Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Dana381]

Not the last thing we need as far as equipment goes.....maybe out of a list of 10 or 12 items ,7th or 8th ?
Certainly not a top priority personally I'd like 2 or more tankers and some sort of Depot ship .

I know I'm just a simple civilian but wouldn't some sort of sealift capacity be a fairly high priority to the CAF as a whole?

I realize that the Navy thinks about what the navy wants, and the Navy likely doesn't think sealift is a priority.

To be clear I mean something like a merchant marine, Unarmed vessels crewed by civilians that can called up when needed. If another Afghanistan or worse kicks off we will be scrambling again to deploy. During Afghanistan there was much talk on here about sea and air lift capacity and how under equipped we are.

I know the JSS is supposed to have some capacity but in a major deployment If we rely on the JSS for sealift who is going to refuel our combatants?

It ought to count towards the 5% and its unarmed. The Liberals should love the idea.

Maybe we can use the ships to re-supply the Arctic base and to deliver provisions to remote seaside communities when they are not needed to provide sealift.

 

[Prairie canuck]

And what exactly will it be doing in those other oceans? the RAS capability it will have is a secondary feature. It sure as hell won't be supporting a task group. HADR?, give that to the CG not the RCN.

What would a Mistral or any other big honkin ship be doing? Very little if anything. G-LAAM wouldn't have the same embarked capacity as a Mistral nor the provisions the JSS has but it does have additional capabilities. I choose to focus on what options it will provide instead of scenarios where it wouldn't. Supplying a task group by itself, no, being part of a task group which includes the JSS, yes. Enabling transport of helicopters and land equipment in ice conditions, yes. Moving land vehicles to overseas deployments instead of relying on private carriers, yes. Supporting smaller deployments including those of the proposed MCDV replacements, yes. It's really not surprising how a multi-role vessel could be much more useful than a Mistral, if you're open minded enough to imagine it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Based on the CRCN's comments when he started talking about the CMMC/CDC, a straight replacement for the MCDV was never the plan.

The MCDVs are "peace divided" ships like the AOPV, not combatants. The corvettes were always supposed to be combatants.

I agree it sounds like scope creep is happening, but maybe it's less scope creep, and more bouncing ideas to see what sticks with the GoC. At this time "arctic capability" is the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down...

Just from my position, nothing about putting properly armed ships in service is scope creep to me.

 

[Stoker]

Am I reading this right and that you don’t think a 3rd JSS would be beneficial?

We have to be realistic here on what we can actually crew and support. A 3rd JSS no. Perhaps in a decades time when we actually need the capability, have the personnel and perhaps even the jetty space to put it.

 

[Stoker]

It doesn't have to spend all it's time in the arctic. There's plenty of other oceans to operate in.

AOPV carries enough fuel so it doesn't need to RAS and due to environmental regulations we don't don't RAS from Canadian ships above 60. The RAS gear it carries is for fueling alongside the Arctic fueling depot which has a setup just like another ship.

 

[Czech_pivo]

AOPV carries enough fuel so it doesn't need to RAS and due to environmental regulations we don't don't RAS from Canadian ships above 60. The RAS gear it carries is for fueling alongside the Arctic fueling depot which has a setup just like another ship.

We have an Arctic fuelling depot?

 

[Stoker]

Based on the CRCN's comments when he started talking about the CMMC/CDC, a straight replacement for the MCDV was never the plan.

The MCDVs are "peace divided" ships like the AOPV, not combatants. The corvettes were always supposed to be combatants.

I agree it sounds like scope creep is happening, but maybe it's less scope creep, and more bouncing ideas to see what sticks with the GoC. At this time "arctic capability" is the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down...

When I was in Ottawa a number of years ago visiting the various directorates we attended a briefing about the Kingston Class replacement which was a slightly upgraded version of the class it was replacing with specs and artwork and I have friends in the project office for the corvettes and I know that wasn't always the intent. I was at a briefing we received about the CSC a few years ago that it was mentioned that the intent was to possibility use it as a wingman of sorts with VLS and all. Presumably because it left the RCD short of missiles. So the idea evolved overtime. If we're going full armed warship fine, then we should have a separate class for Kingston Class type work.

 

[Stoker]

Not the last thing we need as far as equipment goes.....maybe out of a list of 10 or 12 items ,7th or 8th ?
Certainly not a top priority personally I'd like 2 or more tankers and some sort of Depot ship .

I think a submarine tender and a couple of large offshore type ships for underwater critical infrastructure inspection would be more of a priority.

 

[Stoker]

What would a Mistral or any other big honkin ship be doing? Very little if anything. G-LAAM wouldn't have the same embarked capacity as a Mistral nor the provisions the JSS has but it does have additional capabilities. I choose to focus on what options it will provide instead of scenarios where it wouldn't. Supplying a task group by itself, no, being part of a task group which includes the JSS, yes. Enabling transport of helicopters and land equipment in ice conditions, yes. Moving land vehicles to overseas deployments instead of relying on private carriers, yes. Supporting smaller deployments including those of the proposed MCDV replacements, yes. It's really not surprising how a multi-role vessel could be much more useful than a Mistral, if you're open minded enough to imagine it.

If we want a capability to transport vehicles overseas there are cheaper commercial options and now we want a capability to land troops, vehicles and hellos in the Arctic. The GOC hasn't hasn't made that a want for the CAF, why do you think that's the case?

 

[Stoker]

We have an Arctic fuelling depot?

At least the one that was intended.