Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Stoker]

Wow, that's a massive change, and a month is a very short time to transition. There is a huge number of SNC personnel with a massive amount of relevant situational awareness on what is happening on the ships, repair plans etc that may get lost in the turnover.

The AJISS ISSC has lagged because it takes a while to hire people and get them up to speed, so will be interesting to see what happens. Plus all the warehousing, contracting, maintenance records etc.

I'm not an SNC fan, but the actual people involved in MWAV do a good job supporting the ships in the context of what we ask them to do and associated restrctions they have, and I think all the ship managers are retired sailors that have some skin in the game and care about the ship's condition from the perspective of the people that have to actually sail them.

Note to self; really good reason to avoid a posting to the Non Combatant desk.

Been hearing about this for months now and speculation was the Thales would be getting the contract by just piggy backing onto what they have set up for AOPS and underbidding them. I was talking to my SNC ships manger and he knew nothing about it, sounds like the PM jumped the gun deliberately.
Its certainly good that there is budget money for the class now as before it was coming out of CPF monies as I understand it. Worked with ISSC for many years and I found it way better than Cape Scott in getting the ship out the door, that's because like you said most are ex Navy. I would imagine many will find themselves working for Thales and the same contractors will be doing the same PM on the ships.

This is good because they can do the ground work on setting up a service provider if two MCDV's get stationed in Europe for permanent OP REASSURANCE presence.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Been hearing about this for months now and speculation was the Thales would be getting the contract by just piggy backing onto what they have set up for AOPS and underbidding them. I was talking to my SNC ships manger and he knew nothing about it, sounds like the PM jumped the gun deliberately.
Its certainly good that there is budget money for the class now as before it was coming out of CPF monies as I understand it. Worked with ISSC for many years and I found it way better than Cape Scott in getting the ship out the door, that's because like you said most are ex Navy. I would imagine many will find themselves working for Thales and the same contractors will be doing the same PM on the ships.

This is good because they can do the ground work on setting up a service provider if two MCDV's get stationed in Europe for permanent OP REASSURANCE presence.

The money for this was always dedicated funding, but came out of the same pot as subs and CPF work for the general MEPM budget.

In the grand scheme of things that's usually the pecking order as well, and now they also are competing with AJISS for funding (which both come out of the NC desk pot).

Unless more money comes into MEPM, I don't think will change much from the support side of things, but optimistic that may be wrong. Having said that, still a lot of growth required for Thales to get what it needs in place for AJISS, let alone take on MCDVs, so I think a bunch of short/medium term pain is to be expected.

Outside the MCDVs, the same contract also does the Orcas, Oriole, and all the other auxiliries so it's a lot of different, ship specific work to keep track of. ANd things like the new large tug will fall under it as well.

Definitely advantages to it, if we fund it right, but at the moment I think if money comes in there is a huge CPF DWP deficit first before there are any substantial changes to MWAV. The CPF DWPs are now about triple the LOE for even the last 280 refits, and that's with leaving a bunch of work not done, so 30 years of minimal repairs is catching up with us. Because there are decades of not poking at things that are now totally falling apart it's just a huge cumulative amount of work, and it's almost impossible not to start one job without a lot of arising work; simple things like swapping a gauge turns into pipe work, which grows to structural work, and hard to find a spot with good material to stop fixing things.

 

[YZT580]

here is the first look at a potential replacement. Heddle and Vard and a couple of others seem to have joined forces to make a proposal.

The VIGILANCE Next Generation Offshore Patrol Vessel – Vanguard

vanguardcanada.com

 

[Underway]

Yah Vanguard kinda jumped the gun with that one. Not exactly what the RCN is currently looking at. We might go the Aussie route doctrinally. With a Combatant high, Combatant low, and non-combatant mix. Right now we have a Combatant non-combatant mix. The MCDV replacement would be the Combatant low part of that equation.

But that just feels pipe dreamy to me for some reason.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I will give Vard some credit for being so tenacious but unless the upcoming Canadian Defence Policy review has some surprise in it that will kickstart the MCDV replacement in the near future, it does seem like they are playing their hand early. Design specifications haven't been released but from what I have seen thus far, it looks like a perfectly serviceable OPV type vessel to replace the MCDV's if that is the avenue the RCN decides

 

[suffolkowner]

Heritage-class cutter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the above is anything similar to their proposal than i think it needs to go on a diet

 

[Kirkhill]

Heritage-class cutter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the above is anything similar to their proposal than i think it needs to go on a diet

Choose your pick...

VARD 7 072 - Vard Marine

The VARD 7 072 is an offshore patrol vessel design that is economical to construct, maintain and operate, yet provides a high degree of utility, safety and crew comfort on long patrols. This vessel meets or exceeds US Navy criteria, including the Ocean Service 1(a) requirement that ensures the...

vardmarine.com

They range in size from 43m to 125m

 

[Maxman1]

Heritage-class cutter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the above is anything similar to their proposal than i think it needs to go on a diet

Might as well go a little further and just get a proper frigate.

Type 31 frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rainbow1910]

Volume 29, Issue 4 of the Canadian Defence Review was released today and have some opinions were given by the CRCN. First I've heard of anybody within the RCN acknowledging Vard's Vigilance proposal and an MCDV replacement publicly. Topshee mentions that he thinks the Vard proposal might be on the smaller side of what is 'big enough' for the needs of the replacement.

Recent Issues

Recent Issues

www.canadiandefencereview.com

MARITIME COASTAL DEFENCE VESSEL (MCDV)

CDR: "It was interesting to see the unsolicited offering for a replacement of the MCDV. What are you looking for in that regard?"

VAdm Topshee: "We don't know yet, is the honest truth. It was really interesting to see the unsolicited offering and the things I would say that really struck me about it were the 20 bunks that were available as potential training bunks, and the ability to take, I think it's 7, twenty-foot containers that it could internally move around and things like that. Those are really neat features. Is it the right ship for us? I have no idea because we're still in the early days of figuring that out - the MCDVs is one answer to the problem of what's the right sort of small surface ship for Canada. Do we want it to be more of a combatant? I don't know. Do we want it to be able to cross oceans? I think so. So that drives a certain size. Is the ship that was proposed big enough? Well, it's at the low end of that, but possibly, so we really want to see that design in operation at sea. And then what are the other options from other competitors? There are lots of designs for those smaller Corvette type things around the world so it's an exciting time. Our first priority is that we need to figure out what we need it to do - once we define that concept of employment and the requirement that would come from having that ship, then I think we're in a better place to figure out the specific platform to fill that capability."

CDR: "So, it sounds like the ship will be bigger than the existing MCDV."

VAdm Topshee: "I think it'll be bigger than the current MCDV. Again, we need to determine what we want this ship to do. We know the ship has to provide a certain number of training days, but what's the actual requirement from a Canadian point of view? Route survey of all Canadian waters - is that something that we need to be able to continue to do? I would argue, yes. What's the right platform for that? What's the right mix of capabilities? That may actually not be a ship, but rather a combination of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems. So, that begs the question, do we need something that's a parent ship to all of those things? Maybe what we really want is some sort of more aggressively armed coastal defence vessel because we see an evolution in threats. I don't know."

CDR: "How far along is the Navy in this process?"

VAdm Topshee: "We've said we really should start to think about replacing the ship. I've challenged the team to go around the world and look at all of the different replacement options and be very smart about the range of things that are out there, because there might be a solution that actually solves so many different issues for us. I encourage industry to continue to provide unsolicited proposals to us because I think there's a tremendous opportunity for us to figure out the right answer for a relatively small ship. But we've got to keep in mind, it's probably going to look different from other countries because our challenge is three oceans and the fact that pretty much everywhere we need to go we're crossing an ocean. And so, what's the mission here in Canada? and then how do you balance that against the ability to cross an ocean and contribute abroad potentially? Or have we already got enough of that, and we really want to focus on that 'here-a-home' mission because that might drive us in a different way."

 

[TacticalTea]

"There are lots of designs for those smaller Corvette type things around the world so it's an exciting time"

Mfw CRCN describes minor warships as corvettes:

More seriously, on his last point; not sure how the Navy could contribute more to "here-at-home" missions. We're still commissioning AOPVs whose primary purpose are just that, domestic / sovereignty, and they're plenty capable and versatile, being employed both by us and the CCG.

If we need to beef up constabulary or lifesaving roles, give resources to RCMP and CCG instead. If it's military threats we're worried about, then invest in undersea, land-based or airborne defenses. Much less expensive.

 

[TacticalTea]

Plus, if we're being honest, we simply cannot afford more vessels that can't pull their own weight in a hot war in this decade.

 

[Kirkhill]

Plus, if we're being honest, we simply cannot afford more vessels that can't pull their own weight in a hot war in this decade.

Respectfully though - bigger ships are bigger targets and larger crews are greater risks, not to mention that larger crews eat up more volume as hotel space and services.

River Class - 2000 tonnes - complement of 34-45
Holland Class - 3750 tonnes - complement of 54
Arrowhead Class - 5700 tonnes - complement of 80-100
Ranger USV - ???? - complement of 0

VESSEL REVIEW | Mariner & Ranger – US Navy launches new fleet of unmanned test vessels - Baird Maritime

The US Navy has begun operating two unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) as part of a US Department of Defense (DOD) project entailing the integration of autonomous navigation technology into existing seagoing vessels. Sister vessels Mariner and Ranger were developed by a partnership formed by...

www.bairdmaritime.com

And one of the issues addressed in the CDR was recruiting and retention.

 

[TacticalTea]

Respectfully though - bigger ships are bigger targets and larger crews are greater risks, not to mention that larger crews eat up more volume as hotel space and services.

River Class - 2000 tonnes - complement of 34-45
Holland Class - 3750 tonnes - complement of 54
Arrowhead Class - 5700 tonnes - complement of 80-100
Ranger USV - ???? - complement of 0

VESSEL REVIEW | Mariner & Ranger – US Navy launches new fleet of unmanned test vessels - Baird Maritime

The US Navy has begun operating two unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) as part of a US Department of Defense (DOD) project entailing the integration of autonomous navigation technology into existing seagoing vessels. Sister vessels Mariner and Ranger were developed by a partnership formed by...

www.bairdmaritime.com

And one of the issues addressed in the CDR was recruiting and retention.

To be clear, I didn't say anything about displacement or complement.

Only role, in response to CRCN's last quoted statement: "Or have we already got enough of that, and we really want to focus on that 'here-at-home' mission because that might drive us in a different way."

 

[Underway]

Here at home doesn't mean non-kinetic. Submarines are primarily here at home mission systems, as are F35's. Continental defence is here at home and MCDV's can't do high end continental defence outside of mine warefare.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Here at home doesn't mean non-kinetic. Submarines are primarily here at home mission systems, as are F35's. Continental defence is here at home and MCDV's can't do high end continental defence outside of mine warefare.

True, but ensuring the routes in and out of our ports are safe from mines will be a critical component of "Here at home". How that is done will be a interesting and quickly evolving thing.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

True, but ensuring the routes in and out of our ports are safe from mines will be a critical component of "Here at home". How that is done will be a is an interesting and ongoing quickly evolving thing.

FTFY. MCDV's have been in the evolving and interesting field of mine warfare for their whole and ongoing existence. There have been few years in which they haven't tested a new or evolving mine warfare system, all developed and made in Canada, IIRC.

 

[TacticalTea]

Here at home doesn't mean non-kinetic. Submarines are primarily here at home mission systems, as are F35's. Continental defence is here at home and MCDV's can't do high end continental defence outside of mine warefare.

For sure. Submarines and strike fighters are part of what I meant by undersea and airborne defenses.

But in the context of an MCDV replacement, looking at "corvette-type things" is not what will best serve us for the here-at-home, imho.

Perhaps it would be if we were much closer geographically to the threats.

 

[GR66]

If the MCDV replacement isn't required to have a "corvette-type" expeditionary combat capability then in my opinion it should at least have the ability to take on asymmetrical threats in peacetime (small craft, USVs, UAVs, C-RAM, etc) as well as defensive capability in our coastal waters in a conflict.

Since the most likely naval threat to North America during a war would likely be submarines/UUVs then that would suggest it would need a towed-array and ideally a way to prosecute a contact independently. Maybe something like a Fire Scout UAV equipped with sonobuoys and perhaps an ultra-lightweight torpedo? Maybe even a (containerized?) vertical launched ASW?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Wouldn't last 5 minutes with the cadets, it was already offered to the Royal Toronto Yacht club and they didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Its a money pit pure and simple for a ship that age but the crowds for tours it gets are considerable with crewmembers from the Fleet relaying about life in the Navy and how fun it is to sail the ship and do sailor things.

Mfw CRCN describes minor warships as corvettes:

More seriously, on his last point; not sure how the Navy could contribute more to "here-at-home" missions. We're still commissioning AOPVs whose primary purpose are just that, domestic / sovereignty, and they're plenty capable and versatile, being employed both by us and the CCG.

If we need to beef up constabulary or lifesaving roles, give resources to RCMP and CCG instead. If it's military threats we're worried about, then invest in undersea, land-based or airborne defenses. Much less expensive.

Add into the mix what the COBRA project is for AOPS and the earlier ASW article in that same magazine, coupled with this and you can see potentially what he's referring to in terms of 'here at home' missions.

 

[Underway]

For sure. Submarines and strike fighters are part of what I meant by undersea and airborne defenses.

But in the context of an MCDV replacement, looking at "corvette-type things" is not what will best serve us for the here-at-home, imho.

Perhaps it would be if we were much closer geographically to the threats.

What are the continental defence missions? The US seems to think that Corvette level armed USCG are appropriate. This frees up the CSC to do expeditionary operations in the hot zones.