Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[jollyjacktar]

Maybe they might take another look at MTB down the road for close to home operations.

 

[hugh19]

Maybe they might take another look at MTB down the road for close to home operations.


Spoken like someone who has never sailed in a small ship. Plus what the heck for? Cannot go far? Cannot handle any sea state. Who shall the shoot at the American's?

 

[jollyjacktar]

There were two camps I am told, back when the decision process was in the works for replacement of the gate boats.  MCDV and MTB,  both camps made their respective pitches of pros and cons with valid points for both.  The MTB idea lost out.

Yes, you're correct.  I've not sailed little, only big.  My personal opinion is we should have a small platform that is faster than the Dartmouth Ferry.  Corvette or what have you.

 

[hugh19]

Well if you want a fast ship it will have to be somewhat large. I have sailed in several classes of small ships. Gate's, Kingston, YAG and Orca. You need a somewhat larger  vessel to be able to handle any kind of sea state and still have a functioning crew. But a 200 foot Corvette with say a payload package capability (read ASuw or ASW). I would agree to that.

 

[Infanteer]

The German Magdeburg and the Swedish Visby are both over 200 ft.  The thing doesn't have to be a dingy to be smaller than a Frigate and yet still effective, does it?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well if you want a fast ship it will have to be somewhat large. I have sailed in several classes of small ships. Gate's, Kingston, YAG and Orca. You need a somewhat larger  vessel to be able to handle any kind of sea state and still have a functioning crew. But a 200 foot Corvette with say a payload package capability (read ASuw or ASW). I would agree to that.

I did a half NATO with this girl in our group, F356 Peter Tordenskiold.  She, and her crew, left a very positive impression on us with what she could do for her size as a Corvette classed vessel.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think it's a mug's game to specify this or that design.

It appears to me that the Navy and the bureaucracy have agreed a plan that looks something like:

    1. Two, maybe even three AORs;

    2. About a dozen major combatants (destroyer/frigate);

    3. Six AOPS which, at 5,500+ tons, are not minor war vessels;

    4. Four submarines; and

    5. Sundry training and utility vessels.

I believe there is a need for and a niche for a small combatant that is in the, say, 75 metre and 1,500+ ton range and which:

    1. Costs less than 25% of the cost of a major combatant to build;

    2. Costs less than 25% of the cost of a major combatant to operate, at sea; and

    3. Does about 75% of the chores we ask of warships.

 

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell: "3. Six AOPS which, at 5,500+ tons, are not minor war vessels..."

RCN says:

...
BAE Mk 38 Gun

    Remote controlled 25 mm gun to support domestic constabulary role...
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/aops-home.page

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Stoker]

E.R. Campbell: "3. Six AOPS which, at 5,500+ tons, are not minor war vessels..."

RCN says:

Mark
Ottawa

Aren't they classed as a Patrol Vessel, not a minor warship.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).

Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:

You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.

Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.

Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons.

Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.

As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.

 

[Navy_Pete]

It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).

Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:

You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.

Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.

Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons.

Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.

As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.

They will also have additional icebreaking requirements, such as an navigator qualified for the ice, plus time driving under an experienced watch.  I think the incoming CO and XO are in the process of sailing with the CG icebreakers, and we aleady have qualified NavOs for the various Op Nanooks.

Fun fact, currently the AORs and 280s are managed by the 'Minor War Vessel and Auxiliary' section as DGMEPM on the material side, so really depends on how you define it.  Tonnage doesn't really equal capability anymore, nor does crew size so 'minor war ship' is in the eye of the beholder and depends from what perspective you are looking at it.  AOPs is a non-combatant though, which is why it's being built to (mostly) civilian standards.

 

[Kirkhill]

Tonnage doesn't really equal capability anymore, nor does crew size .

Maersk's Triple E Container Ships, lifting 18,270 TEU, are driven by a crew of 19.

That is one crew member more than the complement of the Danish OPV Knud Rasmussen

Sister ship Einar Mikkelsen seen here taking a Danish Lynx on board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC2XIGMI2kM

Built by:
Karstensens Ship Yacht A/S, Skagen (The hull is built at the Polish Stocznia Pólnocna (Northern Shipyard) in Gdansk)
Design:
Karstensens Ship Yacht A/S in cooperation with the Danish Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organization
Displacement:
1,720 tons
Dimensions:
Length:
Beam:
Draught:
-
(LOA) 71.80 m
(LWL) 61.00 m
14.60 m
4.95 m
Complement:
18 men (lodging capacity for 43)
Propulsion:
2 ea B&W ALPHA 8L27/28 á 2.720 kW v/800 rpm
1 ea Propeller (CP)
RENK reduction gear "Twin in/single out"
Range:
3,000 nautical miles
Armament:
2 ea 12,7 mm Heavy Machine Guns M/01 LvSa
Additional space for:
1 ea SAR/Landing Crafts of the LCP Class
Speed:
17 knots

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/KnudRasmussen_Class(2007).htm

 

[Edward Campbell]

It matters not if they are classed as "patrol vessels" (remember the HAL's were the C "P" F project. the P stood for patrol).

Wether a ship is minor is determined by the size in our regulations regarding watch keeping and command:

You can have a submarine watch keeping ticket/command ticket. Those are their own self-explanatory category.

Then, you can have a Surface Warship bridge watch keeping ticket or command ticket and those are good on ALL classes of ships other than a submarine.

Finally, you can have a Minor Warship bridge watch keeping and command ticket. The regulation then defines Minor Warship as any surface vessel smaller than a Frigate. In the days when first enacted, the reference "frigates" were the old DDE/DDH's (steamer) at about 2400 tons.

Therefore, regardless of how rated, the AOPS are bigger than a "frigate" would be and rate the full Surface Warship Bridge watch keeping or command tickets.

As for the matter of continuing use of the MCDV's, there are so many things that they can do that the AOPS can't that I have no doubt that they will be retained in service until they wear out, regardless of whether they get a mid-life refit or not. Besides they are great platforms on which to try out all sort of underwater gear.

Thanks for that explanation, OGBD.  :facepalm:

Is, say, 2,500 tons a reasonable "cut off" for a "minor war vessel" or "small combatant?" Does having an embarked helicopter matter in deciding if a ship is a large or small combatant?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My opinion as a former Air O- once you add Air Ops to a Ship, you have sufficiently complicated the operations of a ship that it can no longer be considered a minor war vessel- regardless of tonnage.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My opinion as a former Air O- once you add Air Ops to a Ship, you have sufficiently complicated the operations of a ship that it can no longer be considered a minor war vessel- regardless of tonnage.

That was my guess, so, going back to this:

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.

It's a pretty small, less than 2,000 ton (crew of less than 60, including the Air Det) ship, and we both agree that it's not a "minor" war vessel, but isn't it, still, a "small combatant" (whatever that means)?

Let's not fall, again, into the trap of Regular vs Reserve fleets* ~ the whole "blue water Navy" must be a single, composite force in which reservists can serve as they can manage the time commitment and have been adequately trained. So we're not talking about "shad boats" vs the "real Navy" but we are talking large vs small combatants and I'm wondering about the rank to command a <2,000 ton warship. Does it really need a three ring commander with several tours in major combatants?

_____
* That doesn't mean I don't think the RCN Reserve ought not to have its own "fleet" but I think that fleet should look like this:

or this:

    Suitable "reserve" vessels: less than 500 tons, useful for weekend exercises in coastal waters, on large lakes or on large rivers, inland.

 

[jollyjacktar]

ER, I have had the pleasure of sailing with Reserve sailors in the past they're genuinely excellent folks.  As a matter of fact most of my colleagues during my last tour in the sandbox were Shads as well.  We can and do work well together as a team in my personal experience. 

My trade isn't represented on the little boats but if we had something along the lines of a Corvette class I'd love the chance to try it.  Mixed crews are, I think, going to become more common down the road.  I am good with that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just wondering -

If a big vessel like Maersk Triple Es can be managed with the same size crew as  the Danish OPV, could a crew of the same size, manning all the same duty stations be trained on something the size of the Orcas which, as ERC seems to  suggest, could be floated in any large body of water?

Could a common bridge work for all vessels from something the size of an Orca all the way up to AOR? Or bigger?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Mr Campbell,

I don't think a small combatant/OPV/whatever we call these things needs to be commanded by a three ringer. A sufficiently experienced and appropriately command qualified 2 and a half can probably do it. I am agnostic about reservist or reg force. The problem today is that the giant suck of HQ staffs is pulling MARS Officers thru seagoing postings so fast, there is not a deep well of driving experience at that rank level (IMHO, only- others may beg to differ).

I would like to see these drives given to promising 2 and a halfs before they are promoted and given a frigate or CSC. Not sure what the RCN has in mind.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Just wondering -

If a big vessel like Maersk Triple Es can be managed with the same size crew as  the Danish OPV, could a crew of the same size, manning all the same duty stations be trained on something the size of the Orcas which, as ERC seems to  suggest, could be floated in any large body of water?

Could a common bridge work for all vessels from something the size of an Orca all the way up to AOR? Or bigger?

The bridge layouts on the Frigates, MCDVs and ORCAs all look remarkably similar, so that is probably not an accident.

 

[Kirkhill]

The bridge layouts on the Frigates, MCDVs and ORCAs all look remarkably similar, so that is probably not an accident.

Sorry.

I'm not used to planning. 

Do they include the engine room controls, or are they separate?