TacticalTea
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,485
- Points
- 1,160
Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
- Thread starter x-grunt
- Start date
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 530
I’m curious about the feasibility of replacing the 12 MCDV’s with a class of 6 AOPS. Is there any way that the same missions can actually be done with half the vessels? Given that there is a drive to show the flag in the Arctic, the high profile that is given to Op CARIBBE, the goodwill that is garnered from the annual West Africa exercise AND the possibility of having some frigates off line due to maintenance issues (and more presence in South Asian Pacific), I don’t get how you can get everything done with 6 AOPV. I get that some MCDV’s will be retained for 5-8 years or more, but something has to take their place eventually, I would wager.
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 171
- Points
- 780
Wouldn't 2 or 3 8000t LPDs be a priority over MCDVs? Or is that more of an army priority than the navy's?
6 ships divided by 3 oceans doesn't really seem to leave anything for anywhere else so you can forget Op CARIBBE, Africa imho
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 530
That’s what it seems like would happen. So, then, can you really call it a replacement if you can no longer do the work of the platform you’re ostensibly replacing?
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
That's why there is an 'offshore patrol' bit in their name.
Will it be as effective in some respects? No. Will it provide other capabilities? Sure.
Do we actually have capacity to run the 6 AOPs anyway, plus JSS, plus the CPFs? Nope. Adding MCDVs on top of the load, but we've already exceeded what is feasible anyway, so I guess why not crush ourselves even flatter? You can't get more dead.
Will it be as effective in some respects? No. Will it provide other capabilities? Sure.
Do we actually have capacity to run the 6 AOPs anyway, plus JSS, plus the CPFs? Nope. Adding MCDVs on top of the load, but we've already exceeded what is feasible anyway, so I guess why not crush ourselves even flatter? You can't get more dead.
- Reaction score
- 27,469
- Points
- 1,090
MCDV are much more cost effective to operate than frigates, AOPS or the future CSC.
Question for you Navy types who are in, and therefore in the know...
How many people do we actually have on strength in the RCN right now? (Trained people who can deploy, not on medical leave or whatever else.)
How many would we need to be able to optimally operate the fleet we have currently have?
How many people do we actually have on strength in the RCN right now? (Trained people who can deploy, not on medical leave or whatever else.)
How many would we need to be able to optimally operate the fleet we have currently have?
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 530
I’m aware they are quite capable of offshore patrol, more so than MCDV’s. My point is the stretch of how much you can do with 6 ships vs 12. Manpower is obviously a critical problem that needs to be overcome as soon as possible and imho should be the number one priority across the board, no question. So, what I’m gleaning from all of this, is that the RCN is going to have to be much pickier about what it commits to doing.That's why there is an 'offshore patrol' bit in their name.
Will it be as effective in some respects? No. Will it provide other capabilities? Sure.
Do we actually have capacity to run the 6 AOPs anyway, plus JSS, plus the CPFs? Nope. Adding MCDVs on top of the load, but we've already exceeded what is feasible anyway, so I guess why not crush ourselves even flatter? You can't get more dead.
- Reaction score
- 27,469
- Points
- 1,090
Don't have the numbers here (and even if I did, they're probably restricted), but crew shortages are apparently a thing in lots of places:
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/YYLP3KYODJBMFLXC4OFM6DY3EA.jpg)
A third of New Zealand’s Navy ships are docked over lack of crew
The 279-foot offshore patrol vessel HMNZS Wellington is now the third ship to enter a period of idleness.
www.defensenews.com
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,553
- Points
- 1,160
Sounds like the Maltese P71 fits the bill. 1,800 tons, speed of over 20 knots, 25mm gun plus a .50 and two 7.62, and crew of 40 with accommodation for an additional 20.
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 530
For sure. So then the choice becomes either use an expensive asset that could probably be better used elsewhere or don’t do the stuff the MCDVs are currently doing. But, the things the MCDVs are doing are pretty important and play well in the papers, so is it something that should really be abandoned?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,908
- Points
- 1,160
You want 6 direct replacements for the MCDV that can do training, mine hunting, route survey. You want 6 River Class 2's for filling in the roles between the AOP's and the MCDV's. You can hot layup ships or put them in extended refit as required, in a war, we be able to fill bunks inbetween the trained ones more rapidly than you be able to build and outfit a new ship. Even if your fleet is double of your manpower, you can rotate ships through cold layup and refits. So the ships that are sailing are not a patchwork of quick repairs and baling wire.
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
So what we need is a utility truck of a ship which the MCDV has turned out to be. I already saw some concept art for the replacement and obviously they took into account the limitations of the Kingston Class. So we'll have a longer ship that has the capability of up to 25 knots, good range, a small gun most likely 25mm to 40mm, .50 Cals. Nothing else. The ship will have a full sized Rhib which we don't have now. The ship will have degaussing and a CBRN capability and the ability to operate drones. I believe the replacement will be a variant of the River Class. The replacement will be able to operate with NATO MCM.
Any replacement is at least 10 years away which is the ABS assessment of how long they'll last.
Any replacement is at least 10 years away which is the ABS assessment of how long they'll last.
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 530
If that’s the case, are they able to crew 7 East Coast MCDVs? Also, I believe you had said before that you suspected to see some of them paid off/laid up as the AOPV come online, so this isn’t entirely unexpected is it?
- Reaction score
- 1,027
- Points
- 1,160
Some Kingston Class are certainly in better shape than the others. The issue right now is that we need all 12 MCDV:s operating and more. I did hear their may be a move to bring more reserves in for the Kingston Class.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Just a couple of observations.
1. The MCDVs were built for one purpose only: to save a shipyard. The Navy got 'em 'cause there was no one else. They have done yeoman service.
2. As my friend dataperson says, a few posts above, they are much cheaper to operate than a CPF or an HDW class ship - as would be a 2,000± ton corvette with an embarked UAV and a total crew of less than 50.
3. The HDW class is 100% political. Remember 2006? One of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's very first actions was to play the anti-American card - always good politics in Canada - resurrecting John G Diefenbaker's Arctic vision. He went North, soon and often, and promised an Arctic patrol fleet, something for which the Navy never asked and for which it is still unprepared. The HDWs are constabulary vessels, not warships, and they belong in a constabulary fleet, not the RCN; but ... "only in Canada you say? Pity."
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,141
- Points
- 1,160
It boggles my mind that we're not seeing ads running like crazy in the media highlighting the RCN since we're so short of personnel. Not just the RCN specifically, but everything Maritime related (fisheries, oceanographic research, maritime trade, etc.) to raise general awareness of the population about our maritime domain and the importance of protecting it.
As a virtual island the Navy (and Air Force) are our first lines of defence. Nothing against the Army, but if recruiting and Basic need to change to better suit Navy and Air Force recruits then do it and do it quickly. We know what the personnel needs are going to be so we should be doing everything we can to get ahead of that curve and bring in the people we need and at the same time start taking the pressure off the people we already have.
As a virtual island the Navy (and Air Force) are our first lines of defence. Nothing against the Army, but if recruiting and Basic need to change to better suit Navy and Air Force recruits then do it and do it quickly. We know what the personnel needs are going to be so we should be doing everything we can to get ahead of that curve and bring in the people we need and at the same time start taking the pressure off the people we already have.
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 530
I certainly hope they’ll select the 30mm, considering they’re buying 30 Marlins for the CSC. Economy of scale should ensure the best price, as well as getting a weapon with multiple types of ammunition (including air burst, which is unavailable on the 25mm), better elevation and more ready rounds carried on the mount vs the 25mm. It’s encouraging that there’s meant to a provision for CBRN protection too.
Similar threads
