news story on the coastal patrol boats

[FormerHorseGuard]

MONTREAL -- After only 10 years guarding Canada's coasts, the navy's much-vaunted $700-million coastal defence fleet has been dismissed as obsolete by senior military officials, Sun Media has learned.

According to documents obtained by the Sun through Access to Information, the ships are too small, too slow, badly equipped and too fragile to fulfil their mission adequately.

"The movements of the vessel are excessive even when seas are moderate, leading to crew fatigue ... particularly those on the bridge," states one report.

The armament of these vessels -- 40-mm forward cannons and two .50-calibre machineguns -- was ruled problematic.

"The capacity to engage an enemy with this system of armament is unacceptable," the ministry of defence states in a January 2005 memo.
<A HREF="http://ads5.canoe.ca/event.ng/Type=click%26FlightID=30657%26AdID=55890%26TargetID=4870%26Segments=2371,4176,5882,5966,5972,6026,6038,6137,6501,7542,8961,9314,9707,9708,9742,9787%26Targets=439,6132,6268,4362,4776,2873,6036,2943,3079,2580,5527,4870,5383%26Values=30,50,60,72,81,93,100,110,150,160,213,224,264,332,334,374,379,380,393,407,493,860,1282,1304,1315,1445,1467,1544,1556,1947,2292,2307,2402,2540,2553,2569,2686,2700,2702,2789,3067,3081,3148,3562%26RawValues=USERID%2Cc0a8dcdc-4208-1148666640-2%26Redirect=http://chealth.canoe.ca/" target="_top"><IMG SRC="http://imageads.canoe.ca/Canoe/CanoeHouseAds/chealth_skeleton_300x300.gif" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=300 BORDER=0></A>

SPEED NOT SUFFICIENT

Military brass say the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 on the U.S. led to these ships being used for purposes other than those that they were conceived and equipped to handle.

The coastal fleet is intended now to meet terrorist threats and stop the flow of contraband and illegal immigration into Canada.

The ships' top speed of 15 knots, however, is insufficient for the anti-terrorist fight, according to the navy.

As well, the hulls aren't thick enough to patrol the Arctic.

About a third the size of a frigate, the Kingston-class ships were designed as patrol coast vessels to thwart illegal fishing activities.

The navy admits it would cost more than $1 billion to replace the 12 coastal defence vessels.

When they were commissioned, the navy said these ships would be patrolling Canada's coastline until 2055. As it stands now, the ships will be replaced by 2020.
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2006/05/29/1603126-sun.html




I do not believe the ships should be in service after 50 years so guess it is good they are planning now to replace them
nothing should be in active service that long let alone a problem child
just my thoughts

 

[cobbler]

  When they were commissioned, the navy said these ships would be patrolling Canada's coastline until 2055. As it stands now, the ships will be replaced by 2020.

That must be a reporter's mistake. Over 50 years of planned service? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[navymich]

Wow, so much I want to comment on, but I will keep it short and just pick a couple:

"The movements of the vessel are excessive even when seas are moderate, leading to crew fatigue ... particularly those on the bridge," states one report.

Definitely agree with this one, as will anyone that has ever sailed on an MCDV.  They were not meant to take the waves at all.

The armament of these vessels -- 40-mm forward cannons and two .50-calibre machineguns -- was ruled problematic.
"The capacity to engage an enemy with this system of armament is unacceptable," the ministry of defence states in a January 2005 memo.

I wish they would have gone further in depth with this comment.  "Problematic" is a broad term.  Can they shoot? Can they hit what they are aiming at?  Yes and yes.  What is the problem? My thought is the problem is not with the weapons but the fact that I, for one, would not wanting to be shooting at the enemy when you only have 15 knots under you to hightail it out of Dodge if there are problems. (note: not sure if that was a link to the memo that you provided, but it wasn't working for me)

The coastal fleet is intended now to meet terrorist threats and stop the flow of contraband and illegal immigration into Canada.

Really?  News to me on that one....

About a third the size of a frigate, the Kingston-class ships were designed as patrol coast vessels to thwart illegal fishing activities.

What something is designed for and what it is actually used for are 2 completely different matters.  The majority of the time, these ships are used for training platforms: OJT, Mars IV etc., plus many PR functions.  As well, they are recommencing sidescan sonar ops.  But being used as they were designed?  Nope.  And why?  Well, as the article says, they aren't capable of that mission.

I don't want to comment too negatively on them at the moment, but I am looking forward to comments from others looking in, and will gladly clarify points for anyone.

 

[BEEFY06]

What something is designed for and what it is actually used for are 2 completely different matters.  The majority of the time, these ships are used for training platforms: OJT, Mars IV etc., plus many PR functions.  As well, they are recommencing sidescan sonar ops.  But being used as they were designed?  Nope.  And why?  Well, as the article says, they aren't capable of that mission.

I don't want to comment too negatively on them at the moment, but I am looking forward to comments from others looking in, and will gladly clarify points for anyone.

I think with the additions of the new "ORCA" Class, then the MCDV will not have to shoulder allot of the training for Mars4. I Still believe that the MCDV are somewhat of a value resource for there are supposedly have many different "packages" they can come in. Plus i think that they are spearheading Mine dectance???...
The fleet priority is with the "Sub", They continue to throw money into a "vital" component of Fleet offence or defence depending on who and what they talk about.
I truly believe that we need to concentrate on other fleet priorties...that is a small version of my .00002$

 

[navymich]

The forecasted training level for the ORCAs is up to and including Mars III.  Mars IV will still be onboard the MCDVs.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Out of curiosity, can someone explain how we came to the procurement decision on this specific model in the first place?


Matthew. 

 

[BEEFY06]

The forecasted training level for the ORCAs is up to and including Mars III.  Mars IV will still be onboard the MCDVs.

Just like anything in the military it will change. It might take a few years, but lets not kid ourselves the "Orca" class will be doing Mars 4. I still think the MCDV's have a valuable resource with there flat bottom and manoeuvrability.....

 

[Enzo]

Navymich knows my views on the MCDV, but I'm softening my stance somewhat. I do feel that the design was flawed from the outset, but it still appears to be a robust, economical vehicle that meets certain roles well enough.

Why can't we continue using the MCDV for "whatever" while acquiring something that's actually useful to fill the apparent deficiencies? Then we can have more vessels moored at the docks awaiting crews.

 

[navymich]

Why can't we continue using the MCDV for "whatever" while acquiring something that's actually useful to fill the apparent deficiencies? Then we can have more vessels moored at the docks awaiting crews.

...and waiting....and waiting....

Unless you have crews that are current on everything and can just ship jump as required, you're going to be hard-pressed to keep crews going.  We're having enough trouble crewing what we have.  It would be a great plan to have a flexible crew that takes a different ship each day dependent on the circumstances as to what they are required to do.  But until then, yes, the ships will be moored waiting....and waiting....

 

[BEEFY06]

Navymich knows my views on the MCDV, but I'm softening my stance somewhat. I do feel that the design was flawed from the outset, but it still appears to be a robust, economical vehicle that meets certain roles well enough.

I'm do not know allot about the building of the MCDV's, but i thought they where supposed to be bigger??? If I'm digging somewhere i shouldn't then I'm sorry. But as most military projects, they seem to not turn out they way "we" want them....

 

[Enzo]

I'm do not know allot about the building of the MCDV's, but i thought they where supposed to be bigger??? If I'm digging somewhere i shouldn't then I'm sorry. But as most military projects, they seem to not turn out they way "we" want them....

A couple of years ago I had an enlightening conversation with an engineer who was not enamoured with the MCDVs. Here were his views. He stated that the original design was supposed to be ~ 6-7m longer. Between the placement of the propellors and the reduced length of the hull, too much energy is then wasted past the stern. The vessel therefore isn't using it's available power efficiently, hence the ridiculous 15 kts. There are so many factors taken into consideration during the evolution of a vessels design, everything from the amount of fuel it can carry to the amount of space she's going to take up on the docks. Who knows why these vessels were crippled from the outset. You'd have to search through the naval archives, or maybe someone can offer the answer to that query.

The MCDV is modular to a degree and achieves certain mission roles very well, other, not so much. Try this for size, any thoughts?
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-ccgmcdv.htm

 

[Navy_Blue]

If it was built to original design the MCDV would have been a very useful ship.  However the hull was cut to save money.  So here we are with a ship not really good at anything but suitable for some jobs.  We will make do we always have.  



Yeah what Enzo said lol

 

[Kirkhill]

There is another story in today's National Post (read it in print - electronic version is subscription) that may be related to this MCDV story.

The headline is "Tories Renege on Icebreakers". :

Actual story is that the Navy is apparently proposing the purchase of 6 of the Norwegian Svalbard ice-"breakers" for use as "Corvettes". Leaving aside the terminology here - the Norwegians call them ice-breakers but we apparently can't because they can't drive through multi-year ice and at 6300 tonnes they are bigger than our destroyers - this seems it might dovetail with the release on the MCDVs.

The article speculates that 6 Svalbards would allow patrolling into the North but would also be useful on both coasts in more conventional roles and perhaps overseas as well. 

Edit: (My speculation) The trade off may be ditching the MCDVs in their favour.  Still partly/fully manned by reservists perhaps.

Armament on the Norwegian boat is 1 x 57 mm, which would give her the same capability as a US Coast Guard frigate.  She only does 17.5 knots, not much more than an MCDV, but she is big and stable enough to carry a helicopter.  The article speculates the navy might also be looking at some missile capability.

The details of the Svalbard have been discussed here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

So: Instead of 3 Icebreakers and 12 MCDVs you might be getting 6 ice-capable, heli-launching 6300 tonne Corvettes.

Something for the morning coffee.....

Oh,  and by the way,  the Norwegians built theirs for 80 MUSD (about 100 MCAD at the time).  The Canadian versions will cost 200 to 300 MCAD according to the article............. :

 

[mjohnston39]

I wonder if the 200-300M includes the through life costs of the ships and therefore the bigger price tag?

Mike.

 

[Kirkhill]

Mike:

It's possible, but I wish they would just put dollars for dollars up on the capital cost and make life easier for comparison of costs.  But as I point out here, I believe that life-cycle costing is a bit of a mug's game:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44423/post-387521.html#msg387521

It also leaves the gates open for obscuring real costs.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Navy_Blue]

I though by definition Corvette's were small fast escorts???

 

[Armymatters]

I though by definition Corvette's were small fast escorts???

By definition a corvette is a small, maneuverable, lightly armed warship, smaller than a frigate. Today, they are between what a patrol vessels and frigates are in both size and capability, compared to what they were before. That means some minor air defence, anti-ship weapons, and light ASW capabilites. The USN's future Littoral Combat Ship is and the Swedish Visby-class corvette are examples of what today's corvettes are heading towards.

 

[Kirkhill]

You and me both.   ???

Tories may renege on icebreakers
To patrol arctic waters: Canadian Forces to buy eight warships instead  

Chris Wattie, National Post
Published: Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Conservative government is considering buying a fleet of new "ice-capable" corvettes to allow our navy to patrol Canada's vast Arctic waters and abandoning, at least for now, a campaign pledge to build new armed icebreakers for the Canadian Forces.

Defence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said senior admirals have proposed instead that Ottawa buy as many as eight warships with reinforced hulls that could sail through all but the thickest Arctic ice.

And Gordon O'Connor, the Tory Defence Minister, is looking favourably at the idea, according to one senior officer, in part because of the prohibitive cost and emerging difficulties in building and operating the armed icebreakers promised by the Conservatives in the last election campaign.

The navy's plan would instead order six to eight new patrol vessels based on the Royal Norwegian Navy's Svalbard class, a 6,100-tonne, 100-metre-long warship with a crew of 50, a 57-millimetre deck gun, missile launching tubes and a helicopter pad. ..........

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.  The full article will probably be released from the subscription wall tomorrow.

 

[navymich]

By definition...

Just curious as to where you got your info for this definition, do you have a link?  Thanks

 

[Kirkhill]

By either "definition" we must be planning on building some pretty big Frigates if 6100 tonnes is a Corvette.