Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Kirkhill]

Not in the traditional minewarfare arena but related

Navy’s new guardian of key underwater infrastructure arrives in UK

The first of the UK’s two new ships to protect key underwater infrastructure today arrived on Merseyside to begin preparing for front-line duties.

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

First images of new Multi Role Ocean Support ship (MROS) renamed RFA Proteus | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Reading more about RFA Proteus / MV Topaz Tangaroa

The Topaz Tangaroa was ordered for a reported $57.5m by Topaz Energy and Marine, a subsidiary of P&O Maritime, at Norwegian shipbuilder Vard in 2015. The vessel has most recently been operating in the Pacific on subsea construction projects.

Vard delivered the vessel in 2019

The vessel was purchased for £70 Million from Topaz Marine, a subsidiary of P&O Maritime. This modern, 6,000-tonne ship was built in 2019 for work in the offshore oil industry supporting construction, maintenance and inspection work and is equipped to operate autonomous submersibles. VARD designed her and the hull was built by their Tulcea shipyard in Romania and fitted out at their Brattvaag facility in Norway.

UK purchases commercial vessel for conversion to ocean surveillance ship | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Not bad grift.

Buy for 57.5 MUSD in 2015.
Take delivery in 2019.
Contract out from 2019 to 2013
Sell for 88 MUSD in 2023.

I am sure there is more to the story though. Right?

 

[Rainbow1910]

@Kirkhill made a good post on the New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy thread showcasing some info about a MCDV replacement program and additional life extensions considered but it got lost in an ongoing discussion. I am posting it here with all credit to them as I think it is relevant and worthwhile info.

Canada initiates new OPV project to replace Kingston-class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels | Shephard

A new Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) Project has been started by the Canadian Department of Defence (DND) with the ships to replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) existing 12 Kingston-class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs) that are approaching 30 years of service.

www.shephardmedia.com

A new Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) Project has been started by the Canadian Department of Defence (DND) with the ships to replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) existing 12 Kingston-class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs) that are approaching 30 years of service.

A spokesperson from the DND told Shephard that the RCN has “initiated the project to inform timely governmental decision-making about a potential replacement for the Kingston-class.”

As part of the OPV Project the RCN’s Naval Force Development establishment is conducting studies to analyse the future operating environment so better understand the key capabilities and technologies that will be needed on its next generation patrol vessel.

Additional life-extension for Canada’s Kingston-class OPVs considered | Shephard

The Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) 12 Kingston-class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), ships which are already being improved, could receive an additional life extension upgrade package.

www.shephardmedia.com

The Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) 12 Kingston-class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), ships which are already being improved, could receive an additional life extension upgrade package.

The vessels, officially named ‘Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels’ (MCDVs), are already in the process of going through a life-extension programme to give the ships an additional five years of service life. This work started in 2021 but five years might not be sufficient time to allow the introduction of a replacement class of OPVs to succeed them.

A spokesperson for the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) told Shephard: “To support current and future operational needs, the estimated end of design life of the 12 Kingston-class ships has been extended

 

[Kirkhill]

As much as I would be happy to see the back of our current Prime Minister and I am disappointed in the lack of a Defence Review and the reappointment of Minister Anand part of me is intrigued.

It might be interesting to see what the review looks like with Anand at Treasury. Can she re-write the rules enough to make a difference?

Edit: It would be nice to think that a project like this could be fast-tracked. It might give hope to the submariner community.

 

[Stoker]

As much as I would be happy to see the back of our current Prime Minister and I am disappointed in the lack of a Defence Review and the reappointment of Minister Anand part of me is intrigued.

It might be interesting to see what the review looks like with Anand at Treasury. Can she re-write the rules enough to make a difference?

Edit: It would be nice to think that a project like this could be fast-tracked. It might give hope to the submariner community.

The requirements for the Kingston Class replacement has been going for some before this "official" announcement. In fact I saw concept art and requirements as early as two years ago. A recent ABS structural survey has given the Kingston Class at least 10 more years of life. Originally the Kingston Class project was completed on a fixed cost shoestring that was very creative in how the ship was built and its capabilities that were delivered. Built on time and on budget. You'll not get this with this ship given the capabilities and size the ship will be. I would say at least 10 years before we see one operational. Of course we could have the first one in 5 years or less if we built offshore.

 

[Kirkhill]

The requirements for the Kingston Class replacement has been going for some before this "official" announcement. In fact I saw concept art and requirements as early as two years ago. A recent ABS structural survey has given the Kingston Class at least 10 more years of life. Originally the Kingston Class project was completed on a fixed cost shoestring that was very creative in how the ship was built and its capabilities that were delivered. Built on time and on budget. You'll not get this with this ship given the capabilities and size the ship will be. I would say at least 10 years before we see one operational. Of course we could have the first one in 5 years or less if we built offshore.

Why not now? What has changed?

 

[Navy_Pete]

or was that burglar?

I'll raise you the Hamburgler; aka an RCN legend in Norfolk. That has to be my favourite port visit story.

Edit to add: given that I still don't see any kind of feasible plan for being able to actually crew AOPs and JSS that doesn't involve getting rid of most of the MCDVs (which is still optimistic given the retention rate getting worse) I think they really need to look more at alternate capability that doesn't involve actual ships.

Drones, sensor arrays etc all seem like they should be in the mix.

Some kind of lower cost and easier to deploy ship would just make sense though, as they are talking about sending AOPs to the Med which is nuts for an icebreaker that doesn't have a date where it will be helo certified as some equipment changes are needed.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'll raise you the Hamburgler; aka an RCN legend in Norfolk. That has to be my favourite port visit story.

Edit to add: given that I still don't see any kind of feasible plan for being able to actually crew AOPs and JSS that doesn't involve getting rid of most of the MCDVs (which is still optimistic given the retention rate getting worse) I think they really need to look more at alternate capability that doesn't involve actual ships.

Drones, sensor arrays etc all seem like they should be in the mix.

Some kind of lower cost and easier to deploy ship would just make sense though, as they are talking about sending AOPs to the Med which is nuts for an icebreaker that doesn't have a date where it will be helo certified as some equipment changes are needed.

Nothing like a good old recession to beef up recruiting numbers. Wait 6-9 months and another interest rate hike or two and you’ll get your numbers.

 

[Kirkhill]

The requirements for the Kingston Class replacement has been going for some before this "official" announcement. In fact I saw concept art and requirements as early as two years ago. A recent ABS structural survey has given the Kingston Class at least 10 more years of life. Originally the Kingston Class project was completed on a fixed cost shoestring that was very creative in how the ship was built and its capabilities that were delivered. Built on time and on budget. You'll not get this with this ship given the capabilities and size the ship will be. I would say at least 10 years before we see one operational. Of course we could have the first one in 5 years or less if we built offshore.

Could we conceivably look at doing things differently?
Or at least doing things the way we did with the Kingstons?

EXCLUSIVE: Navy weighs creation of 'Disruptive Capabilities' office to rapidly field tech to fleet - Breaking Defense

The Navy's top leaders still need to sign out the creation and final details of the new office, but a draft document indicates the focus will be on moving advanced but existing technologies into the field for operational use.

breakingdefense.com

Pushing New Tech, More Quickly​

Updated 8/30/23 at 2:54 pm ET with comments from Navy Under Secretary Erik Raven.

WASHINGTON — The US Navy is considering the establishment of a “Disruptive Capabilities Office” focused on rapidly fielding existing technologies to address operational problems, according to sources as well as a draft document obtained by Breaking Defense.

The final details of this new office are still in flux and plans could change pending approvals from Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. But a draft charter, dated for late June 2023 and circulated this summer at an industry event, stated the DCO would be a “unique office” capable of “rapidly [solving] emerging operational problems with a broad aperture unconstrained by legacy processes.”

Further, if the Navy’s top officials sign the new office into life, it could trigger the end of the Unmanned Task Force, established by former CNO Adm. Michael Gilday in September 2021. “The DCO will leverage the UTF’s lessons learned, best practices and processes, and incorporate key UTF personnel,” according to the document. “Upon standup of the DCO, the UTF will be disestablished.”

 

[Navy_Pete]

There are all kinds of 'Innovation cells'. They are great that finding things that look sexy, may or may not actually work IRL, then kicking them over to people that are already over capacity to do the 95% of the actual work required to get things done.

At this point, I would be happy if someone decided to innovate by not having 15 approval gates, multiple review boards, and 5 layes of oversight and just let us do the actual work we know is needed to keep basic things going.

Lots of things that would have been innovative 15 years ago, industry standard now, and still isn't even on our to do list because it's below the cut off line of what we can do.

It's not like there aren't already all kinds of existing known solutions, just not capacity to do it. I'd replace a lot of the wooden wedges and shoring we use for leak stopping on ships with something from the 20th century (not even 21st) but at the moment is a side project around a dozen different critical items for the 30 year old stuff that is falling apart.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The requirements for the Kingston Class replacement has been going for some before this "official" announcement. In fact I saw concept art and requirements as early as two years ago. A recent ABS structural survey has given the Kingston Class at least 10 more years of life. Originally the Kingston Class project was completed on a fixed cost shoestring that was very creative in how the ship was built and its capabilities that were delivered. Built on time and on budget. You'll not get this with this ship given the capabilities and size the ship will be. I would say at least 10 years before we see one operational. Of course we could have the first one in 5 years or less if we built offshore.

Neither Seaspan or Irving have spare capacity, so I can see the project being used to give Davie a larger slice of the NSS pie, which comes with political brownie points.

 

[Stoker]

Neither Seaspan or Irving have spare capacity, so I can see the project being used to give Davie a larger slice of the NSS pie, which comes with political brownie points.

Davie won't be building any Kingston replacement. More than likely you'll see Heddle getting the nod.

 

[Kirkhill]

Neither Seaspan or Irving have spare capacity, so I can see the project being used to give Davie a larger slice of the NSS pie, which comes with political brownie points.

I think Vard was working with Heddle as a partner. That might suggest a 1000 tonne light offering.

It would keep it off the "large" registery.

Edit: see above.

 

[Stoker]

I'll raise you the Hamburgler; aka an RCN legend in Norfolk. That has to be my favourite port visit story.

Edit to add: given that I still don't see any kind of feasible plan for being able to actually crew AOPs and JSS that doesn't involve getting rid of most of the MCDVs (which is still optimistic given the retention rate getting worse) I think they really need to look more at alternate capability that doesn't involve actual ships.

Drones, sensor arrays etc all seem like they should be in the mix.

Some kind of lower cost and easier to deploy ship would just make sense though, as they are talking about sending AOPs to the Med which is nuts for an icebreaker that doesn't have a date where it will be helo certified as some equipment changes are needed.

The West Coast been down to 3 to 4 Kingston Class crews for some time now. Both AOPS and KIN Class has reduced crewing models they can implement and I believe more reservists are being used again. We've sent the KIN Class to West Africa and the Med so sending a AOPS with AC built for the tropics is no great stretch.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Davie won't be building any Kingston replacement. More than likely you'll see Heddle getting the nod.

Possible, I think it will depend more on the political calculus of the party and who benefits the most. I am sure intense unofficial lobbying is underway by both companies, as soon as they got word of the project.

 

[Stoker]

Possible, I think it will depend more on the political calculus of the party and who benefits the most. I am sure intense unofficial lobbying is underway by both companies, as soon as they got word of the project.

Yes we saw how their intense lobbying got them finally included in the NSS after a decade of whining.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes we saw how their intense lobbying got them finally included in the NSS after a decade of whining.

Mind you they are now solvent and in a better position. Does not matter to me which one gets it, as long as they do good work, on time and close to budget.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Neither Seaspan or Irving have spare capacity, so I can see the project being used to give Davie a larger slice of the NSS pie, which comes with political brownie points.

If it's under 1000 tonnes all the NSS yards are excluded. So if it's the same size as the current MCDVs it would be up for an open bid. The Naval Large Tugs went that route for example, but also the JSS barge system another one. Lots of yards on both coasts and on the lakes that have the capability to do that.

Even if it's over 1000 tonnes but not by a lot no reason it has to go to an NSS yard, and that would actually get it delivered faster. There are no people for the project though, so can't see it really starting until AOPs is done.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I would think it may be quite a bit over a 1000t. I believe the MCDVS are close to 1000t to begin with and @Stoker was saying earlier in the thread that the concept drawings were showing a larger, faster and more capable ship all around.

 

[YZT580]

I would think it may be quite a bit over a 1000t. I believe the MCDVS are close to 1000t to begin with and @Stoker was saying earlier in the thread that the concept drawings were showing a larger, faster and more capable ship all around.

regardless, the NSS is all about building an industry. There is already significant evidence of trickle-down benefits as more and more fabrication plants are getting involved. With the 3 yards up to capacity and with a guaranteed production capacity for the next 2 decades, bringing yards such as Heddle into the picture just makes sense even if the size exceeds the magic 1000t. What will get interesting to watch is where if anywhere the Koreans build their subshop