news story on the coastal patrol boats

[Navalsnpr]

What a way to keep some of our RegF counterparts current then sending them to sea rather then sitting alongside with their own ship for 3, 6, 12 months.

One must also understand that having a ship sit alongside for extended periods of time is important for the health of a ship. As a technician, I am unable to conduct most of the preventative maintenance while the ship is at sea due to it being employed by ops, therefore we have to wait until we get alongside to perform preventative and corrective maintenance. Additionally, trials, upgrades are performed alongside, thus another reason for the MSE, CSE departments to remain on their ships to ensure this is conducted.

  MCDVs are cheaper to put to sea. 

This is true, but the task at sea will dictate what class of ship must be used. During the middle of storm season on the Atlantic, one would be crazy to send an MCDV on station on the tail of the grand banks to conduct a FISHPAT in high sea state conditions for 4-6 weeks, thus the reason a CPF/280 would be used.

RegF officers go through their Mars IV training onboard MCDVs and finish the course with their BWK tickets.  No reason why they can't be part of the crew at another time.  Even though there are many Mars out there, there never seems to be one when you need one RIGHT NOW.

One also has to remember that MARS officers onboard CPF/280’s also serve as Divisional Officers and usually are loaded down with secondary duties that would make it very difficult to release them to another vessel. Command's priority is primarily towards the effective running of your own ship, and normally unless a member requires a "tick in the box" on some package, and can not attain that on the current vessel, Command would be reluctant to permit a member of the ship's company to go elsewhere..

 

[navymich]

Navalsnipr: seen, seen and seen.  I know and understand all of what you said, but just trying to further on the talk of flexibility and interoperability as mentioned by SeaKingTacco.  There's gotta be ways to somehow bring us together.

 

[Navalsnpr]

It would be good to see Res officers driving frigates.  Bosuns are interchangeable, no?  Same with Sigs...

I would not want to have a MARS officer change ship class and expect them to know how to drive the new ship with great confidence due to the extreme differences between the classes as listed below.

Tonnage, propulsion type, how many shafts, does it have CRPP all are but a few of the very unique systems and take a long time for a BWK to master.  Part of a BWK's package is understanding turning radiuses as well as the capabilities and limitations of the ship in each engineering configuration (1GT, 2GT, 2GT X-Con, 1PDE). I'm sure in a pinch, a MARS officer could jump between vessel types, but IMHO it would not be recommended. Here are but a few of the differences between our current inventory of ships.

MCDV - 934 Tonnes, dual azimuthing thruster (z-drive)
CPF - 4770 Tonnes, twin shaft
280 - 5100 Tonnes, twin shaft
AOR - 24,700 Tonnes, single shaft

As for the interchangeability of trades, this is really trade dependant, where one trade can nearly seamlessly transfer to another class of ship, others require much conversion training to be effective.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I initially tried to write this inquiry as a series of questions but because the latter questions became conditional on the answers of the early questions, it turned into a real mess.  As such, I'm just going to put this in terms of a hypothetical and then ask for correction.

Assumptions drawn from board comments:
1)  The MCDV is fine for Mine Hunting and is our only asset in that class at the moment.
2)  The MCDV is adequate for Training although the new Orca class could be used to replace some of that capacity.
3)  The MCDV is poor for Inshore Patrols because its speed limits it's ability to interdict high-speed contacts.
4)  The MCDV is poor for Offshore Patrols because its lack of stability and speed limits it's abilities across-the-board.

Proposal:
1)  Keep (6) MCDV's under Naval Reserves as dedicated Minesweepers.
2)  Transfers remaining (6) MCDV's to Coast Guard.  Allocate budget and tender bids within 12-months on redesign and refitting contract where-in refit would be conducted sequentially (to minimize costs) 1 vessel every 8-months to include Hull Extensions and addition Stern Flap with final vessels to be completed by 2012.  With refit complete, increased speed and efficiency should make them viable assets to the Coast Guard for the next 20 years.
3)  Re-allocate all Inshore Patrol and Training roles to Orca.
4)  Re-allocate all Offshore Patrol roles to new Svalbard-equivalent and CPF's....

I'll now humbly await the executioner....


Matthew.  ;D

 

[navymich]

Yes, you should be awaiting the executioner.  Mainly because what you say makes sense, and therefore it is all on the chopping block.  ;D

Just one change though, they don't classify the gear on the MCDV's as minesweeping or mine hunting.  It is "towed side scan sonar" or "route survey".

 

[SeaKingTacco]

NavalSniper-

I'm not advocating the MARS officers (Reg or Res) be loaned to to one type of ship or another- I'm advocating POSTING them there.  If a Frigate needs a BWK, why can't a Class C Reserve SLT with his or her MCDV ticket be posted to a frigate?  Yes, they will have to go thru the OOD package and get a frigate BWK ticket.  So what?  If a Reg Force subbie gets posted from a frigate to the tanker (for example)  they have to do the same thing.  BTW, I'm advocating the opposite, too.  I think the cross pol having both Reserve and Reg pers see all parts of the fleet would be healthy.

Cheers!

 

[Navalsnpr]

Cdn Blackshirt,

Your assumptions are pretty bang on...

Check out this webpage pertaining to a vision of the future of the MCDV as written by the Simon Fraser University - Canadian American Strategic Review. Obviously some of this topic has been discussed elsewhere!

A Modest Proposal — MCDV for an Interim Maritime Security Force?

SeaKingTacco,

I agree it would be nice, but those tickets take time to achieve. IMHO it is better to become an master on one class than just overly familiar with multiple classes. This is based on my experience serving on three different classes of ships (DDE, DDH & FFH), and the long hours spent trying to learn everything possible about the new class of ship you are on.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

NavalSniper-

Agreed on the time in trg issue.  I'm not saying cross-pol should be the rule, rather, it should at least be a possibility.

Cheers!

 

[NavyShooter]

As a SSD Helmsman, I've seen some good, a lot of mediocre, and many poor drivers on ships.

A Frigate is a large, complex warship with a LOT of things going on at the same time.  Especially when compared to an MCDV.  That's not saying that MCDV's are easy to control, but that Frigates are more difficult to get a handle on.

While cross-decking a Reserve MARS O to a CPF would be good for his experience, and training, it would take a long time for him/her to transition to a CPF.  The OOW has to understand and be fully profficient at a number of things, and the differences between a CPF and an MCDV would necessitate the Officer doing a complete BWK package, from square one. 

I like the idea of getting something bigger and more capable than an MCDV.  I personally believe that they are a very limited design, and while the well-deck does give some flexibility in packages, there is limited value in a ship with so small a crew, and limited sea-keeping ability and speed. 

Sending a 10 man boarding party from an MCDV will literally gut the crew, it's almost 1/3 of the crew gone!

That's presuming the ships are fast enough to catch up to whoever it is that they plan to board.

Anyhow, just a couple of my thoughts on things.

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The MCDV were designed around the same time that we got the 500 class and the Navy got the torpedo recovery vessels. They all seem to suffer from the same problem, to much multi-tasking, design by committee (that can’t do a stability calculation) cost reductions and oversized bridges.

Your MCDV are defiantly a step up from what they had and I was glad to see them armed, even if inadequately, they were a step in the right direction and a far cheaper way to train navigators and ship handlers than using the larger vessels.

As for the proposed ice-breakers, it would certainly give the navy some ice ability, as far as speed is concerned, if you want ice breaking ability, you have to give up speed.

I suspect that the MCDV are due for some upgrades, the 40mm could be removed (store them away as they are a good gun) and replace them with a self-contained stabilized gun mount in 57mm.

Cdn blackshirt

The Coast Guard will not want them as they can’t do buoy work and won’t have the speed to intercept or the sea keeping required. We gave away one of our 500’s which is similar to the MCDV but better sea keeping (although they roll like pigs) The MCDV if I remember correctly don’t have a RHIB launch ramp at the stern either.

 

[Kirkhill]

A point about the Orcas as Patrol Vessels.  They only do "nearly 20 knots".

Although they are similar in length to the 20 year old Island Class PBs operated by the USCG and have similar power plants and crews apparently they are Beamier (8.4m vs 6.4m) and Heavier (210 tonnes vs 150 tonnes).  This may not be a bad thing for a Training vessel (FAS/Global Security reports that the USCG is having maintenance problems on their vessels because of tight spaces).  However it means that the top speed, with similar power plants is down from 29.5 knots to less than 20 knots - faster than an MCDV but still slower than many cargo vessels they might be required to intercept.  The slow speed is not a problem for a training vessel if you want a long service life,  the USCG boats are apparently suffering a lot of hull cracking and corrosion after 20 years hard service. 

If you want a Patrol Vessel that can also be an Interceptor then it seems to me you are going to want a good turn of speed.  The question is how much is enough. 20-25-30-35-40 kts are all possible in vessels of similar size but the higher the speeds, the greater the forces on the hull and (probably) the shorter the service life.

Like everything else in this world, you have to give up somethings to get other things.

 

[Enzo]

Just an offhand thought.

The CG uses volunteers along the coast for SAR in RIBS. So, following this line of thought, establish naval outposts in high contact areas along the coastline in RIBS for quick interdiction, to be augmented by: satellite, RADAR, UAVs, Naval and Air Force support.

Something in the way of being nibbled to death by ducks to be sure; high volume (redundancy), low cost, etc.

Right, that's just off the top of my head and most likely ridiculous, but thought I'd toss it out there anyway.

 

[GAP]

Is this based on the Australian Coast Watcher idea??

 

[Enzo]

Nope, I was just musing aloud.