Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[lenaitch]

You guys who do that truly have my respect. I can't image what the folks on the WWII convoy runs had to deal with.

 

[YZT580]

You guys who do that truly have my respect. I can't image what the folks on the WWII convoy runs had to deal with.

and some of them had open bridges at the time too

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and some of them had open bridges at the time too

All of the escorts did.

 

[GK .Dundas]

All of the escorts did.

Almost all British or Commonwealth escorts did.
With the exception of DE's and WW I DD's most American warships did not.
Apparently the open bridge on the Destroyer Escorts came about because the British who were purchasing the first ones off the assembly line . The RN were involved in design process and they believed very much in the open bridge concept.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It certain made sense in the days before radar, where the lookouts were the difference between life and death or collision damage.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Apparently the Brits preferred them better views it offered the Commander for ASW and AAW.
And in a 1944 issue of the USNI Proceedings magazine. One American officer argued that all ships from subchasers to Destroyers should have open bridges.

 

[Stoker]

HMCS Preserver

 

[Rainbow1910]

Vard released a new advertisement in the newest edition of Canadian Defence Review and it featured an updated Vigilance variant alongside the "current" model we've had for over a year. Given how aggressively Vard has pushed Vigilance and how they seem to have a finger on the pulse of the CMMC program, I thought it would be interesting to look into what can be seen in this graphic. Take this with a large dose of salt as this is the first place this new "Vigilance 100" design has been seen to my knowledge, and this is very much a "reading the tea leaves" exercise with a somewhat sketchy graphic.

TLDR: Bigger design (either right on or far above the NSS 1,000t light limit) with organic helicopter capability, same sensor suite as previous Vigilance designs, moving away from the previous mission deck aft and likely implementing some kind of VLS aboard.

I have included screen captures below, including one I have edited somewhat to try and improve visibility. I will be referring to Vigilance 75 as V-75 and Vigilance 100 as V-100 to keep things concise.

From what I can gather:

- V-100 is named due to its length, being classed as 100m.

- The design is labeled as "Vard 7 100" on close inspection, this is the designation of a currently offered Vard Offshore Patrol Vessel that is also 100m. Given similarities between the designs, I have included a photo rendering of Vard 7 100 below and will be assuming it is the base used for V-100.

- Discernable masts on V-100 vs the waterline exhausts found on V-75, very similar to the type found on AOPS.

- V-100 seems to be using the same sensor and mast arrangement as the smaller V-75 "Flight II" variant we familiar with, meaning NS-100 radar, STIR tracking/illumination radar, Scout Mk3 covert surveillance radar and any other topside sensors from that smaller variant.

- Hull sonar bulb forward does not look present, although the amidships of the design is obscured.

- V-100 adds a 57mm gun vs the 40mm gun from V-75.

- There is no easily discernible VLS present however, there is ample space behind the 57mm gun to potentially fit such a system vs V-75 and Vard 7 100. There may be a slightly raised area that is VLS behind the 57mm gun but this is very much pixel hunting. There is also a block section amidships directly behind the main mast, this could be ExLS launchers for CAMM as was previously fitted to the River class and V-75.

- V-100 shares the MASS launchers alongside the main gun, same as V-75.

- Remote weapons systems present on the port and starboard sides, present directly behind the main mast, unknown caliber but potentially .50 caliber, 20mm or 30mm.

- V-100 features atleast one covered boat bay on the starboard side, potentially another on the port side.

- V-100 integrates organic helicopter capability versus the drone only hanger/flight deck of V-75. V-100 has fly-co windows facing aft and if Vard 7 100/ the large aft superstructure is any indication, V-100 also features a flight deck/hanger capable of taking a Cyclone/Seahawk sized aircraft.

- Larger flight deck aboard V-100 eats into the sizable aft mission deck of V-75 however, the flight deck is clearly raised and is likely able to take containerized payloads both on the aft deck and below the flight deck. Unable to ship Mark 70 VLS containers, unless potentially on the flight deck.

For the sake of comparison and as a potential base for V-100, Vard 7 100 has the following relevant statistics:

• 100m length OA, 15.8m beam and 5m design draft.
• 25 knots max speed.
• 9,500 nmi at 14 knots.
• 60 day endurance.
• Combined diesel-electric and diesel (CODLAD) propulsion system.
• 126 person crew.

 

[GR66]

For the sake of comparison and as a potential base for V-100, Vard 7 100 has the following relevant statistics:

• 100m length OA, 15.8m beam and 5m design draft.
• 25 knots max speed.
• 9,500 nmi at 14 knots.
• 60 day endurance.
• Combined diesel-electric and diesel (CODLAD) propulsion system.
• 126 person crew.

So what other existing designs are out there that come close to meeting the CMMC requirements?

Maybe the Gowind 2500 Corvette and here (in service with Egypt and the UAE - and the larger 3100 model in Malaysia)?

[image link]

• 102m length OA, 16m beam and 5.4m draft (2,500 ton displacement)
• 25 knots max speed.
• 3,700 nmi at 15 knots
• 21 day endurance
• Combined diesel and diesel (CODAD) propulsion system
• 80 crew (65 + 15 special forces)
• Hanger & Flight Deck for 10t helicopter
• Sensors:
  • SMART-S MK2 3D radar
  • CAPTAS-2 VDS
• Weapons
  • 76mm main gun
  • 2 x 20mm cannon
  • 16 x VLS for MICA SAMs
  • 8 x Exocet
  • 2 x triple torpedo launchers

 

[Navy_Pete]

Don't forget this is Vard doing PR on an unfunded and unsupported want from the RCN that isn't in the GoC investment plan or defence white paper (for a class of ship we don't have sailors to operate).

The MCDVs were great, but we aren't getting rid of them because we don't need what the small ships bring to the table; we can't afford to fix them and we need the people for other classes.

 

[DBNSG]

Don't forget this is Vard doing PR on an unfunded and unsupported want from the RCN that isn't in the GoC investment plan or defence white paper (for a class of ship we don't have sailors to operate).

The MCDVs were great, but we aren't getting rid of them because we don't need what the small ships bring to the table; we can't afford to fix them and we need the people for other classes.

Stop making sense.

 

[deepblue202]

If we are lucky we will get maybe six of these it would be a nice upgrade to the MCVD's :

https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/introducing-the-royal-navyrsquos-new-offshore-patrol-vessels

 

[Lumber]

I don't know much, but what I can tell you is that the CMMC will not be designed to carry a helicopter or even support the landing of a helicopter.

 

[deepblue202]

I don't know much, but what I can tell you is that the CMMC will not be designed to carry a helicopter or even support the landing of a helicopter.

Well then maybe this could be a better fit:

Stan Patrol 6211 | Damen

The combination of superior seakeeping and the position of the wheelhouse results in the highest possible level of operability for Damen Stan Patrol 6211.

www.damen.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well then maybe this could be a better fit:

Stan Patrol 6211 | Damen

The combination of superior seakeeping and the position of the wheelhouse results in the highest possible level of operability for Damen Stan Patrol 6211.

www.damen.com

I love that hull.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't know much, but what I can tell you is that the CMMC will not be designed to carry a helicopter or even support the landing of a helicopter.

You greatly simplify a ship design by taking helicopters out of it.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I love that hull.

I only wish it had a little more space for future proofing. Not really anywhere for ISO containers, UAV/S systems or any weapons upgrades. Probably work well for coastal patrols and OP CARIBBE, tho hard to say how much room for a LEDETS team.

 

[Kirkhill]

I only wish it had a little more space for future proofing. Not really anywhere for ISO containers, UAV/S systems or any weapons upgrades. Probably work well for coastal patrols and OP CARIBBE, tho hard to say how much room for a LEDETS team.

I beilieve that is the underlying hull for the Dutch navy's Operational Support Vessels - Optionally/Minimally manned missile transporters to accompany their Seven Provinces AAW frigates.

RNLN looks at low-manned platform to augment frigate fire power - Naval News

The Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) is exploring the case for acquiring TRIFIC low-cost, low-manned vessels to complement the frigates

www.navalnews.com

Netherlands firms up plans for multifunction support vessels - Naval News

The Royal Netherlands Navy is set to receive two low-cost, low-manned multifunction support vessels (‘Multifunctionele ondersteuningsvaartuigen’)

www.navalnews.com

Dutch Navy to buy armed sidekick ships for its air-defense frigates

Dutch shipyard Damen will build the vessels, with Israel Aerospace Industries supplying interceptors, drones and electronic-warfare equipment.

www.defensenews.com

53 meter with a planned crew of 8 that can be reduced to 0. Displacement of 550 tonnes.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I don't know much, but what I can tell you is that the CMMC will not be designed to carry a helicopter or even support the landing of a helicopter.

The ability to organically carry a manned helicopter is incredibly value in effectively every aspect of naval operations however, the challenges and tradeoffs inherent to fitting such a capability into such a seemingly small design is also very difficult. The bigger issue is the total lack of Cyclone force numbers to actually make realistic use of this capability if we procured it, and how likely RCAF operation of another maritime helo for the RCN would be.

 

[GR66]

The ability to organically carry a manned helicopter is incredibly value in effectively every aspect of naval operations however, the challenges and tradeoffs inherent to fitting such a capability into such a seemingly small design is also very difficult. The bigger issue is the total lack of Cyclone force numbers to actually make realistic use of this capability if we procured it, and how likely RCAF operation of another maritime helo for the RCN would be.

ASW-capable UAV's should be very high on the procurement wish list for the CAF.