Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[Spencer100]

It's in the Wiki page Heritage Cutter

That's almost a frigate. Throw a set of 8 pack Mk41 VLS on it!

That is total over kill for the Kingston replacement. Plus it gets you back to, if we get these why are we spending so much more on the CSC problem. Pointy with gun and painted grey are all the same right?

 

[Maxman1]

It's in the Wiki page Heritage Cutter

Might as well go with the Type 31 then.

 

[Furniture]

It's in the Wiki page Heritage Cutter

Those ships have a crew 3-4x the crew of an MCDV... They are CPF light, not an MCDV replacement.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Those ships have a crew 3-4x the crew of an MCDV... They are CPF light, not an MCDV replacement.

Otago class.

• Speed
• North Sea ability
• Crew size
• Hanger
• Crane, Sea Container
• Room of extra passengers
• RHIB
• Endurance
• Follows existing CDN tradition of lightly arming a vessel

 

[Maxman1]

Otago class.

• Speed
• North Sea ability
• Crew size
• Hanger
• Crane, Sea Container
• Room of extra passengers
• RHIB
• Endurance
• Follows existing CDN tradition of lightly arming a vessel

The Holland class does all those things. Except the lightly armed part, they're armed to the teeth.

 

[Furniture]

The Holland class does all those things. Except the lightly armed part, they're armed to the teeth.

Except that's not what we want the MCDVs to be... If Canada wanted corvettes, we would have bought corvettes. Complaining that the MCDV and AOPS aren't armed like a firgate/destroyer is akin to complaining that a MSVS doesn't have the armour or weapons of a LAV6... Sure they both have wheels and move people, but they are designed for different roles.

99.99% of the role of a navy isn't shooting at enemy ships. Look at the history of navies, and look at the number of battles they have fought. The RCN needs combatants, and the CSC will be world class combatants when they are built, but we also need ships to do the other 99.99% of missions, that don't involve shooting at enemy ships.

EDIT: After a quick google, the RN of 1805-1815 consisted of 950 ships, of which only 113 were "ships of the line" a.k.a. frontline combatants. The RCN of 2040 will consist of ~15 ships of the line, 20 non-combatants, and 4 subs... The RCN by percentage will be more combat capable than the RN of the golden age of Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Maxman1]

Yes, and that's why I've also been suggesting River class patrol vessels as the direct replacement for the Kingstons.

 

[Stoker]

Yes, and that's why I've also been suggesting River class patrol vessels as the direct replacement for the Kingstons.

The concept art and requirements I have personally seen, a variant of the river class would fit the bill.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Except that's not what we want the MCDVs to be... If Canada wanted corvettes, we would have bought corvettes. Complaining that the MCDV and AOPS aren't armed like a firgate/destroyer is akin to complaining that a MSVS doesn't have the armour or weapons of a LAV6... Sure they both have wheels and move people, but they are designed for different roles.

99.99% of the role of a navy isn't shooting at enemy ships. Look at the history of navies, and look at the number of battles they have fought. The RCN needs combatants, and the CSC will be world class combatants when they are built, but we also need ships to do the other 99.99% of missions, that don't involve shooting at enemy ships.

EDIT: After a quick google, the RN of 1805-1815 consisted of 950 ships, of which only 113 were "ships of the line" a.k.a. frontline combatants. The RCN of 2040 will consist of ~15 ships of the line, 20 non-combatants, and 4 subs... The RCN by percentage will be more combat capable than the RN of the golden age of Napoleonic Wars.

The RN lost 214 Minesweepers in WWI, 650 in WWII and RCN lost 3. Those losses would be from mines, torpedo, bombing and gunfire. It would seem that our modern mine hunters are a prime target and should have a stronger suite of self defense systems and not have to rely completely on having a larger escort.

 

[Spencer100]

Would a MCDV replacement not be more of a Swiss Army knife? Mine warfare, undersea, cable, pipeline offshore infrastructure, environmental monitoring. Drone and UAV platform. Plus constabulary roles such as drug and human smuggling protection. And then SAR and training missions. Most of those missions anything larger than a 50 cal is not need. You can say a 25mm is better like on the AOPS. But you can get away without it.

 

[Dana381]

If the RCN gets the 60B for the subs I doubt we will see an MCDV replacement. I am guessing but I see the argument as "the AOPS can do the MCDV job while we study (I.e. put off indefinetly) what the best MCDV replacement should be.

 

[Spencer100]

If the RCN gets the 60B for the subs I doubt we will see an MCDV replacement. I am guessing but I see the argument as "the AOPS can do the MCDV job while we study (I.e. put off indefinetly) what the best MCDV replacement should be.

By the time new subs come the AOPS will have hulls rusted though.

 

[Dana381]

Exactly

 

[GR66]

Except that's not what we want the MCDVs to be... If Canada wanted corvettes, we would have bought corvettes. Complaining that the MCDV and AOPS aren't armed like a firgate/destroyer is akin to complaining that a MSVS doesn't have the armour or weapons of a LAV6... Sure they both have wheels and move people, but they are designed for different roles.

99.99% of the role of a navy isn't shooting at enemy ships. Look at the history of navies, and look at the number of battles they have fought. The RCN needs combatants, and the CSC will be world class combatants when they are built, but we also need ships to do the other 99.99% of missions, that don't involve shooting at enemy ships.

EDIT: After a quick google, the RN of 1805-1815 consisted of 950 ships, of which only 113 were "ships of the line" a.k.a. frontline combatants. The RCN of 2040 will consist of ~15 ships of the line, 20 non-combatants, and 4 subs... The RCN by percentage will be more combat capable than the RN of the golden age of Napoleonic Wars.

I 100% get the importance of non-combatant ships for a navy. As you say 99.99% of the role of a navy isn't war fighting. I'm a fan of the MDCVs, AOPS, Rivers, etc. and think Canada should have them.

The problem comes the other 0.01% of the time when there IS a war. In the past ships were simple enough to build that you could vastly increase your combatant fleet size after (or shortly before) a conflict begins. That's simply not the case with modern warships. You don't have time to rapidly increase the size of your combatant fleet after the missiles start flying.

Many people on here (and in places like the Pentagon) believe that the likelihood of a shooting war with China is significant. The CSC will be an excellent warship, but the question is will 15 be enough if we do have to fight a war? I personally don't think it is and I think many others here may agree. That's why you see people talking about more combatants for the RCN. A combatant/non-combatant ratio that makes sense during the time of the "peace dividend" may not be the right ratio if you're expecting you may have to fight a major war. I'd also suggest that a more combat capable navy may have somewhat of a deterrent effect on China in contemplating war. Who knows how politics will end up going in China? We may only have to deter them long enough for Xi to no longer be the leader of the CCP.

You (and others) may disagree with either the risk of a war taking place or with the size of the combatant fleet we may need to fight such a war. That's your prerogative, but I'd suggest it's the current political climate that makes people want to push for a more robust fleet capability rather than simply a disdain for grey painted ships that aren't brimming with guns and missiles.

Of course manning is the massive elephant in the room in any discussions on fleet composition. That's why I suggest that the RCN lean heavily into unmanned systems to augment the manned systems we can support.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A lot of these functions could argueably be better done with assets other than a ship anyway, so maybe for some functions we maybe hive it off from the RCN. Underwater arrays, satellite coverage, more P8s may give more bang for the buck and the consumer quality drones can pack a lot of punch. Just saw a presentation from the French Navy where they are using recreational drones to help with pollution clean up, so it's a simple add on to their enviro cleanup ship they have.

Does require a trained operator, but the actual training is a few days to a few weeks so I've spent more time on DLN last year ticking boxes.

 

[GR66]

A lot of these functions could argueably be better done with assets other than a ship anyway, so maybe for some functions we maybe hive it off from the RCN. Underwater arrays, satellite coverage, more P8s may give more bang for the buck and the consumer quality drones can pack a lot of punch. Just saw a presentation from the French Navy where they are using recreational drones to help with pollution clean up, so it's a simple add on to their enviro cleanup ship they have.

Does require a trained operator, but the actual training is a few days to a few weeks so I've spent more time on DLN last year ticking boxes.

Absolutely. We need to look at the effects we want to achieve and see how we can best achieve them with the money and manpower we have available. Like you say, not everything has to be done by a traditional manned warship. Non-combatants can act as nodes/mother ships for some of these unconventional capabilities.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Would a MCDV replacement not be more of a Swiss Army knife? Mine warfare, undersea, cable, pipeline offshore infrastructure, environmental monitoring. Drone and UAV platform. Plus constabulary roles such as drug and human smuggling protection. And then SAR and training missions. Most of those missions anything larger than a 50 cal is not need. You can say a 25mm is better like on the AOPS. But you can get away without it.

In reality the future of minehunting looks like the need will be for a "mothership" that will deploy, recover and service all kinds of autonomous deep sea mine hunting systems. So maybe something along the line of a modified/militarized platform support vessel.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In reality the future of minehunting looks like the need will be for a "mothership" that will deploy, recover and service all kinds of autonomous deep sea mine hunting systems. So maybe something along the line of a modified/militarized platform support vessel.

Which is what the Dutch/Belgium vessel is, mentioned upthread.

 

[Prairie canuck]

The role(s) currently associated with the MCDV are quickly changing due to technological advances. Replacing the MCDVs will not be with a similar vessel but rather 2 different ones. An inshore patrol vessel (small fast corvette (a la Visby) and an offshore mine hunting "mothership". Only my personal opinion.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Which is what the Dutch/Belgium vessel is, mentioned upthread.

Saw that thanks. Interesting vessel. Would 4 be enough for the RCN?