news story on the coastal patrol boats

[Armymatters]

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

It is a definition straight out of a book that I read a while ago while doing a research project. I will see if I can flip through my notes and see which book it was.

 

[aesop081]

It is a definition straight out of a book that I read a while ago while doing a research project. I will see if I can flip through my notes and see which book it was.

Here we go again..........

 

[Armymatters]

Here we go again..........

It is written in my notes, but I am thumbing through my bibliography to find the book.

Edit: Found a couple of books that are in my bibliography that fit the bill:
Middleton, Drew. Submarine: The Ultimate Naval Weapon – Its Past, Present & Future. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America: Playboy Press. 1976

Preston, Anthony. Submarines: The History and Evolution of Underwater Fighting Vessels. London, United Kingdom: Phoebus Publishing Company, 1975

Macpherson, Ken. Corvettes of the Royal Canadian Navy 1939-1945. St. Catharines, Ontario: Vanwell Publishing, 1993

Robert Gardiner, et al.. Conway's All the world's fighting ships, 1947-1982. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1983

Jackson, Robert. Destroyers, frigates & corvettes. New York : Barnes & Noble, 2000

 

[navymich]

Strong recommendation, don't quote facts unless you can back them up.  And not later when you're finished thumbing either.

 

[Kirkhill]

I just wanted to clarify something about that National Post article.  It was getting my goat. As noted the author Chris Wattie and/or the Headline Writer, decided that the Svalbard was not an Icebreaker and the Tories were therefore reneging on their promise.

Below is the DNV (Det Norske Veritas) classification for the Svalbard.  DNV, like Lloyds classifies vessels for insurance purposes, much as CSA and UL do for other items.

Klasse: DNV @1A1, Icebreaker Polar 10, RPS, F-A, E0, HELDK-SH, DeIce, FiFi1.

This is the article it was taken from:
http://www.skipsrevyen.no/batomtaler/6-01/1054.html

Here is the translation:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325773.html#msg325773

And here is the DNV explanation of what those codes mean:

POLAR-10 (or -20 or -30) - Vessels intended for ice breaking, built for another main purpose. Ice conditions: Winter ice with multi-year ice-floes and glacial ice inclusions. Accidental ramming. Figures indicate nominal ice thickness in dm. Intermediate values may occur.

Icebreaker - Vessels intended for ice breaking as main purpose. Used in combination with ICE - 05 (or - 10 or - 15) or with POLAR - 10 (or - 20 or - 30). Repeated ramming.

http://exchange.dnv.com/Exchange%5Cen%5CMainClass.html

As far as DNV and the Norwegians are concerned the Svalbard is a vessel intended for ice breaking as a main purpose, capable of navigating through 1 m ice and capable of repeated ramming.  It may not be a Canadian Polar 8, at 1 meter it is more like a Polar 3 or 4, it may be a light icebreaker by Canadian Coast Guard standards instead of a heavy.  But it is an icebreaker.  It is also capable, like most other icebreakers, of operating in open waters and thus could be a useful patrol vessel.

Fartøyet er spesialbygget for å seile i isfarvann, og skal kunne operere i årsgammel polaris med en tykkelse på inntil én meter.

 
"The vessel is specially built to sail in ice infested waters and shall be able to operate in year old polar ice with a thickness of up to one meter."

Skipet kan også bryte isbelter, baks og skrugarder på hele fire meters tykkelse.

"The ship can also break ice ridges, backing and screwing in wholly four meters thickness."

It would also seem that the Svalbard would be a bit less capable than the USCGs Healy going forwards but more capable going backwards.

Icebreaking Capability  4.5 ft @ 3 knots (continuous)
8 ft (2.44 m) Backing and Ramming
http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/

There you are. Rant over.  Had to get that off my chest.

Cheers.

Looking forward to Stoney and Colin P squaring me away. 

 

[mjohnston39]

it may be a light icebreaker by Canadian Coast Guard standards instead of a heavy

The CCGS Terry Fox is about the same displacement as the Svalbard, also I believe that the modern Finnish icebreakers are in the same displacement range. In fact it seems very similar to the Botnica, having about the same power and driven by azipods. Looks pretty obvious that the Svalbard is an icebreaker...
Mike.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Lets just designate it Arctic Operations Vessel and be done with it, after all we invented MCDV...


Thoughts on the MCDV, stop using it as a patrol vessel and completely start using it for minehunting and sweeping, get the kit for all 12 and be done with it.

 

[Neill McKay]

Thoughts on the MCDV, stop using it as a patrol vessel and completely start using it for minehunting and sweeping, get the kit for all 12 and be done with it.

Is there enough of that kind of work to employ 12 MCDVs (even with refit etc. time)?

 

[Kirkhill]

Or how about combining the mine work with harbour patrols and gate guard?  Not necessarily working in the harbours themselves, although that is one place where I suppose mines are likely to be found, but also working the close approaches to the harbours, essentially channeling traffic.

 

[Mortar guy]

I would agree with focussing the MCDVs on inshore work but not necessarily excusively harbour work. By that I mean the MCDVs would be fine for the following roles:

1) Inshore patrol (Gulf of St Lawrence, Georgia Strait, Jaun de Fuca Strait, Bay of Fundy etc.)

2) Minehunting, remote bottom inspection, diving support (new module perhaps?)

3) Training (MARS and NAVRES)

I think these roles would keep 12 MCDVs pretty busy while 8 OPVs handle FISHPATs, presence patrols, etc. out to the limit of the EEZ while also conducting Arctic patrols.

OK, I'm an Army guy so I apologize if I've bollocksed-up any terms and such like...

MG

 

[Kirkhill]

MG:

These guys let me get my two cents worth in....

 

[navymich]

Thoughts on the MCDV, stop using it as a patrol vessel and completely start using it for minehunting and sweeping, get the kit for all 12 and be done with it.

We're having enough trouble right now with kit for 2.  And even IF we got the kit for all 12, it then falls into lack of trained personnel.  And IF we got personnel trained to run the kit on all 12 ships, we then run into the problem that most are on a 1 to 3 year contract.  Sure, many stay, but there are more and more carrying on.  It becomes a vicious circle.

Is there enough of that kind of work to employ 12 MCDVs (even with refit etc. time)?

Most definitely!

1) Inshore patrol (Gulf of St Lawrence, Georgia Strait, Jaun de Fuca Strait, Bay of Fundy etc.)

2) Minehunting, remote bottom inspection, diving support (new module perhaps?)

3) Training (MARS and NAVRES)

I think these roles would keep 12 MCDVs pretty busy while 8 OPVs handle FISHPATs, presence patrols, etc. out to the limit of the EEZ while also conducting Arctic patrols.

1) I agree that they should be doing more of this type of work, instead of just checking things out as they sail through/past while doing something else
2) done (although still doing if you link it with "route survey" or side scan sonar), still doing, still doing
3) still doing, and at times, far too much of it 

As for keeping the MCDV's busy?  ROTFLMAO  Sorry, not laughing at you at all.  Just thinking of our schedule.  They (meaning the big guys sitting behind a desk organizing our schedule) are finally spreading the wealth so to speak.  For many years now, there has always been 1 MCDV a year that seems to get the majority of the sea time.  My ship sailed over 200 days last year, while others were alongside.  But this year FINALLY, sea days seem to be fairly even over the fleet.

Or how about combining the mine work with harbour patrols and gate guard?  Not necessarily working in the harbours themselves, although that is one place where I suppose mines are likely to be found, but also working the close approaches to the harbours, essentially channeling traffic.

Just a reminder too, that the harbour has the Port Security Section which eliminates (or should eliminate) the requirement for something like this.

And Kirkhill and MG?  Continue with putting your 2 cents in, no problem    You both bring up valid points, glad to have you "onboard".

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

We're having enough trouble right now with kit for 2.  And even IF we got the kit for all 12, it then falls into lack of trained personnel.  And IF we got personnel trained to run the kit on all 12 ships, we then run into the problem that most are on a 1 to 3 year contract.  Sure, many stay, but there are more and more carrying on.  It becomes a vicious circle.

Then it becomes the same thing we in the Reg Force has been experiencing for several years. Buy the kit and maybe we can retain the reservists for longer periods of time. Would you not rather have a set role in the greater scheme of things?

 

[navymich]

For sure Ex-D.  I know both sides of the house experience alot of the "if it works we'll sail, if not we're alongside until it works".  But to be kitted out and know what your role will be, especially long-term, will give a big boost to retention. 

For the MCDV's, Opsked is more like Opflex.  It used to be okay when the "kids" on the boats were just that--kids.  But now they are getting lives, families, houses etc. and living it up port to port, sail to sail, is not as common anymore.  They are wanting to put down roots as much as possible, and being unsure of what is happening week to week, much less month to month is making this difficult.

Right now, throughout the West Coast MCDV crews, there are approximately 50 personnel that have CT's in progress.  Kudos for them, as most are moving on to a career over a job (myself included).  But you have to ask yourself "why" too.  What has made this influx all of a sudden?  That is more then one ship's crew that could be gone tomorrow.

 

[Sub_Guy]

MCDV's are damn busy, I was looking at the sea days for the past 5 years, and the MCDV's had more sea time than most of the heavy's!  I can understand why so many have CT's in!

I would still like to get a trip on one though, just to see how they operate.  It would be cool with this guy if they were manned by reg/res mix.  Perhaps if all the ships had a reg/res mix we would all be better trained at our jobs?  I know the job of a bosun is a bosun, but for a 00299 the workload on a heavy is (guessing here) heavier on a reg force ship, that experience would benefit all those personnel in the navy. 

 

[hugh19]

When I transferred over to the reg force. My big reason were  more pay and less time at sea. It really did work that way too.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would still like to get a trip on one though, just to see how they operate.  It would be cool with this guy if they were manned by reg/res mix.  Perhaps if all the ships had a reg/res mix we would all be better trained at our jobs?  I know the job of a bosun is a bosun, but for a 00299 the workload on a heavy is (guessing here) heavier on a reg force ship, that experience would benefit all those personnel in the navy.

Subguy- I think you are on to something here.  My wife is a Reserve MARS Officer and feels the exact same way.  Both the heavies and the MCDVs should be crewed with both Reservists and Regs- best person for the job, etc.

 

[FSTO]

Subguy- I think you are on to something here.  My wife is a Reserve MARS Officer and feels the exact same way.  Both the heavies and the MCDVs should be crewed with both Reservists and Regs- best person for the job, etc.

Now you are stepping into Reg/Res politics. I was the reg force staff officer at UNICORN (Saskatoon) when the MCDV's were being introduced and the Reservists (at NAVRESHQ) were making it very clear that these ships were to be staffed by reservists alone. They were very worried that there was an insidious Reg force plan to take over the manning of the MCDV's.

I am very much in favour of mixed crewing, it would give the reservists a much needed broadening of their horizon's (and a break from their heavy sailing schedule). It would also allow the staff at the MOGS and Fleet to have more flexibility when it comes to manning.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am very much in favour of mixed crewing, it would give the reservists a much needed broadening of their horizon's (and a break from their heavy sailing schedule). It would also allow the staff at the MOGS and Fleet to have more flexibility when it comes to manning.

Agreed. I think that you also have a much healthier pool of potential MCDV CO's to draw from.  Not to say that there have not been some outstanding Res COs, but when to you limit the pool to probably less than 25 Command Qualified Res 2.5s for 12 MCDVs- things don't always seem to work out well.

It would be good, IMHO, to have Reg Officers serve on MCDVs.  It would be good to see Res officers driving frigates.  Bosuns are interchangeable, no?  Same with Sigs...

Bottom line- more flexibility and greater interoperability amongst all parts of our fleet.

 

[navymich]

It would be good, IMHO, to have Reg Officers serve on MCDVs.  It would be good to see Res officers driving frigates.  Bosuns are interchangeable, no?  Same with Sigs...

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.

And, as said by a couple, this would allow for flexibility.  Exactly, get that pool to pull from for all trades.  We are currently swapping between the MCDVs like crazy trying to keep them all going, and there are many departments that are sadly lacking in experienced bodies.  You can't always cross the trades over and know precisely what is going on and what to do, but knowledge goes a long way.

Now you are stepping into Reg/Res politics. I was the reg force staff officer at UNICORN (Saskatoon) when the MCDV's were being introduced and the Reservists (at NAVRESHQ) were making it very clear that these ships were to be staffed by reservists alone. They were very worried that there was an insidious Reg force plan to take over the manning of the MCDV's.

I remember hearing all of this hoopla.  But it's going to get down to the fact that they won't have a choice.  When it boils down to tying them up, or sailing with RegF, I know the better 2 of those options.  MCDVs are cheaper to put to sea.  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.

I would still like to get a trip on one though, just to see how they operate.  It would be cool with this guy if they were manned by reg/res mix.  Perhaps if all the ships had a reg/res mix we would all be better trained at our jobs?   I know the job of a bosun is a bosun, but for a 00299 the workload on a heavy is (guessing here) heavier on a reg force ship, that experience would benefit all those personnel in the navy.  

Sub_Guy, get ahold of me.  I don't have a lot of sea time left before I'm posted ashore, but I'm sure that I can work something out.  Besides, I'd love to get my department up to see things from your side of the house.