- Reaction score
- 21,933
- Points
- 1,260
Fair point -- but I tend to think in a Navy Canada's size - that any ship has the habit of being pushed into Combatant Craft type work - that one would want from the get go - to have that sort of thing...
Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
- Thread starter x-grunt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
CCG guards with DFO vs fisheries violations, with Environment (or whatever it is now) vs marine pollution, and with RCMP vs criminals on our waters.
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
That's essentially the approach we took in 1939, right? It was militarily acceptable because the strategic imperative ~ deliver food, fuel and weapons to Britain ~ demanded something, even if it was a bit of a "throw-away."
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
Any navy has their fair share of non combatants and all ships are armed in one manner or another. Its all about what missions we are asking for them to do and the risk assessment. Been to West Africa in a Kingston Class in pirate waters and on the border of Russia doing AUV OPS, not once did I feel unsafe. While arming up every ship to a warship standard would be a welcome thing for some, in my opinion its just not needed.
- Reaction score
- 21,933
- Points
- 1,260
Personally I wouldn't feel to cozy in West Africa in a Kingston - 2 M2's isn't exactly firepower in that AO.
But it kind of does prove my point - that the RCN will put ships in areas that they are generally not suited for.
One muppet with an RPG in a speedboat could give you a seriously bad day.
But it kind of does prove my point - that the RCN will put ships in areas that they are generally not suited for.
One muppet with an RPG in a speedboat could give you a seriously bad day.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
For sure, and a great approach for something like a torpedo boat, or the small fast boats some countries have with a few anti ship missiles fitted, or other general coastal boats, where you can overlap protection with land based assets (and patrol aircraft).
Not so great for blue water ships that you want to do multiple tasks, so in that case makes sense to invest in the extra effort when you have time in hand to do the build. Plus we beat the crap out of our ships, so if we don't build them to mil-spec at the start we'll run them into the ground within a few cycles. A 15 year life is less of a worry when you are really only thinking a single convoy crossing at a time, but you could pit a few of our CPFs against our entire WW2 fleet and all they would be are puffs of smoke over the horizon, with breaks when the modern ships went back in to re-ammo.
The technology leap has made an individual ship orders of magnitudes more lethal, so costs a lot more. On the flip side with the modular ship building you can actually pump out a much higher effective production rate than before, but much more at the mercy of the globalized supply chain, so no idea if we could ramp up like that again. From that perspective makes more sense to have a better chance to recover and keep fighting.
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
Ah the RPG in the side of the ship argument. If I had a dime for every time someone said we can't cross the ocean, go the Arctic, go out in that sea state etc, etc. Honestly if we worried about all the potential threats we wouldn't leave the Bedford Basin, let alone conduct OP Caribe and other missions. To be clear the Kingston Class is not there for anti piracy operations, we are there to train other African Coastal Forces and build relations in a poor part of the world and the ships are a pretty good platform to do it in. There is always the potential to stumble into something and that could happen anywhere and I am not discounting that. We have drills and procedures to combat that and we get paid well to do it. I think we're doing a decent job in managing the risk.
- Reaction score
- 21,933
- Points
- 1,260
There are old sailors, and bold sailors - but no old bold sailors
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
OP CARIBBE is like...the most permissible op area on the planet. How safe would you feel in a non-permissible op area on an MCDV? I'm betting you'd feel as safe as I would have if someone said "hey, we're going to penetrate west Syrian airspace!!!!".
I think the point trying to be made is....Canada can't really have a small navy, with the majority of the grey hulls being 'constabulary/non-combatant' and still be taken seriously as a navy internationally.
Don't be upset though, the same applies to our Air Force and Army. As a nation, we don't really have many teeth to bare...
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
My friend I do my job and go where they tell me to go with the equipment they give me. Its not lost on me that we are sending non combatants where perhaps a combatant would be more capable but I'm not buying the courting disaster argument and our navy being taken seriously.
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
Royal Navy's River-class OPVs begin 5-year Indo-Pacific deployment - Naval News
Royal Navy River-class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) HMS Spey and HMS Tamar have today begun deployment to the Indo-Pacific region to bolster Britain’s presence in the region.
www.navalnews.com
- Reaction score
- 21,933
- Points
- 1,260
I am definitely not try to disparage the Men and Women in the RCN.
My belief is that the RCN Leadership/Management and the Government are not placing enough thought into what they are procuring given the history of sending assets places that are likely beyond the scope of the intent of the ship.
- Reaction score
- 18,758
- Points
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 22,028
- Points
- 1,360
I thinks he’s been hang out with some pilots, so some of them must have been rubbing off on him…
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,382
- Points
- 1,260
The MCDVs are appropriately equipped until they are not. The RPG into the beam is a fair concern.
And unless your .50cal teams are miraculously better than those on the heavies your ability to stand off is not great @Stoker
The best thing CJOC and the RCN can do is make sure they are only employed in very low threat environments.
And unless your .50cal teams are miraculously better than those on the heavies your ability to stand off is not great @Stoker
The best thing CJOC and the RCN can do is make sure they are only employed in very low threat environments.
- Reaction score
- 5,967
- Points
- 1,090
If you can accurately shoot an RPG from a moving boat at an MCDV I will be fairly shocked. RPG max engagement range is 2000 yards but its accurate range is around 500-1000. On land. Standing still.
How much 50 cal ammo are you eating to get into that range? How brave is your boat crew before the bowels loosen and you have to break off or are suppressed? Despite our media-driven fantasies "pirates" won't risk combat. And small boat drivers won't risk the fire to get close enough to get a shot off even if they are adversarial.
Besides an RPG into the side of an MCDV will do limited damage. Those ships have a lot of volume for an RPG to hit a critical system. So now we are talking about a "golden BB" situation.
Could it kill someone? Yes. Is it likely to even be a mission kill? No, not even close. Maybe starting a fire that could spread is the worst-case scenario.
If the environment has bad guys with AT missiles on boats and a goal of causing chaos MCDV's won't be deployed.
The NATO MCM doctrine points to MCDV's (and all MCM vessels) being brought into permissive environments. If that environment is not permissive the frigates will make it so before an MCDV enters the area to hunt mines. If it's still not permissive and MCDV's have to take a risk to do the mission then they do that. The frigates provide overwatch/topcover and engage threats.
And if the big girls aren't available then we do our f-ing jobs anyways.
How much 50 cal ammo are you eating to get into that range? How brave is your boat crew before the bowels loosen and you have to break off or are suppressed? Despite our media-driven fantasies "pirates" won't risk combat. And small boat drivers won't risk the fire to get close enough to get a shot off even if they are adversarial.
Besides an RPG into the side of an MCDV will do limited damage. Those ships have a lot of volume for an RPG to hit a critical system. So now we are talking about a "golden BB" situation.
Could it kill someone? Yes. Is it likely to even be a mission kill? No, not even close. Maybe starting a fire that could spread is the worst-case scenario.
If the environment has bad guys with AT missiles on boats and a goal of causing chaos MCDV's won't be deployed.
The NATO MCM doctrine points to MCDV's (and all MCM vessels) being brought into permissive environments. If that environment is not permissive the frigates will make it so before an MCDV enters the area to hunt mines. If it's still not permissive and MCDV's have to take a risk to do the mission then they do that. The frigates provide overwatch/topcover and engage threats.
And if the big girls aren't available then we do our f-ing jobs anyways.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,382
- Points
- 1,260
I feel like you're getting defensive for no reason.
The MCDVs and their crews have earned their keep and then some. No one can dispute that. But advocating that they receive heavier armament isn't a slight.
With the utmost respect, I think you are overly confident in the damage and casualties that and RPG would cause to an MCDV, and its ability to carry on. If a hole in the side, internal systems disrupted/destroyed; and a depleted (by casualties) watch and station bill isn't a mission kill, I don't know what is.
Lets both agree that we hope we're just playing the what if game.
Similar threads
