Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
MarkOttawa said:
The Mid-shore boats remind me of the R-class should have been. I served on the Ready and Racer.
Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
- Thread starter x-grunt
- Start date
The Mid-shore boats remind me of the R-class should have been. I served on the Ready and Racer.
- Reaction score
- 6,284
- Points
- 1,040
Sheer speed is a bit overrated; the difference between a ship going 15 knots of 50 knots doesn't matter much next to the sub sonic to supersonic speeds of missiles. Also, the prevalence of radar, UAVs, helos etc has generally increased the surveillance footprint of a ship significantly.
MCDVs, AOPs and other similar ships are more of a presence then a threat; if you wanted some real teeth in the Artic or otherwise close to shore some medium range missile batteries may be more effective.
MCDVs, AOPs and other similar ships are more of a presence then a threat; if you wanted some real teeth in the Artic or otherwise close to shore some medium range missile batteries may be more effective.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Because the subject is germane (and it drags us back on topic):
And
The ScanEagle on a ship:
Source: Defence Industry Daily (2 Jul 13)
milnews.ca said:
And
Dimsum said:
The ScanEagle on a ship:
Source: Defence Industry Daily (2 Jul 13)
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Reading back through this thread I am understanding that:
1. These little ships are capable and, although 15+ years old, are being upgaded to give them a longer service life, maybe even with new capabilities (UAVs); Question: what is a reasonable service life for these vessels?
2. There are useful roles - "presence" type operations, FishPats, etc - for a small (1,000 - 1,500 ton) warship "flying" a UAV which are likely to auger for retention and eventual replacement of the KINGSTON class; Question: is there room (need?) for a "sloop" type vessel in the RCN, betweenthe "heavies" and the MCDVs/corvettes?
3. There is still a long term requirement for some "major combatants" - 5,000+ ton "blue water" ships carrying manned and unmanned aircraft; and
4. There might be a role for an "intermediate" class of combatants - like the UK Black Swan idea.
Obviously there are also needs for support ships, submarines, training vessels, tenders and so on, including AOPVs.
The NAVRES have proven that they can put competent crews on warships. A problem is that the NAVRES, as currently established, cannot produce 400+ of the right people (12 X 35) on a full time basis. Another problem is that it is not clear that any Reserve force should be providing full time units. But, the fact is that NAVRES can do a job, within appropriate means. Question: leaving aside any questions about the propriety of using reservists to staff what are, clearly, full time units, can the NAVRES experience be applied to other Army or RCAF units? Or does the MCDV tell us that greater and greater co-manning, with opportunities for e.g. NAVRES officers to rise command even major combatants, the right lesson to be drawn?
<fixed formatting - Mod>
1. These little ships are capable and, although 15+ years old, are being upgaded to give them a longer service life, maybe even with new capabilities (UAVs); Question: what is a reasonable service life for these vessels?
2. There are useful roles - "presence" type operations, FishPats, etc - for a small (1,000 - 1,500 ton) warship "flying" a UAV which are likely to auger for retention and eventual replacement of the KINGSTON class; Question: is there room (need?) for a "sloop" type vessel in the RCN, betweenthe "heavies" and the MCDVs/corvettes?
3. There is still a long term requirement for some "major combatants" - 5,000+ ton "blue water" ships carrying manned and unmanned aircraft; and
4. There might be a role for an "intermediate" class of combatants - like the UK Black Swan idea.
Obviously there are also needs for support ships, submarines, training vessels, tenders and so on, including AOPVs.
The NAVRES have proven that they can put competent crews on warships. A problem is that the NAVRES, as currently established, cannot produce 400+ of the right people (12 X 35) on a full time basis. Another problem is that it is not clear that any Reserve force should be providing full time units. But, the fact is that NAVRES can do a job, within appropriate means. Question: leaving aside any questions about the propriety of using reservists to staff what are, clearly, full time units, can the NAVRES experience be applied to other Army or RCAF units? Or does the MCDV tell us that greater and greater co-manning, with opportunities for e.g. NAVRES officers to rise command even major combatants, the right lesson to be drawn?
<fixed formatting - Mod>
Monsoon
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 230
According to the Admiral in an open forum brief quite recently, the MCDVs are on the books (the fleet plan reviewed by the Minister regularly) for another 15 years or so. Doesn't mean life won't intervene to take them offline sooner, but with the recent radar upgrades and other tweaks, they'd probably run until then without major overhaul.E.R. Campbell said:
Just a minor bicker about nautical terminology - 'sloop' is a term I've not heard applied navally recently, so I assume you're reaching for the right word. In sailing days, sloops-of-war were vessels smaller even than corvettes, so while we're coining terms this one may not be the right one. If what you want is a ship about the same size as a Kingston-class with more line-of-sight weapons, a bit more speed and a slightly larger crew to support continuous operations, 'corvette' is probably the right word.
The direction being taken by the RCN (again, the Admiral will tell this to anyone who asks) is that the new NAVRES mission is identical to the RCN's mission, and no longer includes a separate "man the MCDVs" line in it. The RCN will man all ships; most of the crews of all ships will be Reg F, but they will be augmented individually by reservists trained to the same standard at various different ranks (basically, the number of people on the Kingston class now, spread throughout the fleet). There's a lot that needs to happen between here and there (the RCN as a whole will be moving away from platform-specificity in training, and PRes/Reg F training will need to be aligned for all trades, etc), so reservists will be predominant on the Kingston-class for quite some time, but this is the 10-year plan.
All that to say that no new platforms will be designated "reserve" or otherwise.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
hamiltongs said:
I got that from:
MarkOttawa said:
The linked paper eventually gets you here where the 3,500 ton warship ship, pictured on page 3-8, is described as a sloop of war.
But I'm an old soldier, so I'll defer to matelots on all these matters.
And thanks for the answers to the other questions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
Rasmussen is classed as a Cutter. A Corvette is a bit bigger.AlexanderM said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
This guy would be a Corvette, based on size (over 300'), but no missiles or mission modules. Kirkhill, what was the price tag?Kirkhill said:
21 knots, 54 Crew and a deck big enough for a Sea King / Cormorant / Cyclone (with hangar). 5000 nm @ 15 kts.
Big, rangy boat with a small crew. And cheap.
Link
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
AlexanderM said:
Cutter is a term left over from the days when the USCG was the US Revenue Cutter service as well as used for smaller sailing vessels. Cutters used in naval/coast guard ops from my experience can be up to frigate size (check out the National Security Cutters)
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
About 172 MUSD a piece.
Link
In terms of terminology, as Mr. Campbell asserts, the "sloop" cognomen came from the Black Swan info.
A bit of reading revealed that the Flowers were also called sloops before they were called corvettes with large corvettes being called frigates.
The "Black Swan" Concept is a bit shorter (90m vs 108 m) but about the same displacement (3150 for the sloop vs 3750 for the OPV) and with the same emphasis on being a cheap and cheerful platform for anything you can put in sea can or haul aboard on 10 tonne crane or skyhook.
Interesting crewing concept for the sloop (8 man core crew plus up to 32 mission specialists with an additional 40 Pax short term).
Some comments have been it needs more power for faster transit. The counter argument is less power = less cost = more hulls = more presence = fewer transits (ie more likely to have a vessel where and when you need it).
Black Swan Sloop.
Interesting that her dimensions are broadly equivalent to the AOPS, Svalbard and Barentshav (which the author cites as an antecedent).
But back to ERC's question on the MCDVs. We have them. And if hull speed is becoming less of an issue and unmanned vehicles more of an issue what can you cram into an MCDV?
Scan Eagles apparently. How about UUV towed sonar arrays? Long Range 10 tonne UUVs? VTOL UAVs? Better sea boats (Danish LCPs?)
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
From the Black Swan JCN Chapter 3.
Anticipated Unit Cost Budget (2010) 65 MUKP or 100 MUSD.
This is about 60% of the Holland class OPV but the Holland spends a fair bit of cash on its Integrated Mission Mast and has larger fixed weapons array than envisioned for the Black Swan.
- Reaction score
- 5,969
- Points
- 1,090
hamiltongs said:
So that's where my original info came from. NAVRES is going to move to augmenting Reg F instead, looking more at blended crewing. Makes sense as NAVRES can barely keep up with the MCDV staffing requirements. It will also allow more flexibility in staffing for the Reg F. With the amalgamation of the pension plan and the stated goal of moving to "full time" and "part time" sailors vs Class A, B, C and Reg F positions you can see the long term pers management coming to the fore.
For comparison currently the PRes force employment structure for the Army, Navy and Airforce are completely different. Airforce is 90% previous Reg F service, Army is almost all Class A and Navy is half to two thirds Class C/B. As the Commodore remarked "If they asked me to mobilize the Navy reserve I would say - mobilize who? We are already mobilized!"
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Underway said:
Do members think one of the two (army or Navy) is a more "correct" model or reserve forces?
- Reaction score
- 6,693
- Points
- 1,140
Just to add my two cents.... Though they may have depreciated due to market volatility...
In regards to placing the scan eagles on MCDV's, there is more than deck space to factor in with the UAV. The amount of pitch an roll matters a great deal in aviation ops, and the smaller we try to go with ships the more vulnerable we become to the whims of the sea. A UAV det on a small boat may be great in calm seas, but in 20KT with 1-2m seas it may very quickly become useless.
Size matters in many ways, not the least of which is sea handling capabilities. A large boat takes light seas easily with no impact on crew, a small boat reacts to light seas very poorly, resulting in increased crew fatigue.
In regards to placing the scan eagles on MCDV's, there is more than deck space to factor in with the UAV. The amount of pitch an roll matters a great deal in aviation ops, and the smaller we try to go with ships the more vulnerable we become to the whims of the sea. A UAV det on a small boat may be great in calm seas, but in 20KT with 1-2m seas it may very quickly become useless.
Size matters in many ways, not the least of which is sea handling capabilities. A large boat takes light seas easily with no impact on crew, a small boat reacts to light seas very poorly, resulting in increased crew fatigue.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 280
There are very good stabilization systems available.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Underway said:
So, three pages on, are we agreed that:
1. The MCDVs are anything but dead ~ they have useful roles, some of which they perform in an very efficient and effective manner, relative to the "heavies." Maybe they will have new kit and new roles, too;
2. A wholly "reserve fleet" is on the way out. All ships will be crewed by whoever is available and qualified;
3. NAVRES will need more and better training to do its full and fair share of co-crewing the fleet;
4. There is a Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy which currently makes provisions for new AORs and new "heavies;" but
5. Question: Is there a "master plan" for a complete, mixed fleet of "heavies" with support ships, subamrines, tenders, training vessels and small combatants (1,000± tons) and even an
"intermediate" class of ships like the UK proposal for the Black Swan class of ships?
Similar threads
