Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Navy_Pete]

There is nothing wrong with the displacement of the MCDV's. They just weren't built for speed, but rather for very low speed maneuverability and to pull heavy loads (sweeps). Build a sleeker vessel with a pair of VP screws on fixed shafts of the same displacement with a hull developed for speed and on the same displacement, you will get a much more seaworthy vessel capable of around 26 Kts (but your bridge wont be so high above the water ).

They are also insanely stable, which is what makes them a brutal ride; they are rated for something like 150 tonnes of ice, which is nuts at that size of vessel. Their GM is something stupidly high and way outside the target range for comfortable ride, but why you get beat to heck on them. They are so stable they just slap back upright uncomfortably fast.

 

[Stoker]

They are also insanely stable, which is what makes them a brutal ride; they are rated for something like 150 tonnes of ice, which is nuts at that size of vessel. Their GM is something stupidly high and way outside the target range for comfortable ride, but why you get beat to heck on them. They are so stable they just slap back upright uncomfortably fast.

Yes they can take a bit of ice.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The more I learn about the MCDV, the more impressed I am with the design.

 

[Stoker]

The more I learn about the MCDV, the more impressed I am with the design.

For what it costs to operate them and what it can accomplish its certainly a success story. Unfortunately most are imminent of being either made 180 days notice for power or paid off. Spend a few more dollars and these ships could easily last another 10 years.

 

[Furniture]

For what it costs to operate them and what it can accomplish its certainly a success story. Unfortunately most are imminent of being either made 180 days notice for power or paid off. Spend a few more dollars and these ships could easily last another 10 years.

They are old and worn out, and the AOPVs are able to pick up a lot of the slack. Something had to give, and it makes the most sense to tie-up the ships that can be/are being replaced.

 

[Czech_pivo]

They are old and worn out, and the AOPVs are able to pick up a lot of the slack. Something had to give, and it makes the most sense to tie-up the ships that can be/are being replaced.

I'm not certain of the math behind 5, soon to be 6, ships being able to replace 12.

We in Canada seem to be the world's leaders in being able to convince ourselves that doing the same, or more, with less resources is actually possible and advisable.

World's 2nd largest land mass, world's largest coastline, a 3 ocean country with 1 of the 3 oceans pegged as the place where the next mad, desperate scramble for natural resources in an ever warming world will occur. We have a navy smaller and less potent than 25yrs ago and will continue to do so for the next 20yrs. Our population 25yrs ago was just over 30 million and its projected to be 46million in 25yrs - that's a 50% population increase over those 50yrs yet we are constantly being lead to believe that we can't afford a larger navy or CAF in general.

 

[Furniture]

I'm not certain of the math behind 5, soon to be 6, ships being able to replace 12.

We in Canada seem to be the world's leaders in being able to convince ourselves that doing the same, or more, with less resources is actually possible and advisable.

World's 2nd largest land mass, world's largest coastline, a 3 ocean country with 1 of the 3 oceans pegged as the place where the next mad, desperate scramble for natural resources in an ever warming world will occur. We have a navy smaller and less potent than 25yrs ago and will continue to do so for the next 20yrs. Our population 25yrs ago was just over 30 million and its projected to be 46million in 25yrs - that's a 50% population increase over those 50yrs yet we are constantly being lead to believe that we can't afford a larger navy or CAF in general.

I never said we'd do more with less, I said the AOPVs are picking up some of the slack. There aren't enough sailors for the ships we have, so something has to give until that turns around. The navy has decided that the MCDVs are the right thing to give, as the APOVs can pick up some of the slack.

I'm not suggesting it's good we have less ships, or that the ships we have are worn out. I'm simply stating the reality of the current situation, and how it will likely be for at least the next 5 years.

Let's also remember that a big part of sailing MCDVs was to get people to sea, and gaining experience. The AOPVs allow more people to get that experience on a single platform. So, while the hull numbers are down, the numbers of people who can get at sea experience isn't that much lower.

 

[Stoker]

They are old and worn out, and the AOPVs are able to pick up a lot of the slack. Something had to give, and it makes the most sense to tie-up the ships that can be/are being replaced.

Actually they are in pretty good shape say compared to the CPF's and a refits for the class are a pittance compared to a refit for a CPF that you could buy a warship. Yes AOPS will be picking up some of the slack although there are not enough of them and significantly more expensive in operating and maintenance cost. There's all sorts of things you could do in regards to crewing, you could go down in crew size which we already trailed and ask the reserves to step up more.

We know there will be some Kingston Class operating at least until the statement of structural integrity is valid and that's about 5 years mainly for OP Reassurance. I'm currently figuring out some of the potential engineering challenges if we have AOPS as the flagship for the MCM group. Once they are all paid off that's a sizable portion of our fleet gone and despite AOPS a lot of the tasks won't be filled until we get more ships and that could be a while.

 

[Furniture]

Actually they are in pretty good shape say compared to the CPF's and a refits for the class are a pittance compared to a refit for a CPF that you could buy a warship. Yes AOPS will be picking up some of the slack although there are not enough of them and significantly more expensive in operating and maintenance cost. There's all sorts of things you could do in regards to crewing, you could go down in crew size which we already trailed and ask the reserves to step up more.

We know there will be some Kingston Class operating at least until the statement of structural integrity is valid and that's about 5 years mainly for OP Reassurance. I'm currently figuring out some of the potential engineering challenges if we have AOPS as the flagship for the MCM group. Once they are all paid off that's a sizable portion of our fleet gone and despite AOPS a lot of the tasks won't be filled until we get more ships and that could be a while.

They may be in good shape compared to the CPFs, but they don't bring the same capabilities. That pittance is still money, money that could be spent on sailing the APOVs... Modern ships that are more capable in many ways, while also being more comfortable for the crews sailing in them.

The RCN is cutting hulls, and the MCDVs are the easiest to replace with other RCN ships, and with contracts/leases. Nobody in C Navy wants to have less ships and less capabilities, but the reality is we can't support what we have with the budgets and crews we have.

 

[Stoker]

They may be in good shape compared to the CPFs, but they don't bring the same capabilities. That pittance is still money, money that could be spent on sailing the APOVs... Modern ships that are more capable in many ways, while also being more comfortable for the crews sailing in them.

The RCN is cutting hulls, and the MCDVs are the easiest to replace with other RCN ships, and with contracts/leases. Nobody in C Navy wants to have less ships and less capabilities, but the reality is we can't support what we have with the budgets and crews we have.

Of course they don't but they also do all the non sexy things that frankly sending a CFP or a AOPS is a waste of resources. Tie up a couple of CPF's or admit we are close to having several self tie up now. All these extra sailors are going to end up sitting in hulls that physically can't go anywhere.

 

[KevinB]

They may be in good shape compared to the CPFs, but they don't bring the same capabilities. That pittance is still money, money that could be spent on sailing the APOVs... Modern ships that are more capable in many ways, while also being more comfortable for the crews sailing in them.

The RCN is cutting hulls, and the MCDVs are the easiest to replace with other RCN ships, and with contracts/leases. Nobody in C Navy wants to have less ships and less capabilities, but the reality is we can't support what we have with the budgets and crews we have.

The fact that the RCN waited/was forced to wait till nearly all of their platforms are at rust out/dangerous to sail is a fairly criminal event.

It's about as bad at Math as the USN is - as the 15 CSC replace the 4 280 Destroyers (which where already paid off years ago) and the 12 CPF.
The 6 AOPS can't replace 12 MCDV, but perhaps adding 6 of the BAE Batch II Rivers could offer that.

As I understand it the 12 CPF got run ragged as they had to fill the hole left from the removal of the 280's. === trying to conduct the MCDV role with the AOPS will flagged then out in record time -

 

[Furniture]

The fact that the RCN waited/was forced to wait till nearly all of their platforms are at rust out/dangerous to sail is a fairly criminal event.

It's about as bad at Math as the USN is - as the 15 CSC replace the 4 280 Destroyers (which where already paid off years ago) and the 12 CPF.
The 6 AOPS can't replace 12 MCDV, but perhaps adding 6 of the BAE Batch II Rivers could offer that.

As I understand it the 12 CPF got run ragged as they had to fill the hole left from the removal of the 280's. === trying to conduct the MCDV role with the AOPS will flagged then out in record time -

Yep, but that's the shit sandwich we are stuck with. We can lament the fact it happened, or find a way to get by until the new ships come along.

Of course they don't but they also do all the non sexy things that frankly sending a CFP or a AOPS is a waste of resources.

What tasks can an MCDV do for a lot less resources than an AOPV, and how much of a difference does it actually make vs. the benefits of using a more capable hull?

 

[Stoker]

The fact that the RCN waited/was forced to wait till nearly all of their platforms are at rust out/dangerous to sail is a fairly criminal event.

It's about as bad at Math as the USN is - as the 15 CSC replace the 4 280 Destroyers (which where already paid off years ago) and the 12 CPF.
The 6 AOPS can't replace 12 MCDV, but perhaps adding 6 of the BAE Batch II Rivers could offer that.

As I understand it the 12 CPF got run ragged as they had to fill the hole left from the removal of the 280's. === trying to conduct the MCDV role with the AOPS will flagged then out in record time -

As someone who is heavily involved with AOPS and Kingston Class, the maintenance requirements delta between the two platforms is extremely large even with the ISSC looking after both platforms. If as you said the AOPS takes up the slack from the Kingston Class they'll see soon enough the difference.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nav training, mine clearance training, first step in command positions to larger ships. fit them with the same RWS as the CSC and you can start gunnery training as well.

 

[Stoker]

Yep, but that's the shit sandwich we are stuck with. We can lament the fact it happened, or find a way to get by until the new ships come along.


What tasks can an MCDV do for a lot less resources than an AOPV, and how much of a difference does it actually make vs. the benefits of using a more capable hull?

Sure need a ship to go to Bathurst to show the flag, recruiting etc send a MCDV, need a ready duty ship, MCDV. Need to send a ship downtown for the Evergreen festival, send a MCDV. Need to go to sea to retrieve a wave buoy for a DRDC, send a MCDV. I could fill this page with all the taskings that come down the pike for a Kingston Class to do and many of them are non operational. Sure we can send a CPF if we have availability, and people in the know, know what the availability currently of CPF's. We certainly could send a 6000 tonne AOPV to Bathurst as well and I'm sure they'll do fine, but again only 6 of them with about 5 times the operating cost and twice the crew requirements. We have the req of a utility type ship that can take modular payloads that won't suck up the fuel and maintenance costs.

 

[Furniture]

Sure need a ship to go to Bathurst to show the flag, recruiting etc send a MCDV

I'm not sure I'd have started with a "wave the flag at home" tasking as a reason to keep the MCDVs alive. The AOPVs and CPFs are far better tools for that during scheduled trips, as they are far more impressive and "navy" looking than the MCDVs.

I could fill this page with all the taskings that come down the pike for a Kingston Class to do and many of them are non operational.

That's the issue... The RCN can't afford to be doing a whole lot of non-operational/FG taskings. You can't FG a Mar Tech for a CPF or AOPV on a MCDV, same for a lot of other trades the RCN needs to FG. You do need to take people away from those classes to train them for the MCDVs though...

Need to go to sea to retrieve a wave buoy for a DRDC, send a MCDV.

Better yet, have them contract a civilian ship to do it. That is not a warship/RCN tasking...

As someone who is heavily involved with AOPS and Kingston Class

Perhaps you're allowing your emotional attachment to the MCDVs to cloud your judgement of what they bring to the table vs. what it will cost to keep them around beyond fuel costs. Nobody likes to see a ship they sailed in be decommissioned, but it happens.

We have the req of a utility type ship that can take modular payloads that won't suck up the fuel and maintenance costs.

I agree... I just happen to think that those ships can likely be contracted if/when needed, rather than being a painted grey and crewed with our too few sailors.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The fact that the RCN waited/was forced to wait till nearly all of their platforms are at rust out/dangerous to sail is a fairly criminal event.

It's about as bad at Math as the USN is - as the 15 CSC replace the 4 280 Destroyers (which where already paid off years ago) and the 12 CPF.
The 6 AOPS can't replace 12 MCDV, but perhaps adding 6 of the BAE Batch II Rivers could offer that.

As I understand it the 12 CPF got run ragged as they had to fill the hole left from the removal of the 280's. === trying to conduct the MCDV role with the AOPS will flagged then out in record time -

I could see us having to go down the same path as we had to go down with the AOR’s, renting them from Chile/Spain, except we ‘rent’ a friendly nations frigate(s) to perform tasks within CDN national waters that we’d normally do once we don’t have the CPF numbers.
Either we do that, or we buy some 2nd hand ships from the US/Brits or someone else and run them for a 5-10yrs period until the 15 CSC’s are available.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Hmmm … the available pool of useful second hand frigates or destroyers is next to nil.

Wait!!! Perhaps Mssrs Canadiens would be interested in a previously enjoyed Ticonderoga class cruiser? No? Care to peruse our fine selection of used Mexican Knox class frigates that haven’t been more than swimming distance from coast in 40 years? No? How about a recently auctioned Colombian Cartel gunboat, it hasn’t even been swept and detoxed!!!! Comes with its own bar and a gift card for scantily clad 40 dancing girls!!! ( no thanx, we’re Canadian)

 

[Swampbuggy]

I could see us having to go down the same path as we had to go down with the AOR’s, renting them from Chile/Spain, except we ‘rent’ a friendly nations frigate(s) to perform tasks within CDN national waters that we’d normally do once we don’t have the CPF numbers.
Either we do that, or we buy some 2nd hand ships from the US/Brits or someone else and run them for a 5-10yrs period until the 15 CSC’s are available.

Lol, maybe we’d qualify for some of GUARDIANS that Australia is donating to Pacific allies…

 

[Stoker]

I'm not sure I'd have started with a "wave the flag at home" tasking as a reason to keep the MCDVs alive. The AOPVs and CPFs are far better tools for that during scheduled trips, as they are far more impressive and "navy" looking than the MCDVs.

That's the issue... The RCN can't afford to be doing a whole lot of non-operational/FG taskings. You can't FG a Mar Tech for a CPF or AOPV on a MCDV, same for a lot of other trades the RCN needs to FG. You do need to take people away from those classes to train them for the MCDVs though...

Better yet, have them contract a civilian ship to do it. That is not a warship/RCN tasking...

Perhaps you're allowing your emotional attachment to the MCDVs to cloud your judgement of what they bring to the table vs. what it will cost to keep them around beyond fuel costs. Nobody likes to see a ship they sailed in be decommissioned, but it happens.


I agree... I just happen to think that those ships can likely be contracted if/when needed, rather than being a painted grey and crewed with our too few sailors.

I guess my point is that there are many mundane tasks that no one knows about in my opinion important nevertheless. Kingston class has spread the navy to areas where CFFs or AOPS can't physically go and again wasting resources in a resource strapped navy. I'm sorry if you think the Kingston class is not impressive or navy like to your liking but when the RCN needed them to step up they were plenty impressive and navy looking then.

The Kingston Class is a diesel electric ship and AOPV is operated in some areas similarly. They have in the past and currently providing engineering personnel and other trades to AOPVs. Any personnel going to a different class of ship needs to do a class package for the differences. We also have personnel in the Kingston Class who haven't come from a AOPV or CPF.

No nothing wrong with my judgement just hate to see ships decommissioned that have significant life left and no effort made to keep them sailing. We won't bat an eye in spending upwards of half a billion on a multi year refit on ships that when out of refit can't go to sea.