Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Cloud Cover]

Lack of a mission deck kills any competitor before it can get off the ground.

I’m wondering if any of the German designs fit the bill with a few minor mods although very few seem to have strike length missiles considerations.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Again, question for everyone thinking we'll get MCDV replacements, where are the sailors coming from, when the RCN is shrinking and we don't have enough for the new ships and subs on the books without a massive growth?

Putting money towards new platforms but not addressing our recruiting shortfall, retetntion, lack of training facilities/throughput and overstreched support arm doesn't deliver any effective capability.

But I thought we are addressing are recruiting shortages?

 

[Cloud Cover]

But I thought we are addressing are recruiting shortages?

Well the recruit training is full. It’s all the other training where things bog down mightily.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well the recruit training is full. It’s all the other training where things bog down mightily.

There is plenty of time to make it all work.

 

[Kirkhill]

I see absolutely no way that the requested specs can fit in a vessel of 1,000 tons. Looking at existing Corvette designs that have specs approaching what they are looking for they all fall more into the 2,500 ton range...and the crews are 100+ not 40, especially if you're embarking UAV's, etc.

I don't think you are fully appreciating the effects of containerization. Container vessels, which are also required to be stable in high sea states, are often quite light. The AOPS is the low end of a continuing trend. The stern can carry a small number of containers. The MMCV concepts are showing more area, after the fashion of the OSVs like HMCS Anticosti, that can accommodate more containers.

And crews of 40 or so are quite realistic..... especially for a Navy that is constantly complaining it doesn't have enough sailors and it wants more hulls.

Would be more realistic to have an up-gunned OPV with the required sensors and a more limited self-defence weapons suite and have the strike-length VLS tubes in a separate arsenal ship that can be paired with the OPV to create the AAD region when required?

No. The Concept of Operations would be compatible with a constabulary platform operating in the EEZ under the auspices of NORAD/NORTHCOM. Keeping missiles on the vessel that do not belong to the vessel but are launched by NORAD would be as workable as it would for an Air or Coastal Defence Battery on shore.

So a small flotilla that can sail up the St Lawrence maybe all the way up the Ottawa to let folks sleep at night

Except that the ship doesn't need to sail up to Ottawa if the primary weapon system is mounted in containers and can be trucked to Ottawa.

Again, question for everyone thinking we'll get MCDV replacements, where are the sailors coming from, when the RCN is shrinking and we don't have enough for the new ships and subs on the books without a massive growth?

Putting money towards new platforms but not addressing our recruiting shortfall, retetntion, lack of training facilities/throughput and overstreched support arm doesn't deliver any effective capability.

Again - roll over and think of England and accept that you will be crewing vessels with much smaller complements. It is easier than fighting for the nigh impossible.

Lack of a mission deck kills any competitor before it can get off the ground.

Couldn't that aft end be reconfigured? Get rid of the helideck and the stern launch ramps, and leave the stern looking more like an OSV or perhaps the VARD MMCV concept.


Just a note on crewing of that Swift ship corvette, and displacement.

The vessel can accommodate 79 personnel - 33 pairs of muddy boots and an aviation det of 6 plus a crew of 40.

The vessel has a displacement of 1250 Long Tons or 1270 tonnes and a speed of 29 knots
The Riley Claire, the 53m autonomous OSV employed by the USN as the USS Nomad, built by the same company, had a deck capacity of 200 Long Tons. And an SM6 was launched from a 40 foot container on that deck. The vessel was sound enough to complete a trans-Pacific passage while minimally crewed / optionally crewed.

Why not look at a 1000 Tonne vessel with a 200 to 300 Tonne deck capacity for containers? A constabulary vessel that can operate in disaster relief and which can also stand in as an artillery platform to support the NORAD/NORTHCOM missions.


[td]ACCOMMODATIONS[/td] [td]

• 1 x 1 CO Cabin
• 1 x 1 Flag Officer Cabin
• 6 x 2 Officer Cabin
• 1 x 6 Aviation Pilots Cabin
• 2 x 4 Petty Officer Cabin
• 1 x 18 Crew Quarter
• 1 x 18 Troops Quarter
• 1 x 15 Troops Quarter
• Total Capacity: 79 Persons

[/td]

Riley Claire, Mason G SPECIFICATIONS

Builder: Swiftships Designer: Swiftships Owner: Rodi Marine Inc. Mission: Carry passengers and cargo to and from offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Length: 175' Beam: 25' Depth (molded): 13'

www.workboat.com

53 METER (175 FEET) FAST SUPPLY VESSEL – Swiftships

swiftships.com

Riley Claire (aka Nomad) – Swiftships

swiftships.com

....

Keep in mind the Dutch using autonomous OSVs similar to the Riley Claire to supplement their Seven Provinces ADFs.

The vessels will have a length of about 53 meters and a beam of 9.8 meters, for a displacement of 550 tons, a MoD spokesman told Defense News.

The service’s air-defense frigates will continue to be equipped with RTX’s SM-2 surface-to-air missile, and the frigate’s radar and fire-control systems will handle launch and targeting for the missiles on the support vessels.

The support ships will each have a crew of at least eight sailors. While current technology isn’t sufficiently mature for fully autonomous vessels, the new ships will provide the Navy with experience in operating with small crews, as a first step toward unmanned vessels, Tuinman said.

The Barak ER air-defense missile that will equip the support ships has a range of up to 150 kilometers and can target anything from fighters to tactical ballistic missiles and glide bombs, with eight missiles packed in a vertical launcher, according to the company’s spec sheet.

The Netherlands plans to buy two support vessels that will act as sidekicks to its air-defense frigates, packing additional missiles to defeat swarms of anti-ship missiles and drones, for an investment in the range of €250 million to €1 billion (US$279 million to $1.1 billion).

The support vessels will also be able to provide fire support for amphibious operations using long-range loitering munitions, as well as equip underwater drones to track and identify suspicious activity in the North Sea, Dutch State Secretary for Defence Gijs Tuinman said in a letter to parliament on Tuesday.

Dutch Navy to buy armed sidekick ships for its air-defense frigates

Dutch shipyard Damen will build the vessels, with Israel Aerospace Industries supplying interceptors, drones and electronic-warfare equipment.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Navy_Pete]

There is plenty of time to make it all work.

No, there isn't. Building up a training system that requires infrastructure, instructors, course material, standards etc is a 5-10 year process. You can contract some out, but don't forget that our operational budget, which includes training, was cut by $900M a year starting in 2024.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Again - roll over and think of England and accept that you will be crewing vessels with much smaller complements. It is easier than fighting for the nigh impossible.

What does that even mean? We currently have enough sailors for 7, maybe 8 CPFs, a bit more than 1 sub, struggling to get AOPs, and JSS will be dicey.

With the current plan, we'll need to grow the crewing to 15 CSCs vice 7 CPFs, and 8-12 subs vice 2. Do you think if we build it, the crewing will balance itself?

And the worst shortages in trades like MARTECH, where the difference on the new ships on leaving the harbour and full operations is very small. The builds have already incorporated way less people on the Eng side (with no plan yet to increase shore support to do the maintenance), and that's one of the ones with problems on recruiting and attrition, with big bottlenecks on training. This is something that's been known for over a decade, and they are only now acknowledging the trade amalgamation has been a failure.

Planning a new class while not effectively addressing these realities is a mis-prioritization of resources IMHO, but I guess it's less sexy to work on training plans than draw up plans for sexy small armed ships that we have no people to operate.

 

[Furniture]

Planning a new class while not effectively addressing these realities is a mis-prioritization of resources IMHO, but I guess it's less sexy to work on training plans than draw up plans for sexy small armed ships that we have no people to operate.

You know the people that do those things are two separate groups right? How would throwing more NWO Cdrs/LCdrs at the Mar Tech trade fix anything?

Work is being done on the occupations, while at the same time a small group of people are looking ahead to what the RCN needs next.

 

[Kirkhill]

What does that even mean? We currently have enough sailors for 7, maybe 8 CPFs, a bit more than 1 sub, struggling to get AOPs, and JSS will be dicey.

With the current plan, we'll need to grow the crewing to 15 CSCs vice 7 CPFs, and 8-12 subs vice 2. Do you think if we build it, the crewing will balance itself?

No I don't think it will balance itself.

Type 26 Accommodation - 208

RCD Complement - 210
Hunter Complement - 180
Type 26 (City) Complement - 157

If the RCN shrank the RCD complement to that of the RN's City then it would gain 53 sailors for 15 ships.

That would be 15 MMCVs @ 40 with a bit spare or possibly 15 KSS IIIs @ 50.

You don't do yourself any favours stuffing more sailors into fewer hulls.

And the worst shortages in trades like MARTECH, where the difference on the new ships on leaving the harbour and full operations is very small. The builds have already incorporated way less people on the Eng side (with no plan yet to increase shore support to do the maintenance), and that's one of the ones with problems on recruiting and attrition, with big bottlenecks on training. This is something that's been known for over a decade, and they are only now acknowledging the trade amalgamation has been a failure.

Planning a new class while not effectively addressing these realities is a mis-prioritization of resources IMHO, but I guess it's less sexy to work on training plans than draw up plans for sexy small armed ships that we have no people to operate.

Edit :

15 x 53 = 795 saved from RCDs
12 x 40 = 480 crew for 12 MMCV

795-480 = 315 residual crew numbers

315/50 = 6 crews for KSS III

 

[Navy_Pete]

You know the people that do those things are two separate groups right? How would throwing more NWO Cdrs/LCdrs at the Mar Tech trade fix anything?

Work is being done on the occupations, while at the same time a small group of people are looking ahead to what the RCN needs next.

No, but the training system needs a bunch of Martechs and NTOs to ramp up the training at the schools, as well as work on the projects, support the new equipment and ships, on top of the people to actually operate the new ships on the books. The TDOs and others on the training side are overtasked, STG is at capacity, RPOps and ADM(IE) have more work than they can handle (or have funding for).

My point is there is no surge left to accommodate yet another new class, and we'll struggle to do what we already have on the books. The corvettes are eating up some eng resources as well, while other eng billets are overtasked or empty, so yeah, this impacts support to existing ships and figuring out how we'll do the future ships.

 

[Navy_Pete]

No I don't think it will balance itself.

Type 26 Accommodation - 208

RCD Complement - 210
Hunter Complement - 180
Type 26 (City) Complement - 157

If the RCN shrank the RCD complement to that of the RN's City then it would gain 53 sailors for 15 ships.

That would be 15 MMCVs @ 40 with a bit spare or possibly 15 KSS IIIs @ 50.

You don't do yourself any favours stuffing more sailors into fewer hulls.

I spent 3 years supporting the PMO DC/recoverability efforts, including figuring out how emergency stations will work, and there is effectively no difference in some departments.


The people that are on the city complement are ops room types, or things like air crew etc that are 'bolt on' modular capabilities, not core crew. Freeing up those people reduces the 'fight' capability, but has zero impact on the 'float, move'. So the trades that have shortage messages out for most sails are the ones that are in that core crew that we don't have enough of for the current CPFs and are forecasting to still be short for RCD, even with reduced numbers per ship and really optimistc recruiting/retention plots.