Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[KevinB]

Training ships should be for training only. I think that you could expand what training we are talking about perhaps (make some RAS/Light Line capable so you can do live RAS training for example). Their simplicity also means you need very few qualified sailors as core crew (two or three) augmented by instructors (this is a huge bonus).

You do not want mission creep on these things. That's a classic Canadian mistake made by the RCN and the Army all the time (army in particular...). The USNI recently published an article about how genius the Orca's are. Lets keep going with what works. 50 cal capable max. If such a time comes that they need to be armed then they'll do and "armed yacht" refit and we'll carry on.

The size of an Orca is pretty close to what you want. Anything larger and you can't visit the smaller ports in the islands, and thus lose a lot of the usefulness in the training, by going up island and going to places where the waters are tight and the navigation situations are varied.

The hull shape needs to change though. The wake on those things is brutal and resticts their ability to move at a proper speed near other vessels. It also makes them more lively than perhaps they should be in higher seas (something to consider if Halifax is on the list to get a few).

Other than that they have everything you need. Because when they designed them they spoke to the CO's of the MCDV's (who were the training platform at the time), the Venture instructors AND the students (I was one of those). We all made recommendations which they took.

Leave the overdesign overthinking and overexpectations to JSS, CSC and now CDC. At least AOPS was a generally focused design.

Does it make sense to have two types of training platforms?
I ask, as the Orca's seem to be missing a lot of what I would consider critical training items (weapons and FCR/CIC).

I don't know much about the Navy, my only experience on surface and subsurface vessels has been as a means of transport, either for insertion, or interdiction. I'm a kinetic guy at heart - so I tend to like the folks on the boat supporting me to have a pretty solid level of familiarization with their weapons and effects, especially on the larger naval guns. In that same vein, I also think that any RCN vessel should be armed at all times, as bad guys like to hammer soft targets.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This?

 

[dapaterson]

Does it make sense to have two types of training platforms?
I ask, as the Orca's seem to be missing a lot of what I would consider critical training items (weapons and FCR/CIC).

I don't know much about the Navy, my only experience on surface and subsurface vessels has been as a means of transport, either for insertion, or interdiction. I'm a kinetic guy at heart - so I tend to like the folks on the boat supporting me to have a pretty solid level of familiarization with their weapons and effects, especially on the larger naval guns. In that same vein, I also think that any RCN vessel should be armed at all times, as bad guys like to hammer soft targets.

Orcas are training map and compass and navigation at sea (which is more complex than on land by orders of magnitude).

 

[Rainbow1910]

Training ships should be for training only. I think that you could expand what training we are talking about perhaps (make some RAS/Light Line capable so you can do live RAS training for example). Their simplicity also means you need very few qualified sailors as core crew (two or three) augmented by instructors (this is a huge bonus).

You do not want mission creep on these things. That's a classic Canadian mistake made by the RCN and the Army all the time (army in particular...). The USNI recently published an article about how genius the Orca's are. Lets keep going with what works. 50 cal capable max. If such a time comes that they need to be armed then they'll do and "armed yacht" refit and we'll carry on.

The size of an Orca is pretty close to what you want. Anything larger and you can't visit the smaller ports in the islands, and thus lose a lot of the usefulness in the training, by going up island and going to places where the waters are tight and the navigation situations are varied.

The hull shape needs to change though. The wake on those things is brutal and resticts their ability to move at a proper speed near other vessels. It also makes them more lively than perhaps they should be in higher seas (something to consider if Halifax is on the list to get a few).

Other than that they have everything you need. Because when they designed them they spoke to the CO's of the MCDV's (who were the training platform at the time), the Venture instructors AND the students (I was one of those). We all made recommendations which they took.

Leave the overdesign overthinking and overexpectations to JSS, CSC and now CDC. At least AOPS was a generally focused design.

This 100%, it seems fairly obvious to me that the reason why the Orca's have been permitted to keep doing their training missions is that they physically cannot operate outside of coastal British Columbia. I would put good money on a more seaworthy and capable successor being tasked on other missions besides training if the RCN could get away with it, especially with the MCDV's going the way of the dodo. The Orca concept works, fix its issues while still focusing the design primarily around training to physically stop the RCN from tasking it elsewhere.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This 100%, it seems fairly obvious to me that the reason why the Orca's have been permitted to keep doing their training missions is that they physically cannot operate outside of coastal British Columbia. I would put good money on a more seaworthy and capable successor being tasked on other missions besides training if the RCN could get away with it, especially with the MCDV's going the way of the dodo. The Orca concept works, fix its issues while still focusing the design primarily around training to physically stop the RCN from tasking it elsewhere.

So they are like a child who can't be allowed to play with advanced toys, as they have no long term planning, discipline and self-control?

 

[Stoker]

This 100%, it seems fairly obvious to me that the reason why the Orca's have been permitted to keep doing their training missions is that they physically cannot operate outside of coastal British Columbia. I would put good money on a more seaworthy and capable successor being tasked on other missions besides training if the RCN could get away with it, especially with the MCDV's going the way of the dodo. The Orca concept works, fix its issues while still focusing the design primarily around training to physically stop the RCN from tasking it elsewhere.

The CRCN wants a ORCA replacement to make up for the training shortfall with the paying off of the Kingston Class. Dependent on who you talk to, the wish is for better capable platform. How much so is the question isn't it. It's just not the Officers we are talking about in the training shortfall and other trades should have the capability to train as well. After all they are training ships.
I don't see any issue on replacing them and providing enough of the same hulls to other entities as previously mentioned so the RCN won't be temped to divert them from the training mission. It does raise the question who is exactly in charge of the ORCA's and their inability to keep their platforms carrying out the missions they should be doing in the first place.

 

[YZT580]

This 100%, it seems fairly obvious to me that the reason why the Orca's have been permitted to keep doing their training missions is that they physically cannot operate outside of coastal British Columbia. I would put good money on a more seaworthy and capable successor being tasked on other missions besides training if the RCN could get away with it, especially with the MCDV's going the way of the dodo. The Orca concept works, fix its issues while still focusing the design primarily around training to physically stop the RCN from tasking it elsewhere.

There are still a number of navies that maintain and utilize a large sailing vessel to teach seamanship and leadership. With budgets the way they are, there must be some rationale they are relying on to justify the expense And they definitely aren't armed except for maybe the odd 12 gauge.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Does it make sense to have two types of training platforms?
I ask, as the Orca's seem to be missing a lot of what I would consider critical training items (weapons and FCR/CIC).

I don't know much about the Navy, my only experience on surface and subsurface vessels has been as a means of transport, either for insertion, or interdiction. I'm a kinetic guy at heart - so I tend to like the folks on the boat supporting me to have a pretty solid level of familiarization with their weapons and effects, especially on the larger naval guns. In that same vein, I also think that any RCN vessel should be armed at all times, as bad guys like to hammer soft targets.

These are for the most basic training in navigation, bridgemanship (meaning applying rules of the road to situation where you encounter another vessel - handling basic emergencies such as person overboard, fires, steering gear breakdowns, etc) and ship-handling until you built enough confidence to be able to proceed further into an operational environment.

Think of it like the USAF trains its pilots: You start with ground school to learn the basics of flying and put that in practice on a single prop small plane, which I think is the T6 Texan, from Beechcraft these days. These small planes are obviously not armed and have no operational function. Only when you can fly confidently do you move to either jet or multiple engine depending on the type you'll be trained on for combat.

The Orca's are the navy's Beechcraft little plane equivalent. When you master that, then you move on to bigger and more operational things.

 

[GR66]

These are for the most basic training in navigation, bridgemanship (meaning applying rules of the road to situation where you encounter another vessel - handling basic emergencies such as person overboard, fires, steering gear breakdowns, etc) and ship-handling until you built enough confidence to be able to proceed further into an operational environment.

Think of it like the USAF trains its pilots: You start with ground school to learn the basics of flying and put that in practice on a single prop small plane, which I think is the T6 Texan, from Beechcraft these days. These small planes are obviously not armed and have no operational function. Only when you can fly confidently do you move to either jet or multiple engine depending on the type you'll be trained on for combat.

The Orca's are the navy's Beechcraft little plane equivalent. When you master that, then you move on to bigger and more operational things.

Are the trainees on the Orca's strictly officers? Strictly NWO's? Do other trades have at-sea training vessels other than the MCDV's or training berths on the CPF's/AOPS?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

These are for the most basic training in navigation, bridgemanship (meaning applying rules of the road to situation where you encounter another vessel - handling basic emergencies such as person overboard, fires, steering gear breakdowns, etc) and ship-handling until you built enough confidence to be able to proceed further into an operational environment.

Think of it like the USAF trains its pilots: You start with ground school to learn the basics of flying and put that in practice on a single prop small plane, which I think is the T6 Texan, from Beechcraft these days. These small planes are obviously not armed and have no operational function. Only when you can fly confidently do you move to either jet or multiple engine depending on the type you'll be trained on for combat.

The Orca's are the navy's Beechcraft little plane equivalent. When you master that, then you move on to bigger and more operational things.

Basically the Kingston's were the next step up. The AOP's have more tonnage than the Halifax's. Maybe in addition to the Orca replacement a couple of training ships around 1,000DWT to be that next step for Bridge officers. Built to civilian standards, armed with the same RWS as RCD/CDC and perhaps a Mk 48 torpedo tube. Just a enough to train weapon types.

 

[Rainbow1910]

There are still a number of navies that maintain and utilize a large sailing vessel to teach seamanship and leadership. With budgets the way they are, there must be some rationale they are relying on to justify the expense And they definitely aren't armed except for maybe the odd 12 gauge.

We have one small floating money sink with sails as it is now, I don't think it's particularly prudent to sign up for a larger and more expensive version when we have much larger fish to fry at this point.

 

[FSTO]

The CRCN wants a ORCA replacement to make up for the training shortfall with the paying off of the Kingston Class. Dependent on who you talk to, the wish is for better capable platform. How much so is the question isn't it. It's just not the Officers we are talking about in the training shortfall and other trades should have the capability to train as well. After all they are training ships.
I don't see any issue on replacing them and providing enough of the same hulls to other entities as previously mentioned so the RCN won't be temped to divert them from the training mission. It does raise the question who is exactly in charge of the ORCA's and their inability to keep their platforms carrying out the missions they should be doing in the first place.

That was the beauty of 4 Squadron (HMC Ships Yukon, Saskatchewan, Mackenzie and Qu'Appelle), pretty much all officer and NCM naval trades received their initial/advanced training on those ships. Seamanship, gunnery, engineering, bridgemanship, were all taught on those ships. My MARS 4 course (the last one before you went to the operational fleet) was a trip to NZ and OZ where Mack, Yukon, and Sask in company with Provider. Daily OOW maneuvers, RAS Approaches, gunnery, and other evolutions honed our skills as bridge watchkeepers. Will the ORCA replacements provide this sort of training? It would be nice, but that won't happen. Something that we can operate in the open ocean and maybe do a RAS would be very helpful.

 

[YZT580]

That was the beauty of 4 Squadron (HMC Ships Yukon, Saskatchewan, Mackenzie and Qu'Appelle), pretty much all officer and NCM naval trades received their initial/advanced training on those ships. Seamanship, gunnery, engineering, bridgemanship, were all taught on those ships. My MARS 4 course (the last one before you went to the operational fleet) was a trip to NZ and OZ where Mack, Yukon, and Sask in company with Provider. Daily OOW maneuvers, RAS Approaches, gunnery, and other evolutions honed our skills as bridge watchkeepers. Will the ORCA replacements provide this sort of training? It would be nice, but that won't happen. Something that we can operate in the open ocean and maybe do a RAS would be very helpful.

Air force training begins with a simple single engine, fixed gear civilian modified aircraft and progresses in complexity and lethality from there. Why are so many even here reluctant to apply the same training process to the navy?

 

[FSTO]

Air force training begins with a simple single engine, fixed gear civilian modified aircraft and progresses in complexity and lethality from there. Why are so many even here reluctant to apply the same training process to the navy?

When we replaced 4 Squadron with the simulators (I was a lab rat for the suitability of simulators as a group of us who had finished MARS 2 were sent to Rhode Island to see how we would function in a simulator). It was soon realized that the simulator couldn't replicate all the other responsibilities of the OOW, so the ORCAs became somewhat a stopgap measure. The original CPF plan had no provisions for training bunks (just like the Rivers) but with the demise of 4 squadron we had to shoehorn bunks for training.
The vision now (as I sit close to the NDR folks) is to have Orca replacements be a bit more robust and do the jump from simulator to actual at sea; then the CDC (in its training format) to bridge the gap from Orca to being a useful sailor/officer and then Rivers, Subs, and Pro be the actual FE platforms.

Now this is FSTO's version of what the future will look like. I doubt if reality will be the same.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is the RCN looking for something like what the Kiwis have?

The 350 tonne Hawea Inshore Patrol Vessel and the 1900 tonne Offshore Patrol Vessel?

I know that you have steered away from constabulary vessels but it seems to me that the training regime you are describing is compatible with a period of duty in coastal and littoral waters which could be compatible with support to the CCG.

 

[GR66]

Air force training begins with a simple single engine, fixed gear civilian modified aircraft and progresses in complexity and lethality from there. Why are so many even here reluctant to apply the same training process to the navy?

The "Air force training" you're talking about is actually Pilot training. One specific trade. Other RCAF trades don't need to learn to pilot an aircraft but to my understanding they do have additional airframes for maintenance training as well as separate aircraft for other Aircrew trades training (402 Squadron).

The question is whether there is possibly a need for a vessel that provides at sea training opportunities for trades other than NWOs that aren't training berths on operational ships. Can that be done with a single hull type (Orca replacement)? Or is there a need for an additional class of training vessel to fill the gap being left by the retirement of the MCDV's? If so, could these "Orca+" vessels have some limited operational capabilities in addition to their training role like the MCDV's do?

 

[dapaterson]

When we replaced 4 Squadron with the simulators (I was a lab rat for the suitability of simulators as a group of us who had finished MARS 2 were sent to Rhode Island to see how we would function in a simulator). It was soon realized that the simulator couldn't replicate all the other responsibilities of the OOW, so the ORCAs became somewhat a stopgap measure. The original CPF plan had no provisions for training bunks (just like the Rivers) but with the demise of 4 squadron we had to shoehorn bunks for training.
The vision now (as I sit close to the NDR folks) is to have Orca replacements be a bit more robust and do the jump from simulator to actual at sea; then the CDC (in its training format) to bridge the gap from Orca to being a useful sailor/officer and then Rivers, Subs, and Pro be the actual FE platforms.

Now this is FSTO's version of what the future will look like. I doubt if reality will be the same.

I thought you learned on a trireme, when they were still new.

 

[FSTO]

I thought you learned on a trireme, when they were still new.

 

[Furniture]

I thought you learned on a trireme, when they were still new.

Triremes were for fighting, biremes were used the training squadron.