Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Halifax Tar]

PT Boats anyone ?

 

[Navy_Pete]

How much do you think that would cost? Probably would be better to build them like you said new in a yard in the Lakes. Right now now there's no appetite to build more platforms. The subs will probably be the next thing to be funded and that will be when all other options are exhausted. The Kingston Class replacement a dead last.

Also; lead time. It was 2-3 years for availability for anything for the PRO for a heavy lift.

The other aspect for more projects is project staffing; a lot of AOPs staff is shifting to support CSC (or retiring, or filling in for retirements), and PSPC and ISED are also both short on people (with CCG also needing the same people). A sub replacement PMO will be a huge resource hit, especially if they buy outside of Canada (fingers crossed), and figure out the 'Canadian investment' tradeoffs that will be a mostly political requirement.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I believe we need a small combatant vessel - maybe 10 to 15 of them - do do a lot of tasks. I have no idea what design is suitable but I am sure it must be:

• Cheap to operate - low cost/per day at sea - and with a small (< 75) crew;
• Able to operate globally - as the title MCDVs have proved that they (just barely) can;
• Fast enough (able to "sprint" at 25 knots?) to interdict most surface ships;
• Equipped with aircraft - likely (one for more) unmanned air vehicles; and
• Well enough armed to enable it to force a surface ship to stop and be boarded.

Maybe Canada needs a mixed fleet, say:

• 6 to 10 Mine-countermeasures ships; and
• 6 to 10 'corvettes.'

I really don't know ... but I am certain that a dozen big, expensive, highly capable CSCs are NOT going to be enough to do all the government of the day will demand of the RCN.

There is quite the array of various patrol vessel designs which could be suited to an MCDV replacement however, the main consideration with any replacement is going to likely be how prioritized the mine warfare role is. As mine warfare is rapidly moving to being done from afar with unmanned systems, requirements have changed. The times of small and cheap minesweepers has passed, vessels are required to be command and control centers for their drones alongside having substantial storage capability onboard and the ability to launch/retrieve aerial, surface and sub-surface drones.

This role is generally not accounted for with most OPV type vessels, so a big lean towards mine warfare would require heavy modifications. I am somewhat doubtful we will procure a split class for logistical and availability reasons, so it will either be a jack of all trades design or specialized in either role.

 

[Rainbow1910]

This is a good example of a very capable and modern mine warfare vessel being built by some of the European nations, something we will move towards if we want a heavy mine warfare capability.

 

[Stoker]

There is quite the array of various patrol vessel designs which could be suited to an MCDV replacement however, the main consideration with any replacement is going to likely be how prioritized the mine warfare role is. As mine warfare is rapidly moving to being done from afar with unmanned systems, requirements have changed. The times of small and cheap minesweepers has passed, vessels are required to be command and control centers for their drones alongside having substantial storage capability onboard and the ability to launch/retrieve aerial, surface and sub-surface drones.

This role is generally not accounted for with most OPV type vessels, so a big lean towards mine warfare would require heavy modifications. I am somewhat doubtful we will procure a split class for logistical and availability reasons, so it will either be a jack of all trades design or specialized in either role.

Any replacement will need the ability to operate the REMUS AUV that we currently operate off the Kingston Class and Sea Fox, nothing more than that really. It most certainly won't be a MCM mothership.

 

[Swampbuggy]

This is a good example of a very capable and modern mine warfare vessel being built by some of the European nations, something we will move towards if we want a heavy mine warfare capability.

As complete as this ship is, the downside is definitely speed, as it is no faster than a KINGSTON. I’m under the impression that whatever replaces the MCDV will address that deficiency and I believe @Stoker had mentioned they were looking for a 25kt capable platform.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I would be curious to see how we actually crew AOPs and JSS without tying up all MCDVs and some CPFs.

Maybe it would be a 'Field of Dreams' COA (if you build it they will come).

Spending a few billion dollars of taxpayers money with no feasible plan to crew them seems a bit irresponsible.

 

[KevinB]

I would be curious to see how we actually crew AOPs and JSS without tying up all MCDVs and some CPFs.

Maybe it would be a 'Field of Dreams' COA (if you build it they will come).

Spending a few billion dollars of taxpayers money with no feasible plan to crew them seems a bit irresponsible.

Well given the Army’s equipment shortages, you can probably find a few thousand bodies…

 

[Kirkhill]

PT Boats anyone ?

Optionally manned PT boats with GMLA pods?

The launch pod is 4.04m (13 ft 2 in) long (without skids) and 1.05 m (3 ft 5 in) wide. The height of the pod is 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in) with skids and 0.72 m (2 ft 4 in) without skids. When loaded with rockets (tactical or practice), each LPC weighs 2,270 kg (5,005 pounds). A loaded GMLA weighs 2,095 kg (4,609 pounds), and an inert training GMLA weighs 1,360 kg (2,998 pounds).

Displacement, 13,000 kg (28,660 lbs) Empty, 15,300 kg (33,730 lbs) Standard, 20,500 kg (45,190 lbs) Full load ; Length. 15.9 m
Deadweight ~ 5000 kg

Or the Danish kid brother might be sufficient.

Displacement:	6,5 tons
Dimensions:	Length:​	Beam:​	Draught:​
	11.88 m​	2,90 m​	0,7 m​

 

[Navy_Pete]

Well given the Army’s equipment shortages, you can probably find a few thousand bodies…

At one point there were a lot of combat arms type VOTing out; a lot of the FFs I sailed with were ex Infantry, and maybe they got a bit hoodwinked going air force then sailing.

Can't really think of anyone on the marine technician side though, which is what is generally the biggest shortfall is for actually sailing ships, and that's a pretty long training package. Also a lot of supply types missing and cooks, but think that's a CAF wide thing. I'd also joke about a minimum CFAT score, but honestly I don't see a lot that would make the navy look good if you wanted an alternative to playing silly buggers. Lots of other trades have the perks of 3 squares, bed and showers without the fun of going full RCN.

Also, remember what happened to the 200 Vandoos on ATH that got a ferry ride over to Haiti years ago; not many were mobile after some heavy seas and their faces matched their uniforms.

 

[Stoker]

As complete as this ship is, the downside is definitely speed, as it is no faster than a KINGSTON. I’m under the impression that whatever replaces the MCDV will address that deficiency and I believe @Stoker had mentioned they were looking for a 25kt capable platform.

When I was forced on my RQPO1 we saw a preliminary list of requirements for the replacement. It did say plus 25 knots among other capabilities. Talking to my old skipper who is working on among other things what they want the replacement class to do and where they want it sent is that they want these ships to deploy globally much the same as the RN River Class.

 

[Stoker]

I would be curious to see how we actually crew AOPs and JSS without tying up all MCDVs and some CPFs.

Maybe it would be a 'Field of Dreams' COA (if you build it they will come).

Spending a few billion dollars of taxpayers money with no feasible plan to crew them seems a bit irresponsible.

I'm hearing rumblings of a civilian crewing model for JSS, with the employees paid by the government not Federal Fleet. We already have 4 MCDV's tied up now, three WC and one in refit on the EC. I'm also hearing have way more reserves back on the ships.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm hearing rumblings of a civilian crewing model for JSS, with the employees paid by the government not Federal Fleet. We already have 4 MCDV's tied up now, three WC and one in refit on the EC. I'm also hearing have way more reserves back on the ships.

Got to review the JSS drill manual; it called up 'Obey Telegraphs', which as far as I can tell, means nothing on JSS as there is no overrides so things will just trip, and want to operate it like a warship, which does't work when it's built to commercial standards. Who knows what they will do? They saved money by not buying spares as well, so expect JSS 1 to be tranreqing parts of JSS 2 to get sea trials done when things break.

Reserves back on MCDVs makes sense, but not sure what the martech trade change did to the MESOs and if many of them are left.

The project side of the house is weirdly detached from reality for crewing and resources anyway; the MCDV replacement isn't even on the funding list so it's currently a strange internal 'nice to have' piece. The naval large tugs was in that nether realm for over a decade before becoming a real project, so not holding my breath.

The only upside is that they could leverage the NSS and get it done at VSY after JSS and the CCG ships, but still puts it a long ways out.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

PT Boats anyone ?

Philippines are getting Israeli help to do that

 

[KevinB]

River-Class Offshore Patrol Vessels, UK

A fleet of eight River-class offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) is in service with the UK Royal Navy for fishery protection and patrol missions.

www.naval-technology.com

That does sound useful.

Maybe the Army can help with the boarding party - 50 folks on the Block 2 sounds fairly impressive for a boarding team. Sound close to an amphibious raiding group.

 

[Underway]

I'd also joke about a minimum CFAT score

What min CFAT Score? As of Monday if you have the ideal Entry Standard or better you defer the CFAT (for most trades, some still require CFAT) to BMQ. And there it doesn't matter, they just want it for validation purposes. The Entry Standard (education, certifications and experience), Reliability Status and Medical are the gatekeepers for the most part now.

But that's another thread so I don't want to derail this one to much.

 

[Underway]

I'm hearing rumblings of a civilian crewing model for JSS, with the employees paid by the government not Federal Fleet. We already have 4 MCDV's tied up now, three WC and one in refit on the EC. I'm also hearing have way more reserves back on the ships.

Won't need too because the frigates likely will have their hours cut back big time. As JSS works out the kinks it will slot into a frigate mission spot to "help allies" and have a forward presence. A civilian crewing model though means we'll have to strip the ship of quite a bit of its military equipment.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Won't need too because the frigates likely will have their hours cut back big time. As JSS works out the kinks it will slot into a frigate mission spot to "help allies" and have a forward presence. A civilian crewing model though means we'll have to strip the ship of quite a bit of its military equipment.

Curious if that’s been the case with USNS and RFA ships. Just a Quick Look at the crew split on a USNS L&C vessel shows apx 125 civilian and then 11 USN members and the ship is somewhat armed (albeit only lightly and defensively). Is it the weaponry or comms or something else entirely that would be stripped in a civilian crewing scenario for JSS?

 

[Kirkhill]

Curious if that’s been the case with USNS and RFA ships. Just a Quick Look at the crew split on a USNS L&C vessel shows apx 125 civilian and then 11 USN members and the ship is somewhat armed (albeit only lightly and defensively). Is it the weaponry or comms or something else entirely that would be stripped in a civilian crewing scenario for JSS?

Or could there just be areas restricted to naval personnel - secure compartments?

 

[Underway]

Curious if that’s been the case with USNS and RFA ships. Just a Quick Look at the crew split on a USNS L&C vessel shows apx 125 civilian and then 11 USN members and the ship is somewhat armed (albeit only lightly and defensively). Is it the weaponry or comms or something else entirely that would be stripped in a civilian crewing scenario for JSS?

USN has entirely different doctrine so don't compare with them. Removing military pers from the ship completely changes the risk that the RCN will be willing to take with the JSS. It also will remove most of its operational flexibility.