Physics" and "This isn't a video game" and "It would destroy the vessel immediately" and all those other excuses.

You mean like this thing?



I can't even. I mean what's its radar horizon anyways? This is specifically designed to knife fight in the Aegean and nothing else. I've stood on its deck. It's freeboard is akin to that door they were floating on in Titanic.

 

[KevinB]

You mean like this thing?

View attachment 67587

I can't even. I mean what's its radar horizon anyways? This is specifically designed to knife fight in the Aegean and nothing else. I've stood on its deck. It's freeboard is akin to that door they were floating on in Titanic.

What's the freeboard if it was to fire everything anything? It looks like maybe 8' in calm water less than 6' in the minor swell it's in -

I will say that even for me that seem a little too niche.

You're the reason we're not mounting Harpoon missiles on Zodiacs. "Engineering" and "Physics" and "This isn't a video game" and "It would destroy the vessel immediately" and all those other excuses.

You totally could mount a Harpoon on a Zodiac - they are roughly 1,500 lbs - depending on your mounting platform you'd be under weight for most of their line - even the inflatable non RHIB's, and while you couldn't fire it without destruction of the craft, it would look totally Bad Ass for onshore static demo's.
You could make a RP/Autonomous variant - and clad it with stuff to make a fairly low vis deep strike setup. A few of our less friendly countries have played with similar setups with some other missiles.

 

[Kirkhill]

You mean like this thing?

View attachment 67587

I can't even. I mean what's its radar horizon anyways? This is specifically designed to knife fight in the Aegean and nothing else. I've stood on its deck. It's freeboard is akin to that door they were floating on in Titanic.

Insh'Allah.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I go back to my belief (grounded in what admirals and officials said 15, 25 and even 35 years ago) that Canada needs a blue-water Navy with 20-30 combatant surface ships. I also believe that we will be lucky to afford more than 8 to 12 of the new Type 26 major combatants. Therefore I believe that Canada will need 10 to 20 small combatants.

My "model" for the small combatant is based on our history. In 1940 it was clear, after only a year or war, that the Flower class corvette was inadequate. There were two competing views: slightly bigger, somewhat better corvettes (which did materialize in 1943 as the Castle Class) or a twin-screw "super-corvette" which was named the frigate and was ordered, initially, in 1940.

There was a difference: the first frigates (River Class) were bigger and better but more difficult to build and to crew than were the improved corvettes. That mattered in 1941/42/43 when the Royal Canadian Navy, especially, had 'trained' too may people too quickly and entire ships' companies needed retraining in everything from engineering to ship handling. But, despite being more difficult to build and to crew, the frigates were better ships by almost every measure: seakeeping, armament and protection and habitability.

It occurs to me that our current MCDVs are most akin to Flower Class corvettes: cheap, simple, civilian pattern ships pressed into military service. The Flowers were selected because they could be easily (and quickly and cheaply) built in small yards that could not build a warship. The Kingston class was ordered as a stopgap to keep the Atlantic shipbuilding industry afloat (pun intended). Some admirals actually wanted real minesweepers but Canadian yards couldn't build a proper minesweeper hull. They became "shad-boats" because the RCN didn't really want them; they were an engineer's solution to a political problem.

I think we need to make a 1940 choice today. The right choice is to build a 2030s version of the old River Class rather than a upscaled MCDV. It will still be a small combatant but it needs to be a real warship, not a civilian vessel done up in "war paint." That means it needs to de designed, from the bottom up, as a warship, with the right mix of weapons and systems, including, in my guesstimate, an organic/embarked, multi-purpose UAV, and a global, blue-water, range.

 

[Kirkhill]

I go back to my belief (grounded in what admirals and officials said 15, 25 and even 35 years ago) that Canada needs a blue-water Navy with 20-30 combatant surface ships. I also believe that we will be lucky to afford more than 8 to 12 of the new Type 26 major combatants. Therefore I believe that Canada will need 10 to 20 small combatants.

My "model" for the small combatant is based on our history. In 1940 it was clear, after only a year or war, that the Flower class corvette was inadequate. There were two competing views: slightly bigger, somewhat better corvettes (which did materialize in 1943 as the Castle Class) or a twin-screw "super-corvette" which was named the frigate and was ordered, initially, in 1940.

There was a difference: the first frigates (River Class) were bigger and better but more difficult to build and to crew than were the improved corvettes. That mattered in 1941/42/43 when the Royal Canadian Navy, especially, had 'trained' too may people too quickly and entire ships' companies needed retraining in everything from engineering to ship handling. But, despite being more difficult to build and to crew, the frigates were better ships by almost every measure: seakeeping, armament and protection and habitability.

It occurs to me that our current MCDVs are most akin to Flower Class corvettes: cheap, simple, civilian pattern ships pressed into military service. The Flowers were selected because they could be easily (and quickly and cheaply) built in small yards that could not build a warship. The Kingston class was ordered as a stopgap to keep the Atlantic shipbuilding industry afloat (pun intended). Some admirals actually wanted real minesweepers but Canadian yards couldn't build a proper minesweeper hull. They became "shad-boats" because the RCN didn't really want them; they were an engineer's solution to a political problem.

I think we need to make a 1940 choice today. The right choice is to build a 2030s version of the old River Class rather than a upscaled MCDV. It will still be a small combatant but it needs to be a real warship, not a civilian vessel done up in "war paint." That means it needs to de designed, from the bottom up, as a warship, with the right mix of weapons and systems, including, in my guesstimate, an organic/embarked, multi-purpose UAV, and a global, blue-water, range.

A complement of "marines" as well?

 

[Halifax Tar]

A complement of "marines" as well?

lol Oh god the Royal Canadian Marines! Isn't there a thread about that ? lol

 

[kratz]

lol Oh god the Royal Canadian Marines! Isn't there a thread about that ? lol

Yes... Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes.


Most RPG warheads self detonate around 800m
For tank type target around 600m stationary is a reasonable range.

Having played the "launch an RPG from a moving vehicle game - I suspect that around 200m would be the time it gets dangerous to a MCDV.

I didn't say it was significantly likely - but when they do attack - its usually several fast boats - and 2x M2's isn't going to help - specifically the way those guns are positioned - there are arcs they just can't cover.


Uhm - I think you may be being a little optimistic there - hitting the hull would cause a rather significant hole and the warhead would cut fairly deep into the ship - also since the entire rear of the ship cannot be covered by the M2's - you would have a pretty decent opportunity for a stern shot just above the water line.

It would take me about 3 minutes in a 14' aluminum boat to K-Kill that with an RPG, granted the average private wouldn't know all of that.


I understand that -- my simply point was whatever replaces it - should have better defensive armaments.
The fact that there are several civilians yacht's of similar size with better defensive systems is a little uninspiring.

Actually another potentiel threat might be Anti-tank rifles like the PRTD 41. I suspect that 14.5mm AP round could go through most of a MCDV and out the other side, if it did not hit anything major on the way through.

The Last Hurrah of the Boys Anti-Tank Rifle; When the IRA Shot a Royal Navy Torpedo Boat! - Military History - Military Matters

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No, just irritated. The hyperbole on this board is starting to wear on me. Every thread turns into MOR GUNZ 101101011!! without a proper understanding of the actual threat environment, despite an effort to explain it.

Might be time for a break for me if I'm coming off snarky. Not intended. Love you people!

I think many of us have seen kit designed for a purpose, end up in areas it wasn't intended for, sometimes to the fatal detriment of those on board.

Iltis + Afghanistan jumps into my head immediately. What's the more important point, to me at least, is that Canada and our government will send kit into areas it was never really designed for.

 

[Stoker]

SO not the time for me to recommend a ring of C6's

I really was not trying to be argumentative - at the same time I am a major proponent of MOR GUNZ
Mainly as I see any Naval vessel as a Warship - because they carry the National Flag. Also because I see a lot of folks getting put into positions where I do not think they are adequately armed for defensive actions.
* By nature I tend to Red Team stuff - and think how I could screw with it. Also having seen Somali etc pirates - I tend to err on the side of overwhelming firepower and shooting first.

I was surprised that when the 40mm Bofors where pulled - that only what seems to me to be a hard hearted attempt at looking at a replacement for them - the two different RWS with .50's (according to Wikipedia) aren't exactly what I would have opted for (again me and my firepower fetish).
However I remember years ago talking to some RCN folks who had been on them early and aid they where exceptionally top heavy and ungainly - so I am guessing a CIWS or 25mm cannon was a no go for weight?

Also remembering the original Mine Sweeper role - I am guessing the positioning of the M2 where designed for Mine Engagement - and not point defense? That would explain the placement I guess and why the rear is left without anything.

I still wish you had something like this, because the only think I like more than MOR GUNZ is Missiles and GUNZ
View attachment 67580

The 40mm was put on as a low cost solution as we owned a bunch in order to keep the cost of the ship on budget. It was supposed to be used for mine destruction similar to MCM ships of the time. The idea was you swept mines using mechanical minesweeping gear and you detonated it when it floated to the surface. After a few years minesweeping was discontinued and the gun stayed until a few years ago when they were removed because of a shortage of parts and it was determined that we really didn't need the gun and the cost saved from useless trials and maintenance.

Since then we trialed two RWS .50 Cals, the first in 2005 for the CPF's and the other a couple of years ago using surpluses RWS mounts that were marinized. I was there for both trials. The second trial gun wasn't found suitable.

As a person who was in them at the beginning and a engineer they are certainly not top heavy. Placing a CWIS which is an 13000 lb high weight on the foscile which is not resigned for that whatsoever would create all kinds of issues in stability. Placing a 3000 lb MK38 or similar no issues.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So is the 13000lb CWIS the one from the AOP's?

 

[Swampbuggy]

So is the 13000lb CWIS the one from the AOP's?

I think he's referring to a PHALANX, Colin. They're about that weight, IIRC.

 

[Underway]

I think he's referring to a PHALANX, Colin. They're about that weight, IIRC.

Close In Weapon System is indeed the Phalanx. The one on the AOPS is a 25mm IIRC.

 

[GR66]

I go back to my belief (grounded in what admirals and officials said 15, 25 and even 35 years ago) that Canada needs a blue-water Navy with 20-30 combatant surface ships. I also believe that we will be lucky to afford more than 8 to 12 of the new Type 26 major combatants. Therefore I believe that Canada will need 10 to 20 small combatants.

My "model" for the small combatant is based on our history. In 1940 it was clear, after only a year or war, that the Flower class corvette was inadequate. There were two competing views: slightly bigger, somewhat better corvettes (which did materialize in 1943 as the Castle Class) or a twin-screw "super-corvette" which was named the frigate and was ordered, initially, in 1940.

There was a difference: the first frigates (River Class) were bigger and better but more difficult to build and to crew than were the improved corvettes. That mattered in 1941/42/43 when the Royal Canadian Navy, especially, had 'trained' too may people too quickly and entire ships' companies needed retraining in everything from engineering to ship handling. But, despite being more difficult to build and to crew, the frigates were better ships by almost every measure: seakeeping, armament and protection and habitability.

It occurs to me that our current MCDVs are most akin to Flower Class corvettes: cheap, simple, civilian pattern ships pressed into military service. The Flowers were selected because they could be easily (and quickly and cheaply) built in small yards that could not build a warship. The Kingston class was ordered as a stopgap to keep the Atlantic shipbuilding industry afloat (pun intended). Some admirals actually wanted real minesweepers but Canadian yards couldn't build a proper minesweeper hull. They became "shad-boats" because the RCN didn't really want them; they were an engineer's solution to a political problem.

I think we need to make a 1940 choice today. The right choice is to build a 2030s version of the old River Class rather than a upscaled MCDV. It will still be a small combatant but it needs to be a real warship, not a civilian vessel done up in "war paint." That means it needs to de designed, from the bottom up, as a warship, with the right mix of weapons and systems, including, in my guesstimate, an organic/embarked, multi-purpose UAV, and a global, blue-water, range.

Agree 100%. And two other factors to consider in my opinion.

1) When we get into a real shooting war and decide that we need more combatant ships we will not have the capability to produce them as quickly as we did in WW2.

2) In a real shooting war ships will be lost. If you only have 12-15 combatants you will quickly end up with no effective fighting force. You need enough ships to take losses. Since we can't afford 30 x CSCs then we will need to supplement them with small combatants. Adding non-combatant OPVs to a fleet the size of ours is basically wasting resources on ships and crews that can't contribute to the fight. Non-combatants that can directly contribute capabilities during wartime (dedicated MCMV's, Support Vessels, etc.) are another story, but I don't see the value of an OPV in a Navy our size if we are serious about being able to fight a war.