Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Colin Parkinson]

Absolutely the Arctic is not going away and with Russia sabers rattling about a increased presence the importance of sending naval assets to the North each year is,a good fit for the MCDV'S which they have done for years. OP Caribbe is another good fit and of course fisheries and other domestic ops. As I understand it force generation for the res and regs will be important and the bigger naval assets cycle in and out. What is being concentrated on now is PM and EC's to upgrade various systems to allow better capabilities.

leasing a smaller Icebreaker and manning it with Reserves/regs and a few CCG officers for ice experience would be useful to buildup a capacity that has been missing in the RCN since the Labrador days.

http://www.maritimedenmark.dk/?Id=16383

this site gives just an idea of what is out there http://commercial.apolloduck.com/advert.phtml?id=272324 

 

[Stoker]

leasing a smaller Icebreaker and manning it with Reserves/regs and a few CCG officers for ice experience would be useful to buildup a capacity that has been missing in the RCN since the Labrador days.

http://www.maritimedenmark.dk/?Id=16383

this site gives just an idea of what is out there http://commercial.apolloduck.com/advert.phtml?id=272324

I know we been sending pers on a arctic operations course, not sure what exactly that entails though and I believe we're sent officers on ice breakers to gain ice experience. I envision CCG officers sailing on A/OPS when they deploy until we gain the required experience.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That would be a logical and practical thing to do, no doubt something/someone will come along to F*** it up.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Reuters is reporting that "The U.S. Navy on Wednesday asked U.S. and foreign weapons makers for technical and cost data on the design and weapons for a new possible small warship to succeed the Navy's current Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) by 2019."

The report says that "the Navy is reassessing the $34 billion LCS program that is building small and fast warships to hunt and fight mines, submarines and surface ships," and it "was not asking companies to launch a new design effort but to share data on present systems and capabilities, as well as designs that would be ready by 2019."

As I understand it our MCDVs would need replacing in the same time frame if, big IF, the admirals decide that they need a balanced fleet of major combatants (destroyers and frigates) and small combatants (under 2,500 tons) plus support ships and submarines.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

First of all, I would not call the American LCS "small" combatant, except in U.S.N. terms where it is a lot smaller than their smallest current warship: the Arleigh Burke Destroyers.

The two existing LCS (Freedom and Independence class) are as big as the old St-LAurent's were. I would not call those "small" combatant in a Navy such as ours and they would definitely exceed by orders of magnitude the complexity and manning requirements of the MCDV's.

I just don't see those as a good fit for Canada.

 

[Edward Campbell]

First of all, I would not call the American LCS "small" combatant, except in U.S.N. terms where it is a lot smaller than their smallest current warship: the Arleigh Burke Destroyers.

The two existing LCS (Freedom and Independence class) are as big as the old St-LAurent's were. I would not call those "small" combatant in a Navy such as ours and they would definitely exceed by orders of magnitude the complexity and manning requirements of the MCDV's.

I just don't see those as a good fit for Canada.

I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.

I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of  German vessel, built by Fassmer.

Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel

I believe there is a role for small combatants in a blue water navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even foreign missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a heavy.

 

[Stoker]

I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.

I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of  German vessel, built by Fassmer.

Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel

I believe there is a role for small combatants in a blue water navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even foreign missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a heavy.

Actually a nice little ship with a top speed of 22 knots, able to operate in cold weather environments. Price to build one I believe was cheaper than a MCDV. That would be a nice fit and a suitable replacement for the KINGSTON Class.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That I can agree with ERC.

There are numerous designs available in the 75m to 85m range of size, some even developed in B.C. by Tenix.

You do realize, however, that what you are advocating (and which most of us in the Navy have been secretly advocating - shhhhhhht!) is that the A and O be split in "AOPS".

No doubt in my mind that it would be better to have three real light-breaker Arctic patrol vessels and six real offshore patrol vessel, than 6 to 8 AOPS.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Very nice looking ship, small helo deck and can be fitted with a 76mm gun. Plus it's a already gone through the design process. They can support CCG ops, but not land the bigger Cormorants, wonder if the deck would take a Griffon? Dauphin is 9500lbs max takeoff and Griffion is 12500lbs


The third ship, the “Fuentealba” will be armed with a 76 mm Oto Melara gun also from a Type 148 missile boat. Some sources indicate its secondary armament will be up to 6 x 20 mm guns (probably old Oerlikon 20mm/70). This third ship has an ice strengthened hull and a different communications set, details have not been released yet. With these modifications “Fuentealba” will cost 43% more than the first two ships of the class, whose cost was less than $50M US each.  The flight deck and hangar are optimized for medium helicopters. Normally an AS-365 N2 Dauphin helicopter, similar to the MH-65, will be embarked. Typically it will be used for MIO and rescue operations.

http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2014/04/13/three-nations-share-german-opv-design/

another picture

 

[George Wallace]

Yes.  A nice looking ship......Would make a nice yacht. 

Comments:  No Bear Trap for rough seas.  M2's on roof of Hangar are wide open to enemy fire, and really in an unsafe location. 

 

[Stoker]

Yes.  A nice looking ship......Would make a nice yacht. 

Comments:  No Bear Trap for rough seas.  M2's on roof of Hangar are wide open to enemy fire, and really in an unsafe location.

Not every navy operates a haul down device, however I would imagine something could be fitted. As for the .50 cals very easy to reconfigure or even add a RCHMG or two.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Neither does the Coast Guard. It would limit usage, but in coastal waters, the ship can likely find sheltered water to launch and recover, which is what the CCG does, or the helio lands somewhere and waits for a better time to return to the ship.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm sure you're right and I wasn't suggesting them, specifically, as a candidate. What I found interesting was that the USN was going offshore, looking for current designs.

I think there are several designs for small combatants (less than 2,200 tons, less even than 1,500 tons) including e.g. this 1,728 ton Chilean ship which is a modified version of  German vessel, built by Fassmer.

Displacement is 1,728 tons, range is 8,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, accommodations for 60 persons including 20 passengers and the helicopter crew.
The endurance is 30 days, carrying 298 m3 of fuel oil, 48 m3 of fresh water and 20 m3 of helicopter fuel

I believe there is a role for small combatants in a blue water navy like the RCN. Coastal patrol, fisheries patrol and even foreign missions like Op CARRIBE are standing tasks and small combatants fill accomplish them well ... well enough, anyway and at a substantially lower cost than a heavy.

This report, coupled with the RCN's experience with MCDVs on Op CARRIBE, suggests to me that minor war vessels (displacing 1,000 to 2,000 tons) are an important standing component  of the fleet, not just an adjunct that earns its keep every now and again.

I think the CF made a mistake, back in the 1980s when it decided that the MCDVs would be 'reserve force' ships; they are, almost automatically, seen by the "real" Navy as nothing more than modernized gate boats: reserve training vessels. They have demonstrated that they are operational, not, necessarily, as well designed or equipped for operations as one might like, but able to operate in, many situations, where a 'heavy' cannot.

The AOPS, as I understand the requirement is not, at 5,500+ tons and 100 m in length, a "minor war vessel" or "small combatant." I believe the RCN needs a mix of vessels including, in the surface fleet, general purpose destroyers/frigates, special purpose warships like AOPS, and operational small combatants/minor war vessels.

 

[Infanteer]

I would concur with your assessment Edward.  Corvettes (to use the broad term for the 500-2000 ton vessels) have a useful role to play in Continental aspects of maritime projection, allowing the larger warships to focus on expeditionary operations and I think the RCN's new policy of Reg/Res integration seems, on the face of things to this uneducated landlubber, to be a step in the right direction.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re "expeditionary":

Corvettes can also operate in the littorals of foreign countries - with appropriate support.  The MCDVs have regularly demonstrated this capability.  They too are expeditionary tools.

The appropriate question is at what points in the conflict spectrum do they become assets and, conversely, when do they become liabilities.

There is an awful lot of work out there for small vessels in the current array of conflict zones - most of which are low intensity.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Concur that we need small ships too.

And for those commenting on the absence of haul-down system, look at the length required to accommodate the flight deck + hangar on a HAL: It is not that long. With some design ingenuity, it is quite feasible to fit into a 75-85 meters, 1400-2000 tons design. We must not confuse the fact that many nations see a helicopter on a ship simply as a nice little adjunct, when weather permits, as opposed to Canada, where we see maritime helicopters as an integral part of the naval combat systems of any warship.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Plus US and Canadian CG have used helo's without hauldowns for decades. Very true it limits usage without it.

 

[Good2Golf]

Especially for skid-equipped helicopters...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Skids are for kids... 8)

 

[daftandbarmy]

I would concur with your assessment Edward.  Corvettes (to use the broad term for the 500-2000 ton vessels) have a useful role to play in Continental aspects of maritime projection, allowing the larger warships to focus on expeditionary operations and I think the RCN's new policy of Reg/Res integration seems, on the face of things to this uneducated landlubber, to be a step in the right direction.

The Visby looks nice... and it's 'northern capable'

The Swedish Defence Procurement Agency (FMV) has delivered the final version of the first Visby-class corvette, HMS Visby (K31), to the Swedish Navy.

The 41st Corvette Division commander Anna-Karin Broth said: "There remain several trials and exams before we can start using HMS Visby fully, but right now it feels good that the ship is finally delivered to the Armed Forces.

"The vessel has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding results."

Currently, a crew of 43 are undergoing training to handle the ship and its systems.

The Kockums-built 73m-long HMS Visby has been designed for mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare (ASW), as well as to support attack and anti-surface warfare operations.

"The vessel has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding results."

Featuring a suite of ASW equipment, 127mm rocket-powered grenade launchers, depth charges and torpedoes, the Visby-class ships have a beam of 10.4m, a displacement capacity of 640t and can cruise at a maximum speed of 35k.

Visby (K31) was originally handed over to the Swedish FMV in June 2002; in June 2006, the second and third HMS Helsingborg (K32) and Harnosand (K33) were officially delivered.

FMV had taken delivery of the fourth vessels of the class, Nykoping (K34), in September 2006, while the fifth Visby-class vessel, Karlstad (K35), was launched in August 2006.

Visby-class corvettes have been developed to minimise the optical and infrared signature, underwater electrical potential and magnetic signature, above water acoustic and hydroacoustic signature, as well as radar cross section and actively emitted signals.

All five modernised ships are scheduled to be delivered to the Swedish Navy by 2014.

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsswedish-armed-forces-receives-first-visby-class-corvette