Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[NavyShooter]

Guys,

I think this goes into "CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS" discussions.  I am not sure that it is appropriate for an open forum?

NavyShooter

(283 NET(A).....)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

No worries its being watched.

 

[Cronicbny]

This is all open source

The 511 side scan sonar is capable of operating in upto 200m of water... so 600' fits right in there. The sonar on the 511 is generally considered one of the best on the market as far as detail goes... the exact detail level is classified, however it's comparable to commercially available units (read Klein 5500). What makes the 511 perfect for this job is it's depth capability, accuracy, and, relative platform stability (easier to use than a 200lb 5500 sonar lowered by hand off a skiff). The bottom conditions on the west coast are also quite favourable for side scan sonars.

Hopefully the results of this will prove the equipment worthwhile... the sonar has had a bad go of things in the last few years. Of course, the flip side... if it doesn't work... the Navy will look stupid. I have faith that the system will perform capably.

 

[Cloud Cover]

And there you have ... a wonderful summary.  Well done Cronicbny!!

 

[Zoomie]

Zoomie, can I assume that you have been part of the search so far to know about what's happening next?

We are kept in the proverbial loop.  RCMP is now handling the crash as a missing persons case.  More to follow once pertinent details are released officially to the public.

Thanks for the good Gen on the system Cronicbny...  It certainly seems like excellent conditions for this unit to locate any wreckage and hopefully give closure to the remaining victim's families.

 

[Sub_Guy]

No it is not worth upgrading the MCDV.

What we can do is this transfer 6 over to the Coast Guard, Fisheries.

Have 3 on each coast


Pick up some coastal patrol vessels, that have SPEED............. Utilize a patrol vessel for just that, Patroling close to shore.

Utilize Frigates for missions overseas, doesn't make sense to have a CPF Patroling around Vancouver island, when you can have a nice Patrol vessel with a crew of less than 20 doing the same thing.  (US Coast Guard Island Class vessels would suit us just fine)


Drop our CPF fleet from 12 to 8, 4 on each coast

Pick up 6 smaller frigates (similar to Thetis class Denmark) smaller crew of 60 compared to 220 on a CPF, use these for patroling further out to protect our national interests

 

[Sub_Guy]

MCDVs are alot cheaper to run then subs. When was the last operational submarine deployment BTW?

?!?!? What kind of post was that??   I didn't even mention subs, so what if my name is sub guy.   Do you think I had anything to do with the procurement of these subs?   I will answer your question though, these subs have not been on an operational deployment.   heck frigates are probably cheaper to run than the subs.   When/if they are allowed to return to sea, they will prove to be very useful, as they are still the true stealth machine.


Hey fact of the day!   when the Chicoutimi caught fire, Canada had 3 submarines at SEA.................................

The MCDV would be a fantastic training vessel or route survey, mine hunting, but for coastal defence I think that a faster vessel would be better suited for the job.   As in my previous post states.   I said that we should keep 6 of them, did you get offended?   Did you design the vessel?   Lighten up.

You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?   Not an exercise...

 

[Cloud Cover]

The MCDV is a fantastic vessel, but for coastal defence I think that a faster vessel would be better suited for the job.  As in my previous post states.  I said that we should keep 6 of them, did you get offended?  Did you design the vessel?  Lighten up.

You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?  Not an exercise...

Pardon? How are they fantastic yet not apparently not used or even worthy of operational deployment. As a training vessel, they are marginal at best. As a warship, they are useless and an absolute waste of precious resources and talented manpower.  The strength of the vessel seems to be in it's non-military uses, such as disaster assistance and patrolling for the sake of surveillance and presence, rather than actual patrolling to intercept. These are great ships for the coast guard and perhaps the RCMP/OPP, but not the Navy.

I would agree the shads should be crewing light frigates and perhaps even some supply ships. 

 

[navymich]

You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?   Not an exercise...

Just over a month ago in fact.  http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_plane-sonar20050318  This link will fill you in a bit.  I am sure there is more out there, but first I found.

Entertaining enough?  Sure, nothing like a 6 month deployment overseas, but it is an example of an MCDV doing what they have trained to do in the multitude of exercises they have.

 

[Sub_Guy]

That counts as an operational deployment..... So the last time the subs were on an operational deployment that the Public knows about would be Swissair Flight 111, as they used the sonars to hunt for the black box.  There have been many RCMP drug operations as well.

Not these subs, as you would have to be a tool box to think that these were on an operational deployment

 

[mcdvnav]

?!?!? What kind of post was that??   I didn't even mention subs, so what if my name is sub guy.   Do you think I had anything to do with the procurement of these subs?   I will answer your question though, these subs have not been on an operational deployment.   heck frigates are probably cheaper to run than the subs.   When/if they are allowed to return to sea, they will prove to be very useful, as they are still the true stealth machine.


Hey fact of the day!   when the Chicoutimi caught fire, Canada had 3 submarines at SEA.................................

The MCDV would be a fantastic training vessel or route survey, mine hunting, but for coastal defence I think that a faster vessel would be better suited for the job.   As in my previous post states.   I said that we should keep 6 of them, did you get offended?   Did you design the vessel?   Lighten up.

You can entertain me by telling me when was the last time a MCDV went on an operational deployment?   Not an exercise...

Hey,

Do SAR patrols, SOVPATS, escorts of Canadian and AMERICAN HVUs, OGD support and route survey count?

 

[Underway]

Fresh off the SHAD hotline... NAVRES has been directed to come up with a pers management plan to adjust to having no MCDVs within a 5 year timeframe.

This should not be a huge surprise to anyone who can read between the lines.  No midlife refit planned.  Kingston will be 26 years old by 2020.  New AOPS to do the coastal patrol duties.  The mine hunting packages are just as easily placed on any ship with the space to tie down two seacans.  Only a few working route survey packages left.

Also the timeliness of this are interesting.  New budget in 6 months.  New CFDS shortly thereafter.  Navy has been holding onto Horizon 2050 for quite a while as it has been written but not released (prob waiting for the new CFDS to be released so they don't steal any thunder or go in the wrong direction.)

 

[Navy_Pete]

Mid life refits are to upgrade the weapons and sensors.  MCDVs don't really require that, and the few systems can be addressed via individual Engineering Changes (ECs).  They were built to a LLoyds commercial standard, so its a lot easier to replace components with fit/form/function as there aren't the same milspec requirements.

As far as I know, crews for AOPs will come from 280s (maybe not one for one at the trades but at least the number of billets), which will all be retired before the end of the decade, so really has nothing to do with the MCDVs.

So don't worry, no impending retirement of the loveboats!  ;D

 

[Underway]

Midlife refit do more than just weapons and sensors.  FELEX for example is changing some of the ships internal layout from heads, messdecks, ops room, ccr etc... It also replaces worn out or out of date equipment.

That being said, yes they are very simple boats with easy to replace components and you are probably correct in requiring a refit.  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction.  Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.

 

[PuckChaser]

vice reserve only ships.

That might be your answer. Reservists are expensive to employ for long periods of time.

 

[MARS]

  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction. 

Contingency planning.  An entirely appropriate task for a higher HQ.  Staff routinely develop plans for Commanders, some of which come to fruition, and some that don't.

 

[Monsoon]

Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.

Bingo. NAVRES has also been asked to FG a couple dozen people for upcoming deployments on heavies soon. Not big numbers, but it's the next step in the blended crewing concept that the RCN's been committed to since SPM II. As for what platforms will stay online or be lifecycled out, what's happening now is all course of action development. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that anything is off the table, but the fact that they're studying something doesn't mean a decision's been made.

I might have mentioned that sooner, but I was loath to contribute to a gossipy thread that popped up just over an hour into the Coxn's Course while the Cmdre was still speaking. I'm pretty sure the term "privileged platform" isn't unfamiliar to anyone here. I'm also sure "rumour control" is a topic for the agenda later this week.

 

[Cronicbny]

I might have mentioned that sooner, but I was loath to contribute to a gossipy thread that popped up just over an hour into the Coxn's Course while the Cmdre was still speaking. I'm pretty sure the term "privileged platform" isn't unfamiliar to anyone here. I'm also sure "rumour control" is a topic for the agenda later this week.

Just a coincidence to be sure...

 

[Navy_Pete]

Midlife refit do more than just weapons and sensors.  FELEX for example is changing some of the ships internal layout from heads, messdecks, ops room, ccr etc... It also replaces worn out or out of date equipment.

That being said, yes they are very simple boats with easy to replace components and you are probably correct in requiring a refit.  So then what is the motivation behind this very specific direction.  Perhaps they are looking more at blended crewing across the fleet vice reserve only ships.

You are right of course; I agree that's not the only purpose of MLRs.  For the 280s, they also changed the cruise engines, modified the gear boxes and of course, got rid of the bunny ears.  However, for the MCDVs, nothing of that scope is required or planned, so for those particular ships there is nothing that can't be done in a normal work period, or a planned docking.  I think the replacement of worn out gear (ie nav radars) are all separate projects as opposed to being bundled together.  Technically speaking, there is no reason why the ships can't last another 10-15 years.  There may be solid resource/operational reasons to get rid of them sooner, but a the moment it's just one of the many options on the table, so guessing NavRes was tasked with that contingency plans so the BGHs can get an idea of the impacts and pros/cons if they went that way.

In case you're curious though, that kind of decision would have to go through numerous chains of command, (both Command RCN and ADM(Mat)) then eventually up to the MND and probably the cabinet.  That takes years (literally), and would then need years for transition and disposal to implement.  Also contractual issues as they are under ISSC, so you can imagine the kind of hoops that will create. 

 

[Monsoon]

Just a coincidence to be sure...

Surely.