Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[YZT580]

Every string on this site ends up with the same caveat: staffing. While people may not want to commit to a full career they may be quite happy to sign on in the reserves. Particularly if they can stay in their home region for much of their time. I can see growing the reserve, particularly here in Ontario where you have the Great Lakes to provide the sea room. Simple enough to position one or two of the Kingston Class replacements in Hamilton or even Midland, Orillia or Owen Sound and train from there. Do the same in Quebec. Granted that the crew won't be fully certified but they can be trained in basic watch-keeping and ready for more when needed or when they wish. Each ship would probably require a nucleus of full time people but perhaps having such a posting might prompt some to stay in. Just a thought.

Increasing the pay for all by a significant amount might also induce people to want to join up as well

 

[Rainbow1910]

Route clearance is going to be a important skillset, not as "cool" as having a frigate, but equally important. You can have ships in hot and cold layups. So you can scale up the fleet in times of conflict. Faster to train sailors than to build hulls.

I think this is vitally important. Even if this means we will have to effectively mothball ships alongside and rotate vessels in and out of such a thing, I think we should stick with our proper fleet composition instead of caving to personnel demands short term. Have the ships so that when the time comes that we actually have the personnel, the ship is there waiting. As you said, far easier to train people than it is to build a multi billion dollar warship later down the line.

My thoughts on the possible utility of a vessel like this was based on the following:

1) Personnel limitations. I don't see the RCN having the personnel available to crew 15 x CSC's, 6 x AOPS, 2 x JSS, ? x SSK's PLUS a 1-for-1 replacement for the Kingston-Class (likely with a crew size at least a bit larger than the MCDVs). Dropping 3 x CSC's, the SSK's and treating the 6 x AOPS + 6 x Small Combatants as a de-facto Kingston-Class replacement seems much more doable.

2) Arctic Capabilities. While the AOPS do provide us the ability to project force into our Arctic they (like the Kingston-Class) are not combatants. With the potential for competition with Russia and/or China for resources in our Arctic domain we will likely need something more heavily armed than the AOPS that is capable of operating there.

3) Combatant vs Non-Combatant. As noted the MCDV's are non-combatants as are the AOPS. With rising global tensions I think the fleet balance between combatants and non-combatants should likely change. The AOPS is able to perform most of the roles that the Kingston-Class performed although admittedly not as cheaply - but it's likely that any replacement like a River-Class Batch 2 will be more expensive to operate as well. A small combatant with a mission deck and containerized modules will be able to fulfill many of the Kingston's roles as well (but again not as cheaply).

Dropping 3 x CSC's and the SSK's for 6 x small combatants is of course a major trade-off for definitely less overall capability. I don't know what the "right" answer is for fleet mix but the impression I get is that right now we're planning for a fleet that we simply won't have the personnel available to crew.

As I said above, Canada should be building all 15 CSC regardless of having the crews to sail them at this point. It is easier to build the ships and lay them up for future use compared to cutting them and trying to get people later on/crippling the fleet with alternative platforms.

Our frigates and other vessels can operate just fine in the Arctic during the warmer months, which is the time where confrontations will be happening. Canadian and American air assets are the main fighting units in these areas alongside the above mentioned combatants if an area is seen as being "hot". AOPS is able to trade potshots and play bumper cars with the best of anything China or Russia will send to the Arctic, the actual fighting platforms should be doing the fighting and not half measure 'Arctic Frigates'.

A MCDV replacement should be something which chief above everything else, is reasonable and cost effective while providing good capability over the Kingstons.

Plan to generate your personnel back in the future, forever resigning yourself to the current condition and planning accordingly is not a proper use of resources.

 

[GR66]

I think this is vitally important. Even if this means we will have to effectively mothball ships alongside and rotate vessels in and out of such a thing, I think we should stick with our proper fleet composition instead of caving to personnel demands short term. Have the ships so that when the time comes that we actually have the personnel, the ship is there waiting. As you said, far easier to train people than it is to build a multi billion dollar warship later down the line.


As I said above, Canada should be building all 15 CSC regardless of having the crews to sail them at this point. It is easier to build the ships and lay them up for future use compared to cutting them and trying to get people later on/crippling the fleet with alternative platforms.

Our frigates and other vessels can operate just fine in the Arctic during the warmer months, which is the time where confrontations will be happening. Canadian and American air assets are the main fighting units in these areas alongside the above mentioned combatants if an area is seen as being "hot". AOPS is able to trade potshots and play bumper cars with the best of anything China or Russia will send to the Arctic, the actual fighting platforms should be doing the fighting and not half measure 'Arctic Frigates'.

A MCDV replacement should be something which chief above everything else, is reasonable and cost effective while providing good capability over the Kingstons.

Plan to generate your personnel back in the future, forever resigning yourself to the current condition and planning accordingly is not a proper use of resources.

100% agree that it's better to have the ships tied alongside rather than not have them available when you need them (and can crew them).

The problem is I can't see any Canadian Government being willing to fund the construction of ships beyond what we have the capability to crew. Which leaves us in our current kabuki theatre where we plan for ships that we know we won't have the personnel to crew while not changing the way we manage our personnel because admitting you won't have enough people will mean the government will cancel some of the ships as "not required".

 

[Rainbow1910]

100% agree that it's better to have the ships tied alongside rather than not have them available when you need them (and can crew them).

The problem is I can't see any Canadian Government being willing to fund the construction of ships beyond what we have the capability to crew. Which leaves us in our current kabuki theatre where we plan for ships that we know we won't have the personnel to crew while not changing the way we manage our personnel because admitting you won't have enough people will mean the government will cancel some of the ships as "not required".

I don't see the current or a future Canadian Government not being willing to fund the construction of the ships we currently have planned as the National Shipbuilding Strategy has pushed them into a corner. This long term plan has worked with both parties to provide ships to both the RCN and CCG alongside domestic jobs/investment across Canada. As a result, I highly doubt anything that has already been proposed including the CSC, JSS and CCG orders will be cut. Being the government who cut well paying long term Canadian jobs in one or more provinces is not a distinction anybody is looking to sign up for, so I presume things will continue. Cutting the NSS is self defeating, all of that investment and rebuilding of industry goes out the window.

That does leave things like the Victoria and Kingston replacements up in the air but both types of vessels seem to be very valuable to the RCN as a whole, so I do think we will eventually get something to replace both of them unless it is decided to lose submarine capability as a whole.

 

[Stoker]

Every string on this site ends up with the same caveat: staffing. While people may not want to commit to a full career they may be quite happy to sign on in the reserves. Particularly if they can stay in their home region for much of their time. I can see growing the reserve, particularly here in Ontario where you have the Great Lakes to provide the sea room. Simple enough to position one or two of the Kingston Class replacements in Hamilton or even Midland, Orillia or Owen Sound and train from there. Do the same in Quebec. Granted that the crew won't be fully certified but they can be trained in basic watch-keeping and ready for more when needed or when they wish. Each ship would probably require a nucleus of full time people but perhaps having such a posting might prompt some to stay in. Just a thought.

Increasing the pay for all by a significant amount might also induce people to want to join up as well

So the original intent was to have several Kingston Class stationed in QC and sailing throughout the GL training reserves, this obviously didn't happen except for the many GL deployments they went on training MARS and reserves. The RCN started to send them on operational missions on the cheap so this never materialized. As recently as this summer this very same thing came up with stationing several ships in the GL's conducting force generation and recruiting. We don't have the resources needed to do this. It's not going to happen right now.

 

[CBH99]

I don't see the current or a future Canadian Government not being willing to fund the construction of the ships we currently have planned as the National Shipbuilding Strategy has pushed them into a corner. This long term plan has worked with both parties to provide ships to both the RCN and CCG alongside domestic jobs/investment across Canada. As a result, I highly doubt anything that has already been proposed including the CSC, JSS and CCG orders will be cut. Being the government who cut well paying long term Canadian jobs in one or more provinces is not a distinction anybody is looking to sign up for, so I presume things will continue. Cutting the NSS is self defeating, all of that investment and rebuilding of industry goes out the window.

That does leave things like the Victoria and Kingston replacements up in the air but both types of vessels seem to be very valuable to the RCN as a whole, so I do think we will eventually get something to replace both of them unless it is decided to lose submarine capability as a whole.

I agree that the MCDV replacement will most likely be tagged onto the NSS. It makes good sense overall as those ships will be well within the design and building abilities of our industry (already are) but especially once JSS & CSC start hitting the water...it'll feel like we are building canoes at that point

I don't think we will let the submarine capability disappear.

Canadian politicians were already super butt-hurt over us not being included in the AUKUS agreement, imagine how butt-hurt they'd be if we were threatened with removal from 5 Eyes altogether?

We'll have replacements for the Victoria class... (Now how often they extend the life of the Victoria class is another question entirely)

 

[CBH99]

So the original intent was to have several Kingston Class stationed in QC and sailing throughout the GL training reserves, this obviously didn't happen except for the many GL deployments they went on training MARS and reserves. The RCN started to send them on operational missions on the cheap so this never materialized. As recently as this summer this very same thing came up with stationing several ships in the GL's conducting force generation and recruiting. We don't have the resources needed to do this. It's not going to happen right now.

What about with the Orca ships?

 

[Stoker]

What about with the Orca ships?

Well they're all out west and not in the best condition apparently. If they are brought out east, would they be capable of making the trip and if you built new you still need to have a procurement and bore operating costs. I'm all for cutting loose Oriole and reallocating the funds to support Orca's in the GL.

 

[CBH99]

Route clearance is going to be a important skillset, not as "cool" as having a frigate, but equally important. You can have ships in hot and cold layups. So you can scale up the fleet in times of conflict. Faster to train sailors than to build hulls.

In both peacetime and wartime, I think route clearance and mine clearing (might be the same thing in navy talk?) are just as critical as having frigates and destroyers doing the high end fight

I mean just in the last few months we had Canadian crews clear 6 sea mines in European waters and clear UXO in south Asian waters - the amount of good PR that does for us is priceless


It's good to have ships like the CSC in places like the Persian Gulf, where geopolitics can turn it into a hot zone overnight. But for everywhere else, a faster MCDV type would make more sense for a bunch of reasons

 

[Stoker]

I would recommend taking the JSS and crew them with civilians sort of like the Federal Fleet model except not using federal fleet. Have greater reserve crewing on the Kingston Class to take the pressure off the regular force. Pay off several of the worse condition CPF's and use them for along side training. Bring back the super stoker program at the Marine Institute and stand up several others one in Ontario and one out in Vancouver to generate techs. Start publicizing the new CSC as the future of our navy with a flashy PR campaign run by civilians and start recruiting crews sooner than later. Build new training facilities and revamp the recruiting system with a heavy input from industry.

 

[quadrapiper]

Well they're all out west and not in the best condition apparently. If they are brought out east, would they be capable of making the trip and if you built new you still need to have a procurement and bore operating costs. I'm all for cutting loose Oriole and reallocating the funds to support Orca's in the GL.

Stick Oriole on the Lakes. She's as good as anything for the most basic "get on the water and don't run in to things" training, can get in to places that'll never fit a frigate, MCDV, or AOPS, is sufficiently ancient for the age to be (potentially) cool, rather than a PR issue, and won't tie up anything with even marginal utility elsewhere.

There's something to be said for training vessels that're entirely useless for front line duties, and will therefore not be drawn off training to do other things.

 

[Stoker]

Stick Oriole on the Lakes. She's as good as anything for the most basic "get on the water and don't run in to things" training, can get in to places that'll never fit a frigate, MCDV, or AOPS, is sufficiently ancient for the age to be (potentially) cool, rather than a PR issue, and won't tie up anything with even marginal utility elsewhere.

There's something to be said for training vessels that're entirely useless for front line duties, and will therefore not be drawn off training to do other things.

I would say yes if it weren't for the incredibility high maintenance costs for 100 year old ship, the amount of money and upkeep that this ships sucks down in incredible.

 

[Dana381]

Stick Oriole on the Lakes. She's as good as anything for the most basic "get on the water and don't run in to things" training, can get in to places that'll never fit a frigate, MCDV, or AOPS, is sufficiently ancient for the age to be (potentially) cool, rather than a PR issue, and won't tie up anything with even marginal utility elsewhere.

There's something to be said for training vessels that're entirely useless for front line duties, and will therefore not be drawn off training to do other things.

Follow Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Oriole on its journey through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway - Canada.ca

As part of the annual Great Lakes Deployment, HMCS Oriole will visit communities throughout the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.

www.canada.ca

It seems she did a great lakes tour this past summer. No doubt with recruitment in mind. Maybe we'll see more. Had I known about it i would have taken the kids to see it.

 

[FSTO]

Well they're all out west and not in the best condition apparently. If they are brought out east, would they be capable of making the trip and if you built new you still need to have a procurement and bore operating costs. I'm all for cutting loose Oriole and reallocating the funds to support Orca's in the GL.

You could put the Orca’s on a couple of heavy lift ships and bring them around. Or just build more out east somewhere. They were dirt cheap.

 

[Stoker]

You could put the Orca’s on a couple of heavy lift ships and bring them around. Or just build more out east somewhere. They were dirt cheap

How much do you think that would cost? Probably would be better to build them like you said new in a yard in the Lakes. Right now now there's no appetite to build more platforms. The subs will probably be the next thing to be funded and that will be when all other options are exhausted. The Kingston Class replacement a dead last.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I agree that the MCDV replacement will most likely be tagged onto the NSS. It makes good sense overall as those ships will be well within the design and building abilities of our industry (already are) but especially once JSS & CSC start hitting the water...it'll feel like we are building canoes at that point

I don't think we will let the submarine capability disappear.

Canadian politicians were already super butt-hurt over us not being included in the AUKUS agreement, imagine how butt-hurt they'd be if we were threatened with removal from 5 Eyes altogether?

We'll have replacements for the Victoria class... (Now how often they extend the life of the Victoria class is another question entirely)

The MCDV's very well might have to be built by another yard sub-contracted via one of the larger ones, one of the big three partnered with perhaps one of the Great Lakes yards. They will have to go through the NSS process to qualify otherwise I believe. I do not see any slack in any of the other yards, Irving will be busy with CSC into the late 2040's, Seaspan will be busy with CCG orders into the 2040's and Davie is looking to be into the late 2030's to early 2040's with their CCG orders.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I would say yes if it weren't for the incredibility high maintenance costs for 100 year old ship, the amount of money and upkeep that this ships sucks down in incredible.

I have never been a fan of HMCS Oriole. I've seen her in person multiple times, she is incredibly underwhelming in comparison to the countless other navies who have proper large and impressive training sail vessels. The whole point of these vessels is their publicity, it is incredibly Canadian to have a tiny little sailing vessel going around under the radar and sucking up resources. Heck, she doesn't even have any interesting history surrounding her.

Perhaps it is time to sell her off as a museum piece somewhere and save the effort. She's small enough where it likely wouldn't be an issue, alternatively just pull her ashore and put her into storage somewhere.

 

[FSTO]

How much do you think that would cost? Probably would be better to build them like you said new in a yard in the Lakes. Right now now there's no appetite to build more platforms. The subs will probably be the next thing to be funded and that will be when all other options are exhausted. The Kingston Class replacement a dead last.

No idea how much the heavy lift ships cost, but the idea of sailing the Orcas around is a total no go. They tried to go past Buoy J once (or was it Queen Charlotte Sound) but they got the absolute shit beat out of them. So its heavy lift or new build out east, if there is the appetite for that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Orcas have stability issues, so learn from the design and build new replacements, the contracts for the final design can be handed out to the GL, East and West Coast. Hanging onto old vessels is a bad habit we need to break. If we start replacing them now, we can see the old hulls with some value still in them. Maybe donate them to the Haitian Navy!

Retire the Oriole and replace her with a bigger steel hulled Brigantine rigged ship. That ship will be cheaper to maintain and can sail around the world to show the flag. More training opportunities for Sea Cadets and Officer Cadets.

Stand up two Naval Reserve Stations in the Arctic, equipped with CB-90 style vessels and hangers to store them in the winter.

We could start replacing part of the Kingston Class now with either Route Clearance or Fast patrol Craft versions, I go for the Fast patrol craft first.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was still serving when the MCDVs entered service and I recall, even then, that some pretty senior RCN officers were happy to see them because the cheap (small crew, low cost per sailing day) MCDV could replace a CPF on many routine tasks - including fisheries patrols and the like.

We are, thankfully, buying a very capable (so I read here) CSC - but it's not going to be cheap: it's a big ship, about the same size a the last cruiser we had (HMCS Ontario displaced 8,800 tons; the CSC displaced about 8,000 I think) and has a crew of 200+.

I believe we need a small combatant vessel - maybe 10 to 15 of them - do do a lot of tasks. I have no idea what design is suitable but I am sure it must be:

• Cheap to operate - low cost/per day at sea - and with a small (< 75) crew;
• Able to operate globally - as the title MCDVs have proved that they (just barely) can;
• Fast enough (able to "sprint" at 25 knots?) to interdict most surface ships;
• Equipped with aircraft - likely (one for more) unmanned air vehicles; and
• Well enough armed to enable it to force a surface ship to stop and be boarded.

Maybe Canada needs a mixed fleet, say:

• 6 to 10 Mine-countermeasures ships; and
• 6 to 10 'corvettes.'

I really don't know ... but I am certain that a dozen big, expensive, highly capable CSCs are NOT going to be enough to do all the government of the day will demand of the RCN.