Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[JMCanada]

Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.

Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
[Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's a very interesting design, lot's neat features

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=940616193073607

 

[Kirkhill]

Looking at the range of options available, and the fact that the three big yards are getting filled up with vessels over 4000 tonnes, maybe there is room to move the NSS 1000 tonne small boat limit north to 2500 tonnes?

 

[Underway]

Likely by the time the MCDV replacement project goes ahead VSY will no longer have any new ships on the docket.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.

The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.

Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
[Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]

We can’t consider that, the guns too big.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.

The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.

As you mention that's basically a slightly larger Hero Class, not the sort of vessel you want to do long voyages in. I call them R Class 2.0 Hero-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia

Now the Aussies went even further with the Armidale-class patrol boat - Wikipedia

 

[Cronicbny]

Not saying that this is my idea of a great solution, but I was looking at the USCG Fast Response Cutter recently. It's about 400t, has a stern ramp, 2500kt range and is capable of 28+ kts. It's also equipped with a 25mm and a pair of .50 cal. I'm wondering if an option would be to procure 10 of these for use in essentially our waters and OP CARIBBE. I know they're a version of our CCG HERO class, which has had some issues, but wondering if they'd be up to task for the above mentioned missions. Then, maybe you build AOPS 7-8 and instead of turning them over to the CCG they get kept by the RCN for use everywhere else we've been discussing.

The advantages are smaller crew, cheap to operate and cheap to build. Sentinel-class cutter - Wikipedia

I'm not certain how capable these smaller ships are in our North Atlantic, though.

The range and 5 day endurance are not suitable, unfortunately.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I rather thought that might be the case. I was just brainstorming if it were possible given shorter patrol missions and the ability rotate in and out multiple ships. Say, send 3 or 4 on OP CARIBBE with a rotation in and out of port etc.

Again, probably not the best bet, anyway.

 

[RedFive]

As you mention that's basically a slightly larger Hero Class, not the sort of vessel you want to do long voyages in. I call them R Class 2.0 Hero-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia

Now the Aussies went even further with the Armidale-class patrol boat - Wikipedia

Having spoken to RCMP Shiprider members who have gone out on the Hero's with the CCG, the cost cutting and Canadianization of the vessels pretty much ruined what was supposed to be a good design. The primary complaints were the deletion of the sea keeping ailerons, making them terrible to be aboard even in moderate waters, and the poor construction quality from Irving. Apparently both of these issues have been discussed in the media.

I for one was not surprised to hear this.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The range and 5 day endurance are not suitable, unfortunately.

We used to do 2 week patrols with a 11 people on the R Class, by the 5th day we were out of fresh vegetables as there was no cold storage, except for 1 regular fridge and regular small freezer.

 

[Cronicbny]

I rather thought that might be the case. I was just brainstorming if it were possible given shorter patrol missions and the ability rotate in and out multiple ships. Say, send 3 or 4 on OP CARIBBE with a rotation in and out of port etc.

Again, probably not the best bet, anyway.

Missions like CARIBBE require long "on station" times, as the AO/Patrol Box is usually quite far out to sea (think days of transit) to maximize surveillance. Even once "on top" and successful in an interdiction, the process can take many hours to days. We tend to even stretch the limits of endurance for the KIN Class IOT remain ONSTA.

 

[KevinB]

I still like the K130


The corvettes have a continuous maximum speed of over 26kt and a cruising range of more than 2,500nm. The displacement is about 1,580t, overall length 88m and breadth 13.2m. The K130 corvettes have an endurance of seven days or, with tender support, 21 days.

*from what I have read - the endurance is based solely on field consumption at high speeds, and for the MH.
If you aren't normally running a MH on it - you don't the fuel or AirDet pers, which should stretch the legs of it a tad.
.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I still like the K130

View attachment 66938
The corvettes have a continuous maximum speed of over 26kt and a cruising range of more than 2,500nm. The displacement is about 1,580t, overall length 88m and breadth 13.2m. The K130 corvettes have an endurance of seven days or, with tender support, 21 days.

*from what I have read - the endurance is based solely on field consumption at high speeds, and for the MH.
If you aren't normally running a MH on it - you don't the fuel or AirDet pers, which should stretch the legs of it a tad.
.

Usually food, fuel, and things like garbage storage are the practical limitations, but with our crewing shortages you also run into fatigue as well. If it was shiny, new and working it wouldn't be so bad, but when you spend of your off-watch time fixing things, you get worn out pretty quick. Not unusual for some key pers to occasionally get ordered to get their head down (or for the XO to get the CO's shakes instead). Even on a relatively good 12 day stretch lots of folks just kind of collapse the first night in port and sleep for 8 hours (or more).

Operating a helo won't really impact your ship range though; they use a separate marine grade aviation fuel (F-44 aka JP5) instead of the marine diesel the ships run on, and usually if you have empty bunks someone usually fills them. In best case, it's trainees that need sea time but can fill a useful function, worse case it's some kind of VIP rider that needs constant babysitting and has unreasonable demands.

With the 'optimized' crew numbers we fall behind on preventative maintenance pretty quickly, and that inevitably turns into corrective maintenance, so it's difficult to keep a normal schedule for any of the technicians when you are below the crew levels the ships were designed for.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Missions like CARIBBE require long "on station" times, as the AO/Patrol Box is usually quite far out to sea (think days of transit) to maximize surveillance. Even once "on top" and successful in an interdiction, the process can take many hours to days. We tend to even stretch the limits of endurance for the KIN Class IOT remain ONSTA.

Definitely a much better tasking for something with legs, then. Should be a good fit for the AOPS range, I'd imagine. Thx for the insight, it's good to have a better idea of how these missions are executed.

 

[Stoker]

Definitely a much better tasking for something with legs, then. Should be a good fit for the AOPS range, I'd imagine. Thx for the insight, it's good to have a better idea of how these missions are executed.

Kingston Class was only meant to have a endurance of 14 days, our only limitation was food and fuel. We got creative with portable deepfreezes, stocking the entire cold room, dairy stores full. Eventually we could go a month and even longer. Eventually fuel and stores was required. AOPS burns about 2% of her fuel a day and a shit load of it around 700 Cums. Without going below 40% around 28 days endurance.

 

[Stoker]

Well, just found today a patrol ship which combines the stern ramp with a crane for containers by placing them under the pad, which is provided with hatches. Don't really know if this is a useful configuration, for instance to use a containerized TAS (TRAPS) there will be some 10-12 meters between the container and the stern. For a SIGINT container the antenna needs to be relocated. For a containerized UAV (ok, guys, RPV is also accepted) it doesn't looks easy, either, to place the UAV on the pad if the container is just below the hatch.

Actually this OPV could be added to the list: crew of 40 (+30 acc./mission), 20-23 kts, 12000 nm range (?!!), 30 days endurance.
[Fassmer 80 OPV pdf ]

That's actually a pretty nice ship, good range and endurance. I would however redesign the back end and eliminate the stern ramp and have a payload area to stage modular payloads such as TRAPS. Probably go with the ice class option.

 

[FJAG]

Kingston Class was only meant to have a endurance of 14 days, our only limitation was food and fuel. We got creative with portable deepfreezes, stocking the entire cold room, dairy stores full. Eventually we could go a month and even longer. Eventually fuel and stores was required. AOPS burns about 2% of her fuel a day and a shit load of it around 700 Cums. Without going below 40% around 28 days endurance.

There's probably lots of room for a 2 month supply of IMPs.

 

[KevinB]

That's actually a pretty nice ship, good range and endurance. I would however redesign the back end and eliminate the stern ramp and have a payload area to stage modular payloads such as TRAPS. Probably go with the ice class option.

You don't like your boat crews do you?

 

[suffolkowner]

Aiviq might have a problem with her design making her unsuitable for Canada.

Page 43:

"As the AIVIQ was prepared for this voyage there were two areas that affected the upcoming towing plans. One concern was the vessels design issues, which was identified as water ingress into the winch room and safe deck areas affecting the vent on the fuel system and electrical fittings in the space. The Master of the AIVIQ sent ECO management an email entitled “Storm Damage Lessons Learned” and added a statement from a former crewmember detailing an account of a storm while AIVIQ was towing the KULLUK. In that account the crewmember detailed the AIVIQ taking on a sustained list in the storm due to sea water ingress. As temporary measure to limit water ingress internal openings in the winch room were closed or covered, the hinged freeing port covers were removed and temporary covers were placed over the lower winch room openings to the main deck prior to the voyage commencing.

"54. The other issue was a host of mechanical problems that had occurred on previous voyages. There were issues with the engine room automation, resulting in the overheating of the main diesel engine #4 and complete failure of that engine on the voyage south with the AIVIQ towing the KULLUK to Dutch Harbor. Some of these issues were required to be reported to the classification society, ABS and the U.S. Coast Guard. The major issues are mentioned here and remained unresolved as the AIVIQ was readied for sea."

Could be why its been living the good life in Tampa the last few years