Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Where is the sarcasm icon again ..... Damn! Can't find it.


Last thing I want is to cause a mutiny on the West Coast.

 

[kratz]

Is that your suggestion for the name of the Orca's replacement class?

I hear echoes of the Flower class with that suggestion.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I hear echoes of the Flower class with that suggestion.

The "Flower" class idea in the UK was to try and attack the morale of the opponent, not their own morale.

 

[Stoker]

With the prospect of an ORCA-class replacement on the horizon, perhaps it’s time to take a serious look at developing something a little more robust and versatile than the current design. While the primary role will remain training, the new class should not be limited to that alone.

The replacement vessel should be designed to function as an operational platform if required, able to embark limited mission packages, operate small drones or RHIBs, and mount .50-calibre machine guns when the situation demands. It should also be capable of handling moderate sea states on both coasts, steel hull, bow thruster ensuring that future RCN and Naval Reserve crews can train and operate in realistic conditions rather than being confined to fair-weather limits. The ships should be civilian standards, easy to maintain and able to be docked and maintained in any small yard.

With the expansion of the RCN and growing emphasis on coastal and Arctic presence, enough of these new vessels should be procured for both coasts, with the possibility of additional hulls dedicated to the Naval Reserve. A modern, seaworthy platform could bridge the gap between classroom instruction and real-world seamanship while offering the flexibility to fill secondary operational roles such as surveillance, patrol, and maritime security when required.

 

[Lumber]

With the prospect of an ORCA-class replacement on the horizon, perhaps it’s time to take a serious look at developing something a little more robust and versatile than the current design. While the primary role will remain training, the new class should not be limited to that alone.

The replacement vessel should be designed to function as an operational platform if required, able to embark limited mission packages, operate small drones or RHIBs, and mount .50-calibre machine guns when the situation demands. It should also be capable of handling moderate sea states on both coasts, steel hull, bow thruster ensuring that future RCN and Naval Reserve crews can train and operate in realistic conditions rather than being confined to fair-weather limits. The ships should be civilian standards, easy to maintain and able to be docked and maintained in any small yard.

With the expansion of the RCN and growing emphasis on coastal and Arctic presence, enough of these new vessels should be procured for both coasts, with the possibility of additional hulls dedicated to the Naval Reserve. A modern, seaworthy platform could bridge the gap between classroom instruction and real-world seamanship while offering the flexibility to fill secondary operational roles such as surveillance, patrol, and maritime security when required.

And there you have it...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! and Wrong!

Well, not quite. I agree that they should be capable of handling moderate sea states.

These are tier one training vessels for young officers who are going to sea for the first time more or less on their own on a training mission that seeks to integrate classroom and simulator acquired knowledge and consolidate it (all of this is from instructional design theory - if you don't know, ask a TDO). No operational duties such as surveillance, patrol or maritime security.

A single overarching aim: navigation and basic bridgemanship training, Period, end of statement.

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

What makes you think the RCN wouldn't 'steal' them anyways?

 

[quadrapiper]

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

Bet the only real fix for that is having trots of the things.

Would a YAG-ier profile; longer and lower, with (assuming the same capacity) the galley and classroom space dropped into the hull (which would, incidentally, probably make things more flexible for other uses) likely handle better?

 

[Stoker]

I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! and Wrong!

Well, not quite. I agree that they should be capable of handling moderate sea states.

These are tier one training vessels for young officers who are going to sea for the first time more or less on their own on a training mission that seeks to integrate classroom and simulator acquired knowledge and consolidate it (all of this is from instructional design theory - if you don't know, ask a TDO). No operational duties such as surveillance, patrol or maritime security.

A single overarching aim: navigation and basic bridgemanship training, Period, end of statement.

If you try and get a platform that can do these other things, it will be stolen by the RCN command to actually do these other missions and deprive VENTURE from getting the sea time it needs to fulfill its training duties.

That’s a very narrow and outdated view of what a modern naval training vessel should be. Yes, navigation and basic bridgemanship are central to VENTURE’s purpose, but the world and the RCN have evolved their thinking. “Training only” vessels are a luxury we can no longer afford, especially when fiscal and operational realities demand flexibility. Really we're only talking about the capability if we need to use it.

The current Orca-class have already proven that a training platform can also contribute meaningfully to secondary duties: fleet familiarization, coastal surveillance, support to MIO and RHIB training, and even limited tasking with MCDVs or AOPS during exercises. The notion that any added capability would somehow “steal” the ships away from VENTURE misunderstands how force generation and tasking actually work. Sea Training, Fleet School, and MARPAC have long managed that balance successfully.

Moreover, if we’re replacing the Orcas, we’d be negligent not to future-proof the design. That means a platform capable of operating safely on both coasts, in real sea states, with proper endurance and seakeeping. Adding light armament mounts and the structural provisions for operational sensors isn’t about turning them into corvettes, it’s about ensuring that if Canada needs hulls for sovereignty patrols, presence missions, or emergency contingencies, these ships aren’t confined to the harbour approaches. As mentioned as long as we procure enough hulls over and above what the training establishment needs, those hulls could be used leaving the Hornblower wannabes to train to their hearts content.

Every major navy now designs its training ships with dual-use capability, look at the UK’s Tamar-class, France’s Garonne, or Australia’s Arafura-class (which itself grew from a training and patrol concept). If our next generation can’t at least match that flexibility, we’re setting ourselves up for obsolescence before the keel is even laid.

Training is the primary mission, absolutely, but designing for potential utility is just good stewardship. The RCN has learned that lesson the hard way before.

 

[Maxman1]

Something like a modern British Island or Castle class patrol vessel?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Something like a modern British Island or Castle class patrol vessel?

These look nice....

The vessels are armed with a remote-control Mark 38 25 mm Machine Gun System and four crew-served .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2HB heavy machine guns. They have a bow thruster for maneuvering in crowded anchorages and channels. They have small underwater fins, for coping with the rolling and pitching caused by large waves. They are equipped with a stern launching ramp, like the Marine Protector-class and the eight failed expanded Island-class cutters. They are manned by a crew of 22. The Fast Response Cutter deploys the 26-foot (7.9 m) Cutter Boat - Over the Horizon (OTH-IV) for rescues and interceptions.

Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GR66]

If a conflict with China should suddenly erupt there could potentially be dozens of foreign flagged ships in Canadian waters. We may want the capability to board and inspect these in case any are being used for covert surveillance operations or even carrying the types of containerized weapons that @Kirkhill has often mentioned.

The risk might be low but not zero. Would a somewhat upgraded Orca-class replacement be capable for such a role, keeping our combatants free for more important duties? I assume also that in the case of any open military conflict we'd want our MH fleet focused on ASW rather than delivering boarding parties.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If a conflict with China should suddenly erupt there could potentially be dozens of foreign flagged ships in Canadian waters. We may want the capability to board and inspect these in case any are being used for covert surveillance operations or even carrying the types of containerized weapons that @Kirkhill has often mentioned.

The risk might be low but not zero. Would a somewhat upgraded Orca-class replacement be capable for such a role, keeping our combatants free for more important duties? I assume also that in the case of any open military conflict we'd want our MH fleet focused on ASW rather than delivering boarding parties.

There's plague of Chinese fishing vessels roaming the high seas...

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Kirkhill]

That’s a very narrow and outdated view of what a modern naval training vessel should be. Yes, navigation and basic bridgemanship are central to VENTURE’s purpose, but the world and the RCN have evolved their thinking. “Training only” vessels are a luxury we can no longer afford, especially when fiscal and operational realities demand flexibility. Really we're only talking about the capability if we need to use it.

The current Orca-class have already proven that a training platform can also contribute meaningfully to secondary duties: fleet familiarization, coastal surveillance, support to MIO and RHIB training, and even limited tasking with MCDVs or AOPS during exercises. The notion that any added capability would somehow “steal” the ships away from VENTURE misunderstands how force generation and tasking actually work. Sea Training, Fleet School, and MARPAC have long managed that balance successfully.

Moreover, if we’re replacing the Orcas, we’d be negligent not to future-proof the design. That means a platform capable of operating safely on both coasts, in real sea states, with proper endurance and seakeeping. Adding light armament mounts and the structural provisions for operational sensors isn’t about turning them into corvettes, it’s about ensuring that if Canada needs hulls for sovereignty patrols, presence missions, or emergency contingencies, these ships aren’t confined to the harbour approaches. As mentioned as long as we procure enough hulls over and above what the training establishment needs, those hulls could be used leaving the Hornblower wannabes to train to their hearts content.

Every major navy now designs its training ships with dual-use capability, look at the UK’s Tamar-class, France’s Garonne, or Australia’s Arafura-class (which itself grew from a training and patrol concept). If our next generation can’t at least match that flexibility, we’re setting ourselves up for obsolescence before the keel is even laid.

Training is the primary mission, absolutely, but designing for potential utility is just good stewardship. The RCN has learned that lesson the hard way before.

@Oldgateboatdriver seems to be expressing the concern that your design would be as successful as the Bison was and that the RCN would do to your Orca replacement what the Army did to the Bison. After insisting they wanted nothing to do with beast and being forced to buy it for the Militia under duress they proceeded to relieve the Militia of them and then use them for everything under the sun except their primary function. They were then kept in service well past their best before date.

And I am sure many leading change boxes were ticked.

It seems that no Canadian plan survives contact with Canadian planners.