Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Stoker]

Presumably it would be sometime before a 3rd JSS would enter service just based on Seaspan building the Polar and MPVs plus the need to order bits and pieces.

I can honestly say there are no plans to build a 3rd JSS currently or even keep Asterix. Down the road who knows.

 

[FSTO]

We have ambitious people: They're in Ottawa and their ambition is to stay there and climb the staff/administration ladder with their civil service counterparts.

Hey!!!! I resemble that remark!!!

 

[Stoker]

The plan from the CRCN is to use civilian offshore work ships for the non-operational tasks, and to use APOVs for Ops like Caribe.

100% on the Caribe mission as the ship is set up for those type of missions. The issue I see now with the AOPV's is that they'll be utilized more and more on non arctic taskings. Right now we're seeing AOPV's only in the Arctic for 2 months , where they should be first ship up there and the last to leave in my opinion. AOPV's have considerably larger operational costs and maintenance requirements and is why we're having some of these high profile news stories. We in the past have used civilian offshore ships for non operational tasks, although they come with all sorts of issues as well. I still say a purpose built replacement for the Kingston Class is needed and something that is cheap to operate and maintain with modular type payloads such as MCM and a low crew requirement. Wouldn't even need 12 ships. We need a Toyota Hilux not a Ford F250.

 

[Stoker]

Ships require maintenance. Lots of maintenance.

Ships undergoing extended maintenance ashore do not require a full crew.

Ships undergoing extended maintenance are not going to sea.

So a third JSS merely increases the odds that you'll have two capable of going to sea.

Those arguments sounds neat on paper, but it ignores the practical bottlenecks the RCN is facing right now.

1. Crewing
Even if a third JSS were delivered tomorrow, the Navy does not have the sailors to crew it. CAF is short thousands of personnel, with ships already being tied up because of manning shortages. A ship in long-term maintenance might not need a full crew, but the Navy still has to find two full JSS crews today before even considering a third.


2. Infrastructure limits
Esquimalt and Halifax are already struggling with jetty space and yard capacity. The two Protecteurs plus Asterix already stretch replenishment berthing, maintenance, and refit capacity. Adding a third hull now would mean parking it idle or contracting out even more costly commercial support.


3. Support system capacity
A JSS is not a simple vessel, it requires significant supply chain, depot-level maintenance, and dockyard resources. Right now, Canada’s maintenance system is under stress keeping the existing fleet operational. A third JSS would just sit in rotation waiting for the same finite refit slots, not actually increasing available sea days.


4. Operational demand vs. solutions
Today, RCN operational requirements can be covered by MV Asterix if they keep it plus two JSS in the medium term. If a gap appears, a chartered tanker or “cheap oiler” covers the need far faster and cheaper than another $3B bespoke JSS sitting idle.


Right now, a third JSS doesn’t give us “two at sea more often” it would give us an expensive hull the Navy can’t crew, dock, or sustain. When resources (personnel, jetties, maintenance capacity) catch up, then it makes sense. Until then, smarter to plug gaps with commercial or auxiliary solutions. Down the road when we're flush with sailors perhaps but now now.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It sounds like the program is undergoing serious feature creep, to the point we're talking about a Halifax class like capability that has an Polar Class 6~ rating. We're getting further and further away from an actual Kingston class replacement in practice and in spirit, and a lot closer to a corvette or frigate. I am concerned we might start undercutting the River class at this rate with a far less capable vessel.

So a slightly bigger, next generation Knud Rasmussen, but taking taking advantage of the port and starboard "fitted for, not with" Stanflex Slots to enable 4 modules.

 

[Czech_pivo]

100% on the Caribe mission as the ship is set up for those type of missions. The issue I see now with the AOPV's is that they'll be utilized more and more on non arctic taskings. Right now we're seeing AOPV's only in the Arctic for 2 months , where they should be first ship up there and the last to leave in my opinion. AOPV's have considerably larger operational costs and maintenance requirements and is why we're having some of these high profile news stories. We in the past have used civilian offshore ships for non operational tasks, although they come with all sorts of issues as well. I still say a purpose built replacement for the Kingston Class is needed and something that is cheap to operate and maintain with modular type payloads such as MCM and a low crew requirement. Wouldn't even need 12 ships. We need a Toyota Hilux not a Ford F250.

The acronym should be flipped around to be OAPV's because to your points above, that is really the reality of their current life cycle.

 

[Furniture]

Right now we're seeing AOPV's only in the Arctic for 2 months , where they should be first ship up there and the last to leave in my opinion.

Who would crew them if the RCN used them that way? No real port visits, and no real tasks apart from presence would kill the crew morale.

I spent six months sailing around the GOO doing nothing but presence, and it was boring, even with interesting port visits every couple of weeks.

 

[dapaterson]

Those arguments sounds neat on paper, but it ignores the practical bottlenecks the RCN is facing right now.

1. Crewing
Even if a third JSS were delivered tomorrow, the Navy does not have the sailors to crew it. CAF is short thousands of personnel, with ships already being tied up because of manning shortages. A ship in long-term maintenance might not need a full crew, but the Navy still has to find two full JSS crews today before even considering a third.


2. Infrastructure limits
Esquimalt and Halifax are already struggling with jetty space and yard capacity. The two Protecteurs plus Asterix already stretch replenishment berthing, maintenance, and refit capacity. Adding a third hull now would mean parking it idle or contracting out even more costly commercial support.


3. Support system capacity
A JSS is not a simple vessel, it requires significant supply chain, depot-level maintenance, and dockyard resources. Right now, Canada’s maintenance system is under stress keeping the existing fleet operational. A third JSS would just sit in rotation waiting for the same finite refit slots, not actually increasing available sea days.


4. Operational demand vs. solutions
Today, RCN operational requirements can be covered by MV Asterix if they keep it plus two JSS in the medium term. If a gap appears, a chartered tanker or “cheap oiler” covers the need far faster and cheaper than another $3B bespoke JSS sitting idle.


Right now, a third JSS doesn’t give us “two at sea more often” it would give us an expensive hull the Navy can’t crew, dock, or sustain. When resources (personnel, jetties, maintenance capacity) catch up, then it makes sense. Until then, smarter to plug gaps with commercial or auxiliary solutions. Down the road when we're flush with sailors perhaps but now now.

How many years ago was the JSS announced? How many more years will it be before a third could be built?

 

[Czech_pivo]

How many years ago was the JSS announced? How many more years will it be before a third could be built?

I'm sure that someone has a project plan laid out with the various dates (both 'known' and potential) on it when the 1st CSC needs to be crewed, when the 1st new sub needs to be crewed, the first 1st JSS, the 1st potential new Corvette, etc, etc and against that chart should be current vs future crew needs and an overlay of current RCN recruitment numbers vs future numbers. Also in the mix will be the current vs hypothetical retirement attrition numbers. Only then can you really get a full sense of if they are on track starting in 202X and going forward to meet those needs, or, if the wheels will fall off the bus 8-10yrs out.

The nice thing is that time is currently on their side, the bad thing is a relaxed, 'manana' attitude that they have time to fix this......

 

[Stoker]

Who would crew them if the RCN used them that way? No real port visits, and no real tasks apart from presence would kill the crew morale.

I spent six months sailing around the GOO doing nothing but presence, and it was boring, even with interesting port visits every couple of weeks.

The Danes and Norwegians seem to make a go of it. AOPV's not exactly a steamer, they are pretty comfortable compared to usual naval standards. Lots of room, great food, great gym and Starlink and starting soon 25% more seapay. We have 6 AOPV's and they obviously don't all have to be there each year just a couple. As for ports Iqaluit, Nuuk, and Thule if we don't piss the yanks off anymore. A bit of imagination you could have partial crew changes or a spot built ashore in Iqaluit for R&R. You make it sound like they're being hard done by.

 

[Furniture]

The Danes and Norwegians seem to make a go of it. AOPV's not exactly a steamer, they are pretty comfortable compared to usual naval standards. Lots of room, great food, great gym and Starlink and starting soon 25% more seapay. We have 6 AOPV's and they obviously don't all have to be there each year just a couple. As for ports Iqaluit, Nuuk, and Thule if we don't piss the yanks off anymore. A bit of imagination you could have partial crew changes or a spot built ashore in Iqaluit for R&R. You make it sound like they're being hard done by.

I have sailed in an AOPV, I knowhow nice they are. I have also spoken with people who have sailed into the arctic, and they all pretty much say the same thing. "It was cool, but I prefer going south". Iqaluit, and Thule are fun for a short visit, but I suspect by visit 5 in a single summer it would be pretty old... Also, missing your entire summer sailing in the north for multiple years in a row is a morale killer. There is a reason ECCC doesn't do that with their staff in Alert and Eureka.

Lastly, you previously said that we shouldn't plan for a third AOR because we don't have enough sailors, but now you suggest that we double up the crews for the AOPVs so we can have them sail in circles in the arctic accomplishing little to nothing?

 

[Sub Standard]

Sailors always have a say, if they will get what they want is up to the needs of their trades and fleet though.

And, AFAIK, Submarine service remains volunteer.

For the record submarines hasn't been a must be volunteer service since the 80's, however the preference is to only use volunteers.

 

[Stoker]

I have sailed in an AOPV, I knowhow nice they are. I have also spoken with people who have sailed into the arctic, and they all pretty much say the same thing. "It was cool, but I prefer going south". Iqaluit, and Thule are fun for a short visit, but I suspect by visit 5 in a single summer it would be pretty old... Also, missing your entire summer sailing in the north for multiple years in a row is a morale killer. There is a reason ECCC doesn't do that with their staff in Alert and Eureka.

Lastly, you previously said that we shouldn't plan for a third AOR because we don't have enough sailors, but now you suggest that we double up the crews for the AOPVs so we can have them sail in circles in the arctic accomplishing little to nothing?

I have nine deployments going to the Arctic in just a Kingston Class, a couple over 3 months and 3 times in a row at one go and our morale was fine. If you can't keep crew morale up with what the AOPV's have at their disposal then I question the command teams. That's why the extra 25% for SDA to take the sting out of their discomfort. Sailors complain that's what they do.

Yes we don't have enough sailors obviously. The extra crew idea is for when we actually get our numbers up. In the past we have done crew changes in the Arctic. The CCG seem to make it a go sailing to the Arctic and being at anchor quite a bit. I can't see with all the extra pay we're about to get can't at least do more than we're going.

 

[k.numbers]

If we're going back to 2 classes of propper surface compantants, it really makes all the design requirements that went into the RCD with the vision of "single class surface combantant" a bit of a laugh now. It was still a good call at the time, no one was expecting the GoC to actually have the apitite to fund another class. But it makes for an awkward fleet mix in the future.

Would you rather:
-the 15 RCDs,

-some number of (8?) Corvettes, and

- the AOPS

or

~6 propper AWD,

-a one-for-one direct Halifax class replacement (something in this capability and tonnage range Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigate (Royal Netherlands Navy) - Wikipedia ,

-a multi-role OPV: Larger and more cabable than the Kingston, but still firmly in the OPV class, rather than a corvette. Focusing on MCM and seabed warfare, Op Carabie, counter piracy, HADR missions, uncrewed systems (deployment, operation, and recovery of uncrewed systems in all domains), and a reasonable self-defense armament.

-and still having the AOPS

It's all academic, of course. Convincing government to invest in a DD280 replacement in the 2010s (either government of the 2010s) was never going to happen. But I find it to be an interesting conversation in hindsight.

 

[Furniture]

I have nine deployments going to the Arctic in just a Kingston Class, a couple over 3 months and 3 times in a row at one go and our morale was fine.

I spent 7 months living in a bunker or under a tarp in Afghanistan, and it was fine... for me, at the time. I'm also self-aware enough to realize that I am an outlier, and my experience there was an outlier.

Sailors complain, and when they complain enough, and things don't change, they leave. That's why the navy has a massive shortage of people right now... The days of "It was harder back in my day, so quit yer bitchin'" leadership are over.

The people who will be going to sea in ships for the next 20+ years have already indicated that they have little interest in just sailing around up there to wave the flag. The GoC has not asked the RCN to be up there all summer every summer. So why should the RCN send it's limited number of ships and sailors up there just because the A in AOPV stands for arctic? Why is A more important than OPV?

 

[Stoker]

I spent 7 months living in a bunker or under a tarp in Afghanistan, and it was fine... for me, at the time. I'm also self-aware enough to realize that I am an outlier, and my experience there was an outlier.

Sailors complain, and when they complain enough, and things don't change, they leave. That's why the navy has a massive shortage of people right now... The days of "It was harder back in my day, so quit yer bitchin'" leadership are over.

The people who will be going to sea in ships for the next 20+ years have already indicated that they have little interest in just sailing around up there to wave the flag. The GoC has not asked the RCN to be up there all summer every summer. So why should the RCN send it's limited number of ships and sailors up there just because the A in AOPV stands for arctic? Why is A more important than OPV?

I currently sail in all the AOPV's and know many of the sailors sailing in them. Interestingly enough the people who don't complain are the former Kingston Class folks, probably because they know how good they got it.

So you are saying that the GOC doesn't want AOPV's in the Arctic each year and all AOPV's do in the Arctic is wave the flag?, is that what you think?

I don't think its a matter of it was harder back in the day, and I think its great that conditions and attitudes have evolved for the better. I do however think we take things for granted at times. I also think resiliency and ownership are sorely lacking these days. End of the day we are in a organization that sometime require us in situations and areas where its sometimes hard and we forget that. I would prefer a cool deployment down south too but sailors don't pick their deployments. Its not like we're ordering people to their deaths in the Arctic in the Franklin expedition.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Danes and Norwegians seem to make a go of it. AOPV's not exactly a steamer, they are pretty comfortable compared to usual naval standards. Lots of room, great food, great gym and Starlink and starting soon 25% more seapay. We have 6 AOPV's and they obviously don't all have to be there each year just a couple. As for ports Iqaluit, Nuuk, and Thule if we don't piss the yanks off anymore. A bit of imagination you could have partial crew changes or a spot built ashore in Iqaluit for R&R. You make it sound like they're being hard done by.

I don't know the Danes' schedule for the Rasmussens (mind they only need 18 crew - room for up to 43).

But the Svalbard operates with 3 divisions but only two are aboard at a time. They rotate. The three divisions in total are found from 20 officers and 45 sailors.

If we want presence but don't have the sailors why wouldn't we send the ships north with minimum crews?

I know we are using them as training platforms. Which is the priority? Presence or Training?

 

[Stoker]

I don't know the Danes' schedule for the Rasmussens (mind they only need 18 crew - room for up to 43).

But the Svalbard operates with 3 divisions but only two are aboard at a time. They rotate. The three divisions in total are found from 20 officers and 45 sailors.

If we want presence but don't have the sailors why wouldn't we send the ships north with minimum crews?

I know we are using them as training platforms. Which is the priority? Presence or Training?

They usually have more than 18, a few years ago I did a tour. Nice little vessels actually, not what we need for our Arctic but elsewhere perhaps. Note the sauna. I think the CG variant will have a sauna. The difference for the Norwegians and Danes Is that theirs are built to stay in the Arctic relying on support from ashore. Canada made a decision to enable AOPV's to go elsewhere. They rely on a lot of automation, AOPV's has a lot of automation and I believe can go to sea with 44 pers I think however usually max out with riders, OGD and trainees. All of our ships are a training platform, they are sailing not just to train people.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Danes and Norwegians seem to make a go of it. AOPV's not exactly a steamer, they are pretty comfortable compared to usual naval standards. Lots of room, great food, great gym and Starlink and starting soon 25% more seapay. We have 6 AOPV's and they obviously don't all have to be there each year just a couple. As for ports Iqaluit, Nuuk, and Thule if we don't piss the yanks off anymore. A bit of imagination you could have partial crew changes or a spot built ashore in Iqaluit for R&R. You make it sound like they're being hard done by.

West coast icebreaker in the Western Arctic crew changed every 28 days. Even if you maxed that out to 60 days, and flew a new crew in and the old one home, you likley get a happier crew. The east coast ships were doing 6 months trips and you could feel the poor morale at the 3 month mark.

 

[Furniture]

So you are saying that the GOC doesn't want AOPV's in the Arctic each year and all AOPV's do in the Arctic is wave the flag?, is that what you think?

I know that if the GoC wanted AOPVs sailing around in the arctic all summer, they'd be doing it. So why is it you think they should be up there all summer against the wishes of the RCN and GoC?